If 100 homeless people were given $750 per month for a year, no questions asked, what would they spend it on?

That question was at the core of a controlled study conducted by a San Francisco-based nonprofit and the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work.

The results were so promising that the researchers decided to publish results after only six months. The answer: food, 36.6%; housing, 19.5%; transportation, 12.7%; clothing, 11.5%; and healthcare, 6.2%, leaving only 13.6% uncategorized.

Those who got the stipend were less likely to be unsheltered after six months and able to meet more of their basic needs than a control group that got no money, and half as likely as the control group to have an episode of being unsheltered.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20231221131158/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-12-19/750-a-month-no-questions-asked-improved-the-lives-of-homeless-people

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    110
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    $750 a month would improve the lives of plenty of people who aren’t homeless too. Up to and including the middle class.

    But I suppose a UBI is a non-starter everywhere in the U.S. but Alaska.

    • EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      You want universal anything it’s an uphill battle because of the cattle shouting about the cost or some nonsense.

      • deft@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Those who will make more money with UBI will just be mad they get taxed slightly more.

    • ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Our corporate oligarchs already pitch a fit about collective bargaining, universal healthcare, and adjusting minimum wage to match inflation. I can’t imagine they’d react well to a universal basic income except by raping the fading middle class even more.

      • Coasting0942@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s because there is no unified aristocracy. All those rich families are cordial but are out only for themselves. They can’t see that having all the menials healthy/housed/fed improves all their wealth.

    • doctordevice@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      That would basically cover my student loan payments, so it would be equivalent to loan forgiveness for me. Improve is an understatement, that would actually allow me to save money. Right now my wife and I make slightly above area median income and we’re just treading water financially. This would be a game changer. We could actually consider having a kid.

      • thenightisdark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        For what it’s worth 750 a month is probably less than what a kid costs. Depends on where you live but that seems decidedly low price for a kid

        • YerbaYerba@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          It cost near $7k in healthcare costs when my son was born. That’s $1750 a year so far…

        • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          It’s more than that per month just for childcare, assuming they are anticipating they will continue to work. It’s significantly more than that in food, Healthcare etc per month. If all you need is $750/month to have a child, than you can already have a child.

          But the reality is, their lifestyle will eat that $750, and they’ll continue thinking they can’t afford to have a child. And, frankly, they probably can’t. Children are for the poor and the upper-middle class and above. It’s weird, but it’s true.