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

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 148 points 2 years ago (8 children)

$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.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    The universal healthcare one baffles me because it would save businesses money and increase employee retention. But corporations still fight against it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Having healthcare tied to your employer is both a way for companies to pay less while offering more benefits to entice new workers and also keep workers from fighting too hard for their own rights because now maintaining a job is directly related to health. If we had universal healthcare, companies would have to compete more directly on wage and that would cost them more. Providing healthcare, while negotiating for deals for said healthcare means they can say that they are providing more benefits than they actually pay for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 120 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Almost like the 1% are stealing from each and every one of us. With a fraction of their profits each one of us would live a better life.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 85 points 2 years ago (26 children)

    Giving people money improves their quality of life?

    Who would have guessed?

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • load more comments (26 replies)
    [–] 82 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    “What can we do to help these people whose problem is that they don’t have money?”

    “Give them money?”

    “That’s just crazy enough to work!”

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    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.

    I feel extremely bad for the control group.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 58 points 2 years ago (17 children)

    $750 a month is like $9000 a year.

    I spend $500 on groceries!

    I think this program would help a lot in so many ways and I hope it passes.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • load more comments (17 replies)
    [–] 44 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    $750 a month would be life altering for me.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 32 points 2 years ago (14 children)

    All these UBI experiments ever seem to demonstrate is the "BI" part.

    But the part that needs to be demonstrated, IMHO, is the "U".

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • load more comments (13 replies)
    [–] 31 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Now watch how out of touch conservatives are when they start claiming that these people are living in luxury. It's a great project and I'm not trying to demerit the people in charge, but $750 doesn't go far at all in a place like San Francisco

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago

    Remember when they flipped their shit over obama phones? Like, poor people were getting free or low cost cell phones. The horror! What's next, food stamp steaks? What? You mean food stamps aren't limited to gruel and powdered milk?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 31 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    On 750 a month I could live in the forest somewhere and do occasional supply runs to replenish my tree fort. Or do a shit ton of drugs but either way I'd be pretty happy.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago

    Tbh as long as you weren't hurting anyone, putting others in danger and were happy I personally wouldn't give a toss what you did with your money even if that came from taxes I paid. Better this then the current homeless situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    There's also been a lot of success with providing housing to the homeless. When they have stability, they use it to create a better life for themselves, and that translates to lower costs in terms of enforcement, ER visits, legal aid, and incarceration.

    The US doesn't provide for this in federal policy because we like our laws to reflect the cruelty and malice we have in our hearts for perceived undesirables.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    How did they collect data on what these homeless people were spending the money on? Sounds like some questions were asked after all...

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 19 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    750$ a month changed the lives of people that had nothing? Yeah, right. Obviously!

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago
    [–] 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)
    load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    One red flag here is that they don't mention how they chose whom to give the stipend to.

    That being said I think its a great idea and correlates with other studies that show that money is the best thing you can offer someone who's struggling. Not food, not shelter, money.

    I'm not an American but this will be tough to sell as you guys are notorious for porking away public funds (e.g. covid payouts) so this is much more complex than the article implies.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    easiest way to avoid misuse is to give it to all. if your doing alright you will pay more tax equal to what you get, if your struggling it will be a boost, if your in mills/bills club you will pay more than your getting. Anyone who falls to the struggling level would have it immediately though with no paperwork or offices to go to and less bureaucracy to pay for (have to add this for the folks who don't see why its helps them if they are not getting a net gain)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›