this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2025
45 points (60.4% liked)

Comic Strips

13104 readers
2749 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 day ago

Ok but it also highlights one of the sources for that preconception. A single influx of cash won't get an unhoused person back on their feet. They can't take $100 to the bank and get a car loan or a mortgage. They could rent a room for a day or two at most, OR they could get some drugs and/or alcohol and enjoy life for a few hours. Might even get laid, or make a friend.

Do you expect them to maximize the value of that opportunity? To go buy some bulk rice and beans and start meal prepping, or invest in a bus pass and a collared shirt? When you're down, a day of fun can be the memory that sustains you through some hard times. There's logic in choosing the short-term when things are that bleak.

The real problem is that we confuse handouts for safety nets and investments in our society. Every study on the subject of aid shows us that poor people need money. Not food stamps, not shelters, not some tightly-controlled stipend with strings and requirements and monitoring. Straight cash is the best remedy, and it's not even close. Some people will buy drugs or alcohol or lobsters or whatever else people are afraid of.

The lesson here is that it's OK if a welfare recipient spends some of that money enjoying themselves. Addiction treatment should be available to all, but there isn't a vice in the history of human civilization that has been eliminated or even reduced by making people poorer. If we had UBI, then people would have a reason to stay sober and rejoin society as a functioning adult. If we simply gave out the money we already spend fighting homelessness and addiction, it would provide more help to more people, even if some of them spiral down further.