8 ms·

How is giving people money unconditionally not treating them as “humans with potential and aspirations”? I’m not entirely sure what your point is. Are you sayi

How is giving people money unconditionally not treating them as “humans with potential and aspirations”? I’m not entirely sure what your point is. Are you saying that adding more rules and conditions and whatnot is better? I don’t have a well-formed opinion here myself, just that most people arguing for treating benefit recipients humanely argue for fewer rules, not more. So I’d like to understand your point better.

realjhol 3y ago
Giving addicts drug money instead of providing for their needs is the peak of inhumanity.
- madsbuch 3y ago
  Drug-addicts is something you interpret. It is specified that they are homeless. Doing this conflation is the worst kind of anti-ethical you can be. Just like assuming other things about whole groups of people. For this debate, I can really recommend Rutger Bregman and his books. One of his important points about poverty is that people are that: Poor. And that is their problem.
  - atdrummond 3y ago
    My problem when I was homeless wasn’t that I was poor. My problem was that I would never be able to manage assets properly until I get my mental house in order and started prioritizing things properly. There are plenty of homeless people who are in a poverty trap, as you describe, but I think it oversimplifies the situation to argue the arrow of causality only goes one direction for all homeless people.
    - madsbuch 3y ago
      Bregman I am referring is Dutch, I am Danish. Two countries where you'd have to look really hard to find homeless people. I think over-complication is the issue in the states, which in turn makes a lot of these grants go to heads thinking about the issues rather than the actual issues. I also think it is important to attribute issues where they are due: Mental issues is not a housing problem, it is a health care issue. Not being able to manage money is not a housing problem, it is a primary school problem. Etc. With all respect for your previous life, it does sound like you needed some quality health care more than a parental system that handed out food stamps (in fear that the money otherwise would have gone to drugs).
      - atdrummond 3y ago
        I agree completely with your third paragraph; I also agree regarding the Dutch (my partner lives in Amsterdam) and Danish programmes and their successes. Apologies if my reply misunderstood your initial post, as I feel we’re actually in agreement here.
  - Fauntleroy 3y ago
    I can see that you're not in California, so I feel like I should reiterate that drugs are a massive problem among our homeless population here. It is something that needs consideration when trying to help them. The main problem with just giving people $1,000/mo is that it is nowhere near enough to get off the street, but more than enough to continue fueling a drug problem.
    - hobo_in_library 3y ago
      That, and part of the problem seems to be that when people say "get them off the streets" the hidden statement is "but keep them in SF" SF is a ridiculously expensive city that people from across the US consider (who have homes even) consider themselves priced out of. It seems mind boggling that people think everyone deserves a home in SF itself, instead of relocation to, say, a new suburb constructed a couple hours away (where housing is cheaper!). Constructing that suburb would create jobs. The infrastructure needed to maintain it would create jobs. And even if it remains a net cash drain, it'll still likely be cheaper than 17B a year while giving people actual homes with opportunities to work their way up and out
      - bluefirebrand 3y ago
        > It seems mind boggling that people think everyone deserves a home in SF itself, instead of relocation to, say, a new suburb constructed a couple hours away (where housing is cheaper!). The problem is that many homeless people would genuinely rather live on the streets or in shelters in the city proper where they have easy access to the things they want, versus having a house provided elsewhere. They want housing near their preferred begging spots and their dealers, basically.
        hobo_in_library 3y ago
        That lends itself to other solutions though, if there's the political will to implement them. To take an unpopular example: Iran Iran provides food and shelter to all it's citizens, making sure everyone has their minimum needs met. They've combined this with strict laws against begging. If they see anyone begging on the street someone will come up to them and ask "Why are you begging? Do you have some basic need that's still unmet?" Outcomes will range from: - Helping them with that need (if it's legitimate) - Directing them to getting some kind of job if they merely want more income (even if it's selling trivial knick knacks on the street) - Presumably there's penalties for repeat offenders
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - goatlover 3y ago
    And some people become poor because they are addicts or have mental health issues and refuse treatment.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  Maybe money isn't the right thing - it may reduce crime, but won't fix issues. But there's plenty of successful programs where they give drugs or substitutes to prevent withdrawal to addicts for free, no questions asked, no judgment. Or places to safely use, where privacy, health care and clean needles are available. But the subject isn't addicts, it's homeless people. Not all homeless people are addicts, and not all addicts are homeless.
- heavyset_go 3y ago
  The majority of homeless people are homeless for economic reasons, like loss of income, cost of living increases, or lack of affordable housing, or changes in co-living situations caused by break-ups/divorce/abuse/loss of partner's income/etc. Families are the fastest growing homeless demographic.
  - atdrummond 3y ago
    And that group is hurt the most by having to share the streets with people whose uncivil and dangerous behaviour puts their life and well being in danger. Treating unhoused persons as a homogenous population is probably the original sin of modern American homeless policy.
    - floren 3y ago
      > Treating unhoused persons as a homogenous population is probably the original sin of modern American homeless policy It gives you some useful tricks, though. E.g. if somebody complains about the chronically homeless addicts assaulting people downtown? Why, you just point out that X% of "the homeless" are actually just regular non-addicted people temporarily down on their luck, who just need a free hotel room for a couple weeks.
    - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
      It's unfortunate. Most of the conversation here is about addicts and the mentally ill and how hard they are to help. Probably because they are the most visible.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        We should have separate programs for each, one with more resources. It is much easier to help someone without a substance abuse problem get back on their feet, so let’s pick the lowest fruit first? It also provides some incentive to not get addicted to drugs, knowing that society is going to not try as hard to save you (this is already true, it just isn’t codified anywhere). But ya, most people won’t notice, since they didn’t notice these people before.
- mikeryan 3y ago
  Giving addicts drug money instead of providing for their needs is the peak of inhumanity. Not sure what you think a drug addicts needs are, because usually at the top of the list is "drugs". There other services provided en-masse for homeless people with addiction problems but you can't force them to take advantage of them. The "free-money" isn't about treating the root cause of the recipients addiction the hope is to address a symptom and prevent people with addiction problems from committing crimes to fuel their habits.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    Needs and wants aren’t the same things.
atdrummond 3y ago
I’m not at all against unconditional cash grants. I work for a non-profit that does just that. What I am against is a totally unstructured program where they hand cash out knowing that 90% of it goes into an open air drug market that they make no attempt to shut down or control. I’m not arguing for work requirements or time limits. People who are legitimately struggling will fall through the cracks. But I don’t think it is insane or inhumane to require people to work with supportive assistance and be put on a pathway to supportive housing.
- skrebbel 3y ago
  Awesome, thanks for clarifying. This makes a lot of sense to me.
- marcellus23 3y ago
  > I’m not arguing for work requirements or time limits > I don’t think it is insane or inhumane to require people to work Sorry if I'm missing something, but aren't these directly antithetical?
  - nickff 3y ago
    The parent seems to be saying that they are not sure whether work requirements are necessary for a support program to succeed, but that the requirements do not appear to be unreasonable or obviously counter-productive.
  - atdrummond 3y ago
    Why did you cut off the sentence? What I said had nothing to do with employment requirements but about the need for supportive services to enable unhoused persons to achieve the next steps in their path to stability.
- robotnikman 3y ago
  If the money is just going back to the drug dealers I would think that would just exacerbate the problem and make it even worse, as it just encourages drug dealers and producers to make and sell more. There definitely needs to be case workers or someone involved to help provide these people a path to recovery.
nathanyukai 3y ago
Because they are not going to spend it on things that's going to help them improve skills and finding jobs, they'll stuck as homeless forever. Like when world bank lend money to country that are bankrupted, they ask them to take the money for reform and try to improve their economy, same should happen here.
akira2501 3y ago
> How is giving people money unconditionally not treating them as “humans with potential and aspirations”? If access to money is not their actual impediment then you may be making their situation worse. > I’m not entirely sure what your point is. Are you saying that adding more rules and conditions and whatnot is better? You are drowning. I throw $1000 at you. Are you saying I should have done more? > argue for fewer rules Judging by living in the middle of this policy. The number of homeless has increased and the number of open air drug markets, prostitution, and suicides have increased with them. There is a concerted _lack_ of enforcement of rules. The homeless purchase RVs from scrap yards, move them onto the sides of streets, and live in them. Zoning and parking laws are ignored. Noise laws are ignored. Drug laws are ignored. There is zero effort to serve this population and get them out of the literal gutter. Pets are a massive problem. Children are living in the middle of this. And our response is just.. "here's $1000 and a legal carte blanche for anything short of murder." It's not working.
- atdrummond 3y ago
  This is a great response. One of the most under appreciated aspects of this is that the current policies actually hurt the homeless people who are stuck in a poverty trap and want to get out. They have to live daily with an ever increasing number of people who are allowed to engage in dangerous and uncivil behaviour. There are parents and children on the streets who want nothing more than to get off them - but until that happens, their quality of life has been made considerably worse by the policies presently in place.
- ribosometronome 3y ago
  >You are drowning. I throw $1000 at you. Are you saying I should have done more? What if we apply your logic to your own scenario? You are drowning. I will jump in and help you get to safety only after you have taken a blood and piss test. Are you saying I should have done more?
  - tivert 3y ago
    >> You are drowning. I throw $1000 at you. Are you saying I should have done more? > You are drowning. I will jump in and help you get to safety only after you have taken a blood and piss test. Are you saying I should have done more? I think his point was that if someone's drowning, you throw them a life preserver or jump in and save them. You don't throw them $1000, because that's not the solution to the problem they're actually having. It's not like the water will spit them out if you pay it. And if your problem is addiction, $1000 might just make your problem worse. That $1000 might as well be considered a pile of drugs or booze. When I was growing up I was friends with a kid whose Dad actually worked trying to help homeless people in a very cold climate. IIRC, one time they had a program to give out subzero rated sleeping bags, but stopped once they realized they were just getting pawned.
matthew9219 3y ago
People addicted to heroin don't achieve their potential or their aspirations. The compassionate thing to do for drug addicts is to help them stop being addicted to drugs, not give them an apartment where they can do drugs without bothering anybody. Parent commenter is saying the state is doing mostly the latter and little of the former.
nonethewiser 3y ago
Because it creates more homelessness.

realjhol 3y ago

Giving addicts drug money instead of providing for their needs is the peak of inhumanity.

madsbuch 3y ago
Drug-addicts is something you interpret. It is specified that they are homeless. Doing this conflation is the worst kind of anti-ethical you can be. Just like assuming other things about whole groups of people. For this debate, I can really recommend Rutger Bregman and his books. One of his important points about poverty is that people are that: Poor. And that is their problem.
- atdrummond 3y ago
  My problem when I was homeless wasn’t that I was poor. My problem was that I would never be able to manage assets properly until I get my mental house in order and started prioritizing things properly. There are plenty of homeless people who are in a poverty trap, as you describe, but I think it oversimplifies the situation to argue the arrow of causality only goes one direction for all homeless people.
  - madsbuch 3y ago
    Bregman I am referring is Dutch, I am Danish. Two countries where you'd have to look really hard to find homeless people. I think over-complication is the issue in the states, which in turn makes a lot of these grants go to heads thinking about the issues rather than the actual issues. I also think it is important to attribute issues where they are due: Mental issues is not a housing problem, it is a health care issue. Not being able to manage money is not a housing problem, it is a primary school problem. Etc. With all respect for your previous life, it does sound like you needed some quality health care more than a parental system that handed out food stamps (in fear that the money otherwise would have gone to drugs).
    - atdrummond 3y ago
      I agree completely with your third paragraph; I also agree regarding the Dutch (my partner lives in Amsterdam) and Danish programmes and their successes. Apologies if my reply misunderstood your initial post, as I feel we’re actually in agreement here.
- Fauntleroy 3y ago
  I can see that you're not in California, so I feel like I should reiterate that drugs are a massive problem among our homeless population here. It is something that needs consideration when trying to help them. The main problem with just giving people $1,000/mo is that it is nowhere near enough to get off the street, but more than enough to continue fueling a drug problem.
  - hobo_in_library 3y ago
    That, and part of the problem seems to be that when people say "get them off the streets" the hidden statement is "but keep them in SF" SF is a ridiculously expensive city that people from across the US consider (who have homes even) consider themselves priced out of. It seems mind boggling that people think everyone deserves a home in SF itself, instead of relocation to, say, a new suburb constructed a couple hours away (where housing is cheaper!). Constructing that suburb would create jobs. The infrastructure needed to maintain it would create jobs. And even if it remains a net cash drain, it'll still likely be cheaper than 17B a year while giving people actual homes with opportunities to work their way up and out
    - bluefirebrand 3y ago
      > It seems mind boggling that people think everyone deserves a home in SF itself, instead of relocation to, say, a new suburb constructed a couple hours away (where housing is cheaper!). The problem is that many homeless people would genuinely rather live on the streets or in shelters in the city proper where they have easy access to the things they want, versus having a house provided elsewhere. They want housing near their preferred begging spots and their dealers, basically.
      - hobo_in_library 3y ago
        That lends itself to other solutions though, if there's the political will to implement them. To take an unpopular example: Iran Iran provides food and shelter to all it's citizens, making sure everyone has their minimum needs met. They've combined this with strict laws against begging. If they see anyone begging on the street someone will come up to them and ask "Why are you begging? Do you have some basic need that's still unmet?" Outcomes will range from: - Helping them with that need (if it's legitimate) - Directing them to getting some kind of job if they merely want more income (even if it's selling trivial knick knacks on the street) - Presumably there's penalties for repeat offenders
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- goatlover 3y ago
  And some people become poor because they are addicts or have mental health issues and refuse treatment.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
Maybe money isn't the right thing - it may reduce crime, but won't fix issues. But there's plenty of successful programs where they give drugs or substitutes to prevent withdrawal to addicts for free, no questions asked, no judgment. Or places to safely use, where privacy, health care and clean needles are available. But the subject isn't addicts, it's homeless people. Not all homeless people are addicts, and not all addicts are homeless.
heavyset_go 3y ago
The majority of homeless people are homeless for economic reasons, like loss of income, cost of living increases, or lack of affordable housing, or changes in co-living situations caused by break-ups/divorce/abuse/loss of partner's income/etc. Families are the fastest growing homeless demographic.
- atdrummond 3y ago
  And that group is hurt the most by having to share the streets with people whose uncivil and dangerous behaviour puts their life and well being in danger. Treating unhoused persons as a homogenous population is probably the original sin of modern American homeless policy.
  - floren 3y ago
    > Treating unhoused persons as a homogenous population is probably the original sin of modern American homeless policy It gives you some useful tricks, though. E.g. if somebody complains about the chronically homeless addicts assaulting people downtown? Why, you just point out that X% of "the homeless" are actually just regular non-addicted people temporarily down on their luck, who just need a free hotel room for a couple weeks.
  - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
    It's unfortunate. Most of the conversation here is about addicts and the mentally ill and how hard they are to help. Probably because they are the most visible.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      We should have separate programs for each, one with more resources. It is much easier to help someone without a substance abuse problem get back on their feet, so let’s pick the lowest fruit first? It also provides some incentive to not get addicted to drugs, knowing that society is going to not try as hard to save you (this is already true, it just isn’t codified anywhere). But ya, most people won’t notice, since they didn’t notice these people before.
mikeryan 3y ago
Giving addicts drug money instead of providing for their needs is the peak of inhumanity. Not sure what you think a drug addicts needs are, because usually at the top of the list is "drugs". There other services provided en-masse for homeless people with addiction problems but you can't force them to take advantage of them. The "free-money" isn't about treating the root cause of the recipients addiction the hope is to address a symptom and prevent people with addiction problems from committing crimes to fuel their habits.
- kortilla 3y ago
  Needs and wants aren’t the same things.

atdrummond 3y ago

I’m not at all against unconditional cash grants. I work for a non-profit that does just that. What I am against is a totally unstructured program where they hand cash out knowing that 90% of it goes into an open air drug market that they make no attempt to shut down or control. I’m not arguing for work requirements or time limits. People who are legitimately struggling will fall through the cracks. But I don’t think it is insane or inhumane to require people to work with supportive assistance and be put on a pathway to supportive housing.

skrebbel 3y ago
Awesome, thanks for clarifying. This makes a lot of sense to me.
marcellus23 3y ago
> I’m not arguing for work requirements or time limits > I don’t think it is insane or inhumane to require people to work Sorry if I'm missing something, but aren't these directly antithetical?
- nickff 3y ago
  The parent seems to be saying that they are not sure whether work requirements are necessary for a support program to succeed, but that the requirements do not appear to be unreasonable or obviously counter-productive.
- atdrummond 3y ago
  Why did you cut off the sentence? What I said had nothing to do with employment requirements but about the need for supportive services to enable unhoused persons to achieve the next steps in their path to stability.
robotnikman 3y ago
If the money is just going back to the drug dealers I would think that would just exacerbate the problem and make it even worse, as it just encourages drug dealers and producers to make and sell more. There definitely needs to be case workers or someone involved to help provide these people a path to recovery.

nathanyukai 3y ago

Because they are not going to spend it on things that's going to help them improve skills and finding jobs, they'll stuck as homeless forever. Like when world bank lend money to country that are bankrupted, they ask them to take the money for reform and try to improve their economy, same should happen here.

akira2501 3y ago

> How is giving people money unconditionally not treating them as “humans with potential and aspirations”? If access to money is not their actual impediment then you may be making their situation worse. > I’m not entirely sure what your point is. Are you saying that adding more rules and conditions and whatnot is better? You are drowning. I throw $1000 at you. Are you saying I should have done more? > argue for fewer rules Judging by living in the middle of this policy. The number of homeless has increased and the number of open air drug markets, prostitution, and suicides have increased with them. There is a concerted _lack_ of enforcement of rules. The homeless purchase RVs from scrap yards, move them onto the sides of streets, and live in them. Zoning and parking laws are ignored. Noise laws are ignored. Drug laws are ignored. There is zero effort to serve this population and get them out of the literal gutter. Pets are a massive problem. Children are living in the middle of this. And our response is just.. "here's $1000 and a legal carte blanche for anything short of murder." It's not working.

atdrummond 3y ago
This is a great response. One of the most under appreciated aspects of this is that the current policies actually hurt the homeless people who are stuck in a poverty trap and want to get out. They have to live daily with an ever increasing number of people who are allowed to engage in dangerous and uncivil behaviour. There are parents and children on the streets who want nothing more than to get off them - but until that happens, their quality of life has been made considerably worse by the policies presently in place.
ribosometronome 3y ago
>You are drowning. I throw $1000 at you. Are you saying I should have done more? What if we apply your logic to your own scenario? You are drowning. I will jump in and help you get to safety only after you have taken a blood and piss test. Are you saying I should have done more?
- tivert 3y ago
  >> You are drowning. I throw $1000 at you. Are you saying I should have done more? > You are drowning. I will jump in and help you get to safety only after you have taken a blood and piss test. Are you saying I should have done more? I think his point was that if someone's drowning, you throw them a life preserver or jump in and save them. You don't throw them $1000, because that's not the solution to the problem they're actually having. It's not like the water will spit them out if you pay it. And if your problem is addiction, $1000 might just make your problem worse. That $1000 might as well be considered a pile of drugs or booze. When I was growing up I was friends with a kid whose Dad actually worked trying to help homeless people in a very cold climate. IIRC, one time they had a program to give out subzero rated sleeping bags, but stopped once they realized they were just getting pawned.

matthew9219 3y ago

People addicted to heroin don't achieve their potential or their aspirations. The compassionate thing to do for drug addicts is to help them stop being addicted to drugs, not give them an apartment where they can do drugs without bothering anybody. Parent commenter is saying the state is doing mostly the latter and little of the former.

nonethewiser 3y ago

Because it creates more homelessness.