The lack of funds is typically a symptom of one or more underlying issues and not the root cause of being poor. How would throwing money at a symptom solve the problem?
That's reductive. Consider this scenario: somebody gets depressed and is out of work for several years. They burn through their savings and trash their credit rating. During this time, deferred maintenance ruins their car and their health. Eventually they realize they're on a short path to death so they start grasping for whatever chance they have. But now they can't work because they lack reliable transportation and have untreated health issues. If they can get enough cash to buy their way out of those problems, they have a relatively straightforward, albeit difficult, path to recovery. If they can't, they're trapped in a death spiral and will very likely sink back into their now terminal depression.
But to buy your way out of these problems will probably cost a lot more than the experiments the article cites. Like 10x more at least. Try it with 20k instead of 2k and I bet the outcomes will be much better.
And of course, for some people that money will hurt more than it helps. It will only help if the recipient is in the right mental space to make a serious go at turning their life around. Otherwise you'll just be enabling their self destruction. I don't have the answers for how such a program could be successfully run.
Wouldn't we all love an extra $20K! In your scenario the cycle will likely repeat no matter how much money is injected into their life, and then what, throw another $20K at them? I've sadly had to watch this happen a few times with family and friends and the truth is they can not be helped until they stop externalizing their problems and take ownership. It's an ugly truth that makes me uncomfortable writing because there's a fair bit of suffering on that path.
> In your scenario the cycle will likely repeat no matter how much money is injected into their life,
That's just your conjecture. Monetary help given at the right time can and often does break the cycle. The easiest way for this to happen is by the troubled person getting help from their family or friends. For instance, they may be lent a car and given a place to stay so they can save money without paying rent. Friends or family are in a good position to judge when somebody is serious and ready change their life for the better, or will just continue the cycle. They can and should withhold help until that person is ready.
For a government program to be as effective is dubious because it lacks that effective feedback mechanism. As I said, I don't pretend to know how such a program could be effectively run. I am only responding to the premise that money (or equivalent, such as lent vehicles) can't actually be the missing link that allows people to put their lives back together. People who have access to such support frequently do success, while those who don't usually won't.
But to buy your way out of these problems will probably cost a lot more than the experiments the article cites. Like 10x more at least. Try it with 20k instead of 2k and I bet the outcomes will be much better.
And of course, for some people that money will hurt more than it helps. It will only help if the recipient is in the right mental space to make a serious go at turning their life around. Otherwise you'll just be enabling their self destruction. I don't have the answers for how such a program could be successfully run.