No reason not to do this across the board

  • Em Adespoton
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Those who got the payment did not spend more money on “temptation goods,” spent 99 fewer days homeless, increased their savings and spent less time in shelters which “saved society” $777 per person, according to a news release from UBC.

    Is that gross or net savings? That is, is the $7500 included and there was a net savings, or was there a net cost of $6723?

    • ByGourou@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seems to be net savings, quoting someone else :

      https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2222103120

      The societal cost of a shelter stay in Vancouver is estimated at $93 per night (6), so fewer nights in shelters generated a societal cost savings of $8,277. After accounting for the cost of the cash transfer, the reduced shelter use led to societal net savings of $777 per person a year.

    • Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      From the linked study:

      generated societal net savings of $777 per recipient via reduced time in shelter

      So giving them $7500 reduced shelter costs by $8277. I would guess the total “societal cost” reduction is even higher, due to the harder to calculate indirect costs; but those are difficult to validate.

      Also, there’s 99 shelter days saved per person, $777 for that period would be incredible. If you’ve got a secret to run a shelter for < $8/bed/day, you’re going to solve homelessness and the housing shortage.