6 ms·

Homeless people to be given cash in first major UK trial to reduce poverty

cranberryturkey 2y ago
Gavin Newsom did this when he was Mayor of San Francisco and the city got flooded with homeless from all over the country
- anovikov 2y ago
  Maybe if it's done on a national level, and cash will only be distributed to the homeless who can prove they are citizens, that won't be an issue. Moreover they might move to areas with lower cost of living if payments do not depend on the place (a homeless does not have a fixed address by definition), thus becoming less of an issue.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    Homelessness creates society issues regardless of citizenship. Also, obtaining any reliable ID for many homeless is a non-trivial and costly task on its own. It seems like you're interested in something more limited than simply helping with the homelessness issue.
    - anovikov 2y ago
      It's simply that if any assistance will be given to foreigners - they will flock from entire world just like they flocked from entire US to SF when they started giving out cash. Police can of course check anyone's identity. Foreigners won't be trying to claim anything because they know they'd be deported or isolated if there is no clear country to deport them into.
      - viraptor 2y ago
        > they will flock from entire world Flock from the entire world just to use homeless benefits in the US that barely sustains people? Outside of a refuge situation... citation needed. > Police can of course check anyone's identity. You get a person without any documents, no long term contacts in the state/area, with a common name/surname, not remembering any official address they lived at. How exactly do you think they'll be identified? And how much time money do you think it's worth to get a precise answer in that case?
        anovikov 2y ago
        It is in the interest of the person to identify themselves and provide proof that they are a citizen. Otherwise they are held until their nationality is identified for deportation. Need large scale facilities where unlimited number of such persons can be indefinitely, and profitably, held, so they are had to do work of some sort (patching roads for example, doing earthworks, etc.). People become bums because they can. There has to be no practical way to remain a bum.
- dazc 2y ago
  This kind of happened in the UK already. For instance, Bournmouth, a town on the South Coast, attracted homeless people for the obvious reason that the climate is typically warmer than most other places. I assume SF held a similar initial attraction? In response to this small influx, local authorities encouraged charities to set up shop offering help to these people with drink/drug/social problems with a view to getting them back into regular housing. Some years later, the problems have become much worse although the number of charities operating in the area has grown exponentially. Speaking as someone who has experienced homelessness, for a short while, I believe the only practical solution is to give people housing at the outset before the desire/need to move elsewhere takes root. The obvious response is that it is not that easy and would be unaffordable but my retort is that the current situation is likely costing a lot more while, at the same time, not fixing anything - other than creating multiple charity jobs.
  - cassianoleal 2y ago
    There should be a rule whereby charities are required to have a large percentage of their jobs given to the class they're trying to help. This could help make the size and number of said charities to be self-regulating with the problem they're trying to solve. They will grow in number whilst the problem is large, but as it subsides they naturally go down. All at the same time giving those people who are in need, money that would be otherwise given to people who don't necessarily need it from that source.
    - dave4420 2y ago
      No there shouldn’t, because then e.g. charities providing help to seriously ill cancer patients won’t be able to employ anyone. Edit: I’m not against charities doing this where it makes sense. I wouldn’t want it to be more red tape they had to struggle with though.
    - stogot 2y ago
      Have you worked for a charity? You want the government to regulate them in a nonsense way so that they close up shop? Sure, there might be a few people that can be employed to help but to pick an arbitrary percentage picked by a prepresentative body whose never talked to them ? you dont’ employ the blind to lead the blind, you hire an eye doctor
- segfaltnh 2y ago
  I've never understood how a homeless person with no resources would move across the country for better handouts. Like I'd buy some anecdotal cases but most homeless I see aren't saving enough for a bus ticket.
  - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
    I would think that it might be easier for them to relocate as they'll have limited possessions to transport. I'd guess they'd either hitch a lift with friends or strangers or they might have a vehicle themselves (e.g. a van that they live in).
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    There’s a massive number of “functioning homeless” - living in cars, couch surfing, etc. They might have low-pay jobs. Or once had white collar jobs but lost almost everything due to medical problems. These are the ones who might be capable of moving. But yeah, the stereotypical crazy junkie, probably not. But that’s just a stereotype.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    Sometimes it's pushed by programs interested in changing the statistics in the most direct way possible - giving people a bus ticket. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/20/bussed-out-america-moves-homeless-people-country-study https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/... also "greyhound therapy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_homeless_relocation_programs_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_homeless_relocation_pr...
  - pizza234 2y ago
    I've read an interview with a man who panhandled for a period of his life, and his hourly income was higher than that of an average waiter. Although I don't have official sources, when I observe panhandlers in my city, it seems plausible (even evident) to me that with enough persistence, a homeless person can earn more than a waiter. Of course, I presume that such money is readily wasted, but I wouldn't dismiss a homeless' income as nonexistent.
- bryan0 2y ago
  I think you have this reversed. The city was already giving out money to homeless and it led to a bunch of problems. Newsom proposed the opposite a “Care not cash” initiative where instead of receiving cash, homeless would receive services. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Proposition_N_(2002) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Proposition_N_...
  - hckevrythng 2y ago
    Honestly by the time you hear these stories the people these stories are about have traveled vast distances through the phases of their homeless experience and you hearing this tale is well past all the results of said attempt to curtail the issue such that it is no longer in present moment a possible solution having run its course. Frankly people who have mismanaged their lives to the point their day to day choices no longer resemble rational thinking cannot be expected to put hard cash to best use at the moment. Eventually there are habits that enevitably become adopted whereby seeking immediate relief by any means that can be had becomes more of a priority than anything else. To someone who sees no end in sight to the nightmare this and only this makes life bareable anymore.
- corinroyal 2y ago
  The overwhelming majority of homeless people in CA are homeless near where they were last housed. The program you're remembering was called Care NOT Cash. Nothing you said was true. Why not?
beretguy 2y ago
Instead of giving cash maybe give them jobs and mental/recovery/etc help?
- fragmede 2y ago
  why not both?
- bell-cot 2y ago
  With the current cost of housing in the UK, how many of the homeless already have a job (or few) - but ones that don't pay well enough for them to afford housing?
  - segfaltnh 2y ago
    We certainly see this in the US as well, employed homelessness.
- throawayonthe 2y ago
  mental/recovery help isn't any good if your genuine material conditions are shit
  - Cumpiler69 2y ago
    Giving people little money when they're too mentally ill to find gainful employment and financial independence won't help either.
numbers_guy 2y ago
We keep going in circles on this. Give them cash and suddenly you have lots of people cheating the system to get the cash, like all the beggar gangs that hangout outside supermarkets. Do means testing and you build a whole wasteful bureaucracy that costs 2x as the actual cash given to the people in need. IMHO, just setup a public day labour program. One day of honest work for one day's worth of wages. Show up in the morning, don a uniform and do your assigned task, no questions asked.
- Cumpiler69 2y ago
  People need education and job opportunities that fit their level of education/intelect and pay a living wage, not handouts that don't even cover the cost of living. Believe it or not most people would rather work a meaningful job and be part of a productive community rather than bum around on welfare doing nothing. But when most low-skill/unskilled jobs have been sent off to Asia, a lot of people have been left out of the economy and the community if they didn't upskill themselves into well paying jobs early on in life. "Just learn to code bro" /s It's a self inflicted problem the post-industrial west has created for the sake of privatizing corporate profits while socializing the losses to society leaving it for the state to fix, which they haven't.
  - numbers_guy 2y ago
    Let's not confuse demographics. There is a struggling working class who are employed but barely getting by. Then there are people who for various reasons have completely given up on life and actively avoid work, probably getting by on some subsistence from government security programs like disability and the dole.
    - Cumpiler69 2y ago
      >Then there are people who for various reasons have completely given up on life and actively avoid work Gee, I wonder why that is? Is it because the work they're avoiding is dead-end jobs that destroy your body and sanity while barely paying above unemployment? Wouldn't you also do anything to avoid such jobs if you could? You probably went to college to avoid these jobs. Others didn't so are taking other measures. Sure, someone still has to do those unskilled jobs, the problem is our western society has become way too expensive to live on the pay of such jobs unlike in the past. Rent alone has massively outpaced wage growth let alone minimum wage. Oh, and even when you have income finding a place to live can be difficult when for example in Germany landlords ask you to provide a stack of paperwork to prove you're a model tennant, and if something looks remotely fishy, you're out of the race because he has 50 more applicants for the apartment who seem wealthier or more stable. So when people realize they're condemned to a life of neo feudalism with no chance to move up, why should anyone bother to take the shit jobs anymore to support the economy or the society that screwed them? The western leaders needs to address this issue sooner than later instead of keep hitting the "remind me later" button.
trompetenaccoun 2y ago
Like straight out of a Mitchell and Webb sketch. I bet there will be people on this site as well who don't understand why you can't solve poverty by simply giving out cash. Although cash is what humans crave, it's got purchasing power.
- mikeodds 2y ago
  For anyone looking for the Mitchell and Webb reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_4J4uor3JE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_4J4uor3JE
  - Y_Y 2y ago
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=dfwnjO9o8OU https://youtube.com/watch?v=dfwnjO9o8OU Funnily enough the GP comment made me think of this sketch instead (an absolute masterpiece of microeconomic theory). See also the classic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
- typicalset 2y ago
  This is not an argument, and you have provided no evidence for your claims. There are numerous studies, and indeed meta-analyses of these[1][2] indicating that cash transfers can have a positive outcome for recipients. These interventions are broadly positive, so why oppose them? Whether or not it "solves" poverty is a different question to whether the effect is positive or not. There are a number of extremely different arguments as to why poverty can't be solved by cash transfers e.g. essentialising poverty as a moral failing (I strongly disagree), or a critique of the system which creates poverty in the first place (I broadly agree). I can understand why belief in the first kind would lead to opposition of interventions, but engaging with evidence is important in reaching a conclusion. [1]: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32779/w32779.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32779/w327... [2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01252-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01252-z
  - hckevrythng 2y ago
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
> half will get additional help from Greater Change, whose support workers will discuss their financial problems then pay for items such as rent deposits, outstanding debts, work equipment, white goods, furniture or new clothes. They do not make direct transfers to avoid benefits being stopped due to a cash influx. Vital paragraph, due to people not reading past the misleading headline.
Oras 2y ago
Misleading title From the article: > whose support workers will discuss their financial problems then pay for items such as rent deposits, outstanding debts, work equipment, white goods, furniture or new clothes. They do not make direct transfers to avoid benefits being stopped due to a cash influx. So it’s not cash, it’s paying for items.
- krisoft 2y ago
  Yeah. How did this even pass editing? Is it the article who is misrepresenting what is happening, or the researchers?
  - bell-cot 2y ago
    Very few online news sources can be trusted to fact-optimize their headlines these days. Vs. click-, revenue-, or similar metrics. Less-bad sources often put fact-centric subtitles on their articles...but that's not the case here.
    - krisoft 2y ago
      That is a sad truth. But it is not just the title. It is the whole article. It talks about giving cash and researching how giving cash works, and quotes the researcher about giving cash. And in one of middle middle paragraphs they just mention that btw we do not give cash. What is the purpose of the research then?
      - Oras 2y ago
        Facts do not trigger emotions, but fake titles like this one does. Current media works on emotions to drive traffic.
      - bell-cot 2y ago
        Yes, however... Notice the wording of that researcher's quote - they are trying to understand things about cash transfers. He does not say that they're doing cash transfers. And: > The other half will get additional help from Greater Change, whose support workers will discuss their financial problems then pay for items such as rent deposits, outstanding debts, work equipment, white goods, furniture or new clothes. They do not make direct transfers to avoid benefits being stopped due to a cash influx. SO - however deceitful The Guardian is being, I'd credit the researchers with honesty here. They're running an imperfect-but-legal experiment, with the gov't's okay & funding, as a work-around for the gov't own bureaucratic rules on cash income reducing benefits.
fnord77 2y ago
[flagged]
- rvense 2y ago
  Hi, I downvoted this remark because the only thing it added to the discussion was to display that you've not read anything about the subject (in which case you would known that cash transfers and similar help in many situations do in fact reduce poverty, homelessness, and the negative effects thereof, see the many links elsewhere in this thread.) It can also be read as suggesting that homeless people are like animals and that their homelessness is only of their own making, which is not only wrong but also quite... let's just call it weird.
hckevrythng 2y ago
Having been homeless for a few years now i am intimately familiar with the nuances, missing pieces, and plain incorrect thinking regarding that way of life. Im always amused in a sad way at how far off base these radical attempts to reign in the situation always are. The disconnect is flabbergasting. There appears to be a genuine confusion as to why the situation is this bad, and what can be done about it. Obviously in many cases the major causes are evident such as drug use or mental illness. But beyond these obvious causes one would think we were attempting to understand the inner workings of an alien virus and feverishly working to bring it to heel. Heres the problem: Once a person actually becomes so destitute that they no longer are certain where their next meal is coming from or where they are going to sleep that night their connectedness to society as a whole also becomes broken. The psychological impact of transitioning from the greater whole to a fringe lower caste involves a fracturing of their self and the self worth they had up to that point relied on their entire life. To fall to such depths, where " down" is no longer an option, as when one is literally already at the bottom, is to face the utter condemning fact of failure. Failure to society to parents to perhaps children and to self. The devastation to the psyche in the realization of this marks DAY ONE for such an individual. And it marks us All just so. Returning from the wasteland of loss of self sufficiency and control of ones life cannot begin until the shock has settled in and worn off enough to understand that overcoming the circumstances means beating THAT original denigrating fact. From there one begins the remaking of of ones very identity. Because clearly the original one was insufficient and grossly ill equipped.Yet not all who share the experience share also the wherewithal to achieve success via such mental feats. Indeed a large number were barely glued to the whole before lifes jostling effects shrugged them off in the first place. The cataclysmic event alone wiped out a fortitude they never had and introspective achievements may as well be the philosophy of kant insofar as it is relateable. The savage fall teaches such a one a library of lessons. And they are to be applied moving forward in this new world. Not as cognition for escape. Yes to someone perhaps educated, whos fall was unfortunate circumstance only, this is merely the beginning, step one, if you will, of a comprehensible logical process of extraction. Graspable as a goal. But everyone whos circumstances mirror do not necessarily recover in the same way. Sure " if it were me" you might say. But it isnt, is it? And therefore your self applied mental construct or plan isnt easily so applied to someone NOT YOU. Isnt in fact resolveable as a mere midnight cure at all, the way some things can be when logic or money is applied to them. The misunderstanding all of you( who are not broken this way but who care) continue to struggle with when attempting to understand us, who ARE broken, is simply the abject refusal to consider the complex individual human element inherent in the case by case basis that IS the homeless epidemic. Refusal to put the grimy faces you attempt to hide or ban upon the problem. And in that negligent act you strip the problem of its human identity. Without that identity the characteristics that define human humane resolution are wiped as well. So here we are. Still confused still lost still homeless. All of us. To a degree. Indeed how can anyone call home a place where shadows hide what we refuse to acknowledge, where silence is demanded of those screaming in pain, where the shiny contrived surfaces are called reality and the blood everywhere behind all the closed doors is never cleaned never taken seriously. Someone here is hurt, bleeding, ignored. This is what you call home? How very telling that in the same house we all share, your contribution oftentimes to the survival of its more embarrassing members and their sad issues is to blindly desperately coldly hope and wish we would just disappear.
tetrakhan 2y ago
As others have pointed out, the title is misleading. If they gave money directly out, I have zero doubt it'd end up in heroin dealers hands. I live in east London but still pretty central and I would say almost all the homeless here are junkies, almost without exception. I know this because you see them near big supermarkets begging but I happen to live right next to an estate where I see almost every single one of them coming to pick up. The dealing also just happens more or less in plain site as well. The police and everyone around are well aware of it but nothing gets done to prevent it. Homelessness is a massive issue in the UK and I hope the test outlined in the article gives us some answers as to how to tackle it. However, I'm skeptical that even paying for essentials and housing will work at this point. I think it's almost impossible to detach from the reality that a huge portion, if not the overwhelming majority have also become pretty severe junkies. I'm not saying this as someone totally unsympathetic to the affliction, my best friend also fell down that rabbit hole but addressing the homelessness aspect without addressing the addictions that result from being homeless or lead it feels like a recipe for not solving the problem. I really hope I'm wrong and this works, it's insane that first world countries like the UK have these massive problems with homelessness, there are enough resources around to solve these problems, they just aren't distributed evenly and the support systems of this country have been in a state of ongoing collapse since 2008 and the austerity and chaos that followed
derelicta 2y ago
We know how to address homelessness, its just the oligarchs that rule over us don't want to, for capitalism requires a pool of desperate workers to keep functioning. Besides it acts as a good reminder that if workers try to address the situation themselves, they will be annihilated.
- therealdrag0 2y ago
  The solution to homelessness is abundant housing. And that’s not caused my oligarchs but nimbies.
  - derelicta 2y ago
    Oh absolutely! I totally agree, but nimbies sharing the same interests as oligarchs, they will never command their minions aka politicians to allow this lmao. If it happens, it's just that the capitalist class has found itself new sources of revenue
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Gavin Newsom did this when he was Mayor of San Francisco and the city got flooded with homeless from all over the country

anovikov 2y ago
Maybe if it's done on a national level, and cash will only be distributed to the homeless who can prove they are citizens, that won't be an issue. Moreover they might move to areas with lower cost of living if payments do not depend on the place (a homeless does not have a fixed address by definition), thus becoming less of an issue.
- viraptor 2y ago
  Homelessness creates society issues regardless of citizenship. Also, obtaining any reliable ID for many homeless is a non-trivial and costly task on its own. It seems like you're interested in something more limited than simply helping with the homelessness issue.
  - anovikov 2y ago
    It's simply that if any assistance will be given to foreigners - they will flock from entire world just like they flocked from entire US to SF when they started giving out cash. Police can of course check anyone's identity. Foreigners won't be trying to claim anything because they know they'd be deported or isolated if there is no clear country to deport them into.
    - viraptor 2y ago
      > they will flock from entire world Flock from the entire world just to use homeless benefits in the US that barely sustains people? Outside of a refuge situation... citation needed. > Police can of course check anyone's identity. You get a person without any documents, no long term contacts in the state/area, with a common name/surname, not remembering any official address they lived at. How exactly do you think they'll be identified? And how much time money do you think it's worth to get a precise answer in that case?
      - anovikov 2y ago
        It is in the interest of the person to identify themselves and provide proof that they are a citizen. Otherwise they are held until their nationality is identified for deportation. Need large scale facilities where unlimited number of such persons can be indefinitely, and profitably, held, so they are had to do work of some sort (patching roads for example, doing earthworks, etc.). People become bums because they can. There has to be no practical way to remain a bum.
dazc 2y ago
This kind of happened in the UK already. For instance, Bournmouth, a town on the South Coast, attracted homeless people for the obvious reason that the climate is typically warmer than most other places. I assume SF held a similar initial attraction? In response to this small influx, local authorities encouraged charities to set up shop offering help to these people with drink/drug/social problems with a view to getting them back into regular housing. Some years later, the problems have become much worse although the number of charities operating in the area has grown exponentially. Speaking as someone who has experienced homelessness, for a short while, I believe the only practical solution is to give people housing at the outset before the desire/need to move elsewhere takes root. The obvious response is that it is not that easy and would be unaffordable but my retort is that the current situation is likely costing a lot more while, at the same time, not fixing anything - other than creating multiple charity jobs.
- cassianoleal 2y ago
  There should be a rule whereby charities are required to have a large percentage of their jobs given to the class they're trying to help. This could help make the size and number of said charities to be self-regulating with the problem they're trying to solve. They will grow in number whilst the problem is large, but as it subsides they naturally go down. All at the same time giving those people who are in need, money that would be otherwise given to people who don't necessarily need it from that source.
  - dave4420 2y ago
    No there shouldn’t, because then e.g. charities providing help to seriously ill cancer patients won’t be able to employ anyone. Edit: I’m not against charities doing this where it makes sense. I wouldn’t want it to be more red tape they had to struggle with though.
  - stogot 2y ago
    Have you worked for a charity? You want the government to regulate them in a nonsense way so that they close up shop? Sure, there might be a few people that can be employed to help but to pick an arbitrary percentage picked by a prepresentative body whose never talked to them ? you dont’ employ the blind to lead the blind, you hire an eye doctor
segfaltnh 2y ago
I've never understood how a homeless person with no resources would move across the country for better handouts. Like I'd buy some anecdotal cases but most homeless I see aren't saving enough for a bus ticket.
- ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
  I would think that it might be easier for them to relocate as they'll have limited possessions to transport. I'd guess they'd either hitch a lift with friends or strangers or they might have a vehicle themselves (e.g. a van that they live in).
- alistairSH 2y ago
  There’s a massive number of “functioning homeless” - living in cars, couch surfing, etc. They might have low-pay jobs. Or once had white collar jobs but lost almost everything due to medical problems. These are the ones who might be capable of moving. But yeah, the stereotypical crazy junkie, probably not. But that’s just a stereotype.
- viraptor 2y ago
  Sometimes it's pushed by programs interested in changing the statistics in the most direct way possible - giving people a bus ticket. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/20/bussed-out-america-moves-homeless-people-country-study https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/... also "greyhound therapy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_homeless_relocation_programs_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_homeless_relocation_pr...
- pizza234 2y ago
  I've read an interview with a man who panhandled for a period of his life, and his hourly income was higher than that of an average waiter. Although I don't have official sources, when I observe panhandlers in my city, it seems plausible (even evident) to me that with enough persistence, a homeless person can earn more than a waiter. Of course, I presume that such money is readily wasted, but I wouldn't dismiss a homeless' income as nonexistent.
bryan0 2y ago
I think you have this reversed. The city was already giving out money to homeless and it led to a bunch of problems. Newsom proposed the opposite a “Care not cash” initiative where instead of receiving cash, homeless would receive services. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Proposition_N_(2002) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Proposition_N_...
- hckevrythng 2y ago
  Honestly by the time you hear these stories the people these stories are about have traveled vast distances through the phases of their homeless experience and you hearing this tale is well past all the results of said attempt to curtail the issue such that it is no longer in present moment a possible solution having run its course. Frankly people who have mismanaged their lives to the point their day to day choices no longer resemble rational thinking cannot be expected to put hard cash to best use at the moment. Eventually there are habits that enevitably become adopted whereby seeking immediate relief by any means that can be had becomes more of a priority than anything else. To someone who sees no end in sight to the nightmare this and only this makes life bareable anymore.
corinroyal 2y ago
The overwhelming majority of homeless people in CA are homeless near where they were last housed. The program you're remembering was called Care NOT Cash. Nothing you said was true. Why not?

beretguy 2y ago

Instead of giving cash maybe give them jobs and mental/recovery/etc help?

fragmede 2y ago
why not both?
bell-cot 2y ago
With the current cost of housing in the UK, how many of the homeless already have a job (or few) - but ones that don't pay well enough for them to afford housing?
- segfaltnh 2y ago
  We certainly see this in the US as well, employed homelessness.
throawayonthe 2y ago
mental/recovery help isn't any good if your genuine material conditions are shit
- Cumpiler69 2y ago
  Giving people little money when they're too mentally ill to find gainful employment and financial independence won't help either.

numbers_guy 2y ago

We keep going in circles on this. Give them cash and suddenly you have lots of people cheating the system to get the cash, like all the beggar gangs that hangout outside supermarkets. Do means testing and you build a whole wasteful bureaucracy that costs 2x as the actual cash given to the people in need. IMHO, just setup a public day labour program. One day of honest work for one day's worth of wages. Show up in the morning, don a uniform and do your assigned task, no questions asked.

Cumpiler69 2y ago
People need education and job opportunities that fit their level of education/intelect and pay a living wage, not handouts that don't even cover the cost of living. Believe it or not most people would rather work a meaningful job and be part of a productive community rather than bum around on welfare doing nothing. But when most low-skill/unskilled jobs have been sent off to Asia, a lot of people have been left out of the economy and the community if they didn't upskill themselves into well paying jobs early on in life. "Just learn to code bro" /s It's a self inflicted problem the post-industrial west has created for the sake of privatizing corporate profits while socializing the losses to society leaving it for the state to fix, which they haven't.
- numbers_guy 2y ago
  Let's not confuse demographics. There is a struggling working class who are employed but barely getting by. Then there are people who for various reasons have completely given up on life and actively avoid work, probably getting by on some subsistence from government security programs like disability and the dole.
  - Cumpiler69 2y ago
    >Then there are people who for various reasons have completely given up on life and actively avoid work Gee, I wonder why that is? Is it because the work they're avoiding is dead-end jobs that destroy your body and sanity while barely paying above unemployment? Wouldn't you also do anything to avoid such jobs if you could? You probably went to college to avoid these jobs. Others didn't so are taking other measures. Sure, someone still has to do those unskilled jobs, the problem is our western society has become way too expensive to live on the pay of such jobs unlike in the past. Rent alone has massively outpaced wage growth let alone minimum wage. Oh, and even when you have income finding a place to live can be difficult when for example in Germany landlords ask you to provide a stack of paperwork to prove you're a model tennant, and if something looks remotely fishy, you're out of the race because he has 50 more applicants for the apartment who seem wealthier or more stable. So when people realize they're condemned to a life of neo feudalism with no chance to move up, why should anyone bother to take the shit jobs anymore to support the economy or the society that screwed them? The western leaders needs to address this issue sooner than later instead of keep hitting the "remind me later" button.

trompetenaccoun 2y ago

Like straight out of a Mitchell and Webb sketch. I bet there will be people on this site as well who don't understand why you can't solve poverty by simply giving out cash. Although cash is what humans crave, it's got purchasing power.

mikeodds 2y ago
For anyone looking for the Mitchell and Webb reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_4J4uor3JE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_4J4uor3JE
- Y_Y 2y ago
  https://youtube.com/watch?v=dfwnjO9o8OU https://youtube.com/watch?v=dfwnjO9o8OU Funnily enough the GP comment made me think of this sketch instead (an absolute masterpiece of microeconomic theory). See also the classic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
typicalset 2y ago
This is not an argument, and you have provided no evidence for your claims. There are numerous studies, and indeed meta-analyses of these[1][2] indicating that cash transfers can have a positive outcome for recipients. These interventions are broadly positive, so why oppose them? Whether or not it "solves" poverty is a different question to whether the effect is positive or not. There are a number of extremely different arguments as to why poverty can't be solved by cash transfers e.g. essentialising poverty as a moral failing (I strongly disagree), or a critique of the system which creates poverty in the first place (I broadly agree). I can understand why belief in the first kind would lead to opposition of interventions, but engaging with evidence is important in reaching a conclusion. [1]: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32779/w32779.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32779/w327... [2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01252-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01252-z
- hckevrythng 2y ago

ZeroGravitas 2y ago

> half will get additional help from Greater Change, whose support workers will discuss their financial problems then pay for items such as rent deposits, outstanding debts, work equipment, white goods, furniture or new clothes. They do not make direct transfers to avoid benefits being stopped due to a cash influx. Vital paragraph, due to people not reading past the misleading headline.

Oras 2y ago

Misleading title From the article: > whose support workers will discuss their financial problems then pay for items such as rent deposits, outstanding debts, work equipment, white goods, furniture or new clothes. They do not make direct transfers to avoid benefits being stopped due to a cash influx. So it’s not cash, it’s paying for items.

krisoft 2y ago
Yeah. How did this even pass editing? Is it the article who is misrepresenting what is happening, or the researchers?
- bell-cot 2y ago
  Very few online news sources can be trusted to fact-optimize their headlines these days. Vs. click-, revenue-, or similar metrics. Less-bad sources often put fact-centric subtitles on their articles...but that's not the case here.
  - krisoft 2y ago
    That is a sad truth. But it is not just the title. It is the whole article. It talks about giving cash and researching how giving cash works, and quotes the researcher about giving cash. And in one of middle middle paragraphs they just mention that btw we do not give cash. What is the purpose of the research then?
    - Oras 2y ago
      Facts do not trigger emotions, but fake titles like this one does. Current media works on emotions to drive traffic.
    - bell-cot 2y ago
      Yes, however... Notice the wording of that researcher's quote - they are trying to understand things about cash transfers. He does not say that they're doing cash transfers. And: > The other half will get additional help from Greater Change, whose support workers will discuss their financial problems then pay for items such as rent deposits, outstanding debts, work equipment, white goods, furniture or new clothes. They do not make direct transfers to avoid benefits being stopped due to a cash influx. SO - however deceitful The Guardian is being, I'd credit the researchers with honesty here. They're running an imperfect-but-legal experiment, with the gov't's okay & funding, as a work-around for the gov't own bureaucratic rules on cash income reducing benefits.

fnord77 2y ago

[flagged]

rvense 2y ago
Hi, I downvoted this remark because the only thing it added to the discussion was to display that you've not read anything about the subject (in which case you would known that cash transfers and similar help in many situations do in fact reduce poverty, homelessness, and the negative effects thereof, see the many links elsewhere in this thread.) It can also be read as suggesting that homeless people are like animals and that their homelessness is only of their own making, which is not only wrong but also quite... let's just call it weird.

hckevrythng 2y ago

Having been homeless for a few years now i am intimately familiar with the nuances, missing pieces, and plain incorrect thinking regarding that way of life. Im always amused in a sad way at how far off base these radical attempts to reign in the situation always are. The disconnect is flabbergasting. There appears to be a genuine confusion as to why the situation is this bad, and what can be done about it. Obviously in many cases the major causes are evident such as drug use or mental illness. But beyond these obvious causes one would think we were attempting to understand the inner workings of an alien virus and feverishly working to bring it to heel. Heres the problem: Once a person actually becomes so destitute that they no longer are certain where their next meal is coming from or where they are going to sleep that night their connectedness to society as a whole also becomes broken. The psychological impact of transitioning from the greater whole to a fringe lower caste involves a fracturing of their self and the self worth they had up to that point relied on their entire life. To fall to such depths, where " down" is no longer an option, as when one is literally already at the bottom, is to face the utter condemning fact of failure. Failure to society to parents to perhaps children and to self. The devastation to the psyche in the realization of this marks DAY ONE for such an individual. And it marks us All just so. Returning from the wasteland of loss of self sufficiency and control of ones life cannot begin until the shock has settled in and worn off enough to understand that overcoming the circumstances means beating THAT original denigrating fact. From there one begins the remaking of of ones very identity. Because clearly the original one was insufficient and grossly ill equipped.Yet not all who share the experience share also the wherewithal to achieve success via such mental feats. Indeed a large number were barely glued to the whole before lifes jostling effects shrugged them off in the first place. The cataclysmic event alone wiped out a fortitude they never had and introspective achievements may as well be the philosophy of kant insofar as it is relateable. The savage fall teaches such a one a library of lessons. And they are to be applied moving forward in this new world. Not as cognition for escape. Yes to someone perhaps educated, whos fall was unfortunate circumstance only, this is merely the beginning, step one, if you will, of a comprehensible logical process of extraction. Graspable as a goal. But everyone whos circumstances mirror do not necessarily recover in the same way. Sure " if it were me" you might say. But it isnt, is it? And therefore your self applied mental construct or plan isnt easily so applied to someone NOT YOU. Isnt in fact resolveable as a mere midnight cure at all, the way some things can be when logic or money is applied to them. The misunderstanding all of you( who are not broken this way but who care) continue to struggle with when attempting to understand us, who ARE broken, is simply the abject refusal to consider the complex individual human element inherent in the case by case basis that IS the homeless epidemic. Refusal to put the grimy faces you attempt to hide or ban upon the problem. And in that negligent act you strip the problem of its human identity. Without that identity the characteristics that define human humane resolution are wiped as well. So here we are. Still confused still lost still homeless. All of us. To a degree. Indeed how can anyone call home a place where shadows hide what we refuse to acknowledge, where silence is demanded of those screaming in pain, where the shiny contrived surfaces are called reality and the blood everywhere behind all the closed doors is never cleaned never taken seriously. Someone here is hurt, bleeding, ignored. This is what you call home? How very telling that in the same house we all share, your contribution oftentimes to the survival of its more embarrassing members and their sad issues is to blindly desperately coldly hope and wish we would just disappear.

tetrakhan 2y ago

As others have pointed out, the title is misleading. If they gave money directly out, I have zero doubt it'd end up in heroin dealers hands. I live in east London but still pretty central and I would say almost all the homeless here are junkies, almost without exception. I know this because you see them near big supermarkets begging but I happen to live right next to an estate where I see almost every single one of them coming to pick up. The dealing also just happens more or less in plain site as well. The police and everyone around are well aware of it but nothing gets done to prevent it. Homelessness is a massive issue in the UK and I hope the test outlined in the article gives us some answers as to how to tackle it. However, I'm skeptical that even paying for essentials and housing will work at this point. I think it's almost impossible to detach from the reality that a huge portion, if not the overwhelming majority have also become pretty severe junkies. I'm not saying this as someone totally unsympathetic to the affliction, my best friend also fell down that rabbit hole but addressing the homelessness aspect without addressing the addictions that result from being homeless or lead it feels like a recipe for not solving the problem. I really hope I'm wrong and this works, it's insane that first world countries like the UK have these massive problems with homelessness, there are enough resources around to solve these problems, they just aren't distributed evenly and the support systems of this country have been in a state of ongoing collapse since 2008 and the austerity and chaos that followed

derelicta 2y ago

We know how to address homelessness, its just the oligarchs that rule over us don't want to, for capitalism requires a pool of desperate workers to keep functioning. Besides it acts as a good reminder that if workers try to address the situation themselves, they will be annihilated.

therealdrag0 2y ago
The solution to homelessness is abundant housing. And that’s not caused my oligarchs but nimbies.
- derelicta 2y ago
  Oh absolutely! I totally agree, but nimbies sharing the same interests as oligarchs, they will never command their minions aka politicians to allow this lmao. If it happens, it's just that the capitalist class has found itself new sources of revenue

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]