[CodeyWhizzBang]

According to the article:

"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."

So, it seems like it helped get most people back on their feet and into a place where they can live independently without financial support.

[pests]

I had a bout or two of homelessness when I was younger.

A $750 windfall (or equiv at the time period) would have definitely been a huge help at getting past those initial hurdles.

Like with the old adage of the $20 boots that last a year vs the $150 boots that last a life time, yet you have a person with only $30 of disposable income at any one time. Poor guy's spent $600 on boots.

[ejb999]

yea, no doubt if you are down on your luck someone handing you $750/month would improve your circumstances in the short run - but it sounds like perhaps you made changes in your life, such that you are no longer homeless - great - but would you, or anyone else not feeling the desperation of being hungry or unsheltered be more, or less, likely to try and improve your circumstances if you were getting a cash handout every month so the adverse affects weren't so bad?

Its a serious question - isn't there some benefit to society when people feel the pain of bad circumstances or decisions and then feel motivated to do something about it?

I am of the opinion that it does.

[advael]

Up to and including homelessness? Objectively no. Homelessness significantly prevents both productive economic activity and maintaining other basic necessities, or even seeking help from others. Weighed against what appears to be a purely philosophically-derived assumption that negative reward signals are not only necessary to motivate useful action but have no diminishing returns, I think the proposition that a home makes a lot of the activities one needs to do to "get ahead" in life more physically feasible has a lot more evidence in its favor

[pests]

> a home makes a lot of the activities one needs to do to "get ahead" in life more physically feasible

100%

Basic hygiene, a place to store your belongings and clothes, an area to prepare yourself and look good for the day. A location to use a computer or do paperwork or other managerial tasks. The ability to store food and participate in bulk purchases for savings. A place to rest and relax and consume media or enjoy a hobby. A solid place to sleep, every night, in your perferred area and with your perferred pillows and bedding. A place to store a vehicle. A place to bring friends and family and entertain. Cooking the food you want and eating at the schedule that works best for you. A place to organize your external life and showcase your own personality. A familiar place to develop habits and routine.

I don't see how there is any question. People who are homeless not only lack all of these and more, but some suffer additional stress, anxiety, and embarassment about acquiring these basic things every day.

[ejb999]

did it actually get them back on their feet? i.e. to the point where they no longer needed the free money? or did it improve their lives by being able to purchase/consume $750 more of goods and services?

Almost anyones life would be improved by a free $750/month, wether or not it makes any lasting change versus simply making them dependent on another government program is the real question.

[amanaplanacanal]

I would think getting them off the street and into shelter is a win either way.

[ejb999]

not if it leads to even more people living on the streets or in shelters - the media was ripe with stories that if we just stopped criminalizing drug use, it would lead to more people seeking help and overdoses would go down - it had the opposite affect - more overdoses, more drug users etc.

I think it would work the same way here.