Slashdot Mirror
A Bit of Cash Can Keep Someone Off the Streets For 2 Years or More (sciencemag.org)
An anonymous reader writes: If someone is about to become homeless, giving them a single cash infusion, averaging about $1000, may be enough to keep them off the streets for at least 2 years. That's the conclusion of a new study, which finds that programs that proactively assist those in need don't just help the victims -- they may benefit society as a whole. "I think this is a really important study, and it's really well done," says Beth Shinn, a community psychologist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville who specializes in homelessness but was not involved in the work. Homelessness isn't just bad for its sufferers -- it shortens life span and hurts kids in school -- it's a burden on everyone else. Previous studies have concluded that a single period of homelessness can cost taxpayers $20,000 or more, in the form of welfare, policing, health care, maintaining homeless shelters, and other expenses. To combat homelessness, philanthropic organizations have either tried to prevent people from losing their homes in the first place or help them regain housing after they are already destitute. But there aren't many data on whether giving cash to people on the brink of becoming homeless actually prevents them from living on the street.
I'd favor a basic income. A very basic income. Something like the following.
For citizens and permanent residents (Green Card holders).
$500/month 21+ years old
$250/month for 21 and younger
Add $200/month/person if we get rid of S.N.A.P.
Increase progressive income taxes. Institute a 10% Universal Basic Income tax on AGI on citizens and permanent residents.
Not an addition to social security payments. More like an "expanded social security", except this is below the special minimum or wharever it is called.
I estimate it would cost $1.2 trillion to do the idea above.
There was a chapter in SuperFreakonomics about the cost of homelessness to society via emergency services and law enforcement and how free housing is a cost-effective solution. It's good to see another example of their hypothesis that simply providing free services to the homeless is cheaper than the status quo.
People against this idea who say "I'm a small government conservative and I don't believe in giving people free stuff" miss the point entirely; this saves money and reduces the size of government in turn. Anyone who has moral problem with saving money by helping people is likely an Ayn Rand fan or an asshole, but probably both;)
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
The study showed something much more specific than the summary mentions, and sometimes the opposite of what the headlines indicates.
Quoting the article, good outcomes were likely when :
--
giving one-time cash quantities to people on the brink of homelessness who can demonstrate that they will be able to pay rent by themselves in the future, but who have been afflicted by some nonrecurring crisis, such as a medical bill. Recipients need to be able to demonstrate consistent future income
--
Not so effective, the study found, was giving cash to people carelessly. If someone was broke last year, and the year before, and they were broke last month, they'll probably be broke again next month.
Personal experience helping ex-cons, alcoholics, and drug addicts is that *most* people will continue doing what they've been doing, and continue getting the same results. The trick is to find the ~5% who are doing something different, so they'll get different results, and help them.
The programs work by giving one-time cash quantities to people on the brink of homelessness who can demonstrate that they will be able to pay rent by themselves in the future, but who have been afflicted by some nonrecurring crisis, such as a medical bill.
I don't know how many of you have experience with being really poor, but if the rent/mortgage/light bill money is in jeopardy, the medical bill is from the County Hospital emergency room... and it goes in the circular file.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
In the area where I work, there are quite a few homeless people. I've seen one guy out here for 9 years now. He isn't homeless because of some financial disaster. He is homeless because he clearly has a disease of the brain. He spends quite a lot of his time locked in combat with somebody in the sky. I don't think giving him $1,000 or $1,000,000 would keep him off the streets for long, if at all. What he really needs to get him indoors is treatment for his disease, but as is the case with many people with his type of affliction, he'll probably be back out here sooner or later.
"Homelessness" isn't always somebody without a home who wants one. It's a problem you can't just throw money at to make it go away. You can't just give all of these people jobs and consider the problem solved. It needs to be treated as a symptom of a disease, and one that usually cannot be permanently cured. Even if you could cure it, they are still human beings who deserve to have their wishes respected, and if they refuse treatment you cannot just force it upon them. Some people make the choice to live out there, because it's easier to cope with their disease this way. The next time you see a homeless person, please don't look down on them like some dirty bum pushing a stolen cart full of blankets and trash; they're probably suffering far more than you'll ever know, and it's most likely not at all their fault that they're in that state.
So what if there is abuse? If the end result is a cost savings to society and an improvement in the life of most involved why not? I constantly hear this from conservative friends that we can not allow people to abuse the system - look at the people selling food stamps to buy drugs - OMG! when the fact is that a very small percentage do abuse the system while the vast majority are helped by it.
It has always fascinated me how even a single instance of welfare fraud is unacceptable, but multiple executions of innocent individuals is an acceptable cost to getting the bad guys.
American Culture seems to be strongly influenced by 'every man for himself'; or more subtly, your destiny is made by you and the effort you put into life. If you happen to be lazy, then suffer you.
I think there are three levels of maturity in a people and society:
1- Dependency (Child Stage)
2- Independence (Late Teen Stage). ie I can do it without anyone's help
3- Interdependence (Mature Stage) we all need to work together.
The USA seems to have gotten stuck between 2 & 3, while Europe/Canada/Australia went on to stage 3.
ie, We have strong social support systems such as good basic free medical care, good basic social security services, humane prisons with some attempt to reform.
While I as a tax payer don't like supporting lazy people, I think it is the lesser of two evils. ie having destitute people resort to crime with all the associated costs.
So I think the article is right, but culturally I don't see the USA ever changing within my lifetime.
46137
So what? The studies on the "drug test those on welfare" have shown that the tests cost more than the benefits received by those who tested positive. If you want financial responsibility, you should pay out the drug users. But we don't want "responsibility", we want punitive games. Punish people we don't like, even if the cost of the punishment is much greater than the problem caused. Most welfare recipients are white, but people think of the "average" welfare recipient as a Black person. Why? Studies have shown that if you show the plight of poor whites, then ask about welfare, people are more willing to increase welfare, than if you ask without that background, or show Blacks on welfare.
It's more a racial issue than a financial one.
Learn to love Alaska
#3 is a red herring. It's the demon that's invented to lump all the #1 into, so we don't have to think about the millions of responsible and stable people who end up homeless.
Almost all homeless are #1. And $1000 could make all the difference. But if you hate #3 so much that you'r rather have 1,000,000 #1 than pay 10 #3, then it's not a financial choice, but a personal and punitive one.
Learn to love Alaska
RE: "giving one-time cash quantities to people on the brink of homelessness who can demonstrate that they will be able to pay rent by themselves in the future, but who have been afflicted by some nonrecurring crisis, such as a medical bill. Recipients need to be able to demonstrate consistent future income."
Well that's quite a different scenario! And that makes sense. As usual, the article did not mention that.
Seems like almost every "news" source these days tells only half the truth.
It's literally a quote FROM THE FUCKING ARTICLE, and the post you replied to specifically said it was from the article. You didn't read the article or the post (or at least didn't comprehend them) then you bitch about the media not keeping you informed. If you want to see who is keeping you uninformed, look in a mirror.
Enigma
Libertarians across the USA are scrambling to explain that giving people cash before they go homeless will only turn them into dependent slaves and no matter what the science says it is guaranteed to doom them to poverty even faster while simultaneously requiring the stealing of money from people who worked harder than they did because libertarians can't quite figure out that there is such a thing as luck and sometimes somebody can have great luck and sometimes you can have terrible luck and a huge chunk of the luck you have in life is already present in who your parents are and what color their skins is.
Because libertarians would rather trip over sidewalks full of starved corpses than spend an extra dollar in taxes.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I fully understand the feelings behind your comment. I've been homeless, I've seen a lot of things. It's annoying to see people waste money while you're struggling.
The correct logic is the same in either case. If you create an strong economic incentive for poor people to come to a country, they'll try to do so; if you create a strong economic incentive for rich people to come to a country (or send their money there), they'll try to do so.
A guy with $100 to his name probably has it in his wallet, or in his checking account. A billionaire doesn't have a millions of $20 bills in his a wallet, a billionaire owns Tesla, Amazon, or some other company. The "billion dollars" isn't actual dollars, it's a company or two. Sending his billion dollars to some other company means sending the company there. It is indeed bad for the economy when a company moves their operations away - see Detroit for an example.