If 100 homeless people were given $750 per month for a year, no questions asked, what would they spend it on?
That question was at the core of a controlled study conducted by a San Francisco-based nonprofit and the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work.
The results were so promising that the researchers decided to publish results after only six months. The answer: food, 36.6%; housing, 19.5%; transportation, 12.7%; clothing, 11.5%; and healthcare, 6.2%, leaving only 13.6% uncategorized.
Those who got the stipend were less likely to be unsheltered after six months and able to meet more of their basic needs than a control group that got no money, and half as likely as the control group to have an episode of being unsheltered.
$750 a month would improve the lives of plenty of people who aren’t homeless too. Up to and including the middle class.
But I suppose a UBI is a non-starter everywhere in the U.S. but Alaska.
You want universal anything it’s an uphill battle because of the cattle shouting about the cost or some nonsense.
Our corporate oligarchs already pitch a fit about collective bargaining, universal healthcare, and adjusting minimum wage to match inflation. I can’t imagine they’d react well to a universal basic income except by raping the fading middle class even more.
The universal healthcare one baffles me because it would save businesses money and increase employee retention. But corporations still fight against it.
Having healthcare tied to your employer is both a way for companies to pay less while offering more benefits to entice new workers and also keep workers from fighting too hard for their own rights because now maintaining a job is directly related to health. If we had universal healthcare, companies would have to compete more directly on wage and that would cost them more. Providing healthcare, while negotiating for deals for said healthcare means they can say that they are providing more benefits than they actually pay for.
That would basically cover my student loan payments, so it would be equivalent to loan forgiveness for me. Improve is an understatement, that would actually allow me to save money. Right now my wife and I make slightly above area median income and we’re just treading water financially. This would be a game changer. We could actually consider having a kid.
For what it’s worth 750 a month is probably less than what a kid costs. Depends on where you live but that seems decidedly low price for a kid
It’s more than that per month just for childcare, assuming they are anticipating they will continue to work. It’s significantly more than that in food, Healthcare etc per month. If all you need is $750/month to have a child, than you can already have a child.
But the reality is, their lifestyle will eat that $750, and they’ll continue thinking they can’t afford to have a child. And, frankly, they probably can’t. Children are for the poor and the upper-middle class and above. It’s weird, but it’s true.
Almost like the 1% are stealing from each and every one of us. With a fraction of their profits each one of us would live a better life.
A fraction of a fraction. It really is mind-boggling how much money is being generated by some of these billionaires that isn’t being taxed.
Not taxed, not labored by them for. It’s like an exclusive version of Las Vegas where you can bring your own loaded loaded “I make dictate the terms” dice and marked “Heres some insider information” cards.
For this, we are pressured to thank and admire them as benevolent job creators. It’s wild how irrational they’ve manipulated everyone into being.
Our oligarchs can’t feel like god without creating a hell to feel superior to.
Schadenfreude is a hell of a drug. Even many of our struggling citizens try to get a fix by blaming the powerless homeless and believing they somehow deserve to die of exposure, hunger, treatable disease, and police harassment.
Giving people money improves their quality of life?
Who would have guessed?
Of course, but it’s not a very good experiment for a mass rollout. On a mass scale I hypothsize it will diminish motivation to find a job, thereby reducing the number of taxpayers, and that leads to the big question: who are you taking this money away from? 9 times out of 10 it’s middle class folks. 1%ers and corporations can afford to spend the money to get every single tax break, so middle class without those resources will end up paying most of the bill.
I’m glad you came up with a hypothesis, fortunately scientists have already tested your hypothesis (or something very analogous) and failed to prove it, in fact they have indicated the opposite effect.
I hope that in the name of scientific knowledge and progress you take this research into account and change your view based on the available information.
Can you link some of the research you mention? Interested in giving it a read.
Luckily every study at every scale on UBIs has not found any loss in motivation. What it actually has shown is people use the financial breathing room to train up and get better jobs, thereby societally paying back more than they put in, in the long term. The kind of society that can implement UBI can also tax the rich intelligently and fairly.
It might sound backwards but for a lot of people, myself included, not having a job will actually diminish motivation.
The frustration of applying for jobs and going for interviews with no response for months on end only adds to the stress of not having any money which adds up to a “what’s the fucking point?” train of thought, which hasn’t resulted in homelessness for me, but I could see how it would for other people.
Or we can just implement a wealth tax like any reasonable nation. You make more than 10 million a year? We’ll take 10% of that, thanks. 100 million a year? 20%. A billion a year? 40% of that.
But but but that’s only money on paper they don’t actually see that income 🥺
My car doesn’t generate income either but that doesn’t stop the government from taxing it every single year.
Or we can just implement a wealth tax like any reasonable nation.
Yeah, the problem here is the implementation: you and I and most people here would benefit a little from a higher tax on billionaires, enough to motivate us to send a letter to our Congressional representatives and send a few bucks to whichever campaigning politicians promise to do it.
Billionaires, in the meantime, stand to lose millions, or even tens of millions of dollars. Enough that it makes sense for them to start PACs, schmooze, and even bribe the Congressional representatives who’d be in charge of raising taxes. So even though there are hundreds of them and millions of us, they have greater means and motivation.
But why? Why punish people just because they are more successful than other people? The government doesn’t need to steal from successful people to give to those that aren’t.
There is massive, long term UBI study happening ongoing in Kenya, and the results are extremely positive.
About 200 Kenyan villages were assigned to one of three groups and started receiving payment in 2018.
A monthly universal basic income (UBI) empowered recipients and did not create idleness. They invested, became more entrepreneurial, and earned more. The common concern of “laziness” never materialized, as recipients did not work less nor drink more.
Both a large lump sum and a long-term UBI proved highly effective. The lump sum enabled big investments and the guarantee of 12 years of UBI encouraged savings and risk-taking.
Early findings from the world’s largest UBI study, Dec 6, 2023 by GiveDirectly
Your hypothesis is an intuitive and common fear, and so has been studied before and found insubstantial, with Canada’s “Mincome” experiment being one of the most notable: in the 70s Canada targeted members of a town with a minimum income for five years, and saw results like people opening businesses with loans they could get now that they could cite the income. Where they saw people leaving jobs, it was often for education - their high school enrollment hit 100% for the senior year for the first time ever, due to the kids not needing to help bring in money. It was ended during a fiscal crisis when the government was looking for places to tighten belts. This BBC article is a good read on it, focused on the positive health impact.
It would push people to find better jobs; advocate for better working conditions, and actually have money to spend.
Sure, you can go work at a grocery store part-time while making your $750 for some extra cash. Most of that $750 is gonna go into grocery costs anyway, might as well make some extra money.
This experiment is not on basic universal income specifically, but UBI is about giving unconditional income to anyone to keep you afloat with day to day expenses. It’s not about giving you income so you could spend it on a holiday cruise. You are still expected to work if you want to have your dream holiday.
From who whose money will fund UBI? From taxing robots. Edit: I will add that this is once robots are sufficiently more capable than humans for work to displace our labour.
This is an absolute baldfaced lie, repeatedly disproven over and over and over again in every experiment to date worldwide.
What you are saying is that YOU would be a lazy welfare shit, so you assume eveyone else will ve also. You have zero faith in rhe human need to feel worthwhile since you have no self-worth.
I pay enough taxes to support 125 $750 users like this and would gladly pay it, too. 125 people that are better off would have a significant positive impact to a community, and I’m all for it.
Also money that they spend, somewhere at some point would likely be taxed.
Your logic is flawed.
who are you taking this money away from?
There it is. That’s always what any social service pushback comes down to. There are a million websites that will break down the amount of money the US and individual states spend on social services and how it compares to military spending and everything else (it’s a drop in the bucket). It’s easy to find out that the amount of fraud is miniscule, and that for a long time administrative error had been categorized as fraud which of course inflated that number.
Is anyone going to get as up in arms about military spending, foreign military spending, federal grants to states and municipalities for policing, border patrol, subsidies to private immigration detention facilities and private prisons, subsidies to public universities that go right into the pockets of administrators as they raise tution, not to mention the numbers that just came out (reposted on lemmy about twenty times since yesterday) about how the US spends more on healthcare than it would cost to just have universal healthcare, and what about all the research grants for R and D for medicines that end up with private patents so that taxpayers who need those medicines pay for them twice, or the public grants that fund research that academic publishers lock behind paywalls while their reviewers get dick, etc etc etc.
Yet somehow, all I ever seem to hear anyone bitching about is the funding that would actually help people, and it’s always the vulnerable people who get that hatred, instead of the idiots who people have actively voted for to handle their tax dollars efficiently.
I get you’re worried about YoUr tAxEs but maybe get your priorities straight first.
“What can we do to help these people whose problem is that they don’t have money?”
“Give them money?”
“That’s just crazy enough to work!”
Just remember that it doesn’t matter how nice or charitable your neighbor is, if he is a Republican voter he will absolutely lose his fucking mind if he thinks that any form of help might come from the government. They will never ever ever support any form of solution to the problem of poverty.
The Republican party and their voters must be crushed by any means necessary, as they are actively and gleefully crushing us.
Those who got the stipend were less likely to be unsheltered after six months and able to meet more of their basic needs than a control group that got no money, and half as likely as the control group to have an episode of being unsheltered.
I feel extremely bad for the control group.
yeah. stuff like this really feels like human experimentation (because it kinda is). i wish people were more willing to just implement these UBI programs at the government level. the results would be so nice
It’s unfortunately necessary. They have to have evidence the strategy works before public money can be spent on it.
To get that evidence, they have to do studies, and those studies have to be serious, which means following the standard scientific methods. Which means needing a control group.
It just happens that the control group in this scenario is getting the short end of the stick.
So do I, but their sacrifice has led to good quality data that shows that giving unhoused people money without conditions helps them to reintegrate, become housed and hopefully employed and again contributing to society as a whole. It’s a silver bullet against thinking like “don’t give that homeless person money; they’ll just spend it on drugs!” that we have been force-fed for decades. Hopefully, that may lead to better outcomes for them.
