16 ms·

I wish we'd do this. I get in arguments with friends, usually the response is "why should they be housed if they're just gonna drink or do drugs?" "Why should t

I wish we'd do this. I get in arguments with friends, usually the response is "why should they be housed if they're just gonna drink or do drugs?" "Why should there be free public restrooms? Homeless people might shoot up or have sex in them." Well... They're drinking, shooting up, and having sex right at the bus stop, so I'd happily pay to have them do it out of sight, without even considering the fact that it's more moral to care for the downtrodden. So much pride seems wrapped up in it. "why should I pay for someone else to be a lazy drug addict? That's MY MONEY!" It's not a solution oriented mindset. Like, they're gonna shoot up on the street where you gotta step over their needles, or in a house away from you. Seems obvious to me, even if it's more expensive. If you're looking for a similar solution to getting the homeless out of sight without "costing tax-payer money," the only one I can think of is murdering the homeless, or maybe shipping them to an island? Obviously, insane. So how do I overcome the pride barrier in these conversations?

chefkoch 8y ago
>Well... They're drinking, shooting up, and having sex right at the bus stop But then you can put them in jail which much even more expensive, but they are punished for being poor.
- nerdponx 8y ago
  Expensive is good, those prison contractors need work you know.
adventured 8y ago
It's an approach that has shown dramatic positive results in the US over the last 20 years. The shelter the homeless programs in the US reduced the homeless population from ~650,000 to ~550,000 today over one decade (2007-2016), despite the great recession occuring during that time (with a massive spike in unemployment and people losing their homes). Unsheltered homelessness, which would be approximately equivalent to rough sleeping in the UK I believe, declined from 255,000 to 176,000 (31%) over that decade. The Federal Government programs under Bush and Obama are solely responsible for the improvement, against a mediocre economic picture during that time. The housing first program under the Bush Admin, and then the various housing programs followed by that during Obama Admin[1]. If we're smart, we'll keep applying more resources that direction. It works [2] and we have overwhelming proof over the last two decades. [1] https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/economy/article24585973.html https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/econo... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/08/the-astonishing-decline-of-homelessness-in-america/279050/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/08/the-ast...
rdm_blackhole 8y ago
I don't think it is an issue of pride but more of fairness. If you find yourself on the streets because you lost your job or because you had a rough upbringing or because you had to flee from an abusive parent or partner, you should get housing paid by the state. Where I draw the line, personally is to give free housing unconditionally to addicts. I am not saying they shouldn't get it, I am saying they should get it under certain conditions, for example entering a program, doing some sort of training, get a job, anything. Because how is it doing any good to society if you just give housing without people having to change their bad habits? In the article, the lady who is alcoholic says she can just keep drinking in her room, so she probably doesn't want to work or get better. In this case, I would much rather have her room go to a single mum struggling with her kids or to somebody who actually wants to do something with their lives. Instead, she is probably going to keep drinking and nothing will change. Housing being a finite resource and taxpayers money being finite as well, priorities should be given to people who actually want to get better. In an ideal world, maybe you can give a room/apartment to everybody out there who needs one including the people who just want to drink or shoot up all day. But as it stands it does not makes sense and is ripe for abuse if everybody expects free housing even if they are not willing to change just a little bit.
- elabajaba 8y ago
  It's much cheaper to house the homeless than leave them on the streets. https://shnny.org/research/the-cost-of-long-term-homelessness-in-central-florida/ https://shnny.org/research/the-cost-of-long-term-homelessnes...
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    Only under a bizarre set of assumptions. We could not give them free housing while also not giving them free medical care. We could also measure cost by "this is what the hospital spent on the homeless" as opposed to "this is what the hospital would have billed had the homeless had any money". Your source doesn't specify how costs were measured.
    - 8y ago
rorykoehler 8y ago
The best response is to ask why not? Life is better for everyone if group A doesn't have to shit and shoot up on the street and group B doesn't have to avoid stepping in shit and on needles day in and day out.
- ddingus 8y ago
  I like it. Added to playbook.
chii 8y ago
> "why should I pay for someone else to be a lazy drug addict? That's MY MONEY!" The subtext of those who think this way is that these people shouldn't exist.
cbhl 8y ago
It might not just be pride. There are probably a set of values that underlie your friends' opinions. If you can find out what they are, it may help you find some common ground to start a productive conversation. If you understand their values, you can adjust your message, facts and/or anecdotes that you present them with. If your friend has been through hardships of their own, it may be helpful to ask them about those experiences. Ask them about techniques or strategies they used to overcome those hardships. How can you lead your friend to conclude that these techniques or strategies aren't available to the homeless for themselves? Some things to look for: expectation of fairness, learned helplessness, loss aversion, distrust in others / doing everything yourself, fear of the unknown/different, rigid adherence to rules. At the end of the day, you can only change your actions. Also reflect on what's more important to you: your friendship with this person, or your beliefs on this issue. If you fundamentally disagree, and it's really bothering you, it is okay to pause or even end a friendship over it.
- Doxin 8y ago
  Also keep in mind that there are (roughly) two schools of thought on what counts as fair: One group thinks fair is when everyone gets support so they get the same chances. The second group thinks fair is giving everyone the same amount of support. Neither is really more correct, but it might help understand people a bit more.
  - crooked-v 8y ago
    Neither may be more correct, but the former historically gets you less long-term social upheaval from angry poor people.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    That’s a mischaracterisation of at least one side of that particular debate. In the specific case of homelessness, the left’s position is more or less to reject any attempt to assign blame or adjudicate fairness. Could homeless people have avoided their situation by just keeping it together slightly better? Of course, yes. But raining even more hardship on them (people in this threat are talking criminalization and forced sterilization) adresses only our instinct that wants them to suffer, while doing nothing to actually help.
vivekd 8y ago
I honestly don't know why we can't do this. It wouldn't be that expensive and while there is some opposition to welfare I think youd be hard pressed to find many people opposingpublic food and shelter for the vert poor. To me its evidence of gross mismanagement and incomptence in government and chairitable fields that homelessness even exists.
Tsagadai 8y ago
Also important to consider that your taxes are already paying for streets as well so whether it is in a taxpayer funded house or a taxpayer funded street is irrelevant.
burfog 8y ago
Fundamental truth: you get more of what you subsidize So here you are proposing to subsidize all these problems. This just encourages more.

chefkoch 8y ago

>Well... They're drinking, shooting up, and having sex right at the bus stop But then you can put them in jail which much even more expensive, but they are punished for being poor.

nerdponx 8y ago
Expensive is good, those prison contractors need work you know.

adventured 8y ago

It's an approach that has shown dramatic positive results in the US over the last 20 years. The shelter the homeless programs in the US reduced the homeless population from ~650,000 to ~550,000 today over one decade (2007-2016), despite the great recession occuring during that time (with a massive spike in unemployment and people losing their homes). Unsheltered homelessness, which would be approximately equivalent to rough sleeping in the UK I believe, declined from 255,000 to 176,000 (31%) over that decade. The Federal Government programs under Bush and Obama are solely responsible for the improvement, against a mediocre economic picture during that time. The housing first program under the Bush Admin, and then the various housing programs followed by that during Obama Admin[1]. If we're smart, we'll keep applying more resources that direction. It works [2] and we have overwhelming proof over the last two decades. [1] https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/economy/article24585973.html https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/econo... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/08/the-astonishing-decline-of-homelessness-in-america/279050/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/08/the-ast...

rdm_blackhole 8y ago

I don't think it is an issue of pride but more of fairness. If you find yourself on the streets because you lost your job or because you had a rough upbringing or because you had to flee from an abusive parent or partner, you should get housing paid by the state. Where I draw the line, personally is to give free housing unconditionally to addicts. I am not saying they shouldn't get it, I am saying they should get it under certain conditions, for example entering a program, doing some sort of training, get a job, anything. Because how is it doing any good to society if you just give housing without people having to change their bad habits? In the article, the lady who is alcoholic says she can just keep drinking in her room, so she probably doesn't want to work or get better. In this case, I would much rather have her room go to a single mum struggling with her kids or to somebody who actually wants to do something with their lives. Instead, she is probably going to keep drinking and nothing will change. Housing being a finite resource and taxpayers money being finite as well, priorities should be given to people who actually want to get better. In an ideal world, maybe you can give a room/apartment to everybody out there who needs one including the people who just want to drink or shoot up all day. But as it stands it does not makes sense and is ripe for abuse if everybody expects free housing even if they are not willing to change just a little bit.

elabajaba 8y ago
It's much cheaper to house the homeless than leave them on the streets. https://shnny.org/research/the-cost-of-long-term-homelessness-in-central-florida/ https://shnny.org/research/the-cost-of-long-term-homelessnes...
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  Only under a bizarre set of assumptions. We could not give them free housing while also not giving them free medical care. We could also measure cost by "this is what the hospital spent on the homeless" as opposed to "this is what the hospital would have billed had the homeless had any money". Your source doesn't specify how costs were measured.
  - 8y ago

rorykoehler 8y ago

The best response is to ask why not? Life is better for everyone if group A doesn't have to shit and shoot up on the street and group B doesn't have to avoid stepping in shit and on needles day in and day out.

ddingus 8y ago
I like it. Added to playbook.

chii 8y ago

> "why should I pay for someone else to be a lazy drug addict? That's MY MONEY!" The subtext of those who think this way is that these people shouldn't exist.

cbhl 8y ago

It might not just be pride. There are probably a set of values that underlie your friends' opinions. If you can find out what they are, it may help you find some common ground to start a productive conversation. If you understand their values, you can adjust your message, facts and/or anecdotes that you present them with. If your friend has been through hardships of their own, it may be helpful to ask them about those experiences. Ask them about techniques or strategies they used to overcome those hardships. How can you lead your friend to conclude that these techniques or strategies aren't available to the homeless for themselves? Some things to look for: expectation of fairness, learned helplessness, loss aversion, distrust in others / doing everything yourself, fear of the unknown/different, rigid adherence to rules. At the end of the day, you can only change your actions. Also reflect on what's more important to you: your friendship with this person, or your beliefs on this issue. If you fundamentally disagree, and it's really bothering you, it is okay to pause or even end a friendship over it.

Doxin 8y ago
Also keep in mind that there are (roughly) two schools of thought on what counts as fair: One group thinks fair is when everyone gets support so they get the same chances. The second group thinks fair is giving everyone the same amount of support. Neither is really more correct, but it might help understand people a bit more.
- crooked-v 8y ago
  Neither may be more correct, but the former historically gets you less long-term social upheaval from angry poor people.
- matt4077 8y ago
  That’s a mischaracterisation of at least one side of that particular debate. In the specific case of homelessness, the left’s position is more or less to reject any attempt to assign blame or adjudicate fairness. Could homeless people have avoided their situation by just keeping it together slightly better? Of course, yes. But raining even more hardship on them (people in this threat are talking criminalization and forced sterilization) adresses only our instinct that wants them to suffer, while doing nothing to actually help.

vivekd 8y ago

I honestly don't know why we can't do this. It wouldn't be that expensive and while there is some opposition to welfare I think youd be hard pressed to find many people opposingpublic food and shelter for the vert poor. To me its evidence of gross mismanagement and incomptence in government and chairitable fields that homelessness even exists.

Tsagadai 8y ago

Also important to consider that your taxes are already paying for streets as well so whether it is in a taxpayer funded house or a taxpayer funded street is irrelevant.

burfog 8y ago

Fundamental truth: you get more of what you subsidize So here you are proposing to subsidize all these problems. This just encourages more.