3 ms·

That's not really what I was asking about. I was asking about a comparative cost between a) paying people who would otherwise "commit crime, start riots, devalu

That's not really what I was asking about. I was asking about a comparative cost between a) paying people who would otherwise "commit crime, start riots, devalue property" or b) just walling ourselves off from them. You're just comparing two different versions of (a).

FussyZeus 10y ago
Oh, I misunderstood what you were saying. My apologies. Anyway addressing that point, putting aside the humanitarian issues of "if you aren't going to behave the way we want you to, you get thrown out of society and are left to presumably starve and die" the simple fact is that walling them off is going to be exceptionally difficult to do, just for the logistics and the construction required. Not to mention, even if you make the laws pretty permissive, I have a feeling you'd have a lot more have-nots than haves, and at the end of the day, numbers do matter...
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I'm not sure what's wrong with "if you become a dangerous bandit, society doesn't welcome you". It's you who described the poor as bandits that are cheaper to pay off than protect ourselves from, not me. I agree numbers matter, which is why I asked if you had a ballpark on them. I guess you don't?
  - FussyZeus 10y ago
    Woah woah woah, back up a bit. I never once said that all poor people are bandits. I said that keeping people homeless who then in turn tie up emergency services (because they can't practice hygiene, eat properly or go to the doctor until they're on the edge of death) is more expensive that you'd think, and that when a number of homeless people live in a given area that it impacts property values, not to mention the image of the community. I'm not saying they're malicious about it, I'm saying that's what happens when you don't have access to basic services. This study shows that just giving people a home is not only vastly superior ethically, but helps these people get OUT of that situation and in many ways can be cheaper too.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      You said we should "pay people to sit at home and not commit crime, start riots...". I'm asking whether paying the dane geld is really the most cost effective solution to this problem. I think we've now agreed that it's not actually a real problem, and probably just a post-hoc justification for what you really want to do?

FussyZeus 10y ago

Oh, I misunderstood what you were saying. My apologies. Anyway addressing that point, putting aside the humanitarian issues of "if you aren't going to behave the way we want you to, you get thrown out of society and are left to presumably starve and die" the simple fact is that walling them off is going to be exceptionally difficult to do, just for the logistics and the construction required. Not to mention, even if you make the laws pretty permissive, I have a feeling you'd have a lot more have-nots than haves, and at the end of the day, numbers do matter...

yummyfajitas 10y ago
I'm not sure what's wrong with "if you become a dangerous bandit, society doesn't welcome you". It's you who described the poor as bandits that are cheaper to pay off than protect ourselves from, not me. I agree numbers matter, which is why I asked if you had a ballpark on them. I guess you don't?
- FussyZeus 10y ago
  Woah woah woah, back up a bit. I never once said that all poor people are bandits. I said that keeping people homeless who then in turn tie up emergency services (because they can't practice hygiene, eat properly or go to the doctor until they're on the edge of death) is more expensive that you'd think, and that when a number of homeless people live in a given area that it impacts property values, not to mention the image of the community. I'm not saying they're malicious about it, I'm saying that's what happens when you don't have access to basic services. This study shows that just giving people a home is not only vastly superior ethically, but helps these people get OUT of that situation and in many ways can be cheaper too.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    You said we should "pay people to sit at home and not commit crime, start riots...". I'm asking whether paying the dane geld is really the most cost effective solution to this problem. I think we've now agreed that it's not actually a real problem, and probably just a post-hoc justification for what you really want to do?