What happens when you give 50 homeless people $7,500 each?

[ExFlyer]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/happens-50-homeless-people-7-080000736.html

"Instead of blowing the windfall on "temptation goods", such as alcohol, drugs or cigarettes, they spent it on rent, clothing and food, the study led by University of British Columbia researcher Jiaying Zhao found."

But then goes on to say

"found recipients spent 99 fewer days homeless, and spent 55 more days in stable housing. They also retained $1,160 more savings." meanign that they spent all the money and spent 2 less days each in a shelter.

"the study did not include people with severe substance or alcohol use or mental health symptoms."

What a useless study and waste of money.

 

[Moonlight Graham]

BAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAA!!! 🤣🤣

Giving homeless people money, like welfare, is often not useful.  They will spend it on their addiction, which is why many are homeless in the first place.  You don't have rent money if you compulsively spend on your addiction.  So you have to provide social housing for them.  They are literally dependents of the state.

[herbie]

Oh FFS you didn't even read it and you're so judgmental you can't differentiate homeless from drug addicts.

Nice knee-jerk response.

[impartialobserver]

Most homeless are not there due to simple bad luck. Mental illness and its close cousin drug addiction are often why you become homeless or stay homeless. Having been homeless and lived on the streets for 8 weeks once.. I have firsthand knowledge where no one else on this forum does. My situation was simple poor planning and bad luck. My rough estimate is that 90% of those I encountered in SLC in 1999 where there due to drug addiction and/or mental illness. Had someone given me $7500... I would have fixed my junker 1977 VW rabbit and left town. Once back home in Boise.. I would get an apartment and load up on food, tools, etc. However, I was not on the streets due to spending all of my money on drugs or alcohol. For the majority of the 8 weeks, I was as sober as can be. 

[ExFlyer]

39 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Most homeless are not there due to simple bad luck. Mental illness and its close cousin drug addiction are often why you become homeless or stay homeless. Having been homeless and lived on the streets for 8 weeks once.. I have firsthand knowledge where no one else on this forum does. My situation was simple poor planning and bad luck. My rough estimate is that 90% of those I encountered in SLC in 1999 where there due to drug addiction and/or mental illness. Had someone given me $7500... I would have fixed my junker 1977 VW rabbit and left town. Once back home in Boise.. I would get an apartment and load up on food, tools, etc. However, I was not on the streets due to spending all of my money on drugs or alcohol. For the majority of the 8 weeks, I was as sober as can be. 

As the article said, they did not use Vancouver folks for the study because "because researchers were seeking a "representative voice" in North America, and Zhao said "people in Vancouver are more progressive than an average person in North America.""

Moer progressive?? What does that mean other than free shoot up zones and free drugs??

[impartialobserver]

23 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

As the article said, they did not use Vancouver folks for the study because "because researchers were seeking a "representative voice" in North America, and Zhao said "people in Vancouver are more progressive than an average person in North America.""

Moer progressive?? What does that mean other than free shoot up zones and free drugs??

There is a difference between Seattle (more progressive) and Cheyenne, Wyoming (less progressive). There are going to be more programs/resources available for someone in Seattle than Reno or Cheyenne. That changes how someone would use the money or even want it. 

[BeaverFever]

A pot of misconceptions on this thread fuelling the predictable sentiments. The problem with the criticism on this thread is that the posters assume that all homelessness people are drug addicted or mentally ill, which is mot the case at all.  
 

There is an entire class of homeless people and homeless families who are not addicted or mentally ill, many of whom even work, but have no stable housing so they sleep in their car, couch surf with friends and relatives, get a hotel or rooming house when they can and stay in shelters when they have mo other options. This study is about THOSE people and there are a lot more of them out there than you think   Open your minds guys. 

37 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

As the article said, they did not use Vancouver folks for the study because "because researchers were seeking a "representative voice" in North America, and Zhao said "people in Vancouver are more progressive than an average person in North America.""

Moer progressive?? What does that mean other than free shoot up zones and free drugs??

I think you totally misunderstood that section. Part of the experiment was to see how the general public would expect the homeless people to spend their money so they SURVEYED THE PUBLIC to ask them for their predictions. And the people surveyed underestimated the character of these homeless people. 

[ExFlyer]

29 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

A pot of misconceptions on this thread fuelling the predictable sentiments. The problem with the criticism on this thread is that the posters assume that all homelessness people are drug addicted or mentally ill, which is mot the case at all.  
 

There is an entire class of homeless people and homeless families who are not addicted or mentally ill, many of whom even work, but have no stable housing so they sleep in their car, couch surf with friends and relatives, get a hotel or rooming house when they can and stay in shelters when they have mo other options. This study is about THOSE people and there are a lot more of them out there than you think   Open your minds guys. 

I think you totally misunderstood that section. Part of the experiment was to see how the general public would expect the homeless people to spend their money so they SURVEYED THE PUBLIC to ask them for their predictions. And the people surveyed underestimated the character of these homeless people. 

You are incorrect, no one assumes that at all because the article makes it clear it is not the case.

One poster even stated his reasons for homelessness.

There was no misunderstanding and the article was quite clear.

They did not say, in the survey that it was not downtown Vancouvers homeless.

I think you are reading more into the article than is really there. You sound like you are making for excuses for something. It said "recipients spent 99 fewer days homeless, and spent 55 more days in stable housing. ". There were only 50 people from outside the big city and they spent 99 fewer days in shelters... that is 2 days less for the 50 people. 55 days in stable housing...that is only one night for the 50 people..

51 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

There is a difference between Seattle (more progressive) and Cheyenne, Wyoming (less progressive). There are going to be more programs/resources available for someone in Seattle than Reno or Cheyenne. That changes how someone would use the money or even want it. 

So, what does "progressive mean when it comes to homelessness? Regardless of where it is?

Does progressive mean getting things free??

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

You are incorrect, no one assumes that at all because the article makes it clear it is not the case.

One poster even stated his reasons for homelessness.

There was no misunderstanding and the article was quite clear.

They did not say, in the survey that it was not downtown Vancouvers homeless.

I think you are reading more into the article than is really there. You sound like you are making for excuses for something. It said "recipients spent 99 fewer days homeless, and spent 55 more days in stable housing. ". There were only 50 people from outside the big city and they spent 99 fewer days in shelters... that is 2 days less for the 50 people. 55 days in stable housing...that is only one night for the 50 people..

So, what does "progressive mean when it comes to homelessness? Regardless of where it is?

Does progressive mean getting things free??

Maybe not for free but access to more programs, resources, etc. A more progressive city is going to have a larger amount of time, energy, and resources dedicated to this problem. The reason that you see more homeless in Seattle than in Bottineau, ND has nothing to do with being morally superior. 

[ExFlyer]

22 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Maybe not for free but access to more programs, resources, etc. A more progressive city is going to have a larger amount of time, energy, and resources dedicated to this problem. The reason that you see more homeless in Seattle than in Bottineau, ND has nothing to do with being morally superior. 

Free and availability is the key. Bigger cities have more of both.

The reason you see more homeless in Seattle than in Bottineau ND or Hope BC is because there is more stuff.

Never said anything about morally superior, that is your claim.

[impartialobserver]

14 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Free and availability is the key. Bigger cities have more of both.

The reason you see more homeless in Seattle than in Bottineau ND or Hope BC is because there is more stuff.

Never said anything about morally superior, that is your claim.

The reason is that in most small towns, the only jobs are tied to ranching/farming, retail, and small time restaurants. None of which do you make very high wages. therefore, that leaves everybody in the same socio-economic plane. In a place like Seattle.. there is more population, more stuff, and a greater discrepancy being the highest earners and lowest than what you would find in a place like Bottineau, ND or Gabbs, NV

[ExFlyer]

1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

The reason is that in most small towns, the only jobs are tied to ranching/farming, retail, and small time restaurants. None of which do you make very high wages. therefore, that leaves everybody in the same socio-economic plane. In a place like Seattle.. there is more population, more stuff, and a greater discrepancy being the highest earners and lowest than what you would find in a place like Bottineau, ND or Gabbs, NV

Yes, and cost of living is lower.

Not denying big cities have more stuff, that is what I am saying.

The study was the one that did not use people from the cities.

[Moonlight Graham]

6 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Maybe not for free but access to more programs, resources, etc. A more progressive city is going to have a larger amount of time, energy, and resources dedicated to this problem. The reason that you see more homeless in Seattle than in Bottineau, ND has nothing to do with being morally superior. 

Homeless people head to the west coast for the programs, lax laws/attitudes, and the better weather.  Most homeless don't want to spend the winter in North Dakota.

I saw a homeless person in a neighbouring suburb in my city for the first time in my entire life.  It was just a typical middle class suburb, it was shocking.

[August1991]

3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Homeless people head to the west coast for the programs, lax laws/attitudes, and the better weather.  Most homeless don't want to spend the winter in North Dakota.

.....

Disagree. There are many homeless people in Montreal.

[ExFlyer]

8 hours ago, August1991 said:

Disagree. There are many homeless people in Montreal.

I think Montreal, a big city with lost of stuff for the homeless is a long way from North Dakota LOL

Not a very well thought out comparison

[Perspektiv]

On 9/1/2023 at 1:08 PM, ExFlyer said:

"the study did not include people with severe substance or alcohol use or mental health symptoms."

Making the study unrealistic, considering a staggering amount of those who are homeless, struggle with mental health issues, and or substance abuse issues.

They are homeless likely for a reason.

Very few come from money, so would be completely clueless as to how to manage it.

Same reason the majority of lotto winners, wind up bankrupt within 5 years.

[myata]

The budget is a bottomless well of nobody's cash that just fills by itself (and we don't need any physical constraints here, why?), so what's the problem? Let's study the problems of addiction etc in the future settlements on Mars!

Edited September 2 by myata

[Moonbox]

On 9/1/2023 at 1:08 PM, ExFlyer said:

"found recipients spent 99 fewer days homeless, and spent 55 more days in stable housing. They also retained $1,160 more savings." meanign that they spent all the money and spent 2 less days each in a shelter.

I don't think that's what it meant.  

I read that each of them spent an average of 99 fewer days homeless.  If $7500 only provided a net benefit of 2 extra days each in stable shelter, there's no way that article would have been ever written.  

[ExFlyer]

20 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I don't think that's what it meant.  

I read that each of them spent an average of 99 fewer days homeless.  If $7500 only provided a net benefit of 2 extra days each in stable shelter, there's no way that article would have been ever written.  

The study was over a period of a year. That is 365 days. "99 fewer days homeless, and spent 55 more days in stable housing." means what??

I think the study proved nothing except 50 people got $7500 to spend and they had a good time doing it but, where are they now....still homeless? How did the 65 people in the control group fare??? Nothing said.

 My point is that it was a stupid study with nothing but more questions in the end.

Edited September 3 by ExFlyer

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

The study was over a period of a year. That is 365 days. "99 fewer days homeless, and spent 55 more days in stable housing." means what??

I think the study proved nothing except 50 people got $7500 to spend and they had a good time doing it but, where are they now....still homeless? How did the 65 people in the control group fare??? Nothing said.

 My point is that it was a stupid study with nothing but more questions in the end.

The study proved that the people who took the money used most of it to feed, house and clothe themselves, rather than at the liquor store and on meth.  The point of the study was to challenge the perception that all homeless people can't be trusted with money.   

[ExFlyer]

15 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

The study proved that the people who took the money used most of it to feed, house and clothe themselves, rather than at the liquor store and on meth.  The point of the study was to challenge the perception that all homeless people can't be trusted with money.   

The study never concluded that at all.

While it may have challenged, it proved nothing.

50 people 99 less days in shelters over a year proves nothing.  Plus, they got the $7500 on top of any other assistance they already get. ($10K+)

Here is the study https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2222103120

 

Edited September 3 by ExFlyer

[myata]

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

The point of the study was to challenge the perception that all homeless people can't be trusted with money.

Except "all" was hardly a perception, neither selection in the study is representative nor the interval has much meaning. What fraction of homeless population would be able to reach stable independence as a result of one-time assistance? No answer. How to identify individuals who will be more likely to achieve it? No. So throw a load of taxpayer dough at a meaningless question to produce a result of highly dubious significance. Great job.

Give free money and some people will make use of it and others waste it. Is there really a great puzzle here?

[Moonbox]

26 minutes ago, myata said:

Except "all" was hardly a perception, neither selection in the study is representative nor the interval has much meaning. What fraction of homeless population would be able to reach stable independence as a result of one-time assistance? No answer. How to identify individuals who will be more likely to achieve it? No. So throw a load of taxpayer dough at a meaningless question to produce a result of highly dubious significance. Great job.

Give free money and some people will make use of it and others waste it. Is there really a great puzzle here?

You can’t answer all of those questions in the scope of one study.  This one was small, but it gave policymakers and academics something to think about.  
 

The current approach isn’t exactly working, is it? 

[myata]

These are two different questions. There's nothing new to let's throw free dough and see what happens approach either. If some private sponsor wanted to try it, good luck but to waste taxpayer funds on this kind of research is irresponsible.

What could work? Clearly the problem is complex and any solutions need to be intelligent and differentiated. This is probably not possible in the current environment, too complex for the existing bureaucracy to implement and maintain effectively and efficiently.

[I am Groot]

You guys should realize by now that when some 'study' seems to contradict what you know of human nature it's probably nonsense. And this study was nonsense. Fake science. The people who did it screened out almost everyone who was homeless, including drug addicts and alcoholics, as well as the mentally ill and long term homeless. Of those they chose half disappeared without a trace. Of those they kept track of half refused to fill  out any of the follup survey questions.

It's junk science.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-ubc-covers-for-bad-science-in-homeless-cash-transfer-study