3 ms·

So it basically does nothing at all? Just from personal observation, it seems like that would make sense - there's a group of homeless people who are homeless d

So it basically does nothing at all? Just from personal observation, it seems like that would make sense - there's a group of homeless people who are homeless due to circumstance, hate being homeless, and will try as hard as they can to only be homeless for a short time. Then there's the other group, people with severe mental illness, drug addiction, who aren't rational and are chronically homeless because they basically can't function in society. You could give them as much money as you want and it wouldn't make much of a difference. What they need is to be put in some kind of permanent care.

dusted 2y ago
I thought the same, and just participating in this study (the "control group" who got $50) selects the former group.
matltc 2y ago
Good to see you on here posting correct takes, coach.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 2y ago
> So it basically does nothing at all? The effects on employment were much more pronounced than housing. The $1000/mo group went from 15% employment to 37%, and the $50/mo group had no change in employment at all. It makes some sense: employment is probably more elastic to changes in financial status than housing. Just being able to afford transportation or a bit of occasional child care can immediately alter one's employment prospects.
- lupire 2y ago
  It's amazing that employment has almost no effect on housing.
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 2y ago
    It probably does, but it might take quite a while for the effect to show up because people need to save up first month + last month + security deposit in order to get a place.
- canadianfella 2y ago
  [dead]
pintxo 2y ago
We are lacking a comparison to those who did not get anything. As just someone taking an interest in you can have a lasting effect. So hard to say in absolute terms.
throwaway7ahgb 2y ago
100% and I've thought the same, bucketing all homeless into one group is not helpful. We should target families and individuals who just lost a job and became homeless, looking for work and a place to live. Then go down the list from there.
fasa99 2y ago
> who aren't rational and are chronically homeless because they basically can't function in society. Diogenes of Sinope, a rational philosopher, would like to have a word
fargle 2y ago
a very slight uptick in % housed for those who got the money in a lump sum might make sense: it's enough for first month rent + deposit. other than that, agree. sure looks like no real effect. i wonder what % housed would be after a year for people who didn't even get $50/month? it's probably also the same. for the reasons you state.

dusted 2y ago

I thought the same, and just participating in this study (the "control group" who got $50) selects the former group.

matltc 2y ago

Good to see you on here posting correct takes, coach.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 2y ago

> So it basically does nothing at all? The effects on employment were much more pronounced than housing. The $1000/mo group went from 15% employment to 37%, and the $50/mo group had no change in employment at all. It makes some sense: employment is probably more elastic to changes in financial status than housing. Just being able to afford transportation or a bit of occasional child care can immediately alter one's employment prospects.

lupire 2y ago
It's amazing that employment has almost no effect on housing.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 2y ago
  It probably does, but it might take quite a while for the effect to show up because people need to save up first month + last month + security deposit in order to get a place.
canadianfella 2y ago
[dead]

pintxo 2y ago

We are lacking a comparison to those who did not get anything. As just someone taking an interest in you can have a lasting effect. So hard to say in absolute terms.

throwaway7ahgb 2y ago

100% and I've thought the same, bucketing all homeless into one group is not helpful. We should target families and individuals who just lost a job and became homeless, looking for work and a place to live. Then go down the list from there.

fasa99 2y ago

> who aren't rational and are chronically homeless because they basically can't function in society. Diogenes of Sinope, a rational philosopher, would like to have a word

fargle 2y ago

a very slight uptick in % housed for those who got the money in a lump sum might make sense: it's enough for first month rent + deposit. other than that, agree. sure looks like no real effect. i wonder what % housed would be after a year for people who didn't even get $50/month? it's probably also the same. for the reasons you state.