this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
254 points (96.4% liked)

World News

38569 readers
1790 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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

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

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"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."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 126 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 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? A house.

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

[–] Serinus@lemmy.ml 26 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 5 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Erk@cdda.social 2 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 18 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 10 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.

[–] toomanyjoints69@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago

I wish social workers knew that. Social workers i know just make fun of homeless people and call them slurs.