Old article updated with peer review today.
Please be hookers…
“Counter to really harmful stereotypes, we saw that people made wise financial choices,” Claire Williams, the CEO of Foundations for Social Change, told me.
Well look at that.
It’s nice to have a study to shove in someone’s face when they talk about homeless people as if they were all absolute addicts.
I wish facts > propaganda.
If you give someone $20, chances are that, yeah, they will spend it on some quick and cheap comfort to improve their lives in the short term (fast food, alcohol, drugs, etc.). But if you give someone a sizeable sum that will actually help them plan for a better future, the vast majority of people will do just that.
But that really goes against the whole “poverty is the result of a moral failing” concept that capitalist throught had been hammering into our heads for decades, so we certainly can’t be promoting that fact.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The newly published, peer reviewed PNAS study, conducted by the charity Foundations for Social Change in partnership with the University of British Columbia, was fairly simple.
They found that pointing out how cash transfers actually produce net savings for society, as well as showing how homeless people spend the money, are both effective ways to counter stereotypes among the public.
The general idea behind basic income — that the government should give every citizen a monthly infusion of free money with no strings attached — has gained momentum in the past few years, with several countries running pilot programs to test it.
The study only enrolled participants who’d been homeless for under two years, with the idea that early intervention most effectively reduces the risk of people incurring trauma as a result of living without a home.
In fact, Canadian lawmakers are currently considering a bill that would create a national framework for a guaranteed income to cover basic living expenses for people over age 17.
Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.
The original article contains 1,582 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 87%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Hm. Let’s take the money from the people who put them in that situation and redistribute it to those who need it.
@TokenBoomer
@hoshikarakitaridia
unfortunately the study was rigged, if you read it you see the research people made being accepted for the money for selected people. This included no drugs, only within 2 years, 200 people only, not part with street culture of that area, etc. This is not good research, this is falsely research.It wasn’t rigged it just didn’t match what the headline implied. It wanted to show that people who have recently been made homeless can recover from the bad situation if given the means to do so.
That’s not been rigged. It’s called to have a method. You need that for a study. You can disagree with their method, but doesn’t mean it is “rigged”.
