Comment by ayaros

What else happened in the last 10 years in CA?

Hint: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CASTHPI

In CA this issue has to do with Gavin giving that money to his friends who produce very little. Textbook cronyism

Spending money is not the solution. Spending money in a way that doesn't go to subcontractors is part of the solution. Building shelters beyond cots in a stadium is part of the solution. Building housing is a large part of actually solving the problem. People have tried just giving the money but without a way to convert cash to housing the money doesn't help. Also studies by people smarter then me suggest that without sufficient supply the money ends up going to landlords and pushing up housing costs anyway.

Well I mean, they didn't "just give homeless people money" or just give them homes or any of those things though. I think the issue might be the method and not the very concept of devoting resources to the problem.

WA, specially Seattle, has done the same as CA with the same results.

They shouldn't just enable them, as a lot of homeless are happy in their situation as long as they get food and drugs, they should force them to get clean and become a responsible adult if they want benefits.

CA didn't spend money on solving homelessness, they spent money on feeding, sustaining and ultimately growing homelessness. The local politicians and the corrupt bureucratic mechanism that they have created, including the NGOs that a lot of that money is funneled to, have a vested interest in homelessness continuing.

Houston has less homelessness than California because people at the edge of homelessness prefer to live in California than Houston.

Wasn't houston's "approach" to buy bus tickets to California from a company that just resold commodity bus tickets and was owned by the governors friend and charged 10x market price?

The governor of Texas bragged about sending 100k homeless people to california (spending about $150 million in the process).

>in the Golden State, 439 people are homeless for every 100,000 residents – compared to 81 in the Lone Star State.

If I'm doing my math right, 81 per 100k in a state of 30 million people means 24k homeless people. So the state brags about bussing 100k homeless people to California, and then brags about only having 24k homeless people, and you think it's because they build an extra 100k houses a year?

The same math for California means that their homeless population is 175k. In other words, Texas is claiming to have more than doubled California's homeless population.

Maybe the reason Texas can build twice as many homes a year is because it literally has half the population density?

Is that true, that it's money that belongs to people?

OpenAI isn't spending $1 trillion in hard earned cash on data centres, that is funny money from the ocean of financial liquid slushing around, seeing alpha.

It also certainly is not a cohort of accredited investors putting their grandchildren's inheritance on the line.

Misaligned incentives (regulations) both create and perpetuate that situation.

> It's capital that belongs to people and those people can do what they like with the money they earned.

"earned", that may be the case with millionaires, but it is not the case with billionaires. A person can't "earn" a billion dollars. They steal and cheat and destroy competition illegally.

I also take issue with the idea that someone can do whatever they want with their money. That is not true. They are not allowed to corner the market on silver, they aren't allowed to bribe politicians, and they aren't allowed to buy sex from underage girls. These are established laws that are obviously for the unalloyed benefit of society as a whole, but the extremely wealthy have been guilty of all of these things, and statements like yours promote the sentiment that allows them to get away with it.

Finally, "great scientific breakthroughs that saved tens of millions of lives would never have happened if you had your way". No. You might be able to argue that today's advanced computing technology wouldn't have happened without private capital allocation (and that is debatable), but the breakthroughs that saved millions of lives--vaccines, antibiotics, insulin, for example--were not the result of directed private investment.

"It's capital that belongs to people and those people..."

That's not a fundamental law of physics. It's how we've decided to arrange our current society, more or less, but it's always up for negotiation. Land used to be understood as a publicly shared resource, but then kings and the nobles decided it belong to them, and they fenced in the commons. The landed gentry became a ruling class because the land "belonged" to them. Then society renegotiated that, and decided that things primarily belonged to the "capitalist" class instead of noblemen.

Even under capitalism, we understand that that ownership is a little squishy. We have taxes. The rich understandably do not like taxes because it reduces their wealth (and Ayn Rand-styled libertarians also do not like taxes of any kind, but they are beyond understanding except to their own kind).

As a counterpoint, I and many others believe that one person or one corporation cannot generate massive amounts of wealth all by themselves. What does it mean to "earn" 10 billion dollars? Does such a person work thousdands of time harder or smarter than, say, a plumber or a school teacher? Of course not. They make money because they have money: they hire workers to make things for them that lead to profit, and they pay the workers less than the profit that is earned. Or they rent something that they own. Or they invest that money in something that is expected to earn them a higher return. In any scenario, how is it possible to earn that profit? They do so because they participate in a larger society. Workers are educated in schools, which the employer probably does not pay for in full. Customers and employees travel on infrastructure, maintained by towns and state governments. People live in houses which are built and managed by other parties. The rich are only able to grow wealth because they exist in a larger society. I would argue that it is not only fair, but crucial, that they pay back into the community.

Please tell me which of Penicillin, insulin, the transistor, the discovery and analysis of the electric field, discovery of DNA, invention of mRNA vaccines, discovery of pottery, basket weaving, discovery of radiation, the recognition that citrus fruit or vitamin C prevents and cures scurvy (which we discovered like ten times), the process for creating artificial fertilizers, the creation of steel, domestication of beasts of burden, etc were done through Wealthy Barons or other capital holders funding them.

Many of the above were discovered by people explicitly rejecting profit as an outcome. Most of the above predate modern capitalism. Several were explicitly government funded.

Do you have a single example of a scientific breakthrough that saved tens of millions of lives that was done by capital owners?

I guess it's food and exercise.

Healthy food is expensive, do things to make that relatively cheaper and thus more appealing.

Exercise is expensive, do things to make that relatively cheaper and thus more appealing.

Walkable cities are another issue. People shouldn't have to get in their car to go anywhere.

You can increase min wage all you want, if there aren't enough homes in an area for everyone who works full time in that area to have one, you will still have folks who work full time who don't have one. In fact, increasing min wage too much will exacerbate the problem by making it more expensive to build more (and maintain those that exist). Though at some point, it will fix the problem too, because everyone will move and then there will be plenty of homes for anyone who wants one.

> AI datacenter spending is massive, but if you add it all up, it doesn't cover half of a years worth of government spending.

I didn't check your math here, but if that's true, AI datacenter spending is a few orders of magnitude larger than I assumed. "massive" doesn't even begin to describe it

>We need to change our politics to redirect taxation and spending to achieve a better society.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's much on the pie chart to redirect percentage wise. About 60% goes to non-discretionary programs like Social Security and Medicaid, and 13% is interest expense. While "non-discretionary" programs can potentially be cut, doing so is politically toxic and arguably counter to the goal of a better society.

Of the remaining discretionary portion half is programs like veterans benefits, transportation, education, income security and health (in order of size), and half military.

FY2025 spending in total was 3% over FY2024, with interest expense, social security and medicare having made up most of the increase ($249 billion)[1], and likely will for the foreseeable future[2] in part due to how many baby boomers are entering retirement years.

Assuming you cut military spending in half you'd free up only about 6% of federal spending. Moving the needle more than this requires either cutting programs and benefits, improving efficiency of existing spend (like for healthcare) or raising more revenue via taxes or inflation. All of this is potentially possible, but the path of least resistance is probably inflation.

[1] https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker/

[2] https://www.crfb.org/blogs/interest-social-security-and-heal...

Lots of people lose their housing when they lose employment, and then they're stuck and can't get back into housing. A very large percentage of unhoused people are working jobs; they're not all "layabouts".

We know that just straight up giving money to the poorest of the poor results in positive outcomes.

The proportion of people you write off as “layabouts” is always conveniently ambiguous…of the number of unemployed/underemployed, how many are you suggesting are simply too lazy to work for a living?

Technological advancements and cultural advancements that spread the benefits more broadly than naturally occurs in an industrialized economy. That is what pulled people out of poverty.

If you want to see what unfettered technological advancement does, you can read stories from the Gilded Age.

The cotton gin dramatically increased human enslavement.

The sewing machine decreased quality of life for seamstresses.

> During the shirtmakers' strike, one of the shirtmakers testified that she worked eleven hours in the shop and four at home, and had never in the best of times made over six dollars a week. Another stated that she worked from 4 o’clock in the morning to 11 at night. These girls had to find their own thread and pay for their own machines out of their wages.

These were children, by the way. Living perpetually at the brink of starvation from the day they were born until the day they died, but working like dogs all the while.

Invest in making food/shelter cheaper?

It's not unthinkable that one of those "layabouts" could have been the next Steve Jobs under different circumstances ...

People are our first, best resource. Closely followed by technology. You've lost sight of that.

> Technological advancement is what has pulled billions of people out of poverty.

I agree with this. Perhaps that's what is driving the current billionaire class to say "never again!" and making sure that they capture all the value instead of letting any of it slip away and make it into the unwashed undeserving hands of lesser beings.

Chatbots actually can bring a lot of benefit to society at large. As in, they have the raw capability to. (I can't speak to whether it's worth the cost.) But that's not going to improve poverty this time around, because it's magnifying the disparities in wealth distribution and the haves aren't showing any brand new willingness to give anything up in order to even things out.

> Giving handouts to layabouts isn't an ideal allocation of resources if we want to progress as a civilization.

I agree with this too. Neither is giving handouts to billionaires (or the not quite as eye-wateringly wealthy class). However, giving handouts to struggling people who will improve their circumstances is a very good allocation of resources if we want to progress as a civilization. We haven't figured out any foolproof way of ensuring such money doesn't fall into the hands of layabouts or billionaires, but that's not an adequate reason to not do it at all. Perfect is the enemy of the good.

Some of those "layabouts" physically cannot do anything with it other than spending it on drugs, and that's an example of a set of people who we should endeavor to not give handouts to. (At least, not ones that can be easily exchanged for drugs.) Some of those billionaires similarly have no mental ability of ever using that money in a way that benefits anyone. (Including themselves; they're past the point that the numbers in their bank accounts have any effect on their lives.) That hasn't seemed to stop us from allowing things to continue in a way that funnels massive quantities of money to them.

It is a choice. If people en masse were really and truly bothered by this, we have more than enough mechanisms to change things. Those mechanisms are being rapidly dismantled, but we are nowhere near the point where figurative pitchforks and torches are ineffective.

What if some of the homeless people are children or people who could lead normal lives but found themselves in dire circumstances?

Some of us believe that keeping children out of poverty may be an investment in the human capital of a country.

In the USA cowboys were homeless guys. You know that right? Like they had no home, slept outside. Many were pretty big layabouts. Yet they are pretty big part of our foundation myth and we don't say 'man they just should have died'.

Can I go be a cowboy? Can I just go sleep outside? maybe work a few minimal paying cattle run jobs a year? No? If society won't allow me to just exist outside, then society has an obligation to make sure I have a place to lay my head.