Posted on 12/20/2023 8:37:52 AM PST by fwdude
In-depth qualitative interviews with a subsample of 20 individuals in M$
who started receiving monthly income within the past 3 months provide
some understanding of how people are spending money.
“They get around this by buying food/clothing hard items and then selling them on the street for whatever they can get. That usually gives them enough to get their dope fix.”
Yup. But this doesn’t occur to the study-takers trying to prove that a universal income is a good thing.
Yes. What does $750/month buy in California? One can’t rent an apartment for that price.
Only about 2% of the $750 per month was spent on alcohol, cigarettes, or drugs.
The rest of the money they just squandered.
Might be a better way to handle welfare but it’s still welfare and a lot of hobos are schizos and/or junkies so no amount of money is going to help them unless you forcibly take them off the streets
My sister worked at a flea market and there were people there selling canned food they got from the charity food pantry.
Precisely.
I happen to know a few things about study design and interpretation of results.
One wonders how the groups were selected, as that's where bias begins. How do the groups compare, backgrounds, specific needs and issues, ages, sex (I decline the term "gender"), marital status, education, drug use, ethnicity, time on the street, health, family size... the list goes on.
Then, how are the participants followed? And, importantly, even though no questions asked, was there any coaching or any counselling of any kind?
What on earth does "less likely" mean.
One suspects that the "study" is a complete fraud.
In my work as a police officer, I discovered that there is a MASSIVE black market for (at the time) food stamps. They were used to buy all sorts of things, mostly drugs and bling for ghetto-mobiles.
But studies like this would say that they were being “used for food.”
So $750 a month is enough to find a place to live and feed yourself in LA or SanFran?
Why all this talk about how expensive these places are?
Dude with the baggies don’t take debit
Nearly 20% was spent on housing, 12.7% on transportation, 11.5% on clothing, 6.2% on healthcare, and 13.6% on other expenses
Big Brother is sure nosey.
Where in CA or anywhere can someone find a room for $150/mo? Zero percent was used for food so they're still getting free food so they aren't budgeting for that. Without job training, they'll be back on the streets when the $ stops. None of this program makes sense, but it's the government and most especially the CA government.
>>I had renters who used EBT to buy stuff they’d sell at cents on the dollar so they could buy beer, cigarettes and drugs.
or those that use their EBT to buy cases of drinking water, (including the bottle deposit) - go out in the parking lot, dump put all the water, and return the 24 bottles per case for the $0.05 deposit - perfect example of the effectiveness of government spending.
Only about 2% of the $750 per month was spent on alcohol, cigarettes, or drugs
—
$15 a month spent on alcohol, cigarettes, or drugs?
They must have been very selective when choosing those people.
Someone please tell me why a major Fed.gov debt crisis / debt collapse would necessarily be a bad thing??
We are already on the path of Neo-marxism / fascism funded by printed money and debt, so we are headed there anyway.
They WILL spend it on drugs.
And then you have the Hawthorne Effect,” which is almost impossible to correct for. Basically, this is a type of human behavior reactivity in which individuals modify an aspect of their behavior in response to their awareness of being observed. They’ll give the answers that they think the researchers need, or conceal perceived negative behavior.
That’s also why the PrEP studies on homos is almost completely invalid.
It would be much needed societal chemotherapy. Very painful, but necessary.
An aquarium is always an artificial environment.
Stop feeding and the fish die.
Stop filtering and the fish die.
Yes, it looks nice.
Stop and the fish die.
New tagline...
“Those who received the $750 monthly stipend were less likely to remain unsheltered and closer to having enough money to meet all of their basic needs”
Translation: this works wonderfully, but Taxpayers just need to give a lot more than $750 months.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.