303
submitted 1 year ago by sv1sjp@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

"They did not spend more money on alcohol or drugs, contrary to what people believe, and instead they spent the money on rent, food, housing, transit, furniture, a used car, clothes. It's entirely the opposite of what people think they're going to do with the money."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] eeltech@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"The study did not include people who are street-entrenched or who have serious addictions or mental health issues"

Seems kind of disingenuous to leave out people who are addicted to alcohol or drugs. No, that's not most of them, but yes that is some of them.

The study simple ignores them so how can one make conclusions like "contrary to what people believe" and "the opposite of what people think" without actually considering the subject in question

[-] ydieb@lemm.ee 53 points 1 year ago

Those need a entirely different type of help.

[-] thisfro@slrpnk.net 13 points 1 year ago
[-] keeb420@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah but getting them clean and/or the mental healthcare they need should come first.

[-] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago

Actually, no. Giving them money, a personal shelter, and general baselines support goes a massively long way and sets a proper foundation that then later allows people to get clean and improve their mental health much easier.

So, no, first they need to have their independence and dignity respected, and then the other stuff.

[-] Erk@cdda.social 4 points 1 year ago

Tbf, I work closely with this population and would prefer the money be funneled into public housing that doesn't evict people for using, and things like that, rather than just handed to people who have no framework to use it and possibly unstable executive function. For one thing, the resources tend to go much further. For another, many of my patients are put in danger by sudden cash windfalls.

However I'd still prefer them to get a wad of cash to the current solution, which is "kick them out of anywhere you find them and hope they eventually just vanish"

[-] toomanyjoints69@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Go out and talk to a homeless person and ask him what he thinks of rehab or the local homeless shelter. Actually talking to people will influence your opinion to be less condescending.

[-] neatchee@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Because the argument they are trying to refute is "in general, if you give homeless people free money, they won't use it on the things they should be using it on, they'll just be lazy because they're obviously bad with money."

They are NOT trying to refute the (pointless) argument that "there are some homeless people who would waste free money on things like drugs and alcohol".

They are refuting the general argument against UBI, not the specific argument against individual people

[-] insaneinthemembrane@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Maybe it's ethics... Giving an addict that much money could cause an overdose or other serious harm.

[-] pjhenry1216@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

I mean, a study of how non homeless people spend money would probably be skewed and ignore drug addicts too. Studies ignore outliers that would have an obvious affect on what's being studied.

Are you wondering what a drug addict spends money on?

[-] Jamie@jamie.moe 3 points 1 year ago

It's basically rule #1 to not give an addict money, but give them things they can't trade for material value instead.

[-] neatchee@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Sure, but a properly administered program would identify those with substance abuse problems and send them to (free) healthcare facilities

this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
303 points (97.2% liked)

World News

39026 readers
1275 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS