If 100 homeless people were given $750 per month for a year, no questions asked, what would they spend it on?

That question was at the core of a controlled study conducted by a San Francisco-based nonprofit and the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work.

The results were so promising that the researchers decided to publish results after only six months. The answer: food, 36.6%; housing, 19.5%; transportation, 12.7%; clothing, 11.5%; and healthcare, 6.2%, leaving only 13.6% uncategorized.

Those who got the stipend were less likely to be unsheltered after six months and able to meet more of their basic needs than a control group that got no money, and half as likely as the control group to have an episode of being unsheltered.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20231221131158/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-12-19/750-a-month-no-questions-asked-improved-the-lives-of-homeless-people

  • SCB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    We’re honestly not at a point where UBI is sustainable. However, this clearly demonstrates that replacing existing welfare with straight up cash, and changing how that cash scales down as people approach a “normal minimum” income, is vastly superior to our current system

    • Melllvar@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      this clearly demonstrates that replacing existing welfare with straight up cash, and changing how that cash scales down as people approach a “normal minimum” income, is vastly superior to our current system

      These experiments aren’t even trying to demonstrate that. And they don’t.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Except they do, because they show the value of fungible, no-questions-asked support

        • Melllvar@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          It’s not “BI” that needs to be demonstrated. It’s “U”.

          Plus, these experiments do in fact ask questions about recipients’ income. Just like regular welfare programs.

                • Melllvar@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Obviously because of your “reread the thread” comment.

                  That’s not the response of someone who wants a meaningful discussion. That’s the response of someone who wants to end the discussion.

                  • SCB@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    It’s the response of a person who thinks you’re having a conversation with someone else that you think you’re having with me, based on the not-quite-on-topic nature of your posting.

                    For instance, my first sentence in this entire comment section is

                    We’re honestly not at a point where UBI is sustainable.