New study gave $7,500 to 50 unhoused people
New study gave $7,500 to 50 unhoused people
New study gave $7,500 to 50 unhoused people. Guess what? "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 go...
"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're viewing a single thread.
"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
Those need a entirely different type of help.
And probably also money
Yeah but getting them clean and/or the mental healthcare they need should come first.
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.
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"
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.
"According to SAMHSA, 38% of homeless people abused alcohol while 26% abused other drugs." (These are overlapping statistics)
"Most research shows that around 1/3 of people who are homeless have problems with alcohol and/or drugs, and around 2/3 of these people have lifetime histories of drug or alcohol use disorders"
This means roughly 11% of homeless people started their abuse as a consequence of becoming homeless, while 22% of homeless people may have become homeless due to their substance abuse.
So you'd essentially be proposing that we don't help 78% of all homeless people because the other 22% of them would misuse the money.
And that's without even discussing the fact that many of those 22% could be rehabilitated if they're provide with appropriate healthcare on top of the monetary benefits
Which is why people are hesitant to give them money, no?
Maybe it's ethics... Giving an addict that much money could cause an overdose or other serious harm.
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?
I'm wondering what is the percentage of homeless that are addicts or have mental health issues. You seem to be confident they are outliers, but what is the percentage? Is it 1%? 25%? 50%?
Seems like a logical fallacy to me without knowing that stat.
"According to SAMHSA, 38% of homeless people abused alcohol while 26% abused other drugs." (These are overlapping statistics)
"Most research shows that around 1/3 of people who are homeless have problems with alcohol and/or drugs, and around 2/3 of these people have lifetime histories of drug or alcohol use disorders"
This means roughly 11% of homeless people started their abuse as a consequence of becoming homeless, while 22% of homeless people may have become homeless due to their substance abuse.
So you'd essentially be proposing that we don't help 78% of all homeless people because the other 22% of them would misuse the money.
And that's without even discussing the fact that many of those 22% could be rehabilitated if they're provide with appropriate healthcare on top of the monetary benefits
So you'd essentially be proposing that we don't help
Excuse me? I haven't proposed anything. I'm simply asking questions because the headline/description seemed misleading to me and not adequately conveying the full story/situation. Purely from a math/stats/logic point of view
It's basically rule #1 to not give an addict money, but give them things they can't trade for material value instead.
Sure, but a properly administered program would identify those with substance abuse problems and send them to (free) healthcare facilities