As someone who is nearing 2,000 days of two stints of homelessness since 2017, I can offer feedback that such an amount would help to alleviate basic survival pressures.<p>But, money will not solve any root cause issues. I've been unhoused and out of work for so long that any recovery back to a normal life has become exceedingly unlikely. I don't drink alcohol, I don't smoke, nor do I do illicit drugs nor prescriptions. My mental state -- stressed in survival mode -- is very much situational, yet there are underlying factors that have led to a state of permanent dysfunction and reluctance to rebuild.<p>In addition to food stamps, I've survived on help from lifelong/long term friends and strangers (incl'g from kind souls on hn, on a few occasions, even). One kind stranger at the local coffee shop even tried gifting me
a new MBP/M2/24GB/1TB a few months ago, but my focus is gone and I was unhoused, still being criminally targeted, so I returned the laptop in like new condition to him a week later. (The side reports regarding systemic/criminal abuse against at-risk folks is a separate but related matter.)<p>These initiatives matter, of course. I'd gladly make use of such money. But, IMO, more important is to focus on root causes <i>at the relevant time</i> -- i.e. in public school settings when unchecked peer abuse occurs, as one example. Such abuse can grow into an irreparable state of dysfunction and life breakdown.<p>hth
(commenting the article, not the title)<p>Here is the interim report of the randomized controlled trial:
<a href="https://dworakpeck.usc.edu/sites/default/files/2023-12/Miracle%20Money_Nov%202023_FINAL_12.5.23.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://dworakpeck.usc.edu/sites/default/files/2023-12/Mirac...</a><p>There is already plenty of evidence of how poverty cripples cognitive capabilities and prevents long-term planning. Getting a leg up and slightly more financial security gives people a longer time horizon to plan forward. Well-off people who try living "in poverty" for short period don't experience the stress like people living in actual poverty and stress and can't understand how bad it is.<p>The first path out of poverty is giving people some money without strings attached.<p>On the psychology of poverty
<a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1232491" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1232491</a><p>Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function
<a href="https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1238041" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1238041</a>
As expected, most folks are reacting directly to the headline. The study protocols are more interesting and informative: <a href="https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-3287846/v1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-3287846/v1</a><p>Basically, the key factor here appears to not only be money, but an assigned “Miracle Friend” who has recurring check-ins with the individual. The grantees of the funding were all individuals who kept up recurring checkins for some period of time (without being disclosed that this would result in receiving any money).
"About 2% of the total went to alcohol, cigarettes and drug expenses — the largest portion of which was cigarettes"<p>I'm pretty sure that the average American spends more than 2% of their income on drugs.
The top federal income tax rate was 91 percent in 1950 and 1951, and between 1954 and 1959. In 1952 and 1953, the top federal income tax rate was 92 percent. (USA)<p>We need to go back to this. Wealth inequality is damaging society far more than ever. From Onlyfans to Bitcoins Scams, social media platforms has only exacerbated the issue. Will the pendulum swing back to morality and just cause away from lawlessness and perversion? Is there a singular root cause for this behavior? Gen Z maybe the last hope.
The headline as written should surprise no-one. Anyone receiving free money would probably have their life improved along some dimension, even if it just means they're not doing as many dangerous things to get money to buy more drugs. The implicit assumption seems to be that giving homeless people money to improve their lives is inherently a moral good.<p>Unlike many homeless advocates, I don't think it is a given that taking money by force from productive hardworking people and giving it to mentally ill drug addicts is inherently moral or good for long term societal stability.
The question is more if your fellow humans appreciates you enough to help you.<p>On the other side even the egoistic view would give homeless people money just to have them of streets.
Why ask those people how they ended up this way, and help strategically based on each person's individual needs, while allowing them to feel useful by contributing back to society, when we can just throw money at them. It's easier to throw money at them. I'm sure this will work great, and not become another outlet for corruption.
Of course it did. The question or debate is not if unconditional money helps, but if it's better than alternatives which may be cheaper, such as food credits. Even middle class people would benefit, like $750 to buy groceries. Inflation obviously will erode some of this new purchasing power.
I am happy for Las Angeles to perform a widespread trial of this kind of initiative. Attract people to Southern California that might be homeless elsewhere, help them get on their feet via $750/person/month, then they will get off the subsidy and contribute back to the community!<p>If it works I will encourage a similar system in my hometown. If it does not work then I'm glad we did a trial run first.<p>Note: I'm paywalled from reading the article, how many people did they give the money to and how long was it?