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.
Giving people money improves their quality of life?
Who would have guessed?
Of course, but it’s not a very good experiment for a mass rollout. On a mass scale I hypothsize it will diminish motivation to find a job, thereby reducing the number of taxpayers, and that leads to the big question: who are you taking this money away from? 9 times out of 10 it’s middle class folks. 1%ers and corporations can afford to spend the money to get every single tax break, so middle class without those resources will end up paying most of the bill.
I’m glad you came up with a hypothesis, fortunately scientists have already tested your hypothesis (or something very analogous) and failed to prove it, in fact they have indicated the opposite effect.
I hope that in the name of scientific knowledge and progress you take this research into account and change your view based on the available information.
Can you link some of the research you mention? Interested in giving it a read.
I’m on the toilet right now but there’s a few links already in the replies to the op, you can check out those.
Luckily every study at every scale on UBIs has not found any loss in motivation. What it actually has shown is people use the financial breathing room to train up and get better jobs, thereby societally paying back more than they put in, in the long term. The kind of society that can implement UBI can also tax the rich intelligently and fairly.
It’s been calculated multiple times that UBI would have a similar cost to existing welfare programs due to the significantly reduced overhead. Thus whoever pays for UBI are the same ones currently paying for existing welfare.
It might sound backwards but for a lot of people, myself included, not having a job will actually diminish motivation.
The frustration of applying for jobs and going for interviews with no response for months on end only adds to the stress of not having any money which adds up to a “what’s the fucking point?” train of thought, which hasn’t resulted in homelessness for me, but I could see how it would for other people.
Or we can just implement a wealth tax like any reasonable nation. You make more than 10 million a year? We’ll take 10% of that, thanks. 100 million a year? 20%. A billion a year? 40% of that.
But but but that’s only money on paper they don’t actually see that income 🥺
My car doesn’t generate income either but that doesn’t stop the government from taxing it every single year.
Or we can just implement a wealth tax like any reasonable nation.
Yeah, the problem here is the implementation: you and I and most people here would benefit a little from a higher tax on billionaires, enough to motivate us to send a letter to our Congressional representatives and send a few bucks to whichever campaigning politicians promise to do it.
Billionaires, in the meantime, stand to lose millions, or even tens of millions of dollars. Enough that it makes sense for them to start PACs, schmooze, and even bribe the Congressional representatives who’d be in charge of raising taxes. So even though there are hundreds of them and millions of us, they have greater means and motivation.
Fun fact, the economic disparity between the upper and lower classes in America is worse than when the French started cutting people’s heads off. I can’t legally say we should follow their lead, but it makes you think, you know?
But why? Why punish people just because they are more successful than other people? The government doesn’t need to steal from successful people to give to those that aren’t.
The government doesn’t need to steal from successful people to give to those that aren’t.
It’s called taxes, not stealing, and yes they do. It’s quite literally one of the functions of a government.
I’m sure there isn’t a single millionaire that made it on their own. They had other people making that money for them.
You have problems taxing the rich but not the poor? 👢👅
There is massive, long term UBI study happening ongoing in Kenya, and the results are extremely positive.
About 200 Kenyan villages were assigned to one of three groups and started receiving payment in 2018.
A monthly universal basic income (UBI) empowered recipients and did not create idleness. They invested, became more entrepreneurial, and earned more. The common concern of “laziness” never materialized, as recipients did not work less nor drink more.
Both a large lump sum and a long-term UBI proved highly effective. The lump sum enabled big investments and the guarantee of 12 years of UBI encouraged savings and risk-taking.
Early findings from the world’s largest UBI study, Dec 6, 2023 by GiveDirectly
Your hypothesis is an intuitive and common fear, and so has been studied before and found insubstantial, with Canada’s “Mincome” experiment being one of the most notable: in the 70s Canada targeted members of a town with a minimum income for five years, and saw results like people opening businesses with loans they could get now that they could cite the income. Where they saw people leaving jobs, it was often for education - their high school enrollment hit 100% for the senior year for the first time ever, due to the kids not needing to help bring in money. It was ended during a fiscal crisis when the government was looking for places to tighten belts. This BBC article is a good read on it, focused on the positive health impact.
It would push people to find better jobs; advocate for better working conditions, and actually have money to spend.
Sure, you can go work at a grocery store part-time while making your $750 for some extra cash. Most of that $750 is gonna go into grocery costs anyway, might as well make some extra money.
This experiment is not on basic universal income specifically, but UBI is about giving unconditional income to anyone to keep you afloat with day to day expenses. It’s not about giving you income so you could spend it on a holiday cruise. You are still expected to work if you want to have your dream holiday.
From who whose money will fund UBI? From taxing robots. Edit: I will add that this is once robots are sufficiently more capable than humans for work to displace our labour.
I pay enough taxes to support 125 $750 users like this and would gladly pay it, too. 125 people that are better off would have a significant positive impact to a community, and I’m all for it.
Also money that they spend, somewhere at some point would likely be taxed.
Your logic is flawed.
Rogan, is that you?
On 750 a month I could live in the forest somewhere and do occasional supply runs to replenish my tree fort. Or do a shit ton of drugs but either way I’d be pretty happy.
Tbh as long as you weren’t hurting anyone, putting others in danger and were happy I personally wouldn’t give a toss what you did with your money even if that came from taxes I paid. Better this then the current homeless situation.
Grow shrooms; do both.
How did they collect data on what these homeless people were spending the money on? Sounds like some questions were asked after all…
They asked the questions afterwards…
Exactly, they gave it to them and said “do whatever you want with it” then just checked what they did later.
Receipts probably
Couldn’t they have just given them a card and just checked the bank statements later.
Yeah, I bet that “uncategorized” is just the amount of cash they took out, some of which might have gone to drugs, some of which might have gone to other random cash shit.
And that’s ok. Sounds like they spend it on the same things people with jobs/income do.
Yeah, nothing wrong with enjoying some substances and hopefully the money enables them to not have to rely on dealers who take advantage of people who can’t afford to ask questions or be picky about what they put into their body.
All these UBI experiments ever seem to demonstrate is the “BI” part.
But the part that needs to be demonstrated, IMHO, is the “U”.
This was my initial reaction also, but taking a closer look the article doesn’t say anything about UBI. This is not a UBI experiment.
A fair point. But it looks, swims, and quacks like a UBI experiment.
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
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.
Except they do, because they show the value of fungible, no-questions-asked support
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.
I think you should reread this thread.
I think you’re neither serious nor sincere about making UBI work.
Interesting take- Why?
$750 a month would be life altering for me.
In my country that’s a very solid salary.
But it’s important to remain in context of the US and the starting point is around 0$, so having only 750$ still makes you very poor.
I wish we have UBI.
ubi is unfortunately not really feasible from an economical standpoint, unless the amount is really low; then it can probably be funded by taxes, even within the current system…
but tbh I don’t think it’s worth it…
i think focus should be put on making work/the job market more fair and inclusive to everyone instead.In the future, it could be implemented by taxing robots. But even then, there is no guarantee that a future with UBI is as rosy as it is made to be.
Seeing as California has one of the worst homelessness problems in the U.S., it seems like a great testing ground for this policy. Maybe if they pass this into law and it helps them reduce their homelessness population, it could potentially be adopted elsewhere.
That being said, California is no stranger to permissive laws with respect to the homeless, and that’s part of the reason their homeless population is so high, so…I’m skeptical, but willing to be proven wrong.
Another factor is that you’re a lot less likely to freeze to death living on the street in California than in a lot of states.
If you are homeless, hopping a freight train south can be a simple survival tactic
I love the idea of this experiment and my hope is that it leads to some real programs that ultimately lead to UBI, however I hate the article… specifically the headline: “No Questions Asked”… then they go and start asking questions about how the money was spent. How about ‘$750 a month, no strings attached’, or ‘$750 a month to spend how they want’?
Words have meaning and this should be important to people such as journalists who make a living through using words.
$750 a month would improve the lives of plenty of people who aren’t homeless too. Up to and including the middle class.
But I suppose a UBI is a non-starter everywhere in the U.S. but Alaska.
That would basically cover my student loan payments, so it would be equivalent to loan forgiveness for me. Improve is an understatement, that would actually allow me to save money. Right now my wife and I make slightly above area median income and we’re just treading water financially. This would be a game changer. We could actually consider having a kid.
For what it’s worth 750 a month is probably less than what a kid costs. Depends on where you live but that seems decidedly low price for a kid
It’s more than that per month just for childcare, assuming they are anticipating they will continue to work. It’s significantly more than that in food, Healthcare etc per month. If all you need is $750/month to have a child, than you can already have a child.
But the reality is, their lifestyle will eat that $750, and they’ll continue thinking they can’t afford to have a child. And, frankly, they probably can’t. Children are for the poor and the upper-middle class and above. It’s weird, but it’s true.
