4 ms·

"I think that we really need to begin to look at who's really homeless - not by choice and by misfortune - and who's really homeless by choice, and have a diffe

"I think that we really need to begin to look at who's really homeless - not by choice and by misfortune - and who's really homeless by choice, and have a different solution for the two different populations." And thus in a nutshell describes the moral hazard of such programs. It's just another situation of balancing a program for those in truly in need and those trying to take advantage of the system. Very difficult to define boundaries.

spoiledtechie 16y ago
All I could think when reading the article were they were taking advantage of the system and a lot of peoples hard earned salaries.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
_delirium 16y ago
It's a problem with most significantly sized incentive systems, really. Large companies, for example, usually want to give employees some degree of job stability and leeway, because micromanaging someone every 5 minutes and firing people left and right really kills morale and productivity. Some people use that to game the system, and post on Slashdot (maybe even HN) all day instead of doing work. But if you swing back to the other direction, the cure might be worse than the disease. Overall, I'd guess there are probably more salaried freeloaders than homeless freeloaders, and they make a lot more! There are places where you could do pretty much nothing in the bowels of some huge firm for 5 years and nobody would notice. And it's even easier if you do at least some work; I know plenty of people with office jobs who probably average 5 hours a week of genuine work. Of course, you might ask why homeless people don't just go get those cushy office jobs, which is an interesting/complicated question (they aren't really jobs you can apply for directly, are usually only available past a certain level of formal credential, require good bluffing, and require a certain amount of formal reliability, like showing up to work on time [even if you don't do anything there]).
brc 16y ago
I honestly believe the best way forwards is a moving economy and low minimum wage. So that the average homeless-by-choice person sees the benefits of holding down a regular job at minimum wage vs being homeless by definition. This has to be combined with affordable accomodation and transport. I really think it has to be more carrot-led rather than stick-forced, though. A certain amount of enforcement of no-sleeping is required, though, particularly in a place like Hawaii where nobody is going to die from exposure or freeze to death. Otherwise tourists are going to stop visiting and Hawaii as a whole would suffer from less income.

spoiledtechie 16y ago

All I could think when reading the article were they were taking advantage of the system and a lot of peoples hard earned salaries.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

_delirium 16y ago

It's a problem with most significantly sized incentive systems, really. Large companies, for example, usually want to give employees some degree of job stability and leeway, because micromanaging someone every 5 minutes and firing people left and right really kills morale and productivity. Some people use that to game the system, and post on Slashdot (maybe even HN) all day instead of doing work. But if you swing back to the other direction, the cure might be worse than the disease. Overall, I'd guess there are probably more salaried freeloaders than homeless freeloaders, and they make a lot more! There are places where you could do pretty much nothing in the bowels of some huge firm for 5 years and nobody would notice. And it's even easier if you do at least some work; I know plenty of people with office jobs who probably average 5 hours a week of genuine work. Of course, you might ask why homeless people don't just go get those cushy office jobs, which is an interesting/complicated question (they aren't really jobs you can apply for directly, are usually only available past a certain level of formal credential, require good bluffing, and require a certain amount of formal reliability, like showing up to work on time [even if you don't do anything there]).

brc 16y ago

I honestly believe the best way forwards is a moving economy and low minimum wage. So that the average homeless-by-choice person sees the benefits of holding down a regular job at minimum wage vs being homeless by definition. This has to be combined with affordable accomodation and transport. I really think it has to be more carrot-led rather than stick-forced, though. A certain amount of enforcement of no-sleeping is required, though, particularly in a place like Hawaii where nobody is going to die from exposure or freeze to death. Otherwise tourists are going to stop visiting and Hawaii as a whole would suffer from less income.