this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023

293 points (97.1% liked)

World News

39041 readers

3225 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

little_cow@lemmy.world

quinten@lemmy.world

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world

293

New study gave $7,500 to 50 unhoused people (fediscience.org)

submitted 1 year ago by sv1sjp@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"They did not spend more money on alcohol or drugs, contrary to what people believe, and instead they spent the money on rent, food, housing, transit, furniture, a used car, clothes. It's entirely the opposite of what people think they're going to do with the money."

all 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 125 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Unsurprisingly, when people are given enough money to make immediate, material improvements to their life, they do.

If you're homeless and miserable, suffering psychological and/or physical pain, and someone gives you $20, the most immediate relief for that suffering is often escapism into things like drugs and alcohol. In situations of extreme distress, humans tend to favor solutions that immediately, if only temporarily, remove the stress. We see this behavior all across humanity.

So the thing you spend money on in that situation iis typically the thing that will, in your belief, most improve your short - and medium-term condition. Give them $20, they'll get alcohol. Give them $500, warm clothes and other durable QOL improvements. $7500? A car. $50,000? Long-term shelter.

Sadly, this study isn't telling us anything that psychologists and social workers didn't already know :/

[–] Serinus@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But not in 100% of cases and therefore it's not worth trying. /s

It is a difficult problem, because there really are some mentally disturbed people in that population too. You can absolutely tackle the problem slowly and one case at a time lift most people out of that situation. But any solution that treats them as a group will bring along the 10% of them that will literally shit all over everything you've tried to build.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think there's a "welfare queen" mentality to that. There will always be people who will abuse the system or be unable or unwilling to utilize the service properly. That doesn't make it not worth doing. No solution can work universally, as you said. But it must be applied universally.

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Put another way: everyone deserves a chance, even if they fuck it up. But many don't believe that your parents being super poor because of generational trauma, or mental illness, or addiction are significant impediments to success. Bootstrap mentality. Anyone can and should make, and if they don't it's obviously their own fault

[–] Erk@cdda.social 3 points 1 year ago

I mean, it's only a difficult problem if you consider helping ninety people improve their lives at the cost of spending taxpayer money to support ten people's bad habits to be difficult. The real issue here is the number of people (conservative and liberal "centrist" alike) who consider it more important to uphold their personal view of morality than it is to help our fellow humans.

Give them money? But some of them might do the bad thing, so obviously no.

[–] sadreality@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

Ya but daddy and his bitches love dunking on the poors and their lack of personal responsibility.

Idea that *mentally ill junkies" are trying to get shelter, food, meds or transport is too painful to accept.

Vast majority of the country are Grade A bootlickers and without them, we ain't moving forward.

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

It economics and business the same concept is referred to as "barriers to entry".

Basically upfront costs, regulations, or social standards that have to be overcome prior to competing in a market.

For the homeless to re-enter the job market they need: a safe permanent address, appropriate clothing, adequate food, basic furniture (bed, table, etc), internet access & telephone, haircut/styling/grooming, and transportation for several months.

If they do not have these basics they are very unlikely be hired for a job.

$7,500 is enough in most regions to overcome these initial barriers.

If the barrier is drug abuse/mental health issues, giving them $7,500 will not work until those issues are dealt with.

[–] eeltech@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

"The study did not include people who are street-entrenched or who have serious addictions or mental health issues"

Seems kind of disingenuous to leave out people who are addicted to alcohol or drugs. No, that's not most of them, but yes that is some of them.

The study simple ignores them so how can one make conclusions like "contrary to what people believe" and "the opposite of what people think" without actually considering the subject in question

[–] ydieb@lemm.ee 50 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Those need a entirely different type of help.

[–] thisfro@slrpnk.net 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And probably also money

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah but getting them clean and/or the mental healthcare they need should come first.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually, no. Giving them money, a personal shelter, and general baselines support goes a massively long way and sets a proper foundation that then later allows people to get clean and improve their mental health much easier.

So, no, first they need to have their independence and dignity respected, and then the other stuff.

[–] Erk@cdda.social 3 points 1 year ago

Tbf, I work closely with this population and would prefer the money be funneled into public housing that doesn't evict people for using, and things like that, rather than just handed to people who have no framework to use it and possibly unstable executive function. For one thing, the resources tend to go much further. For another, many of my patients are put in danger by sudden cash windfalls.

However I'd still prefer them to get a wad of cash to the current solution, which is "kick them out of anywhere you find them and hope they eventually just vanish"

[–] insaneinthemembrane@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Maybe it's ethics... Giving an addict that much money could cause an overdose or other serious harm.

[–] pjhenry1216@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, a study of how non homeless people spend money would probably be skewed and ignore drug addicts too. Studies ignore outliers that would have an obvious affect on what's being studied.

Are you wondering what a drug addict spends money on?

[–] Jamie@jamie.moe 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's basically rule #1 to not give an addict money, but give them things they can't trade for material value instead.

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Sure, but a properly administered program would identify those with substance abuse problems and send them to (free) healthcare facilities

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 year ago

It would be great if this could be implemented as a one shot. If someone has been homeless for more than 1 year, they get $7.5k as their one time use resurrect. Unfortunately I think employee protection laws would need to be put in place (like most of the rest of the world already has) for this to have any real effect.