UBI, or universal basic income, is a form of direct cash assistance to help the most vulnerable get back on their feet. A new study in Denver suggests it works.
  • PeleSpirit@lemmy.worldEnglish
    68·
    1 year ago

    This is a fantastic article and incredibly interesting:

    Last October, more than 800 people were enrolled in the basic-income plan, but they didn’t all receive the same stipend. There are three groups: One receives $1,000 a month for a year; another receives $6,500 up front and then $500 a month from there; and another gets just $50 a month.

    While cautioning that this was only an interim six-month follow-up for what is a yearlong program, the researchers nonetheless found stark and encouraging changes in participants’ material conditions. Those who received $500 a month or more had seen the biggest gains. At the start, fewer than 10% said they were living in their own home or apartment, while at the six-month point, more than a third said they lived in their own housing.

    Edit: The results make me think of all of these programs that are trying to get people out of homelessness should cut way back and just do a basic income with that money (with life help classes and guidance of course).

    • query@lemmy.worldEnglish
      35·
      1 year ago

      Spend all the money that’s spent trying to find welfare cheats (and cost more than they could possibly save anyway) on basic income instead.

      • PeleSpirit@lemmy.worldEnglish
        26·
        1 year ago

        I mean, let’s not stop there. Our DOD could cut back, go after high income tax cheats and dodgers. There is a list for sure. FYI, Alaska has had Basic Income for awhile now. They call it something else and it fluctuates, but that’s generally what it is.

        • pete_the_cat@lemmy.worldEnglish
          5·
          1 year ago

          No not our military! Then we’ll have nothing to brag about and threaten other countries with! We don’t need to spend money on education or human welfare! We need more guns! More tanks! More jets! More drones!/s

        • GBU_28@lemm.eeEnglish
          11·
          1 year ago

          Here’s the thing, there’s no need to cut back on anything, just be more accountable.

    • Peaty@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      27·
      1 year ago

      Try looking at who they chose to give money to as they usually are not the chronically unhoused who represent much of the unhoused population

      • PeleSpirit@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        Are you reading a different article or do you have different sourced information? They were the most vulnerable and a lot of them living on the streets.

        That’s the premise of a social experiment in Denver, where for the past few months several hundred of the city’s most vulnerable people have been given cash with no strings attached.

        Edit: grabbed the wrong quote:

        At the start, fewer than 10% said they were living in their own home or apartment, while at the six-month point, more than a third said they lived in their own housing.

        • Peaty@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          43·
          1 year ago

          Given the results mirror other experiments that target successfully recent unhoused people I suspect they aren’t targeting “the most vulnerable” and that phrase is the author’s choice.

          If you work with unhoused people enough you would know “the most vulnerable people” aren’t lacking for money as much as they frequently are fighting significant mental illness. One guy that used to sleep in the parking lot if a store I worked at, Eddie, wasn’t just homeless and an alcoholic. Eddie was incredibly prone to violent hallucinations and handing guys like him $1k a month isn’t changing that.

          They are almost certainly targeting the recent homeless who has a job or recently had a job, has a credit history, and the ability to get off the streets and just needs money to do so.

          Im not saying we shouldn’t look into this as a solution to part of our unhoused problems only that we shouldn’t restrict other programs meant to address chronic homelessness in favor of this.

            • usualsuspect191@lemmy.caEnglish
              21·
              1 year ago

              To be considered homeless, you just need to be without a permanent place to live. Some people are living in their car and still employed, some are couch-surfing, some are sleeping on the sidewalk and have severe drug/mental health issues.

              Housing first/financial aid is great for the first two people I mentioned, it’s not too helpful for the third. People often look at trials like this and think it’s an easy solution to homelessness while ignoring the problem just isn’t that simple because of that third group.

              All that said, if the program does a simple evaluation to determine which group people fall into and gives money/housing to those best suited for it then it’s pretty much a no-brainer that it should be widely implemented. It won’t solve homelessness, but it’ll make a really big dent.

            • Peaty@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              33·
              1 year ago

              Most are homeless doesn’t describe their particular circumstances. There are people living in their cars who have jobs and credit histories who given a few grand can easily not be homeless . That is in contrast with the guy who is incredibly schizophrenic and constantly hallucinating who hasn’t held a job in years. That guy isn’t getting off the street because you gave him cash because he needs mental health care that he might not recognize.

              Just saying they are homeless doesn’t describe who they chose and why.