5 ms·

I'm sincerely trying not to be a dick here but I thought this was obvious... Lots of problems (most?) in many neighborhoods (and organizations in general) and

I'm sincerely trying not to be a dick here but I thought this was obvious... Lots of problems (most?) in many neighborhoods (and organizations in general) and families are not a simple function of "not enough money." They are deep rooted problems with self-sustaining feedback loops of vice. There's true poverty unhappiness, which is simply not enough money to pay normal bills. But science has basically settled at this point in that "after being enough to pay the bills and have a little in savings, happiness no longer increases with more income." And happiness is a pretty good qualifier of general well-being. You can't dump money into Afghanistan and have them all run around with American flags and Mustangs. You can't dump money into a neighborhood and expect everyone to become great workers who love each other. Likewise, you can't "love people" more and expect it either. You don't stop a drug abusing family member with only hugs. You send them to therapy. _Love is not enough_. The best summary is in this quote from the article: >“You cannot force a project onto a community at all costs,” said Mr. Huizar, Even if politicans and "well meaning" people are hell bent on pushing something through, doesn't mean it's going to actually help people. ("The road to hell is paved with good intentions.") People are not simple. Adults have decades of experiences that got them where they are. And simply giving them something won't undo those experiences. They need counselling. They need structure and jobs that rewards positive character traits. And guess what? Plenty of people still aren't going to get better. Why? Because you can't improve people who don't want to get better. You can't "fix people" like solving a math problem. Both parties have to commit and genuinely desire change. If we actually want change--and not to just send money to feel better about ourselves (see: Live Aid, which gave almost nothing to actual victims and may have actually helped kill over 100,000 [1])--we can't simply "Give money." We need actual scientists doing research (they already exist) and we need to find and listen to them even if their recommendations don't align with our political ideologies. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/24/g8.debtrelief https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/24/g8.debtrelief

Mz 9y ago
I largely agree with you, except for the subtext that homeless people are all fucked up losers who aren't really trying/can't really be helped. There is a huge deficit of affordable housing in the US. This significantly contributes to people who have various problems being unable to keep a roof over their head. I actually think "homes for the homeless" is an oxymoron. We need basic, decent housing for people who are living at the fringe of society because they are elderly, handicapped, single moms, etc. We need homes for a certain demographic for whom the standard 3 bedroom, 2 bath house in the 'burbs simply does not work, in part because it is just too much money (in part because it is just too much space -- it is nigh impossible to find a small place in the US). I think two things need to happen: 1) We need to develop programs aimed at empowering homeless people to solve it themselves. 2) We need more affordable housing -- nationwide. I would actually prefer to see more market based affordable housing. We tore down most of that in the 60s and 70s, largely because the Baby Boomers who were coming of age didn't need a small, cheap place. But, they were a demographic anomaly, and we haven't rebuilt what we tore down. We are seeing the consequences of that.
- zanny 9y ago
  > We need more affordable housing -- nationwide. Problem is job growth is incredibly centralized into a few urban cores. While property values on the west coast and the Boston -> DC strip bloat out of control entire counties worth of homes are being abandoned in the Rust Belt and midwest as the recession killed the last sparks of industry and never brought any jobs back there. That is why housing prices are out of control. We should realize that the centralization of work should come with the centralization of living, where we build much denser housing to accommodate, but we don't do that because of NIMBY city councils and obtuse zoning laws. Affordable housing is profitable if you let it be built. It isn't a matter of needing the government to throw money at building affordable housing. 50 stories of condos in almost any major metro area at 400-800 sq ft could sell at tens of thousands rather than millions of dollars and still be profitable for the materials and labor that went into building them, even at the current inflated land values. It is simply the case that nobody can build anything like that because every city in the country staunchly opposes such construction for both private NIMBY interests and the desires of businesses operating to attract the rich to the cities and not the poor, even when the jobs they want to fill they only offer poor wages for.
  - Mz 9y ago
    Problem is job growth is incredibly centralized into a few urban cores. That is why housing prices are out of control. We should realize that the centralization of work should come with the centralization of living, where we build much denser housing to accommodate, but we don't do that because of NIMBY city councils and obtuse zoning laws. I just got myself off the street earlier this month after 5 years, 8 months and 1 week. I did it by 1) developing a portable online income and 2) moving out of California to a small town. So, I beg to differ. I think this can be solved. We have the technology. We can rebuild it. We can make it better. ;-)
    - ttonkytonk 9y ago
      I first became homeless about four months after you, and have been homeless off and on ever since. Now I stay in a tent and am fairly satisfied except that it's always possible my spot will be compromised. I wish they would simply normalize campsites for living. I've heard people live in tents in India. Seems more humane than pretending we don't need that here when in reality we're denying people the right to be ANYWHERE.
zanny 9y ago
> happiness no longer increases with more income Except the most recent study that correlates peak income happiness starts out at 65k a year[1], way beyond median and mean household incomes in the US. Nobody anywhere near the poverty line, or in general few people who have ever been near it, will ever be above the happiness income threshold. Combine that with the research on how the brain is changed by poverty[2] and nobody should be surprised that you cannot just throw money at the problem once and done with it. It would require a tremendous amount of money over a generational timeframe to correct this, and even then there is a culture to poverty that would still precipitate into future generations born into it even if their parents are uplifted. [1] http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.abstract [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-inequality-does-to-the-brain/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-inequality-d...
forapurpose 9y ago
While I think you make good points, I also think that the tenor is much too pessimistic. Democracy and liberty did happen, and spread around the world. So did the prosperity of free markets. Civil rights for minorities and women did happen, and many more things. I'm not sure how much of that depended on scientists.

Mz 9y ago

I largely agree with you, except for the subtext that homeless people are all fucked up losers who aren't really trying/can't really be helped. There is a huge deficit of affordable housing in the US. This significantly contributes to people who have various problems being unable to keep a roof over their head. I actually think "homes for the homeless" is an oxymoron. We need basic, decent housing for people who are living at the fringe of society because they are elderly, handicapped, single moms, etc. We need homes for a certain demographic for whom the standard 3 bedroom, 2 bath house in the 'burbs simply does not work, in part because it is just too much money (in part because it is just too much space -- it is nigh impossible to find a small place in the US). I think two things need to happen: 1) We need to develop programs aimed at empowering homeless people to solve it themselves. 2) We need more affordable housing -- nationwide. I would actually prefer to see more market based affordable housing. We tore down most of that in the 60s and 70s, largely because the Baby Boomers who were coming of age didn't need a small, cheap place. But, they were a demographic anomaly, and we haven't rebuilt what we tore down. We are seeing the consequences of that.

zanny 9y ago
> We need more affordable housing -- nationwide. Problem is job growth is incredibly centralized into a few urban cores. While property values on the west coast and the Boston -> DC strip bloat out of control entire counties worth of homes are being abandoned in the Rust Belt and midwest as the recession killed the last sparks of industry and never brought any jobs back there. That is why housing prices are out of control. We should realize that the centralization of work should come with the centralization of living, where we build much denser housing to accommodate, but we don't do that because of NIMBY city councils and obtuse zoning laws. Affordable housing is profitable if you let it be built. It isn't a matter of needing the government to throw money at building affordable housing. 50 stories of condos in almost any major metro area at 400-800 sq ft could sell at tens of thousands rather than millions of dollars and still be profitable for the materials and labor that went into building them, even at the current inflated land values. It is simply the case that nobody can build anything like that because every city in the country staunchly opposes such construction for both private NIMBY interests and the desires of businesses operating to attract the rich to the cities and not the poor, even when the jobs they want to fill they only offer poor wages for.
- Mz 9y ago
  Problem is job growth is incredibly centralized into a few urban cores. That is why housing prices are out of control. We should realize that the centralization of work should come with the centralization of living, where we build much denser housing to accommodate, but we don't do that because of NIMBY city councils and obtuse zoning laws. I just got myself off the street earlier this month after 5 years, 8 months and 1 week. I did it by 1) developing a portable online income and 2) moving out of California to a small town. So, I beg to differ. I think this can be solved. We have the technology. We can rebuild it. We can make it better. ;-)
  - ttonkytonk 9y ago
    I first became homeless about four months after you, and have been homeless off and on ever since. Now I stay in a tent and am fairly satisfied except that it's always possible my spot will be compromised. I wish they would simply normalize campsites for living. I've heard people live in tents in India. Seems more humane than pretending we don't need that here when in reality we're denying people the right to be ANYWHERE.

zanny 9y ago

> happiness no longer increases with more income Except the most recent study that correlates peak income happiness starts out at 65k a year[1], way beyond median and mean household incomes in the US. Nobody anywhere near the poverty line, or in general few people who have ever been near it, will ever be above the happiness income threshold. Combine that with the research on how the brain is changed by poverty[2] and nobody should be surprised that you cannot just throw money at the problem once and done with it. It would require a tremendous amount of money over a generational timeframe to correct this, and even then there is a culture to poverty that would still precipitate into future generations born into it even if their parents are uplifted. [1] http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.abstract [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-inequality-does-to-the-brain/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-inequality-d...

forapurpose 9y ago

While I think you make good points, I also think that the tenor is much too pessimistic. Democracy and liberty did happen, and spread around the world. So did the prosperity of free markets. Civil rights for minorities and women did happen, and many more things. I'm not sure how much of that depended on scientists.