5 ms·

I never understand these experiments. I don't think many people would argue that if you hand people a bunch of free money it improves their lives. Of course it

by anm89 6y ago

I never understand these experiments. I don't think many people would argue that if you hand people a bunch of free money it improves their lives. Of course it does. That's the most obvious thing in the world, especially when the project is pre financed and can have no negative financial implications. The problem is that every route to financing UBI involves a radical experiment in public finance that is likely to have cascading effects in every corner of our society, but has obvious issues with inflation,debt load, taxation and ethics. You don't get any data on any of the interesting problems of UBI buy handing people cash you already have. edit: Also that data presents a very shoddy picture of efficacy here. Over a year, the people who get the cash end up having the same degree of homelessness and the same amount of cash in hand

542458 6y ago
> don't think many people would argue that if you hand people a bunch of free money it improves their lives Anecdotally, I’ve heard lots of people argue that poor people are only poor because they have poor financial skills (and in the case of homeless people, that they spend all their money on drugs) and giving them more money is trying to fill in a bottomless pit.
- xyzelement 6y ago
  There are many reasons someone can be poor, really bad money management is definitely a prevalent reason. I chuckled at this post on WSB yesterday. Someone wrote "if I had any cash, I'd buy more GME to average out my cost." Someone wisely replied "this is why you don't have cash."
  - happyconcepts 6y ago
    >I chuckled at this post on WSB yesterday. Someone wrote "if I had any cash, I'd buy more GME to average out my cost." I chuckle at your chuckle. To me that "someone" sounds like a short trolling for more longs in the stock. I say this as someone who has lurked WSB on reddit for a long time.
    - xyzelement 6y ago
      // To me that "someone" sounds like a short trolling for more longs in the stock. Those tricky shorts, always looking to drive up the sock price. How'd I miss it? // I ... lurked WSB on reddit for a long time. I totally believe you!
- anm89 6y ago
  I think you are taking a wide range of beliefs and summarizing them in the worst sounding way possible. I certainly believe that most homeless people have made some bad decisions to get where they are. I think many if not most of them probably have poor financial skills. I also believe that many of them were born with a range of disadvantages and could have done very well under other circumstances. A lot of them also do struggle with addiction and mental illness and it is worth considering that this can mix poorly with handing people a bunch of no strings cash. I don't think that's a reason not to do it at all but it shouldn't be ignored either. I'm certainly not the worlds biggest expert on homeless people but I volunteer at a needle exchange and have encountered more than most so I'm somewhat speaking from experience. Sweeping this stuff under the rug doesn't make it not true.
  - 542458 6y ago
    Two things: I was mostly addressing the post I was replying to that claimed that nobody was opposed to direct cash payments - which I think is not true at all. Also, I’m not trying to sweep it under the rug, and I’m not saying that many homeless people don’t have poor money management or addiction issues. However, there is a theory that giving homeless folks direct cash is a waste of time/money due to these issues and will produce no positive outcomes - which the experiment linked seems to contradict. In other words, while these issues do exist, direct cash payments do still seem to be at least somewhat effective. (Also, thank you for spending your time and effort volunteering at a very non-glamorous but very important service!)
- pxeboot 6y ago
  > Anecdotally, I’ve heard lots of people argue that poor people are only poor because they have poor financial skills This is certainly a thing. I know people who could be firmly in the middle class, but instead live paycheck to paycheck or worse due to very poor financial decisions they continue to make.
  - watwut 6y ago
    Aren't those people middle class by definition? What you describe here is not poor at all.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      I have yet to see anyone define middle class in a way that is useful and people agree on its definition. Therefore, any discussion about middle class that starts without a rigorous definition always ends with a disagreement about what is middle class. I am especially entertained when “upper” and “lower” middle class come into play.
      - notacoward 6y ago
        Definitions of "middle class" can be logical, useful, or non-controversial. Pick one.
      - watwut 6y ago
        This is what I reacted to: > I know people who could be firmly in the middle class, but instead live paycheck to paycheck or worse due to very poor financial decisions This is middle class person that spends all the money on useless things. But, I don't see how it is relevant example of poor person, they have good income.
kordlessagain 6y ago
I think if you gave 15 random homeless people a million dollars each and the right structure of accessing that capital (planning sessions, therapy, finding a home, finding training, dealing with addiction) then you would have 15 successful people join society where before they were a burden on all of us.
- jariel 6y ago
  I suggest that 5 of them would be back on the streets within months, and another 5 would only be doing 'ok'. Many people on the streets are really broken and have a lot of extremely negatively reinforcing habits, to the point wherein they are the most 'opposite of conscientious' we could imagine. 'Money' would just amplify those bad traits. For example, if you gave a crack addict $1M, why for a second do you even think they would want to even bother undergoing 'training' or 'therapy' of any sort? The assumption in 'here is a path towards stability' is that the individual is willing and able to even embark upon that path, which is quite a lot of work. 'Highly conscientious and rational actors' who take the steps necessary for stability and prosperity generally are not at the bottom to begin with. I suggest it might take $500K in effort on the behalf of social services merely to induce some good behaviours. So yes, $1M spent on social services, maybe free rent, 'on the job training', re-socialization, yes, that might work. Edit: differentiating here between 'homeless' of various kinds, and 'working poor' obviously. Paying off the mortgage for 'working poor' might work really well to improve people's lives. Edit: There are homeless people 100M away as I right this as my neighbourhood is mixed. There's a guy I've 'known of' literally for years, and I hear him have other conversations with bystanders. He has access to welfare and social services which is just barely enough to squeak by on rent, food, subsidized electricity, but usually in the summer he makes the choice to rough it, 'outside living' and opts to pay rent in the winter - so he can buy crack (assuming it's crack as that's the drug of choice here) as I see the 'transactions' happening in plain day out in the open. Pouring money on that situation is like pouring gasoline on a fire. There is absolutely no way giving him cash directly is going to help, we literally already do that and we can see the outcome. These situations call for something else.
- dweekly 6y ago
  Would you consider the five-year life outcomes of lottery winners to be a good or poor proxy for this experiment?
scarmig 6y ago
This has nothing to do with a UBI, regardless of the merits. SF spends around $50k USD/homeless person year. I'd be pretty interested in seeing what'd happen if we just gave 50k in unmarked bills to each homeless person. Add some verification process to confirm that they're both homeless and haven't received their 50k for the year. I suspect we'd end up with a better situation than today. If nothing else, many would return to their home cities, and it'd defund the homeless industrial complex.
- HomeDeLaPot 6y ago
  That would be tremendously unfair to working people in or around SF, especially those making $50k or less. That in itself isn't a reason not to raise a bunch of people out of poverty, but what evidence is there that homeless people would move out? One could just as easily argue that most would blow the money on drugs and/or wait around for next year's $50k. Also, is it really a good idea to defund all the programs that this $50k/person pays for in order to turn it into cash handouts? My understanding is that a majority of homeless people are homeless because of an inability to manage their finances and their life, whether we think that's any fault of their own or not. Handing out cash isn't going to fix these people's childhoods, drug addictions, etc. The real way to deal with homelessness is to address the core problems: a poor educational & economic outlook for both young and old, and a thriving underground economy for hard, addictive drugs. These two fuel homelessness, poverty, crime, and child abuse. Watch Mark Laita's Soft White Underbelly: much of this generation may be beyond hope, but the next generation might be helped before they arrive.
  - titzer 6y ago
    I've heard this "unfair" argument since forever. You know what's tremendously unfair? Mental illness. And homeless are vastly more likely to suffer from mental illness. I'm sorry, but these people are actually suffering and need help. They need help. What part of that is so hard to internalize? And I've heard soooo many people argue "you know what the real cause of homeless is, right? X!" And then, "no, the real core problem is X's cause!" And then, "no, it's Y that is to blame!" And then "well ever since Z happened, we can't do W". And on and on...an unending stream of excuses, a mountain of reasons to not do anything about it, to not spend any money on it, and certainly not to actually study the problem. Instead, it's just more punishment for being stupid or poor and blame. Because everything else is unfair to those working saps. You know what might actually have half a chance of solving homelessness? Giving a damn about them. Not arguing over how fair this or that is, not quibbling about core reasons, putting things off until the unfixable things get fixed. GIVE A DAMN.
Viliam1234 6y ago
> I don't think many people would argue that if you hand people a bunch of free money it improves their lives. Of course it does. The important question is what is the long-term impact. For some people, a one-time donation can stop a downward spiral (pay the worst debts, and make sure you will not needlessly make new ones in the future; pay the medical bills) or even start an upward curve (buy a car, find a better paying new job that requires commute by car). For other people, a one-time donation simply means some luxury for the following few days/weeks/months until they run out of money. Sometimes it even results in more debt, if they cannot sufficiently quickly revert their habits the moment the money is gone. With the first group, I think the society will likely get its investment back. The problem is how to distinguish between them. Because the current attempts mostly select for people who are good at navigating the bureaucratic maze (which the first group is often actually worse at, because their situation is novel for them).
- anm89 6y ago
  If it destroys the broader economy to help .5% of people it doesn't particularly matter much how effective it was in helping that .5%. This applies equally to the top .5% .
GhostVII 6y ago
The other big question with UBI is whether it is better to give people cash, or give them the things they need to live (food, housing, etc.). Personally, I think there is a significant portion of the population who is unable to manage their finances, so something like UBI won't work for them, and we can't afford both UBI, and significant funding for social programs.

by anm89 6y ago

542458 6y ago

> don't think many people would argue that if you hand people a bunch of free money it improves their lives Anecdotally, I’ve heard lots of people argue that poor people are only poor because they have poor financial skills (and in the case of homeless people, that they spend all their money on drugs) and giving them more money is trying to fill in a bottomless pit.

xyzelement 6y ago
There are many reasons someone can be poor, really bad money management is definitely a prevalent reason. I chuckled at this post on WSB yesterday. Someone wrote "if I had any cash, I'd buy more GME to average out my cost." Someone wisely replied "this is why you don't have cash."
- happyconcepts 6y ago
  >I chuckled at this post on WSB yesterday. Someone wrote "if I had any cash, I'd buy more GME to average out my cost." I chuckle at your chuckle. To me that "someone" sounds like a short trolling for more longs in the stock. I say this as someone who has lurked WSB on reddit for a long time.
  - xyzelement 6y ago
    // To me that "someone" sounds like a short trolling for more longs in the stock. Those tricky shorts, always looking to drive up the sock price. How'd I miss it? // I ... lurked WSB on reddit for a long time. I totally believe you!
anm89 6y ago
I think you are taking a wide range of beliefs and summarizing them in the worst sounding way possible. I certainly believe that most homeless people have made some bad decisions to get where they are. I think many if not most of them probably have poor financial skills. I also believe that many of them were born with a range of disadvantages and could have done very well under other circumstances. A lot of them also do struggle with addiction and mental illness and it is worth considering that this can mix poorly with handing people a bunch of no strings cash. I don't think that's a reason not to do it at all but it shouldn't be ignored either. I'm certainly not the worlds biggest expert on homeless people but I volunteer at a needle exchange and have encountered more than most so I'm somewhat speaking from experience. Sweeping this stuff under the rug doesn't make it not true.
- 542458 6y ago
  Two things: I was mostly addressing the post I was replying to that claimed that nobody was opposed to direct cash payments - which I think is not true at all. Also, I’m not trying to sweep it under the rug, and I’m not saying that many homeless people don’t have poor money management or addiction issues. However, there is a theory that giving homeless folks direct cash is a waste of time/money due to these issues and will produce no positive outcomes - which the experiment linked seems to contradict. In other words, while these issues do exist, direct cash payments do still seem to be at least somewhat effective. (Also, thank you for spending your time and effort volunteering at a very non-glamorous but very important service!)
pxeboot 6y ago
> Anecdotally, I’ve heard lots of people argue that poor people are only poor because they have poor financial skills This is certainly a thing. I know people who could be firmly in the middle class, but instead live paycheck to paycheck or worse due to very poor financial decisions they continue to make.
- watwut 6y ago
  Aren't those people middle class by definition? What you describe here is not poor at all.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    I have yet to see anyone define middle class in a way that is useful and people agree on its definition. Therefore, any discussion about middle class that starts without a rigorous definition always ends with a disagreement about what is middle class. I am especially entertained when “upper” and “lower” middle class come into play.
    - notacoward 6y ago
      Definitions of "middle class" can be logical, useful, or non-controversial. Pick one.
    - watwut 6y ago
      This is what I reacted to: > I know people who could be firmly in the middle class, but instead live paycheck to paycheck or worse due to very poor financial decisions This is middle class person that spends all the money on useless things. But, I don't see how it is relevant example of poor person, they have good income.

kordlessagain 6y ago

I think if you gave 15 random homeless people a million dollars each and the right structure of accessing that capital (planning sessions, therapy, finding a home, finding training, dealing with addiction) then you would have 15 successful people join society where before they were a burden on all of us.

jariel 6y ago
I suggest that 5 of them would be back on the streets within months, and another 5 would only be doing 'ok'. Many people on the streets are really broken and have a lot of extremely negatively reinforcing habits, to the point wherein they are the most 'opposite of conscientious' we could imagine. 'Money' would just amplify those bad traits. For example, if you gave a crack addict $1M, why for a second do you even think they would want to even bother undergoing 'training' or 'therapy' of any sort? The assumption in 'here is a path towards stability' is that the individual is willing and able to even embark upon that path, which is quite a lot of work. 'Highly conscientious and rational actors' who take the steps necessary for stability and prosperity generally are not at the bottom to begin with. I suggest it might take $500K in effort on the behalf of social services merely to induce some good behaviours. So yes, $1M spent on social services, maybe free rent, 'on the job training', re-socialization, yes, that might work. Edit: differentiating here between 'homeless' of various kinds, and 'working poor' obviously. Paying off the mortgage for 'working poor' might work really well to improve people's lives. Edit: There are homeless people 100M away as I right this as my neighbourhood is mixed. There's a guy I've 'known of' literally for years, and I hear him have other conversations with bystanders. He has access to welfare and social services which is just barely enough to squeak by on rent, food, subsidized electricity, but usually in the summer he makes the choice to rough it, 'outside living' and opts to pay rent in the winter - so he can buy crack (assuming it's crack as that's the drug of choice here) as I see the 'transactions' happening in plain day out in the open. Pouring money on that situation is like pouring gasoline on a fire. There is absolutely no way giving him cash directly is going to help, we literally already do that and we can see the outcome. These situations call for something else.
dweekly 6y ago
Would you consider the five-year life outcomes of lottery winners to be a good or poor proxy for this experiment?

scarmig 6y ago

This has nothing to do with a UBI, regardless of the merits. SF spends around $50k USD/homeless person year. I'd be pretty interested in seeing what'd happen if we just gave 50k in unmarked bills to each homeless person. Add some verification process to confirm that they're both homeless and haven't received their 50k for the year. I suspect we'd end up with a better situation than today. If nothing else, many would return to their home cities, and it'd defund the homeless industrial complex.

HomeDeLaPot 6y ago
That would be tremendously unfair to working people in or around SF, especially those making $50k or less. That in itself isn't a reason not to raise a bunch of people out of poverty, but what evidence is there that homeless people would move out? One could just as easily argue that most would blow the money on drugs and/or wait around for next year's $50k. Also, is it really a good idea to defund all the programs that this $50k/person pays for in order to turn it into cash handouts? My understanding is that a majority of homeless people are homeless because of an inability to manage their finances and their life, whether we think that's any fault of their own or not. Handing out cash isn't going to fix these people's childhoods, drug addictions, etc. The real way to deal with homelessness is to address the core problems: a poor educational & economic outlook for both young and old, and a thriving underground economy for hard, addictive drugs. These two fuel homelessness, poverty, crime, and child abuse. Watch Mark Laita's Soft White Underbelly: much of this generation may be beyond hope, but the next generation might be helped before they arrive.
- titzer 6y ago
  I've heard this "unfair" argument since forever. You know what's tremendously unfair? Mental illness. And homeless are vastly more likely to suffer from mental illness. I'm sorry, but these people are actually suffering and need help. They need help. What part of that is so hard to internalize? And I've heard soooo many people argue "you know what the real cause of homeless is, right? X!" And then, "no, the real core problem is X's cause!" And then, "no, it's Y that is to blame!" And then "well ever since Z happened, we can't do W". And on and on...an unending stream of excuses, a mountain of reasons to not do anything about it, to not spend any money on it, and certainly not to actually study the problem. Instead, it's just more punishment for being stupid or poor and blame. Because everything else is unfair to those working saps. You know what might actually have half a chance of solving homelessness? Giving a damn about them. Not arguing over how fair this or that is, not quibbling about core reasons, putting things off until the unfixable things get fixed. GIVE A DAMN.

Viliam1234 6y ago

> I don't think many people would argue that if you hand people a bunch of free money it improves their lives. Of course it does. The important question is what is the long-term impact. For some people, a one-time donation can stop a downward spiral (pay the worst debts, and make sure you will not needlessly make new ones in the future; pay the medical bills) or even start an upward curve (buy a car, find a better paying new job that requires commute by car). For other people, a one-time donation simply means some luxury for the following few days/weeks/months until they run out of money. Sometimes it even results in more debt, if they cannot sufficiently quickly revert their habits the moment the money is gone. With the first group, I think the society will likely get its investment back. The problem is how to distinguish between them. Because the current attempts mostly select for people who are good at navigating the bureaucratic maze (which the first group is often actually worse at, because their situation is novel for them).

anm89 6y ago
If it destroys the broader economy to help .5% of people it doesn't particularly matter much how effective it was in helping that .5%. This applies equally to the top .5% .

GhostVII 6y ago

The other big question with UBI is whether it is better to give people cash, or give them the things they need to live (food, housing, etc.). Personally, I think there is a significant portion of the population who is unable to manage their finances, so something like UBI won't work for them, and we can't afford both UBI, and significant funding for social programs.