3 ms·

I'm not being glib but I think agreeing on outcomes is a much harder issue than you think that it might be. In my experience in this space, disagreement on desi

by cco 8y ago

I'm not being glib but I think agreeing on outcomes is a much harder issue than you think that it might be. In my experience in this space, disagreement on desired outcomes is the root of political problems around drug addiction, mental health, and homelessness. I would hazard a guess that you support harm reduction strategies, those policies do not garner widespread support amongst the voting public. Further, even when it is, it is very easy for opponents to say, "Why are we giving drug addicts this money when school teachers haven't had a raise in five years and can't afford to live here?"

longerthoughts 8y ago
>I think agreeing on outcomes is a much harder issue than you think that it might be. This. People will pitch their idea going into the experiment then torture the resulting data until it suggests that their proposal was the most effective.
schoen 8y ago
That's a great point. Maybe for example: * level of negative externalities due to homeless people in city X goes down by Y% * number of short-term homeless people in city X goes down by Y% * number of chronically homeless people in city X goes down by Y% * number of homeless people in city X goes down by Y% of which no more than Z% may be due to decreased arrival rate or increased departure rate of homeless people * number of homeless people in city X goes down by Y% without raising net tax burden in city X by more than Z% * tax burden of homeless services primarily met by those who benefit financially from increased rents * housing stock in city X increases by Y% * median apartment rent in city X decreases by Y% * average apartment rent in city X decreases by Y% * apartment rent in city X keeps place with inflation * Gini coefficient (income inequality) in city X decreases to at least Y * unemployment rate in city X decreases to at least Y * government refrains from conditioning benefits or services on acceptance of drug treatment * government refrains from conditioning benefits or services on cessation of drug use * government refrains from conditioning benefits or services on acceptance of mental health care * government requires acceptance of drug treatment or mental health care as a condition of receiving services * no increase in arrests for crimes often committed by homeless people * substantial increase in arrests for crimes that significantly affect other people's property or quality of life (this isn't even including broader-based changes to unemployment insurance, welfare, or health care systems)
- cco 8y ago
  I don't disagree but you've already lost the voter. I think the best possible chance of success here wraps harm reduction and treatment strategies into an emotional story of paternalism/punishment. That framework is really powerful in America and I've yet to see a narrative around harm reduction that resonates with most people, it just simply isn't attractive to spend tax money on needles and rent for drug addicts.
  - schoen 8y ago
    Oh, I meant this list to serve as examples of your point that people would find it hard to agree on these metrics, because some of them directly contradict each other!

by cco 8y ago

longerthoughts 8y ago

>I think agreeing on outcomes is a much harder issue than you think that it might be. This. People will pitch their idea going into the experiment then torture the resulting data until it suggests that their proposal was the most effective.

schoen 8y ago

That's a great point. Maybe for example: * level of negative externalities due to homeless people in city X goes down by Y% * number of short-term homeless people in city X goes down by Y% * number of chronically homeless people in city X goes down by Y% * number of homeless people in city X goes down by Y% of which no more than Z% may be due to decreased arrival rate or increased departure rate of homeless people * number of homeless people in city X goes down by Y% without raising net tax burden in city X by more than Z% * tax burden of homeless services primarily met by those who benefit financially from increased rents * housing stock in city X increases by Y% * median apartment rent in city X decreases by Y% * average apartment rent in city X decreases by Y% * apartment rent in city X keeps place with inflation * Gini coefficient (income inequality) in city X decreases to at least Y * unemployment rate in city X decreases to at least Y * government refrains from conditioning benefits or services on acceptance of drug treatment * government refrains from conditioning benefits or services on cessation of drug use * government refrains from conditioning benefits or services on acceptance of mental health care * government requires acceptance of drug treatment or mental health care as a condition of receiving services * no increase in arrests for crimes often committed by homeless people * substantial increase in arrests for crimes that significantly affect other people's property or quality of life (this isn't even including broader-based changes to unemployment insurance, welfare, or health care systems)

cco 8y ago
I don't disagree but you've already lost the voter. I think the best possible chance of success here wraps harm reduction and treatment strategies into an emotional story of paternalism/punishment. That framework is really powerful in America and I've yet to see a narrative around harm reduction that resonates with most people, it just simply isn't attractive to spend tax money on needles and rent for drug addicts.
- schoen 8y ago
  Oh, I meant this list to serve as examples of your point that people would find it hard to agree on these metrics, because some of them directly contradict each other!