Old article updated with peer review today.
Please be hookers…
“Counter to really harmful stereotypes, we saw that people made wise financial choices,” Claire Williams, the CEO of Foundations for Social Change, told me.
Well look at that.
It’s nice to have a study to shove in someone’s face when they talk about homeless people as if they were all absolute addicts.
I wish facts > propaganda.
There’s no shortage of those and they’ve never made a difference in these arguments. These people are just ugly and believe they are better than someone else and there’s nothing you can do about it.
If you give someone $20, chances are that, yeah, they will spend it on some quick and cheap comfort to improve their lives in the short term (fast food, alcohol, drugs, etc.). But if you give someone a sizeable sum that will actually help them plan for a better future, the vast majority of people will do just that.
But that really goes against the whole “poverty is the result of a moral failing” concept that capitalist throught had been hammering into our heads for decades, so we certainly can’t be promoting that fact.
Hm. Let’s take the money from the people who put them in that situation and redistribute it to those who need it.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The newly published, peer reviewed PNAS study, conducted by the charity Foundations for Social Change in partnership with the University of British Columbia, was fairly simple.
They found that pointing out how cash transfers actually produce net savings for society, as well as showing how homeless people spend the money, are both effective ways to counter stereotypes among the public.
The general idea behind basic income — that the government should give every citizen a monthly infusion of free money with no strings attached — has gained momentum in the past few years, with several countries running pilot programs to test it.
The study only enrolled participants who’d been homeless for under two years, with the idea that early intervention most effectively reduces the risk of people incurring trauma as a result of living without a home.
In fact, Canadian lawmakers are currently considering a bill that would create a national framework for a guaranteed income to cover basic living expenses for people over age 17.
Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.
The original article contains 1,582 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 87%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
@TokenBoomer
@hoshikarakitaridia
unfortunately the study was rigged, if you read it you see the research people made being accepted for the money for selected people. This included no drugs, only within 2 years, 200 people only, not part with street culture of that area, etc. This is not good research, this is falsely research.That’s not been rigged. It’s called to have a method. You need that for a study. You can disagree with their method, but doesn’t mean it is “rigged”.
I don’t know what you’ve been smoking but no.
Did you catch the part in the article where the amount of money handed out in total was gained back (with dividends) in the difference between state aid required for the people being homeless versus housed? Of course you didn’t, because you have a narrative in mind already.
Government Aid almost always comes with stipulations, that’s not new, and it’s not to be frowned upon. If my taxpayer money is going to help people I would like to ensure there’s some guardrails in place as well. Desperate people will do anything for money and we need reasonable assurances that person chosen to participate in such programs, are ready to commit to changing life for the better.
you didn’t read the real study, they were looking for people in shelters not people who are outside the streets. Your claim is false, as the government does need to intervene as the study is from Canada. Your american money was never spent in the first place.
Don’t trust newspapers that hide facts.
why does the source of the less than fortunate person matter? The fact is, shelters have rules, and a program like this is definitely better off having culled the selection pool down to persons who have already demonstrated willingness to follow basic rules in atn attempt to reintegrate.
I think you depend on newspapers too much for facts.
