alt.hn

2/1/2026 at 8:04:14 PM

Oregon gave homeless youth $1k/month with no strings

 https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2026/01/oregon-tried-giving-homeless-youth-1000-a-month-with-no-strings-attached-heres-what-happened.html

by xqcgrek2

2/1/2026 at 8:54:24 PM

> More than half of participants were women, while 30% were male and 18% identified as transgender or gender inclusive.

Why were the ratios not representative of actual homeless demographics? Most homeless people are biological men by an overwhelming majority.

Maybe transgendered people and women seek more help? Or the people conducting this study were biased themselves? As a result, I don’t think the results universally say something about homelessness.

by threethirtytwo

2/1/2026 at 9:15:30 PM

From the article: > The program prioritized underrepresented populations. That includes young parents, who made up 43% of participants by the end of the period.

Homeless parents are almost always women with very few exceptions. Now, in my personal opinion, "underrepresented populations" in this kind of environment refers to people who are at greater immediate risk while homeless, which obviously include women & genderqueer people, as well as those who are young+single parents or are disabled.

Find and read the actual full report for more details though.

by luafox

2/1/2026 at 11:56:29 PM

>The program prioritized underrepresented populations.

Do you know why they did this? Transgenderism or being a woman is an orthogonal concept to homelessness. Whatever demographic you're in, if you are homeless, you are suffering and I assume are exposed to the same gender neutral dangers that arise from being homeless.

What exactly is the greater danger that would need such prioritization?

by threethirtytwo

2/2/2026 at 1:29:01 AM

They said parents received priority. Homeless people whose children live with them are women mostly. Giving parents priority aided their children.

The report said the programs prioritized groups that are overrepresented in national youth homelessness counts, including LGBTQ+ and BIPOC youth, as well as those who were pregnant or parenting status, formerly incarcerated, undocumented, or had a history of domestic violence or trafficking, populations that are continually overrepresented in national youth homelessness counts.[1] Underrepresented was the journalist's description seemingly.

Some dangers to homeless people are gender neutral. Some are not. Sexual assault is not. But the portions of the report I read did not say immediate danger was considered.

Being transgender is a more polite way to describe being transgender.

[1] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60418acae851e139836c6...

by pseudalopex

2/2/2026 at 1:51:54 AM

[dead]

by NuclearPM

2/2/2026 at 12:07:19 AM

Queer people are at a greater risk of being estranged from their families, if nothing else.

by Kuraj

2/2/2026 at 1:24:42 AM

Aren't all homeless people estranged from families?

I assume family would help if it was a possibility.

by threethirtytwo

2/2/2026 at 2:09:52 AM

Someone unable or unwilling to house a family member could be able and willing to pay their phone service. Someone unable to pay their phone service could be willing to talk to them.

Homeless young people are disproportionately LGBT because of family rejection.

by pseudalopex

2/2/2026 at 2:52:35 AM

If they have a family.

by D-Coder

2/2/2026 at 8:00:27 AM

That's a gigantic, optimistic assumption.

Don't assume. Your life is nothing like theirs. You have no idea what it's like. I know some of them; I have no idea what they face on the daily.

Not fearing being kicked in the middle of the night while you sleep is part of the privilege that keeps you from understanding what they live in.

by IAmBroom

2/2/2026 at 8:24:29 PM

How is my assumption optimistic? I assumed all homeless people are estranged from families. That is a pessimistic assumption. It’s bad for everyone.

What are you meaning here?

by threethirtytwo

2/2/2026 at 12:12:04 AM

I guess the flipside of this is, do we want poor/homeless people from groups our society dubs “overrepresented” to only be able to find help from organizations that specifically serve selected “overrepresented” groups? Are there no obvious bad sides to that?

Because you can’t really have the one without the other.

by pseudocomposer

2/2/2026 at 1:24:38 AM

Also, transgender people are more likely to experience violence on the streets.

by thompsonparker

2/3/2026 at 7:24:26 AM

transgenderism is not a thing. transgender people are real, however.

trans people are at greater risk of violence and sexual assault (sometimes because sex work is the only way for them to survive). being arrested as a trans woman could mean being placed in a jail/prison with cis men, again, putting them at greater risk of violence and sexual assault.

by locopati

2/1/2026 at 9:07:38 PM

This program specifically targeted homeless youth; it seems plausible that the demographics of that segment might differ from the larger community.

by duskwuff

2/1/2026 at 11:57:16 PM

This makes sense, targeting youth likely has a higher chance of a better outcome?

by threethirtytwo

2/2/2026 at 2:18:04 AM

From my experiences, it does have a higher chance of better outcome, as homeless youth are usually homeless because of some family issue and not because they are unable to hold down a job as a result of drug abuse or being homeless.

by kayfox

2/2/2026 at 10:50:59 AM

Yup. And the longer they’re homeless the higher the likelihood that they do develop health or drug problems and shift from being relatively easy to relatively difficult to get back on their feet.

Plus, homeless youth can include kids as young as 14 or 15, who are especially vulnerable to predators on the street.

by apothegm

2/2/2026 at 2:30:13 AM

There are reasons targeting youth could be more effective. But a more direct reason this project targeted youth was Oregon's homeless youth program designed it.

by pseudalopex

2/2/2026 at 2:16:13 AM

Something noone else has said here, and I don't know the degree to which it is true for this study, but good study design generally includes stratified sampling.

e.g. if there are subpopulations whose experience differs a lot, you want to have those populations overrepresented in your study to reduce variance of study.

This is basic statistics.

by jmalicki

2/1/2026 at 9:08:55 PM

it’s a youth program ran by a youth organization. Young people dealing with family problems due to gender identity, sexuality etc. are a very large portion of homeless youth. I would guess transgender people are underrepresented at just 18%.

by 3rodents

2/1/2026 at 9:07:15 PM

Probably because homeless women are more likely than homeless men to access social services, which means they're where the program directors can find them?

by bandrami

2/2/2026 at 2:14:36 AM

Your comparing statistics for homeless adults to homeless youth.

From my experience being a homeless youth 20 years ago, LGBTQ individuals make up a large share of homeless youth, I would guess more than 50% at the time.

There may be less gay or lesbian homeless youth these days, but transgender youth may have grown.

by kayfox

2/2/2026 at 12:08:37 AM

True, but most straight male homeless individuals are homeless because of substance abuse, so giving them money doesn't address the cause of their homelessness in any way.

The targeted populations were primarily homeless for economic reasons, so the point of the experiment was to demonstrate that the simplest/most efficient solution was just to give them some money.

by gamblor956

2/2/2026 at 12:20:06 AM

> most straight male homeless individuals are homeless because of substance abuse

Do you have a citation for this?

by pseudalopex

2/2/2026 at 2:55:01 AM

You're welcome to walk yourself down to Skid Row or your nearest homeless camp and conduct a detailed survey if you want the specifics. Or, a simple Google search will provide several studies including demographic details.

by gamblor956

2/2/2026 at 3:57:21 PM

> You're welcome to walk yourself down to Skid Row or your nearest homeless camp and conduct a detailed survey if you want the specifics.

What country is the subject of this discussion? I assumed the US because the article was about Oregon. Most homeless people in the US do not live in camps.[1]

> Or, a simple Google search will provide several studies including demographic details.

Simple searches found researchers couldn't agree how many homeless people used drugs. Never mind abused. Never mind abused before becoming homeless. Never mind became homeless because they abused drugs.

Simple searches found citations for the claim substance abused caused most homelessness failed to support the claim. A survey cited frequently asked mayors what they thought were the top causes of homelessness in their cities.

Simple searches found studies which said homelessness was economic primarily.

[1] https://aibm.org/research/homelessness-in-the-united-states/

by pseudalopex

2/2/2026 at 5:34:29 PM

It was a small pilot (120 people) -- given the number of homeless in Portland alone, it wouldn't be difficult to find 60 who were women even if women make up a smallish percentage of overall homeless.

by insane_dreamer

2/1/2026 at 9:23:50 PM

> Based on responses from about half of the program’s participants

That "responses" is a link to the actual report.

1. The program was 120 people. 80 did an initial survey, 80 did a final survey, and there was an overlap is 60 who did both surveys. The survey was offered to all participants.

So, this is not a random / representative sample.

2. The program also included counseling sessions.

So, there's the potential for different results for money without counseling, or counseling without money.

3. I don't see any comparison to a control group.

For example, it's well known that homelessness is usually transitory. Without a control group, there's nothing to identify what was caused by the program vs being caused by the usual course of things.

by tbrownaw

2/1/2026 at 9:08:26 PM

Consider reading the full final report here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60418acae851e139836c6...

Contains significantly more information and exact statistics.

by luafox

2/1/2026 at 9:28:40 PM

Unfortunately it looks like the headline numbers may not be representative:

“The research team did not initially receive a complete participant contact list and the CBO staff led in facilitating recruitment, resulting in a sample that does not represent all DCT+ participants. The limited sample size further limits the representativeness and generalizability of findings. The evaluation sample of 63 participants represents only 54% of the total 117 program participants. Therefore, the study population may not adequately represent the broader DCT+ experience. Additionally, participants who completed both initial and exit surveys may differ systematically from those who did not, potentially skewing results toward more positive outcomes among individuals who remained engaged throughout the evaluation period.”

by 3rodents

2/1/2026 at 8:54:06 PM

I like the idea of helping people out of poverty. But the problem with government funded charities is they are so ripe for fraud, they almost never get managed properly.

by honeycrispy

2/1/2026 at 9:02:17 PM

This is a myth, actual fraud rates on programs like this are tiny - especially if you compare them to the benefits.

by bo0tzz

2/1/2026 at 9:04:41 PM

Fraud rates on benefits are also absurdly low.

by PaulKeeble

2/1/2026 at 9:29:51 PM

I read that more that the benefits society gets from lifting people from poverty as opposed to the food stamps benefits you seem to have in mind.

by RealityVoid

2/2/2026 at 7:36:42 AM

That is indeed what I meant.

by bo0tzz

2/1/2026 at 9:27:45 PM

Most people in a tech business can easily identify a whale hunt. That is, a business where a small number of customers provide such a disproportionate share of revenue that everyone else doesn't matter. But for some reason they fail to see government spending fraud is in fact a whale hunt.

by Zigurd

2/1/2026 at 9:17:13 PM

I say we first ensure that fraudsters be not placed in government positions, and then worry more about eradicating the lesser fraud in charities that receive some funding from the government.

by treetalker

2/1/2026 at 9:28:41 PM

OP's comment is just hilarious on too many levels. "I like X, but...", so let's not even try. No evidence for the claim, either. And all while failing to see the bigger picture.

by yunnpp

2/1/2026 at 9:29:40 PM

Like the Whitehouse?

by esseph

2/2/2026 at 5:36:38 PM

> almost never get managed properly

that's a pretty big (and likely untrue) claim

by insane_dreamer

2/1/2026 at 8:52:13 PM

Oh look, it worked again.

by Nekhrimah

2/2/2026 at 10:13:02 PM

How's that? You give people enough money for food and shelter for a while and they have food and shelter while you're giving them that money?

It says nothing about what happened 5 years after the participants stopped getting the money.

And I'll remind you that giving money to people directly instead of creating complex government programs is exactly what Reagan wanted in the 1960s when a lot of the programs started--so must be a suspect idea

by readthenotes1

2/2/2026 at 3:06:39 PM

It would be interesting if someone built a platform like Brex or Expensify, to manage spending within these programs.

Something that balanced empowering participants and protecting their privacy, while also protecting them from financial abuse.

by owenbrown

2/1/2026 at 9:21:16 PM

Heres what happened .. A bunch of folks who were born into wealth and who vote Republican criticized the program as socialism since they believed that everyone should pull themselves by their bootstraps just as they did by being born into money. If you havent, well systems dont work for everybody so its tragic but helping people institutionally is socialism and nothing not even homelessness is worse.

by another_twist

2/1/2026 at 8:45:59 PM

Libertarians who want the impoverished to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" don't realize what that takes. Nobody deserves to live without a home. We need successes like these so that as many people as possible can get assistance.

by Antibabelic

2/1/2026 at 8:51:05 PM

It's also wild just how cost-effective interventions like this can be. You can pay a thousand here and there, or a few hundred thousand incarcerating these people when they turn to crime out of desperation.

by gameman144

2/1/2026 at 10:19:48 PM

We're paying ~$50K for every person that's incarcerated, BUT nobody takes into account the income we're losing from their taxes and spending if they were living a sane life in the free world.

It is exceptionally difficult to move people from a life of crime and addiction back into society, though. And I have insane respect for the people that do it full time. I've worked in that space and it's a world of absolute unending chaos.

by qingcharles

2/2/2026 at 12:42:50 AM

100%. Even beyond the direct incarceration costs and the opportunity cost of their lost contributions, there is also the cost of the whole apparatus for arresting and charging folks with crimes and trying them. The police department alone is more than 1/3 of our budget in Austin. Add courts and forensics and it’s 40%. And that’s still just the money part, to say nothing of the moral impact and humanity we throw away.

by newAccount2025

2/1/2026 at 11:32:19 PM

It’s exceptionally difficult because we largely do not try; recidivism rates in the US are multiples of other countries.

by lux-lux-lux

2/2/2026 at 1:50:46 AM

IIRC this is at least partly because we measure that differently (re-arrest in X years vs re-conviction in Y years I think it was?).

by tbrownaw

2/2/2026 at 2:04:04 AM

50k is a pittance compared to the amount of suffering the average criminal causes. I'd pay $1 million /year to incarcerate more people so long as we got the right people. I'd pay any amount. The cost of being a victim is monstrously high it doesn't matter

by anon291

2/2/2026 at 10:47:04 PM

That depends on the crime, now doesn't it. When I got my car stolen the first time, the kid who stole it went on a joy ride, dumped the car, got caught. I got my car back, and the whole experience was largely an inconvenience. Most painful part was paying the impound lot. Dude ended up spending over a year behind bars.

Now, what did society gain from locking that kid up? Not $50,000 worth, that's for sure. Definitely not a million dollars' worth. No, it just fucked up some dude's life, and made some jackass at the tow yard $600 richer. If anybody had asked me, my idea of justice would be a few weekends community service, maybe a small fine, and a molotov through the tow-yard office's window.

Don't get me wrong, there are crimes worth the societal cost to punish. Violent crimes, crimes that cause serious emotional or financial damages. Abuses of power. But that isn't most criminals. In my book, if a victim wouldn't seriously consider killing the perpetrator, we probably shouldn't be in the business of incarcerating them.

Because incarceration basically carries the message of "We the people want to fuck your life up, but don't have the stomach to kill you".

by OkayPhysicist

2/1/2026 at 9:23:58 PM

Totally agree. I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs but the reality is if we don't find effective policies I end up paying more in taxes for emergency treatment and society take major economic hits for the other secondary problems, like crime, that homelessness causes. Of course the other argument for this is that society clearly has a hand in the path that took these people to where they are at now so society has some responsibility. Both are reasons to support well researched evidence based policy decisions to deal with the problem.

by jmward01

2/1/2026 at 9:30:53 PM

You don't want to pay taxes for social programs as opposed to...what? Military and defense spending? What is there better than a social program?

by yunnpp

2/1/2026 at 10:09:00 PM

There are several reactions to the 'I don't want to pay taxes' so I'll pick this one and respond. I hope you read the rest of the comment. I don't want to pay taxes because who does? Ever? But we -need- to pay taxes for programs that work because the alternative, massive social costs and damage to society, are far worse. So, sure, I don't want to pay taxes for social programs but I admit the need to and therefore I want the most effective, evidence based programs we can find. We need value for the effort and that involves doing research to figure that value out. If a program like this efficiently reduces the problems associated with homelessness I am all for it.

As to what I would actually want to pay taxes for it is to build new things and achieve new things as a society. I never want to spend money on 'fixing', it is needed, it has to happen, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Building new things however I am 100% for. Get us to space. Find new particles. Help foster the arts. That is what I want my taxes to go for. So, yes, fund things like this if it is effective because we have to but you won't get me to say I want to spend money one this.

by jmward01

2/1/2026 at 11:48:20 PM

I want to pay taxes. Just like I want to be paid for my work, and those who devote themselves to public service want to be paid for theirs.

Ideally government work would pay well enough there would be no temptation to accept bribes, or declare bribes legal through awkward loopholes like campaign financing.

by paulryanrogers

2/2/2026 at 12:51:55 AM

You realize existing roads need maintenance, i.e. fixing, too, right? Your approach towards taxes is absurd and reflects a lack of understanding of how anything works. And why, of all things, should taxes send us to the moon? Subsidizing private enterprise is the worst use of taxes.

by yunnpp

2/2/2026 at 1:17:39 AM

I'm not sure if you are intentionally missing the point or not. I'll try one last time. I have very clearly not said 'this shouldn't be done'. I haven't said 'we shouldn't pay for social services or roads'. In fact, I clearly said we should pay for social services, now twice. What I have clearly said is 'I don't want to', but I do a lot of things I don't want to because they have to be done. I don't want to go to work. I don't want to pay taxes. Most days I don't want to go to bed at a reasonable time, but I do it because the alternative is worse. We -should- do something doesn't me I -want- to do something. Yes. We will pay for roads because they are needed. Hopefully things are very clear now and if not, oh well.

by jmward01

2/1/2026 at 11:12:50 PM

The the whole thing can be summed up as "Paying taxes sucks, but if paying the taxes saves more money down then line, then we should do it"

by johnny22

2/1/2026 at 9:48:22 PM

I'd be happy to pay taxes going to social programs also for my own benefit: not only as a form of insurance, but for getting a more pleasant day to day experience - like not having to step over homeless, less insecurity in darker areas, not having to live imprisoned in gated communities, and so on. A man can dream...

by soco

2/2/2026 at 12:15:01 AM

How much would you have to pay to no longer enjoy the benefit? I think that's the major question.

I wouldn't much mind 1% in income tax for that, for example, but when you start pushing 10% it's an entirely different story.

by hellojesus

2/2/2026 at 2:21:40 PM

The thing really irking me is seeing how I pay much more taxes than the megarich and their corporations. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why this happens: they don't give a rat's ass on my safety concerns because they are very happy to live on their gated islands or travel between expensive resorts. But that we, the people (ha, ha) construct our society basically for them also basically holds me back from even discussing those numbers you asked.

by soco

2/2/2026 at 3:21:26 PM

Corporations pay taxes on distributions. In fact, C Corporations pay double taxes: once for the profit and then again when those profits are distributed to shareholders. Every employee pays income taxes. Why on earth would we want to create greater economic drag by increasing their tax rate? All that does is reduce their ability to reward investors.

by hellojesus

2/1/2026 at 9:39:07 PM

> I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs

This is such awild thing to say. What do you think the point of society is? Also, there is no way you "Totally agree" if at the same time you are saying this.

Also if you understand the cost of incarceration and the negative social ills of poverty, then being against social programs, broadly, makes no sense.

by iamrobertismo

2/2/2026 at 12:01:22 AM

Social programs are definitionaly nonpublic. That is, they do not provide nonrivalous and nonexcludable benefits.

The proper method to administrate social benefits is via charity. In this way, there is no deadweight loss through unnecessary taxes.

by hellojesus

2/2/2026 at 4:29:57 AM

> The proper method to administrate social benefits is via charity. In this way, there is no deadweight loss through unnecessary taxes.

We've tried this for years, it doesn't work at scale. And the end result is that you and I are still taxed, just more expensively and differently. We pay more for cops, prisons, healthcare etc because we're unwilling to solve it at scale.

by fzeroracer

2/2/2026 at 3:17:30 PM

When did we try this? I'd argue we haven't tried it since the 16th Ammendment went into effect.

This isn't a problem that needs solving at scale. It's a problem that needs local/hyperlocal solutions with very strict strings attached. If we're not able to monitor the outcomes of each participant and ensure not a single drop of benefits aren't spent on no essentials (self improvement allowable), then we are wasting dollars on lazy.

by hellojesus

2/3/2026 at 1:21:07 AM

> This isn't a problem that needs solving at scale.

If it's a problem across the US, in multiple states then yes. It's a problem that needs to be solved at scale, because it's a problem innate to the US.

> It's a problem that needs local/hyperlocal solutions with very strict strings attached.

Means-testing doesn't work either. It's been tried. It usually means 'convert to our religion or you get no benefits' or 'gays do not apply'. See: Salvation Army.

> If we're not able to monitor the outcomes of each participant and ensure not a single drop of benefits aren't spent on no essentials (self improvement allowable), then we are wasting dollars on lazy.

This is just the usual 'lazy poor' rhetoric. It's out of date by about 15 years.

by fzeroracer

2/3/2026 at 2:19:56 AM

> It usually means 'convert to our religion or you get no benefits' or 'gays do not apply'. See: Salvation Army.

I fail to see how this is a problem. Beggers can't be choosers. If you need help, it may not be the worst thing to follow some guidance from folks that have figured things out. Note: Christian faiths would likely preach against queerness but not use it as a disqualifying event. At most they would state that the lifestyle isn't consistent with scripture. (of course extremes exist).

I'll have to look up on literature about means testing. I still fail to see how some person's poor decisions across the country should affect me. It should be a local issue to resolve governmentally. I'm sure the country would open their arms voluntarily if prompted. See Grover Cleveland and the farm disaster.

by hellojesus

2/3/2026 at 5:00:38 AM

> I fail to see how this is a problem. Beggers can't be choosers. If you need help, it may not be the worst thing to follow some guidance from folks that have figured things out. Note: Christian faiths would likely preach against queerness but not use it as a disqualifying event. At most they would state that the lifestyle isn't consistent with scripture. (of course extremes exist).

No, but charities can be choosers and beggers don't get a choice. I literally just pointed out a charity which does exactly what I said, one of the biggest charities in the US and the greatest example of how just relying on charity doesn't work, especially as they behave contrary to the literal scripture.

> I'll have to look up on literature about means testing. I still fail to see how some person's poor decisions across the country should affect me.

It will always affect you. Who do you think pays for when people have to go to the hospital and seek aid? Or when our 'charity' fails and people that would otherwise be fine with things like unemployment aid end up homeless? Or when we need more police because people who need medication or food can't afford it? It's you and me.

by fzeroracer

2/3/2026 at 5:33:21 AM

Fair enough. I would concede that universal programs with progressive taxation is probably the best solution if we ignore the deadweight loss.

Providing universal food, healthcare means the gov increases demand. This leads to higher prices. Maybe more producers jump in to drive supply up and the equilibrium neutralizes back at the initial level. Suddenly the capital that was redirected to increase that supply reduces supply in other markets and drives up costs. The gov has manipulated the market, and they have the power to continue doing so on a whim. Consumers, especially those who are taxed at much higher progressive levels, lose purchasing power and those markets must adjust.

Maybe this is better than the outcome where we do the same thing but force cops to lock up everyone that is stealing for free food. After all, when everyone is in jail you have the same problem of gov interference in food, healthcare, and housing markets. But the additional overhead of law enforcement administration. Plus the total loss of economic contribution from those imprisoned.

But those dollars redistributed from the wealthy hurt. They really do. Especially since the progressive taxation hits middle income earners so fiercely. For example, I pay a little over $50k/year for two kids in daycare. The state wants to tax 1% of my (married) income above $200k to let other people send their kids to daycare for free. So suddenly demand increases, raising the $50k price I already pay, and now I lose $x dollars a year from my ability to spend freely. Why? So somebody can enter the labor market and drag down wages?

Maybe it's better. It probably is. It sounds a lot nicer. I don't think I earn enough to feel good about it though. I feel like it's throwing money into the pit of dispair as my ability to pursue my life's passions slips further away from the present (e.g., fire).

But maybe society will be nicer.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the 1% tax doesn't provide free daycare to all. It's really quite selective. So a universal program would be orders of magnitude more expensive, and taxation rates would be tremendous.

I already pay a little over 30% effective rate. It's demoralizing that, of the annual income, I don't get to keep it until approximately Easter. Society would have to be much, much nicer for me to work for free until June or July without being permanently grouchy. Plus wealth taxes, apart from being bad policy, are not federally legal because wealth isn't income, so the state would have to implement it, and we all know some states wouldn't so they could attract the wealthy, which means that those low wealth, medium to high earners would be paying even more.

by hellojesus

2/2/2026 at 10:55:55 AM

Don’t worry. If the “right” people get their hands on it, you won’t have to cover the cost of their emergency treatment either!

(/s because poes law)

by apothegm

2/1/2026 at 9:24:29 PM

Yeah but then you cant pay Palantir to throw their "advanced" data analytics engine at the problem. And who will fund the military industrial complex that does the important job of defending the people of America from external threats that are absolutely totally coming for you.

by another_twist

2/2/2026 at 5:39:07 PM

The books "Evicted" helped me understand all of this much better. I highly recommend it to anyone who has a hard time comprehending why "just pull yourself up" is often BS

by insane_dreamer

2/1/2026 at 9:20:50 PM

Ostrom provided the solution to the tragedy of the commons: self-organizing, collective governance. It is no coincidence that Agile is a convergent solution to the exact same principles. We were told for decades that the only options are the state or the market, Ostrom proved that false.

But we don't live in an evidence-based world, we live in one shaped by power dynamics. We have the blueprint for collective prosperity, but we choose extraction. In the US, this has gone so far that Christianity has been twisted into a prosperity gospel, a heresy that serves as a moral shield for raw capitalism. It allows the system to pretend that business interests are actually virtues.

The world is in a mess because we ignore the mechanics of the systems we build. Be it capitalism, feudalism, or authoritarian communism, they all fail the same way, they lead to elite overproduction (Turchin).

When you funnel all resources to the very top, you create too many aspiring elites with no productive role to play. They inevitably turn on the system and each other. These systems are mathematically destined to collapse. Ostrom polycentric governance is one of the few ways out.

by Adiqq

2/1/2026 at 11:52:16 PM

Christianity had plenty of problems before capitalism became a thing. IMO both need to be heavily regulated, certainly not given special privileges or a blank check to consolidate power.

by paulryanrogers

2/2/2026 at 2:53:06 AM

Who is Ostrom and what is their thesis?

by engineer_22

2/1/2026 at 8:52:10 PM

[dead]

by aaaalone

2/2/2026 at 1:49:48 AM

[flagged]

by RiceNBananas

2/1/2026 at 8:43:38 PM

So if you give people money they'll endeavor to tell you precisely what they think you want to hear. I would be much more impressed if this wasn't based solely on self-reported results.

by themafia

2/1/2026 at 8:52:37 PM

I agree, further study is warranted. They should do it again with a larger cohort for longer and with more objective measures.

by nkrisc

2/2/2026 at 1:31:52 AM

We already know just based on the limited amount from the annual payment to all residents of Alaska from their state wide oil and mineral fund over the past 40 some odd years, there are a lot of studies - off top of my head some study found people who were unemployed were in aggregate slightly more likely to get work, because the money enabled them to look farther for jobs instead of just surviving, it also increased demand for goods and services provided by other Alaskans. Here's one of many that breaks things down from economist point of view https://home.uchicago.edu/~j1s/Jones_Alaska_2022.pdf

by stevenwoo

2/1/2026 at 9:23:03 PM

Larger and larger until we're just flat out testing UBI is fine by me. If you want to test UBI, there's no better way than implementing UBI.

by kelseyfrog

2/2/2026 at 12:14:02 AM

[flagged]

by hubber

2/2/2026 at 11:08:13 AM

Sure, if you want to live on $1,000/month, go for it. I’ll be earning more than that though so I can travel more and do other stuff.

Maybe you’ll get bored and spend some of your time doing something productive, or maybe not, and that’s OK too.

by nkrisc

2/2/2026 at 5:40:22 PM

please post location of beach and list of beverages that you can possibly survive on for $1K/month

by insane_dreamer

2/2/2026 at 1:37:42 AM

Ok? Sorry, I don't understand the point you're making.

by kelseyfrog

2/1/2026 at 8:53:51 PM

> “Just one year after completing (the program), I’m in my own place, halfway through a business degree, focused on building a stable, secure foundation for my daughter and myself, and working toward becoming a nonprofit leader who supports her community.”

I know, right? She did all that just so she could give her social workers the feedback they wanted to hear! Those liberals are so dastardly!

by gtowey

2/1/2026 at 9:12:00 PM

Those sneaky freeloaders, materially improving their lives and futures just to “prove” that social programs work.

by solid_fuel

2/1/2026 at 9:32:33 PM

And then they went back to homelessness. Those social workers running the survey won't even notice how poisoned the data set is.

by yunnpp

2/1/2026 at 9:01:01 PM

self reported results that may be confirmed, vs subjective self reports such as, i feel happy and motivated now.

by rolph

2/1/2026 at 8:44:46 PM

Yeah, couldn't possibly be that there were any actually good results coming from this. That's just an impossibility.

by slater

2/1/2026 at 8:48:48 PM

I don't think the parent is even saying that, their point is pretty reasonable: having some objective measure for before and after in any study is more reliable than self-reporting, especially when the subject might be incentivized to lie.

The self reports might be totally true, but the study isn't as good as it might be.

by gameman144

2/1/2026 at 9:08:55 PM

Maybe I misunderstood the article, but... the participants would have had no incentive to lie?

They were going to get the money for the fixed period unconditionally. That was the point.

by sxde

2/1/2026 at 9:32:55 PM

TBF the welfare queen trope is well trodden ground. I'm actually surprised to see it brought up more than once in a supposedly sophisticated forum.

by Zigurd

2/1/2026 at 8:50:55 PM

I don't think that's what GP is saying. This report would be more believable and more objective if it would have other types of metrics than just self-reporting ones.

There is a kind of people that function by finding edge-cases, questioning the results and posing uneasy questions when presented with a situation. Some might call them "haters", or nit-pickers, but I think their way of thinking is useful to make sure we're not just being fed feel-good make-believe.

by redleader55

2/1/2026 at 8:49:38 PM

A lot of existing social assistance is wildly inefficient as it is. With proper calibration of expectations, I think most people would be thrilled to see even 1/3 of the target population meaningfully helped. The rest of cash giveaway is not "waste" in that scenario, it's the cost of helping the ones that do end up homed, working, and paying taxes... which then contribute back to lowering the net cost of the "waste".

by mikepurvis

2/1/2026 at 8:53:22 PM

If you pay people $1k to kill snakes, you'll end up with a lot of dead snakes, but you'll also end up with more snakes.

It's not good enough to prove that the solution to the problem works for one side. It could create a problem elsewhere, and easily a bigger problem than you had before.

It's definitely not a good enough answer to give people $1k and essentially ask them: did you like getting $1k?

That's not what happened. This is what they did:

> Oregon’s results confirm what we saw in New York: When you cover the real cost of shared housing directly for two years — and pair it with support — young people stay housed

That's very light on details.

I would hope we can assume with a non-trivial sample size that you will find at least some success cases.

That should not surprise anyone. It matters: how often did it pay off (not answered), how much did it pay off (housed after is a start, for how long, what other improvements would be good to know), was it worth it (presumably we could've given them $10M per month and got similar results, which clearly would not have been worth it), and how can you prove it doesn't create a worse problem elsewhere (the hard part).

People like to just assume that if you give people money there's no hidden side effects elsewhere. Giving money is good. Plain and simple. There can't be any bad involved. Well, there can.

by onlyrealcuzzo

2/1/2026 at 8:48:31 PM

Hold on - what exactly do you think they're lying about? Whether they're currently housed?

Because, imo, that's the headline result - 94% is a great success rate.

by fwip

2/1/2026 at 9:15:41 PM

What I got from the article is that 94% reported being housed at the end of the period where they were receiving money.

But the real question for me is what happens 6 months to a year after the funding ends.

by toast0

2/2/2026 at 8:52:56 PM

yes. This is a good data point, but a follow-on study is needed to see the regression rate and whether such aid is needed continuously or if doing so for a period of time is sufficient. Likely would depend on the reasons why they became homeless in the first place.

by insane_dreamer

2/1/2026 at 9:11:21 PM

It could be. How did the control group do?

by xn