4 ms·

Perhaps a little inland from the coast, but I was in Palm Springs 10 years ago, and then again this year and was struck by what seemed like a general deteriorat

Perhaps a little inland from the coast, but I was in Palm Springs 10 years ago, and then again this year and was struck by what seemed like a general deterioration in the town, as well as the number of homeless people - I don't remember seeing a single homeless person on my first trip. Very sad to see. These intertwined economic/social problems seem to be the most difficult to solve, or is it just lack of willingness to do something about it by elites or society as a whole? An idea that has crossed my mind before is: how expensive would it be to provide the homeless the very bare minimum of survival i.e. food, shelter, most basic healthcare, even free alcohol? Why don't we just accept that some people are going to fall through the cracks and save ourselves the delusion that we are going to be able to get them off drugs/reintroduce them to employment etc., and take care of their needs in the simplest and cheapest way possible? The current economy is pretty good at casting aside those it deems economically worthless. Is it really so tricky to just accept this and pay to look after them?

cwal37 9y ago
You're not alone in thinking that. It works[1], and it's cheaper than the current revolving door of policies and support systems. The problem seems to be that people have a strong negative reaction to "undeserving others" getting things "for free". [1] https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chroni...
- Fauntleroy 9y ago
  It's sickening to me that most US citizens seem to prefer watching people die on the street than give them things they "do not deserve".
  - User23 9y ago
    I have good news for you. US citizens don't actually like watching people die on the street, not even the ones on the right.
    - geogra4 9y ago
      Right, they close their doors and avert their gaze
      - ShabbosGoy 9y ago
        That's very easy to say on your very comfortable chair.
    - blacksmith_tb 9y ago
      Arguments on both sides here are about what people "like to do" - with hyperbole in both directions. But the fundamental problem is with what people actually do - and given the scale of the problem, and apparent lack of solution, it doesn't seem unfair to say that not enough is being done. Quite a large chunk of the non-homeless population in the US is living in a relatively precarious situation[1], which leaves them both practically unable to help and presumably also afraid of ending up on the street themselves. Hence it's not unreasonable to expect the response to come from governments, like Utah's did. 1: https://secure.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-are-one-paycheck-away-from-the-street-2015-01-07 https://secure.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-are-one-...
  - geogra4 9y ago
    bourgeois ideology is contagious, sadly.
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      And why?
  - sliverstorm 9y ago
    Well, it is important to avoid creating a culture of dependence. We've seen how that can backfire on us in Africa. So it's not totally irrational.
  - nnfy 9y ago
    Maybe some of us prefer not deincentivizing work and creating an even larger subpopulation which is entirely dependent on government and won't be employable for generations? We live in a reality where resources still require effort and capital to extract from the environment. A society can only support so many through welfare before it collapses. The subject is a little more nuanced than watching people die out of some kind of jealousy.
    - Boothroid 9y ago
      And an economy can only be so rapacious of honest hard-working citizens before it collapses.
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  I always thought that experiment was in some senses actually kind of damning. On the one hand it's a success, 91% reduction in chronic homelessness, that's good. On the other hand, how was it not a 100% reduction!? I think it really does validate some of the reservations & criticisms. 9% of the homeless population remained homeless even when everything was provided. That is striking.
- Boothroid 9y ago
  Me included - which is why I would provide the bare minimum, and would provide it directly as services rather than dish out benefits for people to spend in the economy. One of the most depressing things on TV here in the UK is a genre of poor people documentary porn which show benefits recipients who commonly have a Sky TV subscription, massive flat screens TVs, latest consoles and phones, plenty of money for ciggies and booze etc, and that appear deeply averse to work but are not so averse to intellectual effort that they aren't able to understand the intricate details of the benefits system necessary to keep their benefits flowing in. Unfortunately I think the only way to discourage this dependency culture is to make working aspirational - and how do we do that? Attitude change yes, but I would argue also making life on benefits less attractive, whilst still remaining humane.
glibgil 9y ago
This is the idea behind basic income. Basic income eschews the oversight of traditional welfare programs so people are free to spend their money on food and drugs with less pressure to pick one over the other
- nnfy 9y ago
  Right, the solution is to give addicts more money to buy drugs. I suppose that'll solve the problem when they inevitably OD and we can stop wasting our money on them. I'm not speaking from an ivory tower either, like many UBI supporters seem to do. I grew up with friends who were addicts. Ive known people who died of overdose. Plenty of kids are more than happy to throw away their lives smoking weed and shooting up, especially if they're getting their shit for free. For the record, I support responsible drug use. But UBI is not the answer for the problems in our society, because it will hurt many if not most of the people it should protect.
  - Boothroid 9y ago
    I don't see why we couldn't directly provide pure pharmaceutical grade narcotics to addicts for them to consume in safety, as part of a compulsory programme to attempt to cure the addiction. Eventually I hope we will come up with a drug to reset the brain, but in the meantime I wish we could have an outbreak of maturity and recognise and treat the addiction in a sensible way, rather than contiuining with the obviously failed war on drugs and all the bad things that flow from it. Imagine if we destroyed a massive part of global organised crime's income at stroke.
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      > a drug to reset the brain Ibogaine. The US classifies all hallucinogens and psychedelics at Schedule I, so obviously no researcher that values their academic career can study the use of psychedelics for the purpose of curing addiction. But anecdotal reports suggest that a heroin addict may be cured of opioid addiction by using kratom to alleviate the physical symptoms of withdrawal, and ibogaine to "reset the brain" to no longer desire heroin. Politically, people would prefer to believe that rehab centers actually work. Using illegal drugs classified as "the worst, most dangerous drugs in existence" to cure addictions to other illegal drugs with a lesser classification may be perceived as... a bit hypocritical.
mcbruiser4 9y ago
wouldn't it be more humane to try and treat their mental illness than enabling their homelessness?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sliverstorm 9y ago
Is it really so tricky to just accept this and pay to look after them? People don't want to do that. But one day we may be able to effectively make the argument that we are paying to look after them one way or the other, and we are currently looking after them with the most expensive possible resources, e.g. first responders, penitentiary, etc. If the argument can be made effectively I think we can get there, but that's the key. You can get people to vote against their ethics & beliefs, but only if you really prove to them that even if it's counterintuitive, you're saving them money.

cwal37 9y ago

You're not alone in thinking that. It works[1], and it's cheaper than the current revolving door of policies and support systems. The problem seems to be that people have a strong negative reaction to "undeserving others" getting things "for free". [1] https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chroni...

Fauntleroy 9y ago
It's sickening to me that most US citizens seem to prefer watching people die on the street than give them things they "do not deserve".
- User23 9y ago
  I have good news for you. US citizens don't actually like watching people die on the street, not even the ones on the right.
  - geogra4 9y ago
    Right, they close their doors and avert their gaze
    - ShabbosGoy 9y ago
      That's very easy to say on your very comfortable chair.
  - blacksmith_tb 9y ago
    Arguments on both sides here are about what people "like to do" - with hyperbole in both directions. But the fundamental problem is with what people actually do - and given the scale of the problem, and apparent lack of solution, it doesn't seem unfair to say that not enough is being done. Quite a large chunk of the non-homeless population in the US is living in a relatively precarious situation[1], which leaves them both practically unable to help and presumably also afraid of ending up on the street themselves. Hence it's not unreasonable to expect the response to come from governments, like Utah's did. 1: https://secure.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-are-one-paycheck-away-from-the-street-2015-01-07 https://secure.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-are-one-...
- geogra4 9y ago
  bourgeois ideology is contagious, sadly.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    And why?
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  Well, it is important to avoid creating a culture of dependence. We've seen how that can backfire on us in Africa. So it's not totally irrational.
- nnfy 9y ago
  Maybe some of us prefer not deincentivizing work and creating an even larger subpopulation which is entirely dependent on government and won't be employable for generations? We live in a reality where resources still require effort and capital to extract from the environment. A society can only support so many through welfare before it collapses. The subject is a little more nuanced than watching people die out of some kind of jealousy.
  - Boothroid 9y ago
    And an economy can only be so rapacious of honest hard-working citizens before it collapses.
sliverstorm 9y ago
I always thought that experiment was in some senses actually kind of damning. On the one hand it's a success, 91% reduction in chronic homelessness, that's good. On the other hand, how was it not a 100% reduction!? I think it really does validate some of the reservations & criticisms. 9% of the homeless population remained homeless even when everything was provided. That is striking.
Boothroid 9y ago
Me included - which is why I would provide the bare minimum, and would provide it directly as services rather than dish out benefits for people to spend in the economy. One of the most depressing things on TV here in the UK is a genre of poor people documentary porn which show benefits recipients who commonly have a Sky TV subscription, massive flat screens TVs, latest consoles and phones, plenty of money for ciggies and booze etc, and that appear deeply averse to work but are not so averse to intellectual effort that they aren't able to understand the intricate details of the benefits system necessary to keep their benefits flowing in. Unfortunately I think the only way to discourage this dependency culture is to make working aspirational - and how do we do that? Attitude change yes, but I would argue also making life on benefits less attractive, whilst still remaining humane.

glibgil 9y ago

This is the idea behind basic income. Basic income eschews the oversight of traditional welfare programs so people are free to spend their money on food and drugs with less pressure to pick one over the other

nnfy 9y ago
Right, the solution is to give addicts more money to buy drugs. I suppose that'll solve the problem when they inevitably OD and we can stop wasting our money on them. I'm not speaking from an ivory tower either, like many UBI supporters seem to do. I grew up with friends who were addicts. Ive known people who died of overdose. Plenty of kids are more than happy to throw away their lives smoking weed and shooting up, especially if they're getting their shit for free. For the record, I support responsible drug use. But UBI is not the answer for the problems in our society, because it will hurt many if not most of the people it should protect.
- Boothroid 9y ago
  I don't see why we couldn't directly provide pure pharmaceutical grade narcotics to addicts for them to consume in safety, as part of a compulsory programme to attempt to cure the addiction. Eventually I hope we will come up with a drug to reset the brain, but in the meantime I wish we could have an outbreak of maturity and recognise and treat the addiction in a sensible way, rather than contiuining with the obviously failed war on drugs and all the bad things that flow from it. Imagine if we destroyed a massive part of global organised crime's income at stroke.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    > a drug to reset the brain Ibogaine. The US classifies all hallucinogens and psychedelics at Schedule I, so obviously no researcher that values their academic career can study the use of psychedelics for the purpose of curing addiction. But anecdotal reports suggest that a heroin addict may be cured of opioid addiction by using kratom to alleviate the physical symptoms of withdrawal, and ibogaine to "reset the brain" to no longer desire heroin. Politically, people would prefer to believe that rehab centers actually work. Using illegal drugs classified as "the worst, most dangerous drugs in existence" to cure addictions to other illegal drugs with a lesser classification may be perceived as... a bit hypocritical.

mcbruiser4 9y ago

wouldn't it be more humane to try and treat their mental illness than enabling their homelessness?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

sliverstorm 9y ago

Is it really so tricky to just accept this and pay to look after them? People don't want to do that. But one day we may be able to effectively make the argument that we are paying to look after them one way or the other, and we are currently looking after them with the most expensive possible resources, e.g. first responders, penitentiary, etc. If the argument can be made effectively I think we can get there, but that's the key. You can get people to vote against their ethics & beliefs, but only if you really prove to them that even if it's counterintuitive, you're saving them money.