3 ms·

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 ho

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?
- alistairSH 6y ago
  The lottery winners don't receive any counseling and planning as part of their winning package. But, point taken - lottery winners are terrible at managing their newfound wealth.
mythrwy 6y ago
I believe you'd get a handful of early deaths, some mediocre outcomes, and maybe 3 or 4 successful people tops out of that experiment.
shimonabi 6y ago
I think far less would be needed for each person. If Britney Spears can have conservatorship, why can't other mentally disabled people?

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?

alistairSH 6y ago
The lottery winners don't receive any counseling and planning as part of their winning package. But, point taken - lottery winners are terrible at managing their newfound wealth.

mythrwy 6y ago

I believe you'd get a handful of early deaths, some mediocre outcomes, and maybe 3 or 4 successful people tops out of that experiment.

shimonabi 6y ago

I think far less would be needed for each person. If Britney Spears can have conservatorship, why can't other mentally disabled people?