3 ms·
On the surface this kind of solution is easy to dismiss as an expensive socialist extreme; a cost to the taxpayer that there is no political appetite for in oth
by gnode 7y ago
On the surface this kind of solution is easy to dismiss as an expensive socialist extreme; a cost to the taxpayer that there is no political appetite for in other countries. Yet counter-intuitively this is likely a saving for the taxpayer, as hospitals and prisons often end up filling this role, at a much larger cost than simply housing people.
- luckydata 7y agoSaid bluntly, who gives a shit about the taxpayers. Some things are to be done because they are right, not because they save money, even if they end up saving money. The ROI-first perspective when talking about social policies has created the monstrous society the US is now.
- gnode 7y agoFor better or worse, taxpayers give a shit about taxpayers, so it's important to recognise when arguments made in their name, and against people who are suffering, are actually a false economy.
- Konnstann 7y agoThe savings are there, the article even talks about it. I think the socialist extreme is the government owning 70% of the housing in the city. Not that it's a bad extreme, it sounds like it works fine, but out of the ordinary.
- gnode 7y ago> the government owning 70% of the housing in the city. I'd argue that this is actually state capitalism, rather than socialism.