This morning’s op-ed page of The Washington Post published an unusually interesting article by Rutger Bregman, a Dutch journalist. Essentially, the article reported the unexpected results of a social experiment conducted by a charity. In 2009, 13 homeless men in London were each given £3,000 ($4,500) with no strings attached in exchange for answering one question: What do you think would be best for you?
It turned out that poor, homeless people are capable of making intelligent decisions about their futures. Eleven of the original 13 men now have shelter and have improved their lives in various ways. Not one of them spent the money on drugs, gambling, or alcohol.
The longer version of the article can be found here:
The difficulty of implementing such a program in the USA is that it runs counter to our ingrained societal supposition that poor people are poor because they are too lazy to work. Moreover, they’re drug-addicted and irresponsible. They buy beer and cigarettes when given the opportunity to do so, rather than spending the money on food and shelter. In short, they’re incapable of running their own lives—otherwise, they’d be doing it, wouldn’t they?
In some states poor people must undergo drug testing to be eligible for certain benefits. Rand Paul and others of his ilk think extending unemployment benefits discourages the unemployed from looking for jobs. Of course, unemployment bennies provide a great life—the recipient gets to play the game of, “Should this little bit of money go toward the rent, or food, or medicine?” Whatever the answer, the other two “choices” fall by the wayside.
What would happen if the states were allowed to implement such a program without let or hindrance? Let us imagine the results. A homeless man receives $4,500. He goes to a thrift shop to buy a set of decent-looking clothes. He rents a room in a motel so he can use the shower and other facilities. The next morning, looking presentable, he applies for a job as dishwasher at a restaurant. He then rents a room in a boarding house.
When he reports for work the next morning he can now supply a fixed address. He buys a cell phone. He signs up for evening classes at the local community center to learn cooking, so he can progress to the position of cook.
Everyone benefits. Not only the man himself, but the manager of the boarding house, the manager of the restaurant, the store that sells the low-cost clothing, the cell phone store, the teachers at the community center (who will continue to receive funding for the classes), and so on.
But could this happen in our country? No. It’s too logical. It makes too much financial sense. The primary obstacles would be Republican politicians and our ingrained Puritanism, which basically dictates that the poor must suffer because they are shiftless.
The United States may be a leader in some ways, but in caring for its citizens it rates a dismal "F" for failure.