I volunteer at a food bank, and the company that sends us our food decides what we get. Last Tuesday they sent so much produce we could not fit it all into fridges. We were trying to give away cases of the food on Wednesday, but people were turning it down because they had no place to store a case of tomatoes, or cauliflower. This was what we had left after last Wednesday's morning give away. Not pictured the 5000lbs of watermelons, the 2500lbs of onions (those will last a lot longer).
The company that supplies us wants to move from sending shipments every other week, to once a month. This would cause even more no produce loss.
It is so frustrating to have all this food for it to go bad. Even if we got the same volume of produce, but there was variation in what it is we could give it away easier.
Edit: I posted this in a comment.
Because of bureaucracy we have to request this. If it is found out we are giving away the food to unapproved recipients we can lose all of our funding. If we give to unapproved recipients and they in turn give us prepared food to give out, that is okay.
Word got out that we were loading up my pickup with food and taking it to the homeless camps. I did get a number of them to start coming to the bank to get food. But it was easier when I could take stuff to them.
We are not allowed to simply give it out to anyone. This is not like a church pantry where all of the food is donated by the community and's parishioners. There is government funding, as well as private businesses, which I am guessing get their money back from the government for funding this. If we could simply give it to anyone we would not be in this situation.
Turns out that money is one of those things that the less you have of it, the harder it is to manage.
It is also a bit tricky when you can't read or write and are struggling with schizophrenia, bipolar and other disruptive issues. And that is before you take in account all of the drug and alcohol addiction.
Indeed.
Each of the issues you described is mitigated - if not cured - by steady income. And each is greatly exacerbated by a lack of such income.
What is really important is that the family and friends of the people struggling with these conditions aren't also impoverished. The outcomes of each these conditions are vastly improved when the sufferer's caregivers have the time and resources to attend to them.
UBI benefits everyone involved.
For the cases where the individual is not capable of managing their own money, it is still better for their caregiver to receive and manage their money on their behalf than to periodically send them crates of cauliflower and tomatoes.
I personally disagree with UBI as it doesn't solve the core issue. Giving people money doesn't teach long term skills that lead to success. I also think it would be better to have private organizations that have less bureaucracy. Smaller charities tend to do much better in my experience. Homelessness isn't something that can easily be solved by a single thing. It is something that has been with humans since civilization began and it takes hard work to help people.
UBI is not charity. UBI is what the nation owes you as a shareholder of USA, Inc.
Exactly. Which is why the children of rich people so often become homeless. All that money they had when they were kids kept them from learning long-term skills that lead to success. It stunted their financial growth, rendering them particularly susceptible to poverty.
The children of the impoverished, on the other hand, were forced to learn money management skills for their very survival. The superior money management skills of impoverished kids practically guarantee their future success.
This explains why self-made millionaires are so common, and generational wealth is so difficult to maintain.
Right? That's how it works in your head, right? The people with easy access to money never learn how to manage it and ultimately squander it, right? The people who have to fight for every dime are the most successful, right?
Right?
Agreed. And an organization doesn't get smaller or privater than a single individual. We can cut out 100% of the bullshit bureaucracy and give it straight to the individual, directly, or their caregiver if they are not qualified to maintain their own affairs. Remove everyone else, as they don't add shareholder value.