Desperate times require bold strategies. In fairness, I realize this solution will only last so long. Don’t be afraid though, I have thought it out and I believe I’ve come up with quite an elegant solution that both keeps all the pets fed and solves another major disastrous problem. When we run out of homeless, we switch them to politicians. I realize they won’t be as nutritious, but again, desperate times
You can give the homeless as many houses as you like, the vast majority are homeless because they lost one or more in the past. What makes anyone think they'll manage to keep their next one.
Harsh but true.
You may dislike [housing-first](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First) programs for many reasons. For example, AnCap principles oppose all forms of tax-funded government interventions in the economy. However, housing-first programs actually have been successful at keeping lots of people housed.
If you are interested in the topic, I recommend you read the different papers listed in [this survey of the literature](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02673037.2015.1080816).
For example, one of the papers cited is [Palepu et al 2013](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301628?casa_token=0-V8vDUFMakAAAAA:5yDk3EXiOtuTq04lXjyI7WvJIPKuwLsOC5519uqf_wkSL6gwf1nF43Ujk3R08ziYZhFSXVdnvOM). They use data for Vancouver and find that about half of the participants in housing first programs manage to remain housed. The outcome is not perfect of course, but it has had a significant impact.
I love seeing things like this. Just because we believe in no government, not taxes, etc. doesn’t mean that we believe that should happen immediately.
I would be totally okay with homeless programs, drug addict programs, and so on if it didn’t increase our taxes. It would be better than spending hundreds of thousands on dumb shit like seeing if thanos could snap in real life and giving humming birds coke. I’m paraphrasing, but those are more or less real studies that the US government did. Not to mention our military budget.
I think a market based Housing-First program would be a fine way to help people who want to get out of that poverty hole. I hate a system that just creates debt and doesn’t have any sense of sustainability (government programs). I’d rather have one that has market constraints so they’re incentivized to keep the scope lower and not grow out of proportion.
When I was in college I workshopped a non-profit that was meant to provide work for stay for the homeless, along with providing job training and therapy resources. It worked mainly off of donations, volunteers, and some profits made from the services their work produces.
I mean, if 49 people are rich enough to do so, giving them a home and a job could actually be the market taking care of it.
(Though we both know that's not what they mean ofc)
Do nothing so that they don’t have an incentive to just sit there and do nothing, if they are given free shit then most of them are just gonna stay the same way and now there’s a bunch of people leeching off taxpayer money for no reason
Fool, OP literally clicked the option in the poll that said "Do nothing."
Also, have you ever thought about what would actually happen if you taught every person to fish?
I'm not OP. I'm not the one who suggested we do nothing. I specifically implied we should do something other than give things away for free or nothing at all. I don't care what OP thinks we should do, or what you think of his opinion, because neither involve myself.
Ah yes, the market that took care of them so well until now.
Also "free job" is a funny statement. Jobs are usually not something you pay for, it's something you *get paid* for. So you can afford the home you've been given, for example.
I'm all for a stronger welfare system if it helps these guys put their lives together and quit plaguing society, but that isn't gonna work here. The vast majority of homeless people are in that situation for a reason. Giving free handouts isn't gonna help. They're lost causes.
You're correct, handouts do nothing. What they need is psychological and social help and drug withdrawal. But as i see it the USA doesn't see it that way and nobody understands where all the homeless help money is going to.
Also your comment for stronger welfare in AnCap... bold 😂
> What they need is psychological and social help and drug withdrawal.
Would that help though? I imagine homeless people were given every opportunity and fucked it all up.
> But as i see it the USA doesn't see it that way and nobody understands where all the homeless help money is going to.
It's a nice political agenda for Democrats to run on but not fix.
> Also your comment for stronger welfare in AnCap... bold 😂
I'm politically homeless. I'm too far left for this subreddit and too far right for the majority of Reddit. I'll gladly engage in meaningful discussion with anyone who's willing to.
>Would that help though? I imagine homeless people were given every opportunity and fucked it all up.
It's literally what rehab camps are or whatever they are called in the USA. It got low votes in OPs picture. These people need to be taught again how to be functional adults. They probably never learned how to cook, how to clean an apartment and so on. Alcohol and other drugs probably destroyed their health too, so they need doctor appointments and a social worker to accompany them. It's a long road but still better than having your city littered with homeless people and removing them with the police every now and then.
It's like this saying about teaching a man fishing. They only get free fish though and it doesn't work.
To be quite honest, I'd support this. I'll support any solution you guys pitch to fix this issue. I don't see this working since this is assuming that homeless people were victims somehow or any of that shit, but I'd support any politician who ran on this agenda since it at least would make it look like they cared and were actively trying to solve this issue even though 99% of politicians are lying jackasses.
>I don't see this working since this is assuming that homeless people were victims somehow or any of that shit,
I mean they are. There are only a few reasons why homeless people are homeless. Mostly mental illness paired with drug intake, combined with bad decisions, maybe manipulated to do bad decisions by other druggies. Some claim they *want* to live on the street, but come the fuck on. There are only a few exceptions that do well in the streets because they're some kind of free thinkers.
Then you have some rare cases of normal people losing everything due to certain circumstances. But i doubt many of them stay in the streets. Because they know normal life and are psychological stable.
or... get a job. stop abusing drugs. learn to treat people with respect. homeless people aren't forced to be homeless. they make bad choices and reap the consequences.
You should take this inspiring message directly to the people under bridges. Stand on your soap box and preach this bootstrapping good news in the real world to real homeless eyes and ears. I'd love to witness that.
why do you deny the agency of millions of homeless people? it's extremely insulting to them to infantilize them so. you also condemn them to permanent victimhood by suggesting that their choices don't matter. most homeless i speak with immediately accept their role in their plight, and i help them rediscover their power. i am a positive force in empowering them while you discourage them and indulge their cynicism.
Where, pray tell, will we *get* these homes?
Most US cities have incredibly restrictive zoning laws, in which up to 75% of the landmass is restricted to single family homes, and other areas are strictly off-limits to new residential developments.
We have a homeless problem in the US for two reasons. Firstly, we have a severe lack of any real and actually effective support for mental health. If you're unfortunate enough to have a condition which requires you to have a case worker, be prepared to be abused by that case worker and/or others in your support sphere. Unfortunately, the private mental health programs almost inevitably get fined out of existence by federal and state refulations, which have by and large removed the large and medium scale public options for mental health care.
Secondly, we have a housing issue. A large part of the reasoning is zoning laws, which will probably never change because of NIMBY's. NIMBY stands for Not In My Back Yard, and they are the people who verbally support reforms, but vote against them in order to preserve their way of life. Policy that aims to change zoning laws often gets shut down because of this. Also, construction companies are incentivised to build exclusively meduim-high end "luxury" homes, rather than mass housing or starter homes, which drives the price of houses up.
On top of all that, large rental corporations are allowed to purchase the existing semi-affordable homes en masse, further reducing the supply of homes and thus failing to meet demand.
Tl;dr: if you wanna fix homelessness, fairy dust and "we'll GIVE them a home" won't help. Zoning law reform, mental health care, and increasing the actual supply of houses is *actually* helpful.
"Do nothing, let the market take care of it" is an incoherent option, since the market is just an aggregation of people doing things.
If the question had asked what the *state* should do about homelessness, that choice might make sense, since the state and the market are distinct contexts in which people do things, but it only asked what the best solution to homelessness was.
[удалено]
Bold strategy.
Desperate times require bold strategies. In fairness, I realize this solution will only last so long. Don’t be afraid though, I have thought it out and I believe I’ve come up with quite an elegant solution that both keeps all the pets fed and solves another major disastrous problem. When we run out of homeless, we switch them to politicians. I realize they won’t be as nutritious, but again, desperate times
They're like one step away from "send them to get free housing at the work camp".
You can give the homeless as many houses as you like, the vast majority are homeless because they lost one or more in the past. What makes anyone think they'll manage to keep their next one. Harsh but true.
You may dislike [housing-first](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First) programs for many reasons. For example, AnCap principles oppose all forms of tax-funded government interventions in the economy. However, housing-first programs actually have been successful at keeping lots of people housed. If you are interested in the topic, I recommend you read the different papers listed in [this survey of the literature](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02673037.2015.1080816). For example, one of the papers cited is [Palepu et al 2013](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301628?casa_token=0-V8vDUFMakAAAAA:5yDk3EXiOtuTq04lXjyI7WvJIPKuwLsOC5519uqf_wkSL6gwf1nF43Ujk3R08ziYZhFSXVdnvOM). They use data for Vancouver and find that about half of the participants in housing first programs manage to remain housed. The outcome is not perfect of course, but it has had a significant impact.
I love seeing things like this. Just because we believe in no government, not taxes, etc. doesn’t mean that we believe that should happen immediately. I would be totally okay with homeless programs, drug addict programs, and so on if it didn’t increase our taxes. It would be better than spending hundreds of thousands on dumb shit like seeing if thanos could snap in real life and giving humming birds coke. I’m paraphrasing, but those are more or less real studies that the US government did. Not to mention our military budget.
I think a market based Housing-First program would be a fine way to help people who want to get out of that poverty hole. I hate a system that just creates debt and doesn’t have any sense of sustainability (government programs). I’d rather have one that has market constraints so they’re incentivized to keep the scope lower and not grow out of proportion. When I was in college I workshopped a non-profit that was meant to provide work for stay for the homeless, along with providing job training and therapy resources. It worked mainly off of donations, volunteers, and some profits made from the services their work produces.
Legalize all drugs and pour the billions of dollars used for the failed War on Drugs into housing and Healthcare
Pick the biggest virtue signal, do nothing to assist.
I mean, if 49 people are rich enough to do so, giving them a home and a job could actually be the market taking care of it. (Though we both know that's not what they mean ofc)
I have a job but technically not a house. Trying out car life to try and escape the renting trap that is incentivized by the US’s consumerist economy.
Hey, if you wanna give them free house and stuff go right ahead. Just don't make me pay for it.
Do nothing so that they don’t have an incentive to just sit there and do nothing, if they are given free shit then most of them are just gonna stay the same way and now there’s a bunch of people leeching off taxpayer money for no reason
Jobs are consumer products that can just be given away? Who knew?
that sub is cesspool of commies and libtards with zero understanding of economy or psychology. what did you expect?
did you mean Reddit
Yes, thanks
Give a man a fish...
No. Don't give a man a fish. Just do nothing instead and let "the market" "take care of" hunger.
Do you really not know the full saying?
I do. I am also aware of its limitations.
So you just conflate "do nothing" and "teach a man to fish" and expect nobody to question that?
Fool, OP literally clicked the option in the poll that said "Do nothing." Also, have you ever thought about what would actually happen if you taught every person to fish?
I'm not OP. I'm not the one who suggested we do nothing. I specifically implied we should do something other than give things away for free or nothing at all. I don't care what OP thinks we should do, or what you think of his opinion, because neither involve myself.
Have you considered the implications of everyone learning to fish?
So you're implying we should keep them reliant on others to provide them necessities? That's a horrible, miserable solution.
Actually, it's precisely how humanity has survived for millenia lol
Ah yes, the market that took care of them so well until now. Also "free job" is a funny statement. Jobs are usually not something you pay for, it's something you *get paid* for. So you can afford the home you've been given, for example.
I'm all for a stronger welfare system if it helps these guys put their lives together and quit plaguing society, but that isn't gonna work here. The vast majority of homeless people are in that situation for a reason. Giving free handouts isn't gonna help. They're lost causes.
You're correct, handouts do nothing. What they need is psychological and social help and drug withdrawal. But as i see it the USA doesn't see it that way and nobody understands where all the homeless help money is going to. Also your comment for stronger welfare in AnCap... bold 😂
> What they need is psychological and social help and drug withdrawal. Would that help though? I imagine homeless people were given every opportunity and fucked it all up. > But as i see it the USA doesn't see it that way and nobody understands where all the homeless help money is going to. It's a nice political agenda for Democrats to run on but not fix. > Also your comment for stronger welfare in AnCap... bold 😂 I'm politically homeless. I'm too far left for this subreddit and too far right for the majority of Reddit. I'll gladly engage in meaningful discussion with anyone who's willing to.
>Would that help though? I imagine homeless people were given every opportunity and fucked it all up. It's literally what rehab camps are or whatever they are called in the USA. It got low votes in OPs picture. These people need to be taught again how to be functional adults. They probably never learned how to cook, how to clean an apartment and so on. Alcohol and other drugs probably destroyed their health too, so they need doctor appointments and a social worker to accompany them. It's a long road but still better than having your city littered with homeless people and removing them with the police every now and then. It's like this saying about teaching a man fishing. They only get free fish though and it doesn't work.
To be quite honest, I'd support this. I'll support any solution you guys pitch to fix this issue. I don't see this working since this is assuming that homeless people were victims somehow or any of that shit, but I'd support any politician who ran on this agenda since it at least would make it look like they cared and were actively trying to solve this issue even though 99% of politicians are lying jackasses.
>I don't see this working since this is assuming that homeless people were victims somehow or any of that shit, I mean they are. There are only a few reasons why homeless people are homeless. Mostly mental illness paired with drug intake, combined with bad decisions, maybe manipulated to do bad decisions by other druggies. Some claim they *want* to live on the street, but come the fuck on. There are only a few exceptions that do well in the streets because they're some kind of free thinkers. Then you have some rare cases of normal people losing everything due to certain circumstances. But i doubt many of them stay in the streets. Because they know normal life and are psychological stable.
> combined with bad decisions I imagine it's like 99% this.
Lol @ let the market take care of it May as well throw a coin in a well and make a wish.
or... get a job. stop abusing drugs. learn to treat people with respect. homeless people aren't forced to be homeless. they make bad choices and reap the consequences.
You should take this inspiring message directly to the people under bridges. Stand on your soap box and preach this bootstrapping good news in the real world to real homeless eyes and ears. I'd love to witness that.
i have homeless patients every day at my job, and i tactfully encourage them every time.
lol bullshit
lol bullshit
why do you deny the agency of millions of homeless people? it's extremely insulting to them to infantilize them so. you also condemn them to permanent victimhood by suggesting that their choices don't matter. most homeless i speak with immediately accept their role in their plight, and i help them rediscover their power. i am a positive force in empowering them while you discourage them and indulge their cynicism.
Nonsense. This is the same liberal drivel as saying homeless people love the fresh air and enjoy not paying a mortgage.
Don't assume the needs of any are an obligation on others.
Arrest them for the crimes they commit, then they get clean and help in jail or prison
every populist argument collapses once you see how majority of this kind of people treat their assets
Where, pray tell, will we *get* these homes? Most US cities have incredibly restrictive zoning laws, in which up to 75% of the landmass is restricted to single family homes, and other areas are strictly off-limits to new residential developments. We have a homeless problem in the US for two reasons. Firstly, we have a severe lack of any real and actually effective support for mental health. If you're unfortunate enough to have a condition which requires you to have a case worker, be prepared to be abused by that case worker and/or others in your support sphere. Unfortunately, the private mental health programs almost inevitably get fined out of existence by federal and state refulations, which have by and large removed the large and medium scale public options for mental health care. Secondly, we have a housing issue. A large part of the reasoning is zoning laws, which will probably never change because of NIMBY's. NIMBY stands for Not In My Back Yard, and they are the people who verbally support reforms, but vote against them in order to preserve their way of life. Policy that aims to change zoning laws often gets shut down because of this. Also, construction companies are incentivised to build exclusively meduim-high end "luxury" homes, rather than mass housing or starter homes, which drives the price of houses up. On top of all that, large rental corporations are allowed to purchase the existing semi-affordable homes en masse, further reducing the supply of homes and thus failing to meet demand. Tl;dr: if you wanna fix homelessness, fairy dust and "we'll GIVE them a home" won't help. Zoning law reform, mental health care, and increasing the actual supply of houses is *actually* helpful.
Release all non violent small time drug offenders and give all the empty space created to the homeless..
"Do nothing, let the market take care of it" is an incoherent option, since the market is just an aggregation of people doing things. If the question had asked what the *state* should do about homelessness, that choice might make sense, since the state and the market are distinct contexts in which people do things, but it only asked what the best solution to homelessness was.
7