5 ms·
Unconditional cash transfers reduce homelessness
- biomcgary 3y agoAt a small scale this might work, as in a study with cases=50 and controls=65, in a largish metropolitan area. Can we see the result of an experiment where 100% of the homeless (say, 3-5% of the population in a given area) are given cash and have to compete for currently available housing? It just becomes a subsidy for landlords at that point. Can you reduce homeless at scale with just cash and without building more housing? If not, why not do the experiment of building a ton of housing and tracing impact on homelessness?
- paulryanrogers 3y agoLikely rent seekers will soak up their gains. We need to build for density and transportation to match.
- geysersam 3y agoI agree we need to build more cheap housing. But one could also ask: why don't we already build more cheap housing? Probably the answer is that nobody's able to pay for it. Making people able to afford cheap housing creates a market for cheap housing makes builders build cheap housing. But sure, cut out the middle man and let the public sector build good cheap housing.
- jackvalentine 3y agoI don’t know what it looks like overseas, but in Australia a solid 20% of housing stock was built by governments right up until the 1980s when ‘the market’ was tasked with providing housing and governments withdrew. We don’t build more cheap social housing entirely as a policy choice.
- mcv 3y agoExpensive housing is more profitable than cheap housing. Cheap houses tend to get bought by real estate speculators looking to drive up the price of housing. I suspect that much of the housing scarcity is artificial.
- clnq 3y agoThat’s also a problem with a lot of the social safety net initiatives like UBI — small scope of the studies. It’s very difficult to say how these measures could affect the macro economy. It would be easier to pass/ratify laws for them if their large-scale effects were clearer. For example, we don’t know if UBI would just result in more inflation. It could inflate prices so much that those ineligible would be in unbelievable poverty — perhaps not being able to participate in the economy at all. Or maybe not. It is very difficult to tell.
- extraduder_ire 3y agoIt's not really an experiment, but I read about these dudes on twitter a few years back: http://madhousers.org/shelter http://madhousers.org/shelter Apparently, it works pretty well. I assume there's other groups doing similar things.
- LegitShady 3y agoWe used to call unconditional cash transfer charity.
- wcerfgba 3y agoNot sure I agree, my understanding of most charities is that they aren't unconditional, and they don't transfer cash, but other things instead. That said, charity in the broader sense of "giving people stuff" would apply, but there are affective (i.e. psychological, emotional, and social) issues with this. Instead, mutuality and mutual aid focus on building relationships between people where they both provide acknowledged value to each other. This solves issues such as saviour/unworthiness complex, by binding people together in relationships where they support each other, which are more durable in the long term.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- clnq 3y agoWhy overcomplicate it? It’s money gifted for a good cause — charity.
- WeylandYutani 3y agoI disagree. Americans think that this is charity for which you should show gratefulness and humility but in my country a social safety net is a right that is given to each citizen.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pha392 3y agoUnconditional cash transfers reduce the incentives to work and develop, as they create the feeling of being covered by the State for life
- solarmist 3y agoBelieve it or not people don’t actually like being a burden. People like feeling like their lives and actions are worth something.
- Smileyferret 3y ago“The specific bias in the current context is the tendency for the public to think that homeless individuals will increase spending on temptation goods (alcohol, drugs, cigarettes) when given the cash transfer compared to people who are not homeless. This bias can favor the provision of paternalistic forms of aid over more agentic forms of aid, thus presenting a barrier to the cash transfer policy.” Earlier in the paper: “Our preregistered screening criteria were: … [history of homelessness less than 2 years and] nonsevere levels of substance use (DAST-10), alcohol use (AUDIT),and mental health symptoms Colorado Symptom Index (CSI) based on predefined thresholds. These screening criteria were used to reduce any potential risks of harm (e.g., overdose) from the cash transfer.” … Are you kidding me? Talk about hypocrisy.
- clnq 3y agoI guess they weren’t testing for whether the bias is true. Though yeah, it’s a bit wishy washy to call something a bias and not real, then design your test to avoid challenging the notion. A bias could still be present though. A phenomenon can exist but be overestimated or underestimated in degree due to bias.
- anon373839 3y agoIt’s much worse than wishy-washy. It’s purposefully deceitful.
- MathMonkeyMan 3y agoPeople don't want to support cash transfers because they think that the beneficiaries will blow it on drugs. But they're wrong: if you eliminate anybody who would blow it on drugs, then that problem doesn't occur at all!
- mcv 3y agoI think I've also heard of similar experiments where a significant number of the people who used drugs actually quit using drugs once they got other options. I don't have a link, though. Just a vague memory of reading about this once.