Comment by ericmcer

Comment by ericmcer 18 hours ago

16 replies

The last 10 years has seen CA spend more on homelessness than ever before, and more than any other state by a huge margin. The result of that giant expenditure is the problem is worse than ever.

I don't want to get deep in the philosophical weeds around human behavior, techno-optimism, etc., but it is a bit reductive to say "why don't we just give homeless people money".

trenbologna 18 hours ago

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

mike50 10 hours ago

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.

emodendroket 12 hours ago

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.

Izikiel43 15 hours ago

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.

armitron 18 hours ago

[flagged]

  • _menelaus 17 hours ago

    How do you solve homelessness though? The root of the problem is some people won't take care of themselves. Some homeless just had bad luck, but many are drug addicts, mentally ill, or for whatever other reason just don't function enough to support themselves. I'm skeptical there is a solution you can throw money at.

    • SequoiaHope 16 hours ago

      A broad social safety net makes a huge difference. It’s not just housing it’s socialized medicine, paid family leave, good transit, free high quality education, solving fewer problems with police and more with social support programs and social workers, free meal programs for adults and children in schools, libraries, and a variety of other programs that help ensure people don’t fall through the cracks here or there. How many people in the US are teetering on the edge of homelessness due to medical debt, and what happens if their partner is in an accident and they lose shared income for rent? Situations like this don’t have a single solution it’s a system of solutions.

      • knowitnone3 13 hours ago

        how broad? you're suggesting give them everything while expecting nothing? I'll be the first in line for my new car.

        • SequoiaHope 3 hours ago

          I intentionally described policies which are already common practice in most European countries, nothing extravagant. Yes there is some cost but the alternative is deep human suffering which is otherwise avoidable.

          But this isn’t really “giving them” anything. It’s giving ourselves safety and security.

          It wouldn’t make sense to give you a car. We would give you a working train system instead. Again this is common in Europe and Asia. Indeed every person is “given” access to a high quality transit network with affordable tickets.

          To be clear, I personally am an anarcho communist. I think we would be better off if we organized to ensure every person has their basic needs met by the established wealth of society. That isn’t all that dramatic - making sure everyone can ride high quality trains and get medical care when they need it are common in most countries for example.

          For housing, I really like the Vienna model:

          https://socialhousing.wien/policy/the-vienna-model

          For food, follow the Sikhs:

          https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46126736

          Consider the Linux ecosystem. “Give them everything and expect nothing” works fine despite the great effort which goes in to building and maintaining that system. We can study the economics of this and build more systems like that.

    • mywittyname 16 hours ago

      Ship them somewhere else, then print a banner saying, "mission accomplished."

      It worked at a state level for years, with certain states bussing their homeless to other states. And recently, the USA has been building up the capability to do the same thing on an international scale.

      That's the "solution" we are going to be throwing money at. Ship them to labor camps propped up by horrible regimes.

    • denkmoon 16 hours ago

      Homelessness is solved by having homes. Something we aren’t doing very well.

      • knowitnone3 13 hours ago

        You can start building and giving them away

        • denkmoon 12 hours ago

          I suspect giving them away is a bridge too far, however not rewarding capital for treating them as speculative investment vehicles might be a good start.

    • holsta 17 hours ago

      Many experiments have shown that when you take away people's concerns about money for housing and food, that frees up energy and attention to do other things.

      Like the famous experiment in Finland where homeless people were given cash with no strings attached and most were able to rise out of their despair. The healthcare professionals could then focus their energy on the harder cases. It also saved a bunch of money in the process.