> half will get additional help from Greater Change, whose support workers will discuss their financial problems then pay for items such as rent deposits, outstanding debts, work equipment, white goods, furniture or new clothes. They do not make direct transfers to avoid benefits being stopped due to a cash influx.
Vital paragraph, due to people not reading past the misleading headline.
> whose support workers will discuss their financial problems then pay for items such as rent deposits, outstanding debts, work equipment, white goods, furniture or new clothes. They do not make direct transfers to avoid benefits being stopped due to a cash influx.
As others have pointed out, the title is misleading. If they gave money directly out, I have zero doubt it'd end up in heroin dealers hands. I live in east London but still pretty central and I would say almost all the homeless here are junkies, almost without exception. I know this because you see them near big supermarkets begging but I happen to live right next to an estate where I see almost every single one of them coming to pick up. The dealing also just happens more or less in plain site as well. The police and everyone around are well aware of it but nothing gets done to prevent it.
Homelessness is a massive issue in the UK and I hope the test outlined in the article gives us some answers as to how to tackle it. However, I'm skeptical that even paying for essentials and housing will work at this point. I think it's almost impossible to detach from the reality that a huge portion, if not the overwhelming majority have also become pretty severe junkies. I'm not saying this as someone totally unsympathetic to the affliction, my best friend also fell down that rabbit hole but addressing the homelessness aspect without addressing the addictions that result from being homeless or lead it feels like a recipe for not solving the problem.
I really hope I'm wrong and this works, it's insane that first world countries like the UK have these massive problems with homelessness, there are enough resources around to solve these problems, they just aren't distributed evenly and the support systems of this country have been in a state of ongoing collapse since 2008 and the austerity and chaos that followed
I bet there will be people on this site as well who don't understand why you can't solve poverty by simply giving out cash. Although cash is what humans crave, it's got purchasing power.
This is not an argument, and you have provided no evidence for your claims.
There are numerous studies, and indeed meta-analyses of these[1][2] indicating that cash transfers can have a positive outcome for recipients. These interventions are broadly positive, so why oppose them?
Whether or not it "solves" poverty is a different question to whether the effect is positive or not. There are a number of extremely different arguments as to why poverty can't be solved by cash transfers e.g. essentialising poverty as a moral failing (I strongly disagree), or a critique of the system which creates poverty in the first place (I broadly agree). I can understand why belief in the first kind would lead to opposition of interventions, but engaging with evidence is important in reaching a conclusion.
Having been homeless for a few years now i am intimately familiar with the nuances, missing pieces, and plain incorrect thinking regarding that way of life.
Im always amused in a sad way at how far off base these radical attempts to reign in the situation always are. The disconnect is flabbergasting. There appears to be a genuine confusion as to why the situation is this bad, and what can be done about it. Obviously in many cases the major causes are evident such as drug use or mental illness. But beyond these obvious causes one would think we were attempting to understand the inner workings of an alien virus and feverishly working to bring it to heel.
Heres the problem: Once a person actually becomes so destitute that they no longer are certain where their next meal is coming from or where they are going to sleep that night their connectedness to society as a whole also becomes broken. The psychological impact of transitioning from the greater whole to a fringe lower caste involves a fracturing of their self and the self worth they had up to that point relied on their entire life. To fall to such depths, where " down" is no longer an option, as when one is literally already at the bottom, is to face the utter condemning fact of failure. Failure to society to parents to perhaps children and to self. The devastation to the psyche in the realization of this marks DAY ONE for such an individual. And it marks us All just so. Returning from the wasteland of loss of self sufficiency and control of ones life cannot begin until the shock has settled in and worn off enough to understand that overcoming the circumstances means beating THAT original denigrating fact. From there one begins the remaking of of ones very identity. Because clearly the original one was insufficient and grossly ill equipped.Yet not all who share the experience share also the wherewithal to achieve success via such mental feats. Indeed a large number were barely glued to the whole before lifes jostling effects shrugged them off in the first place. The cataclysmic event alone wiped out a fortitude they never had and introspective achievements may as well be the philosophy of kant insofar as it is relateable. The savage fall teaches such a one a library of lessons. And they are to be applied moving forward in this new world. Not as cognition for escape. Yes to someone perhaps educated, whos fall was unfortunate circumstance only, this is merely the beginning, step one, if you will, of a comprehensible logical process of extraction. Graspable as a goal.
But everyone whos circumstances mirror do not necessarily recover in the same way. Sure " if it were me" you might say. But it isnt, is it? And therefore your self applied mental construct or plan isnt easily so applied to someone NOT YOU. Isnt in fact resolveable as a mere midnight cure at all, the way some things can be when logic or money is applied to them. The misunderstanding all of you( who are not broken this way but who care) continue to struggle with when attempting to understand us, who ARE broken, is simply the abject refusal to consider the complex individual human element inherent in the case by case basis that IS the homeless epidemic. Refusal to put the grimy faces you attempt to hide or ban upon the problem. And in that negligent act you strip the problem of its human identity. Without that identity the characteristics that define human humane resolution are wiped as well. So here we are. Still confused still lost still homeless. All of us. To a degree. Indeed how can anyone call home a place where shadows hide what we refuse to acknowledge, where silence is demanded of those screaming in pain, where the shiny contrived surfaces are called reality and the blood everywhere behind all the closed doors is never cleaned never taken seriously. Someone here is hurt, bleeding, ignored. This is what you call home?
How very telling that in the same house we all share, your contribution oftentimes to the survival of its more embarrassing members and their sad issues is to blindly desperately coldly hope and wish we would just disappear.
As much as I appreciate the complexity of your comment and its unique view, oh my god, paragraph breaks! They exist for a very good reason. That was damn hard to follow line by dense line.
This is why asylums should not have been closed in the US. An asylum, when carefully and humanely run, is exactly the kind of place where the self can heal, or where the incurable can find respite.
Not necessarily. For one its simply impractical to offer free services in a society that isnt based on such a concept of free. This is a capitalist society. Whether one likes it or is against it, the design of things here prevents altruism for altruisms sake. Someone MUST pay, the flow of capital expects a return. Also nursing homes have no better of a reputation as the asylums except where the most obvious most heinous offenses are ommitted. But to be honest the institutional setting carries pitfalls as well which do not lend themselves towards cure or resolution but other issues further compounding the probem.
This kind of happened in the UK already. For instance, Bournmouth, a town on the South Coast, attracted homeless people for the obvious reason that the climate is typically warmer than most other places. I assume SF held a similar initial attraction?
In response to this small influx, local authorities encouraged charities to set up shop offering help to these people with drink/drug/social problems with a view to getting them back into regular housing.
Some years later, the problems have become much worse although the number of charities operating in the area has grown exponentially.
Speaking as someone who has experienced homelessness, for a short while, I believe the only practical solution is to give people housing at the outset before the desire/need to move elsewhere takes root.
The obvious response is that it is not that easy and would be unaffordable but my retort is that the current situation is likely costing a lot more while, at the same time, not fixing anything - other than creating multiple charity jobs.
There should be a rule whereby charities are required to have a large percentage of their jobs given to the class they're trying to help.
This could help make the size and number of said charities to be self-regulating with the problem they're trying to solve. They will grow in number whilst the problem is large, but as it subsides they naturally go down. All at the same time giving those people who are in need, money that would be otherwise given to people who don't necessarily need it from that source.
I think you have this reversed. The city was already giving out money to homeless and it led to a bunch of problems. Newsom proposed the opposite a “Care not cash” initiative where instead of receiving cash, homeless would receive services.
Honestly by the time you hear these stories the people these stories are about have traveled vast distances through the phases of their homeless experience and you hearing this tale is well past all the results of said attempt to curtail the issue such that it is no longer in present moment a possible solution having run its course. Frankly people who have mismanaged their lives to the point their day to day choices no longer resemble rational thinking cannot be expected to put hard cash to best use at the moment. Eventually there are habits that enevitably become adopted whereby seeking immediate relief by any means that can be had becomes more of a priority than anything else. To someone who sees no end in sight to the nightmare this and only this makes life bareable anymore.
I've never understood how a homeless person with no resources would move across the country for better handouts. Like I'd buy some anecdotal cases but most homeless I see aren't saving enough for a bus ticket.
I've read an interview with a man who panhandled for a period of his life, and his hourly income was higher than that of an average waiter.
Although I don't have official sources, when I observe panhandlers in my city, it seems plausible (even evident) to me that with enough persistence, a homeless person can earn more than a waiter.
Of course, I presume that such money is readily wasted, but I wouldn't dismiss a homeless' income as nonexistent.
Youd be shocked to know the amounts of money possible from merely standing holding a sign in the right place.
That legendary number however isnt expected and isnt the primary motivating factor. Many areas even for those who would prefer to work are devoid of jobs, especially where other groups not necessarily US born have snatched up all opportunity in whatever skilled labor the person might possess. Also most homeless have no vehicle either. Try getting a labor job without one. The reason for standing with the sign is simple. Severely limited options. And the man is hungry.
I would think that it might be easier for them to relocate as they'll have limited possessions to transport. I'd guess they'd either hitch a lift with friends or strangers or they might have a vehicle themselves (e.g. a van that they live in).
get on a train… 1/2/3 stations later they check your ticket, you ain’t got one, you get kicked off… wait for the next train, 1/2/3 stations later they check your ticket, you ain’t got one, you get kicked off. week or two or three later you made it from Augusta Maine to San Diego :)
There’s a massive number of “functioning homeless” - living in cars, couch surfing, etc. They might have low-pay jobs. Or once had white collar jobs but lost almost everything due to medical problems. These are the ones who might be capable of moving.
But yeah, the stereotypical crazy junkie, probably not. But that’s just a stereotype.
Maybe if it's done on a national level, and cash will only be distributed to the homeless who can prove they are citizens, that won't be an issue. Moreover they might move to areas with lower cost of living if payments do not depend on the place (a homeless does not have a fixed address by definition), thus becoming less of an issue.
Homelessness creates society issues regardless of citizenship. Also, obtaining any reliable ID for many homeless is a non-trivial and costly task on its own. It seems like you're interested in something more limited than simply helping with the homelessness issue.
We know how to address homelessness, its just the oligarchs that rule over us don't want to, for capitalism requires a pool of desperate workers to keep functioning. Besides it acts as a good reminder that if workers try to address the situation themselves, they will be annihilated.
With the current cost of housing in the UK, how many of the homeless already have a job (or few) - but ones that don't pay well enough for them to afford housing?
We keep going in circles on this. Give them cash and suddenly you have lots of people cheating the system to get the cash, like all the beggar gangs that hangout outside supermarkets. Do means testing and you build a whole wasteful bureaucracy that costs 2x as the actual cash given to the people in need.
IMHO, just setup a public day labour program. One day of honest work for one day's worth of wages. Show up in the morning, don a uniform and do your assigned task, no questions asked.
What do you think about the program discussed in the article:
> support workers will discuss their financial problems then pay for items such as rent deposits, outstanding debts, work equipment, white goods, furniture or new clothes. They do not make direct transfers
Utah had a similar program once. Focused on housing first, but with support in other areas as well. It was largely successful, but complex and expensive. So they’ve since moved funding around and lost ground…
Most fraud comes from the top, not the bottom. What if there's no work to be done? What about those that can't do physical work? Should the sick ones still have to work just to eat today?
It wouldn't cost that much to give a small roof and food to every homeless person in my country, and becoming a productive member of society is vastly easier when you don't have to worry about your next meal.
But no, "some might cheat the system", or "it's not fair to give money to lazy bums", etc.
We could basically eradicate homelessness at small economic cost, which I believe would be a net positive on the long term, but we don't because of an irrational fear of the poorest members of society cheating the system.
I am not trying to demonize any demographic. Everyone tries to cheat the system especially when you have a system that is easy to game. Yes, the most severe corruption is at the very top. Doesn't mean we should ignore other problems.
When you create perverse incentives you attract systematic cheaters. We literally conducted this experiment in Germany. Now the government is trying to roll out a restricted benefits card instead of giving out cash, because people come from overseas just to get on the benefits system and send the cash back home.
> When you create perverse incentives you attract systematic cheaters. We literally conducted this experiment in Germany. Now the government is trying to roll out a restricted benefits card instead of giving out cash, because people come from overseas just to get on the benefits system and send the cash back home.
Is this anything more than a right-wing talking point? There is no proof that this is actually happening in any meaningful scale.
How is this not open to corruption and worse too. Folks doing "favors" to supervisors who then get marked as doing a day's work. Or some other favorites getting preferred work over others.
It's not that simple, and it's why a free market would probably work better over the long run than some proto-communist jobs for everyone scenario.
The free market is also full of corruption. It's called wage theft. It's very prevalent and especially in such situations where the workers are so vulnerable.
And please refrain from using catch-all phrases like "free market" and "communist". That's the mark of a very stupid person.
People need education and job opportunities that fit their level of education/intelect and pay a living wage, not handouts that don't even cover the cost of living. Believe it or not most people would rather work a meaningful job and be part of a productive community rather than bum around on welfare doing nothing.
But when most low-skill/unskilled jobs have been sent off to Asia, a lot of people have been left out of the economy and the community if they didn't upskill themselves into well paying jobs early on in life. "Just learn to code bro" /s
It's a self inflicted problem the post-industrial west has created for the sake of privatizing corporate profits while socializing the losses to society leaving it for the state to fix, which they haven't.
Let's not confuse demographics. There is a struggling working class who are employed but barely getting by. Then there are people who for various reasons have completely given up on life and actively avoid work, probably getting by on some subsistence from government security programs like disability and the dole.
As long as there are people who want work and don't get any, I really don't care whether there are a (hypothetical) few who actually don't want to work. Besides, we're productive enough by now to not require everyone be gainfully employed to justify their existence.
>Then there are people who for various reasons have completely given up on life and actively avoid work
Gee, I wonder why that is?
Is it because the work they're avoiding is dead-end jobs that destroy your body and sanity while barely paying above unemployment?
Wouldn't you also do anything to avoid such jobs if you could? You probably went to college to avoid these jobs. Others didn't so are taking other measures.
Sure, someone still has to do those unskilled jobs, the problem is our western society has become way too expensive to live on the pay of such jobs unlike in the past. Rent alone has massively outpaced wage growth let alone minimum wage.
Oh, and even when you have income finding a place to live can be difficult when for example in Germany landlords ask you to provide a stack of paperwork to prove you're a model tennant, and if something looks remotely fishy, you're out of the race because he has 50 more applicants for the apartment who seem wealthier or more stable.
So when people realize they're condemned to a life of neo feudalism with no chance to move up, why should anyone bother to take the shit jobs anymore to support the economy or the society that screwed them? The western leaders needs to address this issue sooner than later instead of keep hitting the "remind me later" button.
My last town tried a day labor center. Just a spot at a town maintenance yard where day labor could wait to get picked up for work. It worked well. But got shut down by NIMBYs and conservatives who saw mostly brown faces.
It wasn’t just to help homeless. But any similar program is going to run headlong into the same criminalization of poverty issues we always see in the US.
Hi, I downvoted this remark because the only thing it added to the discussion was to display that you've not read anything about the subject (in which case you would known that cash transfers and similar help in many situations do in fact reduce poverty, homelessness, and the negative effects thereof, see the many links elsewhere in this thread.)
It can also be read as suggesting that homeless people are like animals and that their homelessness is only of their own making, which is not only wrong but also quite... let's just call it weird.
> half will get additional help from Greater Change, whose support workers will discuss their financial problems then pay for items such as rent deposits, outstanding debts, work equipment, white goods, furniture or new clothes. They do not make direct transfers to avoid benefits being stopped due to a cash influx.
Vital paragraph, due to people not reading past the misleading headline.
Misleading title
From the article:
> whose support workers will discuss their financial problems then pay for items such as rent deposits, outstanding debts, work equipment, white goods, furniture or new clothes. They do not make direct transfers to avoid benefits being stopped due to a cash influx.
So it’s not cash, it’s paying for items.
As others have pointed out, the title is misleading. If they gave money directly out, I have zero doubt it'd end up in heroin dealers hands. I live in east London but still pretty central and I would say almost all the homeless here are junkies, almost without exception. I know this because you see them near big supermarkets begging but I happen to live right next to an estate where I see almost every single one of them coming to pick up. The dealing also just happens more or less in plain site as well. The police and everyone around are well aware of it but nothing gets done to prevent it.
Homelessness is a massive issue in the UK and I hope the test outlined in the article gives us some answers as to how to tackle it. However, I'm skeptical that even paying for essentials and housing will work at this point. I think it's almost impossible to detach from the reality that a huge portion, if not the overwhelming majority have also become pretty severe junkies. I'm not saying this as someone totally unsympathetic to the affliction, my best friend also fell down that rabbit hole but addressing the homelessness aspect without addressing the addictions that result from being homeless or lead it feels like a recipe for not solving the problem.
I really hope I'm wrong and this works, it's insane that first world countries like the UK have these massive problems with homelessness, there are enough resources around to solve these problems, they just aren't distributed evenly and the support systems of this country have been in a state of ongoing collapse since 2008 and the austerity and chaos that followed
Like straight out of a Mitchell and Webb sketch.
I bet there will be people on this site as well who don't understand why you can't solve poverty by simply giving out cash. Although cash is what humans crave, it's got purchasing power.
This is not an argument, and you have provided no evidence for your claims.
There are numerous studies, and indeed meta-analyses of these[1][2] indicating that cash transfers can have a positive outcome for recipients. These interventions are broadly positive, so why oppose them?
Whether or not it "solves" poverty is a different question to whether the effect is positive or not. There are a number of extremely different arguments as to why poverty can't be solved by cash transfers e.g. essentialising poverty as a moral failing (I strongly disagree), or a critique of the system which creates poverty in the first place (I broadly agree). I can understand why belief in the first kind would lead to opposition of interventions, but engaging with evidence is important in reaching a conclusion.
[1]: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32779/w327...
[2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01252-z
I can tell you right now handing out straight cash will NOT go well for anyone.
>you can't solve poverty by simply giving out cash
Not directly, but it can solve some of the barriers people in challenging situations have.
e.g. someone has skills but can't pass interviews because they look like a hobo...there a bit of money for a haircut may help.
So I don't think we should drop the entire just because its not a comprehensive & complete solution
For anyone looking for the Mitchell and Webb reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_4J4uor3JE
https://youtube.com/watch?v=dfwnjO9o8OU
Funnily enough the GP comment made me think of this sketch instead (an absolute masterpiece of microeconomic theory).
See also the classic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
Having been homeless for a few years now i am intimately familiar with the nuances, missing pieces, and plain incorrect thinking regarding that way of life. Im always amused in a sad way at how far off base these radical attempts to reign in the situation always are. The disconnect is flabbergasting. There appears to be a genuine confusion as to why the situation is this bad, and what can be done about it. Obviously in many cases the major causes are evident such as drug use or mental illness. But beyond these obvious causes one would think we were attempting to understand the inner workings of an alien virus and feverishly working to bring it to heel. Heres the problem: Once a person actually becomes so destitute that they no longer are certain where their next meal is coming from or where they are going to sleep that night their connectedness to society as a whole also becomes broken. The psychological impact of transitioning from the greater whole to a fringe lower caste involves a fracturing of their self and the self worth they had up to that point relied on their entire life. To fall to such depths, where " down" is no longer an option, as when one is literally already at the bottom, is to face the utter condemning fact of failure. Failure to society to parents to perhaps children and to self. The devastation to the psyche in the realization of this marks DAY ONE for such an individual. And it marks us All just so. Returning from the wasteland of loss of self sufficiency and control of ones life cannot begin until the shock has settled in and worn off enough to understand that overcoming the circumstances means beating THAT original denigrating fact. From there one begins the remaking of of ones very identity. Because clearly the original one was insufficient and grossly ill equipped.Yet not all who share the experience share also the wherewithal to achieve success via such mental feats. Indeed a large number were barely glued to the whole before lifes jostling effects shrugged them off in the first place. The cataclysmic event alone wiped out a fortitude they never had and introspective achievements may as well be the philosophy of kant insofar as it is relateable. The savage fall teaches such a one a library of lessons. And they are to be applied moving forward in this new world. Not as cognition for escape. Yes to someone perhaps educated, whos fall was unfortunate circumstance only, this is merely the beginning, step one, if you will, of a comprehensible logical process of extraction. Graspable as a goal. But everyone whos circumstances mirror do not necessarily recover in the same way. Sure " if it were me" you might say. But it isnt, is it? And therefore your self applied mental construct or plan isnt easily so applied to someone NOT YOU. Isnt in fact resolveable as a mere midnight cure at all, the way some things can be when logic or money is applied to them. The misunderstanding all of you( who are not broken this way but who care) continue to struggle with when attempting to understand us, who ARE broken, is simply the abject refusal to consider the complex individual human element inherent in the case by case basis that IS the homeless epidemic. Refusal to put the grimy faces you attempt to hide or ban upon the problem. And in that negligent act you strip the problem of its human identity. Without that identity the characteristics that define human humane resolution are wiped as well. So here we are. Still confused still lost still homeless. All of us. To a degree. Indeed how can anyone call home a place where shadows hide what we refuse to acknowledge, where silence is demanded of those screaming in pain, where the shiny contrived surfaces are called reality and the blood everywhere behind all the closed doors is never cleaned never taken seriously. Someone here is hurt, bleeding, ignored. This is what you call home? How very telling that in the same house we all share, your contribution oftentimes to the survival of its more embarrassing members and their sad issues is to blindly desperately coldly hope and wish we would just disappear.
As much as I appreciate the complexity of your comment and its unique view, oh my god, paragraph breaks! They exist for a very good reason. That was damn hard to follow line by dense line.
I sincerely apologize...im an audodidact and with respect to certain subjects such as grammar i fall short. Thank you otherwise for yur kind words.
This is why asylums should not have been closed in the US. An asylum, when carefully and humanely run, is exactly the kind of place where the self can heal, or where the incurable can find respite.
Not necessarily. For one its simply impractical to offer free services in a society that isnt based on such a concept of free. This is a capitalist society. Whether one likes it or is against it, the design of things here prevents altruism for altruisms sake. Someone MUST pay, the flow of capital expects a return. Also nursing homes have no better of a reputation as the asylums except where the most obvious most heinous offenses are ommitted. But to be honest the institutional setting carries pitfalls as well which do not lend themselves towards cure or resolution but other issues further compounding the probem.
Gavin Newsom did this when he was Mayor of San Francisco and the city got flooded with homeless from all over the country
This kind of happened in the UK already. For instance, Bournmouth, a town on the South Coast, attracted homeless people for the obvious reason that the climate is typically warmer than most other places. I assume SF held a similar initial attraction?
In response to this small influx, local authorities encouraged charities to set up shop offering help to these people with drink/drug/social problems with a view to getting them back into regular housing.
Some years later, the problems have become much worse although the number of charities operating in the area has grown exponentially.
Speaking as someone who has experienced homelessness, for a short while, I believe the only practical solution is to give people housing at the outset before the desire/need to move elsewhere takes root.
The obvious response is that it is not that easy and would be unaffordable but my retort is that the current situation is likely costing a lot more while, at the same time, not fixing anything - other than creating multiple charity jobs.
There should be a rule whereby charities are required to have a large percentage of their jobs given to the class they're trying to help.
This could help make the size and number of said charities to be self-regulating with the problem they're trying to solve. They will grow in number whilst the problem is large, but as it subsides they naturally go down. All at the same time giving those people who are in need, money that would be otherwise given to people who don't necessarily need it from that source.
No there shouldn’t, because then e.g. charities providing help to seriously ill cancer patients won’t be able to employ anyone.
Edit: I’m not against charities doing this where it makes sense. I wouldn’t want it to be more red tape they had to struggle with though.
I think you have this reversed. The city was already giving out money to homeless and it led to a bunch of problems. Newsom proposed the opposite a “Care not cash” initiative where instead of receiving cash, homeless would receive services.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Proposition_N_...
Honestly by the time you hear these stories the people these stories are about have traveled vast distances through the phases of their homeless experience and you hearing this tale is well past all the results of said attempt to curtail the issue such that it is no longer in present moment a possible solution having run its course. Frankly people who have mismanaged their lives to the point their day to day choices no longer resemble rational thinking cannot be expected to put hard cash to best use at the moment. Eventually there are habits that enevitably become adopted whereby seeking immediate relief by any means that can be had becomes more of a priority than anything else. To someone who sees no end in sight to the nightmare this and only this makes life bareable anymore.
I've never understood how a homeless person with no resources would move across the country for better handouts. Like I'd buy some anecdotal cases but most homeless I see aren't saving enough for a bus ticket.
Sometimes it's pushed by programs interested in changing the statistics in the most direct way possible - giving people a bus ticket. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/... also "greyhound therapy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_homeless_relocation_pr...
I've read an interview with a man who panhandled for a period of his life, and his hourly income was higher than that of an average waiter.
Although I don't have official sources, when I observe panhandlers in my city, it seems plausible (even evident) to me that with enough persistence, a homeless person can earn more than a waiter.
Of course, I presume that such money is readily wasted, but I wouldn't dismiss a homeless' income as nonexistent.
Youd be shocked to know the amounts of money possible from merely standing holding a sign in the right place. That legendary number however isnt expected and isnt the primary motivating factor. Many areas even for those who would prefer to work are devoid of jobs, especially where other groups not necessarily US born have snatched up all opportunity in whatever skilled labor the person might possess. Also most homeless have no vehicle either. Try getting a labor job without one. The reason for standing with the sign is simple. Severely limited options. And the man is hungry.
I would think that it might be easier for them to relocate as they'll have limited possessions to transport. I'd guess they'd either hitch a lift with friends or strangers or they might have a vehicle themselves (e.g. a van that they live in).
get on a train… 1/2/3 stations later they check your ticket, you ain’t got one, you get kicked off… wait for the next train, 1/2/3 stations later they check your ticket, you ain’t got one, you get kicked off. week or two or three later you made it from Augusta Maine to San Diego :)
Sounds good. Been thought of , tried, fixed. They call cops on the first train.
Board a train. That's it. What can they do to you for having no ticket? Literally nothing.
Cities that don't want them ship them to cities that "want" them
There’s a massive number of “functioning homeless” - living in cars, couch surfing, etc. They might have low-pay jobs. Or once had white collar jobs but lost almost everything due to medical problems. These are the ones who might be capable of moving.
But yeah, the stereotypical crazy junkie, probably not. But that’s just a stereotype.
Maybe if it's done on a national level, and cash will only be distributed to the homeless who can prove they are citizens, that won't be an issue. Moreover they might move to areas with lower cost of living if payments do not depend on the place (a homeless does not have a fixed address by definition), thus becoming less of an issue.
Homelessness creates society issues regardless of citizenship. Also, obtaining any reliable ID for many homeless is a non-trivial and costly task on its own. It seems like you're interested in something more limited than simply helping with the homelessness issue.
We know how to address homelessness, its just the oligarchs that rule over us don't want to, for capitalism requires a pool of desperate workers to keep functioning. Besides it acts as a good reminder that if workers try to address the situation themselves, they will be annihilated.
Instead of giving cash maybe give them jobs and mental/recovery/etc help?
With the current cost of housing in the UK, how many of the homeless already have a job (or few) - but ones that don't pay well enough for them to afford housing?
We certainly see this in the US as well, employed homelessness.
why not both?
mental/recovery help isn't any good if your genuine material conditions are shit
Giving people little money when they're too mentally ill to find gainful employment and financial independence won't help either.
We keep going in circles on this. Give them cash and suddenly you have lots of people cheating the system to get the cash, like all the beggar gangs that hangout outside supermarkets. Do means testing and you build a whole wasteful bureaucracy that costs 2x as the actual cash given to the people in need.
IMHO, just setup a public day labour program. One day of honest work for one day's worth of wages. Show up in the morning, don a uniform and do your assigned task, no questions asked.
What do you think about the program discussed in the article:
> support workers will discuss their financial problems then pay for items such as rent deposits, outstanding debts, work equipment, white goods, furniture or new clothes. They do not make direct transfers
Utah had a similar program once. Focused on housing first, but with support in other areas as well. It was largely successful, but complex and expensive. So they’ve since moved funding around and lost ground…
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2020/05/11/utah-was-onc...
Most fraud comes from the top, not the bottom. What if there's no work to be done? What about those that can't do physical work? Should the sick ones still have to work just to eat today?
It wouldn't cost that much to give a small roof and food to every homeless person in my country, and becoming a productive member of society is vastly easier when you don't have to worry about your next meal.
But no, "some might cheat the system", or "it's not fair to give money to lazy bums", etc.
We could basically eradicate homelessness at small economic cost, which I believe would be a net positive on the long term, but we don't because of an irrational fear of the poorest members of society cheating the system.
I am not trying to demonize any demographic. Everyone tries to cheat the system especially when you have a system that is easy to game. Yes, the most severe corruption is at the very top. Doesn't mean we should ignore other problems.
When you create perverse incentives you attract systematic cheaters. We literally conducted this experiment in Germany. Now the government is trying to roll out a restricted benefits card instead of giving out cash, because people come from overseas just to get on the benefits system and send the cash back home.
> Everyone tries to cheat the system
No.
A lot of people say things like this, probably because they would (or do) cheat the system and they want to justify this as 'normal'.
However, studies show most people abide by rules, especially when systems are transparent and fair.
> When you create perverse incentives
Ending homelessness and poverty isn't perverse. It's necessary for a decent society.
And, it can be done. Finland ended homelessness rapidly, with a little political will and intelligence.
> When you create perverse incentives you attract systematic cheaters. We literally conducted this experiment in Germany. Now the government is trying to roll out a restricted benefits card instead of giving out cash, because people come from overseas just to get on the benefits system and send the cash back home.
Is this anything more than a right-wing talking point? There is no proof that this is actually happening in any meaningful scale.
How is this not open to corruption and worse too. Folks doing "favors" to supervisors who then get marked as doing a day's work. Or some other favorites getting preferred work over others.
It's not that simple, and it's why a free market would probably work better over the long run than some proto-communist jobs for everyone scenario.
The free market is also full of corruption. It's called wage theft. It's very prevalent and especially in such situations where the workers are so vulnerable.
And please refrain from using catch-all phrases like "free market" and "communist". That's the mark of a very stupid person.
People need education and job opportunities that fit their level of education/intelect and pay a living wage, not handouts that don't even cover the cost of living. Believe it or not most people would rather work a meaningful job and be part of a productive community rather than bum around on welfare doing nothing.
But when most low-skill/unskilled jobs have been sent off to Asia, a lot of people have been left out of the economy and the community if they didn't upskill themselves into well paying jobs early on in life. "Just learn to code bro" /s
It's a self inflicted problem the post-industrial west has created for the sake of privatizing corporate profits while socializing the losses to society leaving it for the state to fix, which they haven't.
Let's not confuse demographics. There is a struggling working class who are employed but barely getting by. Then there are people who for various reasons have completely given up on life and actively avoid work, probably getting by on some subsistence from government security programs like disability and the dole.
> … actively avoid work …
Is your job to be a moral judge?
As long as there are people who want work and don't get any, I really don't care whether there are a (hypothetical) few who actually don't want to work. Besides, we're productive enough by now to not require everyone be gainfully employed to justify their existence.
>Then there are people who for various reasons have completely given up on life and actively avoid work
Gee, I wonder why that is?
Is it because the work they're avoiding is dead-end jobs that destroy your body and sanity while barely paying above unemployment?
Wouldn't you also do anything to avoid such jobs if you could? You probably went to college to avoid these jobs. Others didn't so are taking other measures.
Sure, someone still has to do those unskilled jobs, the problem is our western society has become way too expensive to live on the pay of such jobs unlike in the past. Rent alone has massively outpaced wage growth let alone minimum wage.
Oh, and even when you have income finding a place to live can be difficult when for example in Germany landlords ask you to provide a stack of paperwork to prove you're a model tennant, and if something looks remotely fishy, you're out of the race because he has 50 more applicants for the apartment who seem wealthier or more stable.
So when people realize they're condemned to a life of neo feudalism with no chance to move up, why should anyone bother to take the shit jobs anymore to support the economy or the society that screwed them? The western leaders needs to address this issue sooner than later instead of keep hitting the "remind me later" button.
My last town tried a day labor center. Just a spot at a town maintenance yard where day labor could wait to get picked up for work. It worked well. But got shut down by NIMBYs and conservatives who saw mostly brown faces.
It wasn’t just to help homeless. But any similar program is going to run headlong into the same criminalization of poverty issues we always see in the US.
feed a deer today, 15 will show up tomorrow
Hi, I downvoted this remark because the only thing it added to the discussion was to display that you've not read anything about the subject (in which case you would known that cash transfers and similar help in many situations do in fact reduce poverty, homelessness, and the negative effects thereof, see the many links elsewhere in this thread.)
It can also be read as suggesting that homeless people are like animals and that their homelessness is only of their own making, which is not only wrong but also quite... let's just call it weird.