In response to this small influx, local authorities encouraged charities to set up shop offering help to these people with drink/drug/social problems with a view to getting them back into regular housing.
Some years later, the problems have become much worse although the number of charities operating in the area has grown exponentially.
Speaking as someone who has experienced homelessness, for a short while, I believe the only practical solution is to give people housing at the outset before the desire/need to move elsewhere takes root.
The obvious response is that it is not that easy and would be unaffordable but my retort is that the current situation is likely costing a lot more while, at the same time, not fixing anything - other than creating multiple charity jobs.
This could help make the size and number of said charities to be self-regulating with the problem they're trying to solve. They will grow in number whilst the problem is large, but as it subsides they naturally go down. All at the same time giving those people who are in need, money that would be otherwise given to people who don't necessarily need it from that source.
Edit: I’m not against charities doing this where it makes sense. I wouldn’t want it to be more red tape they had to struggle with though.
Also national support not local. While there are some local issues with homelessness I feel lots of the problems are going to be the same across the country. If it was the same provision everywhere there wouldn't be the same draw towards certain locations.
But yeah, the stereotypical crazy junkie, probably not. But that’s just a stereotype.
Although I don't have official sources, when I observe panhandlers in my city, it seems plausible (even evident) to me that with enough persistence, a homeless person can earn more than a waiter.
Of course, I presume that such money is readily wasted, but I wouldn't dismiss a homeless' income as nonexistent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Proposition_N_...
IMHO, just setup a public day labour program. One day of honest work for one day's worth of wages. Show up in the morning, don a uniform and do your assigned task, no questions asked.
But when most low-skill/unskilled jobs have been sent off to Asia, a lot of people have been left out of the economy and the community if they didn't upskill themselves into well paying jobs early on in life. "Just learn to code bro" /s
It's a self inflicted problem the post-industrial west has created for the sake of privatizing corporate profits while socializing the losses to society leaving it for the state to fix, which they haven't.
Gee, I wonder why that is?
Is it because the work they're avoiding is dead-end jobs that destroy your body and sanity while barely paying above unemployment?
Wouldn't you also do anything to avoid such jobs if you could? You probably went to college to avoid these jobs. Others didn't so are taking other measures.
Sure, someone still has to do those unskilled jobs, the problem is our western society has become way too expensive to live on the pay of such jobs unlike in the past. Rent alone has massively outpaced wage growth let alone minimum wage.
Oh, and even when you have income finding a place to live can be difficult when for example in Germany landlords ask you to provide a stack of paperwork to prove you're a model tennant, and if something looks remotely fishy, you're out of the race because he has 50 more applicants for the apartment who seem wealthier or more stable.
So when people realize they're condemned to a life of neo feudalism with no chance to move up, why should anyone bother to take the shit jobs anymore to support the economy or the society that screwed them? The western leaders needs to address this issue sooner than later instead of keep hitting the "remind me later" button.
Is your job to be a moral judge?
As long as there are people who want work and don't get any, I really don't care whether there are a (hypothetical) few who actually don't want to work. Besides, we're productive enough by now to not require everyone be gainfully employed to justify their existence.
It wouldn't cost that much to give a small roof and food to every homeless person in my country, and becoming a productive member of society is vastly easier when you don't have to worry about your next meal.
But no, "some might cheat the system", or "it's not fair to give money to lazy bums", etc.
We could basically eradicate homelessness at small economic cost, which I believe would be a net positive on the long term, but we don't because of an irrational fear of the poorest members of society cheating the system.
When you create perverse incentives you attract systematic cheaters. We literally conducted this experiment in Germany. Now the government is trying to roll out a restricted benefits card instead of giving out cash, because people come from overseas just to get on the benefits system and send the cash back home.
Is this anything more than a right-wing talking point? There is no proof that this is actually happening in any meaningful scale.
No.
A lot of people say things like this, probably because they would (or do) cheat the system and they want to justify this as 'normal'.
However, studies show most people abide by rules, especially when systems are transparent and fair.
> When you create perverse incentives
Ending homelessness and poverty isn't perverse. It's necessary for a decent society.
And, it can be done. Finland ended homelessness rapidly, with a little political will and intelligence.
It's not that simple, and it's why a free market would probably work better over the long run than some proto-communist jobs for everyone scenario.
And please refrain from using catch-all phrases like "free market" and "communist". That's the mark of a very stupid person.
A base inability to argue facts also would likewise betray some lesser faculty or learning.
> support workers will discuss their financial problems then pay for items such as rent deposits, outstanding debts, work equipment, white goods, furniture or new clothes. They do not make direct transfers
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2020/05/11/utah-was-onc...
It wasn’t just to help homeless. But any similar program is going to run headlong into the same criminalization of poverty issues we always see in the US.
I bet there will be people on this site as well who don't understand why you can't solve poverty by simply giving out cash. Although cash is what humans crave, it's got purchasing power.
Funnily enough the GP comment made me think of this sketch instead (an absolute masterpiece of microeconomic theory).
See also the classic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
There are numerous studies, and indeed meta-analyses of these[1][2] indicating that cash transfers can have a positive outcome for recipients. These interventions are broadly positive, so why oppose them?
Whether or not it "solves" poverty is a different question to whether the effect is positive or not. There are a number of extremely different arguments as to why poverty can't be solved by cash transfers e.g. essentialising poverty as a moral failing (I strongly disagree), or a critique of the system which creates poverty in the first place (I broadly agree). I can understand why belief in the first kind would lead to opposition of interventions, but engaging with evidence is important in reaching a conclusion.
[1]: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32779/w327...
Not directly, but it can solve some of the barriers people in challenging situations have.
e.g. someone has skills but can't pass interviews because they look like a hobo...there a bit of money for a haircut may help.
So I don't think we should drop the entire just because its not a comprehensive & complete solution
Vital paragraph, due to people not reading past the misleading headline.
From the article:
> whose support workers will discuss their financial problems then pay for items such as rent deposits, outstanding debts, work equipment, white goods, furniture or new clothes. They do not make direct transfers to avoid benefits being stopped due to a cash influx.
So it’s not cash, it’s paying for items.
Current media works on emotions to drive traffic.
Notice the wording of that researcher's quote - they are trying to understand things about cash transfers. He does not say that they're doing cash transfers.
And:
> The other half will get additional help from Greater Change, whose support workers will discuss their financial problems then pay for items such as rent deposits, outstanding debts, work equipment, white goods, furniture or new clothes. They do not make direct transfers to avoid benefits being stopped due to a cash influx.
SO - however deceitful The Guardian is being, I'd credit the researchers with honesty here. They're running an imperfect-but-legal experiment, with the gov't's okay & funding, as a work-around for the gov't own bureaucratic rules on cash income reducing benefits.
And that is fine. But then the Guardian should make sure to ask why the researchers think their research will illuminate anything about the topic of direct cash transfers.
The immediate questions which pops to my mind: “if you just give cash to the homeless what percentage will spend it on drugs/alcohol to the detriment of their wellbeing?” and “if you give cash to the homeless won’t they be robbed / exploited by organised crime to extract those funds?”
This research does not appear to be able to answer either of these questions. So what questions do the researchers hope to answer? Would have been nice if The Guardian asked them that for us.
Homelessness is a massive issue in the UK and I hope the test outlined in the article gives us some answers as to how to tackle it. However, I'm skeptical that even paying for essentials and housing will work at this point. I think it's almost impossible to detach from the reality that a huge portion, if not the overwhelming majority have also become pretty severe junkies. I'm not saying this as someone totally unsympathetic to the affliction, my best friend also fell down that rabbit hole but addressing the homelessness aspect without addressing the addictions that result from being homeless or lead it feels like a recipe for not solving the problem.
I really hope I'm wrong and this works, it's insane that first world countries like the UK have these massive problems with homelessness, there are enough resources around to solve these problems, they just aren't distributed evenly and the support systems of this country have been in a state of ongoing collapse since 2008 and the austerity and chaos that followed