“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.”

  • eeltech@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    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

        • keeb420@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because the argument they are trying to refute is “in general, if you give 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

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

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