4 ms·

The polticians have destroyed California. This is your case study for social programs, socialism, unlimited immigration, social justice policy and now they are

by pgnas 7y ago

The polticians have destroyed California. This is your case study for social programs, socialism, unlimited immigration, social justice policy and now they are testing UBI? California should be our wake up call to change, instead, we double down on the same policies.

nutcracker46 7y ago
San Francisco and Los Angeles are the future of California. California is the future of the United States.
luckydata 7y ago
Cool story bro. Except that the real reason for most problems California is facing are of Republican making, it's called Proposition 13 and it's been an unmitigated disaster on the state.
omosubi 7y ago
What does reasonable policy regarding homelessness look like? I'm not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely curious. I don't live in California btw.
- ericmcer 7y ago
  Step one would be acknowledging that a proactive solution is ok. the current policy seems to be almost 100% reactive damage control, i.e. providing food, shelter, medical care to the homeless and attempting to clean up after them without displacing them at all.
- mjevans 7y ago
  Hopefully a moderator pulls (your post) out from under the parent and makes it a top-level reply to the article. To start with, any policy affecting a population that can move and be moved has to operate at the scope that those people are allowed to move. That means the taxing and funding distribution HAS to be on a national level. It probably also means that per-recipient funding needs to be proportional to the cost of living in a given area. (which SHOULD also be calculated realistically.) This would at least stop "poor" communities from dumping a national problem on bigger cities that try to be more kind. It would also encourage longer term solutions over broken window / temporary bandaids. It would also need to be systemic. There are a number of failures in society contributing to the issue. * Single payer healthcare - everyone's covered. * Actual mental healthcare (not just asylums) * Everyone is a worthy being * New New Deal - A job for all, with meaning and value. * Identify and correct market failures. One such market failure is 'housing', where there are jobs, where there is opportunity to build a new and better life, that's where people want to live. However rent-seeking is destroying the ability to build a life, a community, an actual home, family, or future.
  - varelse 7y ago
    So I agree in principle, but I also think our culture fails on imposing ownership of one's choices in nearly equal and opposite proportion to how much Asian countries overemphasize it. And this came to a boiling point when a Chinese friend insisted the homeless situation was better in China. So I looked up the numbers. Adjusted for population, it isn't, and in fact it's slightly worse. That was a surprise to me. But it's less visible there because it's considered shameful. I personally think everyone deserves a fully belly and a roof over their head. I think the rest is up to them. And I could go with medicare for all as an improvement over the current inequitable situation, but I think we could do better than that, yet I doubt we ever will. And that saddens me.
    - mjevans 7y ago
      In what way do you think choices reflect on any of the points I was trying to make as changes in social support? I can only see two that are well within the range that might be covered if all the other safety nets fixed individuals that had become injured or otherwise unable to work (this is assuming we have MUCH better tech, like Star Trek / Orville level tech, to actually repair all types of damage). Housing: This is more a choice made by the irrational market, not so much by individual humans. Yes there is less expensive housing, but it's usually not located near jobs or has a high externality / transaction cost of somekind. Referencing the source article, Japan does have a fantastically run transit system that is also reasonably priced. That does extend the range of available locations. Jobs themselves; do you think that job placement systems are not a better idea instead of being "hired" to "look" for a job (which should not be ANYONE's primary life skill!)? If an aptitude test shows that there is untrained area that skill could be acquired in, getting that skill might be the assigned 'job' instead. (retraining/education)
      - varelse 7y ago
        Points 3 and 4 personally. Feel free to disagree, but some of the homeless are bums IMO (note IMO). I'm willing to help them if it helps everyone else because it's cheaper than any other alternative, but I'm not going to pretend I don't know what they're up to. If I knew a way to reliably isolate the cheaters, I would. I don't, and I'd rather see everyone housed and fed than stay up at night worrying about freeloaders in this age of plenty if only we didn't consistently squander our surplus. I don't tell people what to do with their lives and the thought of a well-intentioned bureaucracy doing so doesn't thrill me (perhaps from being placed in all the slow classes against my will as a child I am biased here). I like the free market for jobs. Empower people to make their own choices. Give them free community college even. But let them make their own minds up. California could turn a lot of its secondary cities into job markets as well as suburbs for the major cities if they could build cost-effective mass transit. It seems incapable of getting that job done though so it seems like the only alternative is remote work, and without a cultural shift, that is piecemeal solution. Also look at what happened to SB50, shot down by effectively friendly fire from NIMBYs, not the conservatives. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/05/california-sb50-housing-zoning-wiener/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/05/california-sb50...
thebradbain 7y ago
I genuinely don’t see the homelessness problem as being caused by policy, but by lack of it: California has perhaps one of the largest safety nets of any state in the US, and it is saving a lot of people who have fallen on their luck — by design. The problem is that California, at all levels of government, refuses to fix its core issue: Housing, and the cost of living at a level to hold onto that house, is Too High. Ever notice how California is willing to try anything and everything to fix its homelessness crisis except intervene in the housing market in a meaningful way? In my view, California’s legislation in its current state is a band-aid, not a cure. But a band-aid is (temporarily) better than nothing. Ultimately the free market (* I’ll concede an argument may be made that housing is not a truly free market, since municipalities have created strict zoning legislation to favor homeowners, but my point still stands), directly and indirectly, has failed everyone looking to build a permanent home and life in California (unless your definition of “success” includes a large population unable to afford a home where they live). I’d imagine that without these “social programs, socialism, ... social justice policy” there would be many more homeless people than there currently are.
- masonic 7y ago
  Housing, and the cost of living at a level to hold onto that house, is Too High But 99.7% of CA has less expensive housing (mostly far less expensive) housing than the 17 square miles that are SF, so using SF as your metric for statewide policy is silly. If you aren't working or going to school in SF, you don't need to be housed there specifically at public expense. Housing and care dollars go much farther elsewhere.
  - topkai22 7y ago
    SF and San Jose metros are crazy, but the entire state has a median housing price well above the national average. In fact, it is 2nd only to Hawaii, at >$500k. It is absolutely fair to say that there is a systemic housing affordability issue in California.
    - varelse 7y ago
      I drove cross country a few years ago. When I hit Barstow, I was struck by how many seemingly homeless were being sheltered in its motels and I spoke with a few of them. They were sent there from Los Angeles. There was trash everywhere as well. California is weird. Out of sight, out of mind I guess.

by pgnas 7y ago

nutcracker46 7y ago

San Francisco and Los Angeles are the future of California. California is the future of the United States.

luckydata 7y ago

Cool story bro. Except that the real reason for most problems California is facing are of Republican making, it's called Proposition 13 and it's been an unmitigated disaster on the state.

omosubi 7y ago

What does reasonable policy regarding homelessness look like? I'm not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely curious. I don't live in California btw.

ericmcer 7y ago
Step one would be acknowledging that a proactive solution is ok. the current policy seems to be almost 100% reactive damage control, i.e. providing food, shelter, medical care to the homeless and attempting to clean up after them without displacing them at all.
mjevans 7y ago
Hopefully a moderator pulls (your post) out from under the parent and makes it a top-level reply to the article. To start with, any policy affecting a population that can move and be moved has to operate at the scope that those people are allowed to move. That means the taxing and funding distribution HAS to be on a national level. It probably also means that per-recipient funding needs to be proportional to the cost of living in a given area. (which SHOULD also be calculated realistically.) This would at least stop "poor" communities from dumping a national problem on bigger cities that try to be more kind. It would also encourage longer term solutions over broken window / temporary bandaids. It would also need to be systemic. There are a number of failures in society contributing to the issue. * Single payer healthcare - everyone's covered. * Actual mental healthcare (not just asylums) * Everyone is a worthy being * New New Deal - A job for all, with meaning and value. * Identify and correct market failures. One such market failure is 'housing', where there are jobs, where there is opportunity to build a new and better life, that's where people want to live. However rent-seeking is destroying the ability to build a life, a community, an actual home, family, or future.
- varelse 7y ago
  So I agree in principle, but I also think our culture fails on imposing ownership of one's choices in nearly equal and opposite proportion to how much Asian countries overemphasize it. And this came to a boiling point when a Chinese friend insisted the homeless situation was better in China. So I looked up the numbers. Adjusted for population, it isn't, and in fact it's slightly worse. That was a surprise to me. But it's less visible there because it's considered shameful. I personally think everyone deserves a fully belly and a roof over their head. I think the rest is up to them. And I could go with medicare for all as an improvement over the current inequitable situation, but I think we could do better than that, yet I doubt we ever will. And that saddens me.
  - mjevans 7y ago
    In what way do you think choices reflect on any of the points I was trying to make as changes in social support? I can only see two that are well within the range that might be covered if all the other safety nets fixed individuals that had become injured or otherwise unable to work (this is assuming we have MUCH better tech, like Star Trek / Orville level tech, to actually repair all types of damage). Housing: This is more a choice made by the irrational market, not so much by individual humans. Yes there is less expensive housing, but it's usually not located near jobs or has a high externality / transaction cost of somekind. Referencing the source article, Japan does have a fantastically run transit system that is also reasonably priced. That does extend the range of available locations. Jobs themselves; do you think that job placement systems are not a better idea instead of being "hired" to "look" for a job (which should not be ANYONE's primary life skill!)? If an aptitude test shows that there is untrained area that skill could be acquired in, getting that skill might be the assigned 'job' instead. (retraining/education)
    - varelse 7y ago
      Points 3 and 4 personally. Feel free to disagree, but some of the homeless are bums IMO (note IMO). I'm willing to help them if it helps everyone else because it's cheaper than any other alternative, but I'm not going to pretend I don't know what they're up to. If I knew a way to reliably isolate the cheaters, I would. I don't, and I'd rather see everyone housed and fed than stay up at night worrying about freeloaders in this age of plenty if only we didn't consistently squander our surplus. I don't tell people what to do with their lives and the thought of a well-intentioned bureaucracy doing so doesn't thrill me (perhaps from being placed in all the slow classes against my will as a child I am biased here). I like the free market for jobs. Empower people to make their own choices. Give them free community college even. But let them make their own minds up. California could turn a lot of its secondary cities into job markets as well as suburbs for the major cities if they could build cost-effective mass transit. It seems incapable of getting that job done though so it seems like the only alternative is remote work, and without a cultural shift, that is piecemeal solution. Also look at what happened to SB50, shot down by effectively friendly fire from NIMBYs, not the conservatives. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/05/california-sb50-housing-zoning-wiener/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/05/california-sb50...

thebradbain 7y ago

I genuinely don’t see the homelessness problem as being caused by policy, but by lack of it: California has perhaps one of the largest safety nets of any state in the US, and it is saving a lot of people who have fallen on their luck — by design. The problem is that California, at all levels of government, refuses to fix its core issue: Housing, and the cost of living at a level to hold onto that house, is Too High. Ever notice how California is willing to try anything and everything to fix its homelessness crisis except intervene in the housing market in a meaningful way? In my view, California’s legislation in its current state is a band-aid, not a cure. But a band-aid is (temporarily) better than nothing. Ultimately the free market (* I’ll concede an argument may be made that housing is not a truly free market, since municipalities have created strict zoning legislation to favor homeowners, but my point still stands), directly and indirectly, has failed everyone looking to build a permanent home and life in California (unless your definition of “success” includes a large population unable to afford a home where they live). I’d imagine that without these “social programs, socialism, ... social justice policy” there would be many more homeless people than there currently are.

masonic 7y ago
Housing, and the cost of living at a level to hold onto that house, is Too High But 99.7% of CA has less expensive housing (mostly far less expensive) housing than the 17 square miles that are SF, so using SF as your metric for statewide policy is silly. If you aren't working or going to school in SF, you don't need to be housed there specifically at public expense. Housing and care dollars go much farther elsewhere.
- topkai22 7y ago
  SF and San Jose metros are crazy, but the entire state has a median housing price well above the national average. In fact, it is 2nd only to Hawaii, at >$500k. It is absolutely fair to say that there is a systemic housing affordability issue in California.
  - varelse 7y ago
    I drove cross country a few years ago. When I hit Barstow, I was struck by how many seemingly homeless were being sheltered in its motels and I spoke with a few of them. They were sent there from Los Angeles. There was trash everywhere as well. California is weird. Out of sight, out of mind I guess.