Turns out, less social welfare is often more expensive for society.
I hope that over time, the social sciences will get a better (data based) grip on what works and how beneficial it is, and thus more of these problems can get solved.
I think there are many unknowns that will be revealed through implementation. Yes, it is better and more cost effective when you only consider the homeless individuals. The net impact on greater society could be more positive or negative and is particularly sensitive to implementation details and the specific type of homelessness occurring.
Britain is in the middle of a jobs miracle, attaining their highest employment levels in history. Cutting taxes on low income earners has increased the upside of joining the workforce. [1]
In my city we have youth who refuse to work the available entry-level roles and prefer to beg downtown with signs requesting beer and weed. I imagine the lifestyle would become more popular if it came with free, opulent housing further reducing the incentive to work.
I think it is very short-sighted to assume that wages (or their taxation) affect the "decision" to join the workforce. It just doesn't work that way. Most people on welfare really don't get jobs paying above the welfare limit, so it can't be that they are refusing to work, get some extra money, and higher social status because the wages are so low.
For that matter, most welfare agencies, and certainly the German one with which I am most familiar, won't let them refuse such a job...
>Most people on welfare really don't get jobs paying above the welfare limit, so it can't be that they are refusing to work, get some extra money, and higher social status because the wages are so low.
My best guess is that you may want to familiarize yourself with the concept of a welfare trap.[0]
As for the German system of forcing welfare recipients to take work when offered, I'm not sure how it would apply to these free housing initiatives. Also I believe that if the system is appropriately structured the desired behavior should be naturally emergent rather than forced.
How does the German welfare agency not allow people to refuse jobs?
Yes, I know about "welfare traps". And I don't believe it. The assumptions behind welfare traps is that people who don't get a job stop trying to look hard enough for one. To make that a significant factor, companies would have to have large amounts of unfulfilled positions, where in turn a significant amount of eligible workers are unemployed. At best, this happens when the wages for a particular job are so low, that they end up costing society rather than saving them money compared to full welfare payment. State subsidized work, effectively.
In Germany, welfare payments are reduced by some amount when poeple refuse to comply. That can be things like refusing an education program or a job offer. These sanctions may not be enough to overcome psychological factors, but it is enough to rule out financial reasons for refusing.
I'm afraid your answer makes it very clear that you in fact do not understand the concept of a welfare trap. They exist in many countries, whether you believe in them or not. It's existence was documented in Germany just two months ago. [0]
Let's be honest here: we're talking about low paid unskilled labour. The first rung on the ladder out of welfare. Such an abundance of those positions exist that the US imports Mexicans, Canada imports Filipinos, and Germany imports Turks.
You seem to have a very low standard regarding "proofs". The article you cited derives broad macro-economic conclusions from storified anecdotes. In the particular case of a "masseuse course" the agency just doesn't see it as a valuable and accredited program. Such courses prefer taking money from participants directly rather than trying to make bureaucracies believe in them.
And yes, then the participants have to pay to attend. They might even have illusions on their employment prospects. If they were to attend an actual physiotherapy course, things may be different. The problem with these types of programs in Germany is that they are mostly privately funded. That is a problem yet to be addressed.
People tend to attribute the "being stuck" in welfare to the welfare system itself. That may happen, I just don't see it as a significant factor. The subsidizing of low-skilled labor is a different problem, and is partly addressed by the recent minimum wage.
The US is an entirely different place. Lower unemployment, but there, even many employed workers have a much harder life and live in poorer conditions than jobless Germans. Full Healthcare, and mostly free education, for starters.
I hope that over time, the social sciences will get a better (data based) grip on what works and how beneficial it is, and thus more of these problems can get solved.