Jack London, the famous homeless / hobo writer of "Call of the Wild" and "White Fang", was only able to write his first book because of the support of community libraries and random strangers who gave him a bed occasionally. Eventually, he was able to pull himself out of poverty and become one of the most famous writers ever.
If you can help those homeless people for a few years, that's all that's needed to permanently change some of their lives for the better. It will suck when the program ends, but some-help is better than none at all.
-----------
These programs aren't supposed to be sustainable living forever-and-ever. They are parachutes to help people who are in tough times. They provide a pathway out of poverty.
re: Ontario's cancelled "experiment" - the recipient they talked to felt she had been "betrayed" and "wasn't going to be able to make ends meet"
So after less than 2 years it transformed from a narrow experiment into a entitlement, like many (most?) government programs. It was no longer treated as a "top-up" but a core component of survival.
It seems to make sense that a fixed-limit benefit would prevent this, but history shows that a non-trivial percentage of recipients just use it as a reprieve from the inevitable.
Well yeah. But that person's life is surely for the better because the program existed for those two years?
I don't want to demean that person's feelings. But two years with basic income is strictly better than two years without basic income.
If the only argument against UBI is that "Penny-pinchers in the future might shut down the project", that isn't really a counter-argument at all.
Or, look at the education system in Washington DC- highest expenditure per pupil, with sub-par results.
Giving everyone for an undefined, but definitely finte, period a lump sum of cash will certainly help a small number of people. Others will not leverage the windfall and will once again be destitute when the charity ends.
What do we do then? I would rather have a more systematic solution [edit: set of solutions] to help people whenever they are in need, rather than a blanket solution.
Some arguments I've seen boil down to "well, let's do both!" at which point all they are arguing for is sticking with the same broken system, but throwing more money on top of it. It doesn't change the fact that what we have isn't working, and isn't going to be solved by further crippling the middle class (since "the rich" typically adjust income strategies whenever taxes change, they're not going to be affected in the way "tax the rich" folk expect).
Wat? It (UBI) is a self described universal solution. Inability to avoid becoming degenerate (where your daily situation will gradually worsen) in the western world is not a specific problem. The idea that leveraging UBI for 2 years (which is oddly specific) is beneficial, is laughable. Almost every degenerate (not a pejorative usage here) started from a stable lifestyle, belies the problem with that approach. You've staved off a few years, but not addressed the underlying issue. If you aren't adapted (intelligent, able bodied, whatever) to survive in modern western society, is sterilization (or lawful restriction on childbirths) for permanent UBI moral? This avoids the octomom welfare queen issues. It's worth thinking about, I believe.
Throwing money at them won't change their condition so much as providing treatment for the underlying cause that allowed them to become "degenerate" as you say.
Unfortunately, many have no desire to accept treatment- either they feel they don[t need it, don't want it (hard to give up drugs) or fear repercussions of accepting treatment (i.e. come under close scrutiny, lose freedom, get locked away, etc).
The sort of homelessness that is harder to "see", so to speak- and that's the sort of people who are temporarily out of a job and lost their home, or suffered a medical setback, or what have you. Sometimes, money is enough for them to get back on their feet. Other times, they simply lack the financial skills necessary to make wise money decisions (aka have a savings account built up for emergencies) and could also benefit from financial training to avoid landing right back in the same situation again.
No matter how you look at it, a tailored solution is more effective than throwing money at people, because the problem you see isn't necessarily the root problem that needs to be addressed.
As far as I can see it, "not having a savings account" is primarily a function of money.
Intelligent people have low savings because rent is higher than their take-home pay. Remember that the average American family lives under $50,000 / year wages. That's a family, which typically includes TWO wage-earners.
Average wages is below $35k / year. Drop out a bunch for taxes and it becomes difficult to build up savings.
Go to "below average" jobs and you straight up are unable to afford rent, unless you band people together somehow.
If Charities can rescue people some of the times, then the US Government can apply those principles and rescue people all of the time.
A good idea can be done by a Charity, by your neighbor, or by the US Government. It doesn't matter who does it, as long as it gets done.
> What is stopping someone else from doing exactly what Jack did?
Well, eventually Jack London ran into Hobo and anti-loitering laws and landed in jail. Jack London then traveled to areas without Hobo laws and anti-loitering laws.
Although, the times were different. Jack London was homeless due to the depression of the 1890s, and the number of Hobos were so large that they grouped together and formed "Hobo Code" and kinda their own society. Ideally, we should never have that huge number of homeless people ever again.