3 ms·

You can put a precise number on it. It would cost $20 billion a year to solve homelessness in the United States[1], and something on the order of $30 billion to

by cyphar 8y ago

You can put a precise number on it. It would cost $20 billion a year to solve homelessness in the United States[1], and something on the order of $30 billion to solve poverty world-wide. For reference, Jeff Bezos is currently worth about $20 billion more than the next person on the list of billionaires. This means that he could solve US homelessness himself and still be the richest person in human history. The US military budget increase (which is a ridiculous thing to say given how ridiculously over-funded the US military is already) was $82 billion. You could solve world poverty almost three times over with just how much the budget was increased from 2017. (Note that many Democrats as well as Republicans happily voted for these increases.) EDIT: Here's the source I found for the above $20 billion-per-year figure[1] -- to be honest I'm not quite convinced (I heard this elsewhere and I incorrectly assumed it was a more solid figure). So I might be repeating misinformation, and I'll stop doing it. I found a figure for solving extreme poverty but it's higher (~$100 billion per year for 20 years)[2]. For the $30 billion figure, a 2008 article claimed that only $30 billion per year is required to restart programs to solve world hunger[2]. The reason why I thought $20 billion per year might be reasonable is because I assumed it would be part of some kind of rehabilitation plan. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/us/homeless-rates-steady-despite-recession-hud-says.html?_r=1& https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/us/homeless-rates-steady-... [3]: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000853/index.html http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000853/index.html

cheeseomlit 8y ago
"solving" homelessness or world poverty is not a one-time expense. You can throw $82 billion dollars worth of food at the starving populations of the world and they'd just multiply and require even more later on, it's not that simple
- LeifCarrotson 8y ago
  OP's estimates are prices per year, which makes more sense. But $82 billion is only $11 per person per year; I find it hard to believe that this will be able to make a meaningful difference.
simonsarris 8y ago
Oh come now, that's a truly silly claim. Social Security was designed to reduce senior poverty (it did work), but spends > $900 billion every year to continue working. No you cannot spend $20 billion and solve homelessness or poverty. You probably can't even make a double digit % dent in homelessness or poverty for a single year with $20 billion, even with 100.0% efficiency of payout. Statements like that totally mis-characterize the kind of problems you are putting on our intellectual plates. They aren't point problems like a leak in a gas line. In fact, they're closer to, ironically, a complex series of conflicts in the middle east...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- brandon272 8y ago
  > No you cannot spend $20 billion and solve homelessness or poverty. You probably can't even make a double digit % dent in homelessness or poverty for a single year with $20 billion, even with 100.0% efficiency of payout. Solving poverty altogether is out of the question with only $20 billion to work with, but since you mentioned homelessness - if we assume there are 1.5 million homeless in the United States, $20 billion would provide $1,100 per month per homeless individual for a year. (Assuming 100% efficiency of payout) What am I missing in this consideration? (Also worth mentioning that a Housing and Urban Development official, in 2012, estimated the cost to end homelessness at $20 billion.)
  - Jtsummers 8y ago
    Estimated number of homeless in the US is around 500k (554k was the 2017 HUD estimate). That gives $35k-40k/year to spend on them if you only set aside $20 billion.
  - pandaman 8y ago
    The city of San Francisco is spending 240m on its ~7k homeless so about 30k/y per. It doesn't appear the homeless problem there is getting better at all least being solved.
ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
I find it really hard to believe $30 billion is all it would take to solve poverty world-wide. I don't even see how $30 billion could solve poverty in the U.S. Think about it, if that was true, what the hell are we wasting all the this money on social services? Apparently all it would take is $30 billion. We spend almost a trillion a year in social services, and yet you think another $30 billion is all it would take to solve poverty?
umvi 8y ago
USA spends more combined on welfare than on war per year, so then why isn't poverty solved yet?

by cyphar 8y ago

cheeseomlit 8y ago

"solving" homelessness or world poverty is not a one-time expense. You can throw $82 billion dollars worth of food at the starving populations of the world and they'd just multiply and require even more later on, it's not that simple

LeifCarrotson 8y ago
OP's estimates are prices per year, which makes more sense. But $82 billion is only $11 per person per year; I find it hard to believe that this will be able to make a meaningful difference.

simonsarris 8y ago

Oh come now, that's a truly silly claim. Social Security was designed to reduce senior poverty (it did work), but spends > $900 billion every year to continue working. No you cannot spend $20 billion and solve homelessness or poverty. You probably can't even make a double digit % dent in homelessness or poverty for a single year with $20 billion, even with 100.0% efficiency of payout. Statements like that totally mis-characterize the kind of problems you are putting on our intellectual plates. They aren't point problems like a leak in a gas line. In fact, they're closer to, ironically, a complex series of conflicts in the middle east...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
brandon272 8y ago
> No you cannot spend $20 billion and solve homelessness or poverty. You probably can't even make a double digit % dent in homelessness or poverty for a single year with $20 billion, even with 100.0% efficiency of payout. Solving poverty altogether is out of the question with only $20 billion to work with, but since you mentioned homelessness - if we assume there are 1.5 million homeless in the United States, $20 billion would provide $1,100 per month per homeless individual for a year. (Assuming 100% efficiency of payout) What am I missing in this consideration? (Also worth mentioning that a Housing and Urban Development official, in 2012, estimated the cost to end homelessness at $20 billion.)
- Jtsummers 8y ago
  Estimated number of homeless in the US is around 500k (554k was the 2017 HUD estimate). That gives $35k-40k/year to spend on them if you only set aside $20 billion.
- pandaman 8y ago
  The city of San Francisco is spending 240m on its ~7k homeless so about 30k/y per. It doesn't appear the homeless problem there is getting better at all least being solved.

ApolloFortyNine 8y ago

I find it really hard to believe $30 billion is all it would take to solve poverty world-wide. I don't even see how $30 billion could solve poverty in the U.S. Think about it, if that was true, what the hell are we wasting all the this money on social services? Apparently all it would take is $30 billion. We spend almost a trillion a year in social services, and yet you think another $30 billion is all it would take to solve poverty?

umvi 8y ago

USA spends more combined on welfare than on war per year, so then why isn't poverty solved yet?