5 ms·

The sad thing is that the right thing to do is generally also the logical thing to do. Housing homeless is less costly than providing jails + ambulances + othe

The sad thing is that the right thing to do is generally also the logical thing to do. Housing homeless is less costly than providing jails + ambulances + other services needed when people are on the street. The data is all there, but people will use sophism to make arguments that are either not proven, or that have been actively disproved. I mean, many arguments against helping the poor can be boiled down to: 'it isn't good enough, so let them rot'.

badpun 7y ago
There's a moral hazard there though - if we're housing homeless for free, then why buy/rent a house, when you can just declare yourself homeless and live in one for free?
- Bakary 7y ago
  Doesn't really work like that though. In the Utah example, it was "experience years of homelessness and other problems" then you get your house. Hardly a great choice of lifestyle.
  - badpun 7y ago
    There's a youtube channel where a guy interviews homeless people. A lot of them just chose to live on the streets over the the pressures of making rent money in a job. They chose to check out of society. If there's a program that says "live on the street for 3 years and you get a free flat", I'm betting it would be an ok deal for some.
    - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
      Not everyone experiences pressures the same. Especially after trauma. I know for me the stress of earning rent is WAY, WAY orders of magnitude less than living on the street. For many people it is that way, that is why they choose not to. Most people on the street don't want to be there (though you wouldn't know it, they are working poor who mostly sleep in their cars, what you see as homeless is only a small percentage of homeless) You could experience trauma too. It can change anyone. A little empathy goes a long way.
      - badpun 7y ago
        > they are working poor who mostly sleep in their cars How can you work full-time and not afford even the shantiest room somewhere?
        4ntonius8lock 7y ago
        They don't have full time. Many of the worst jobs in our society are given on part time/hours basis only. And most landlords now a days do background checks. If you have been in prison, had a foreclosure, bankruptcy, etc many places won't rent to you at all. So you have to go to predatory places which charge way more than your regular housing. However, this is all very basic information on this topic. Since you seem to not know these very basic facts, may I suggest not holding an opinion or judgement until you may do a little reading on the topic. It's my experience in my life that when I gave an opinion on something I was ignorant on, I generally felt ashamed afterwards. It's been a big motivator in me trying to know a little before giving an opinion. I think it's made me a better person.
    - chopin 7y ago
      So you are essentially not solving a problem for fear of a minuscule amount of suckers? Two decades ago, there was a big press campaign in Germany over "lazy professors" with some prominent illustrative examples (which I am sure existed). As a consequence academia was covered with bureaucracy to prevent this. Now professors do paperwork instead of science or teaching. For the greater good society should be able to cope with a few free-riders.
      - badpun 7y ago
        I lived in communist Poland, who tried, via lots of socialist policies, to fix the "social injustices". Over time, it created an absolutely insane amount of free-riding behaviours, to the point that if you did not took advantage of the state, you were the sucker. People living in Western countries have not experienced socialism on that scale yet, so they haven't seen how corroding to the human character the state-given freebies can be. Regarding lazy professors, we were (and still are) the exact same problem in Poland - dunno what the situation is in Germany, but here I'm convinced the laziness is absolutely prevalent, and almost no one is doing any real research. We also had the heavy buruecratic reform imposed on the academics, and the main difference is that now they expend a lot of effort pretending they're doing research, up to the point of creating collusion rings where everybody is citing everybody else (so that their citation count looks decent) etc. On a broader scale, I don't believe that people do well in utopias imposed by bureucrats - and that's what the "help the homeless" and other socialist programs ultimately are. A lot of us just can't relate to something as impersonal as the state, and see no problem cheating it or stealing from it. What's worse, it's a slippery slope that leads to general moral corrosion. The professors are one of myriad examples of this - under socialism, most of them learned to game the system in a way that allows them to do nothing, to the point that it became a part of the Polish academic culture, which is now absolutely immoral and corrupt (just speak to young Polish scientist how actually want to do science, and who haven't yet given up and left the country). These people then pass such values to their children, who may enter different areas of live, and spill the cynicism of their parents there. Over a couple of generations, you end up with an absolutely broken and apathetic society - just look at Russia.
        7y ago
- qwsxyh 7y ago
  Sounds like we should just make housing free, then, and avoid this problem altogether.
  - badpun 7y ago
    Even better, let's make everything free! All problems solved with one brilliant move.
    - qwsxyh 7y ago
      This, but completely unironically.
      - sampo 7y ago
        Historically, this kind of ideology has always ended up in murdering citizens en masse. Tread carefully. Or better: Study history.
        kljhsdfkhjdf 7y ago
        And the 'American' ideology hasn't? What about the people killed in CIA-lead coups in South America? What about when the US overthrew a government for a fucking banana company? Hundreds of thousands of civilians in the Iraq war? Vietnam? Millions of people starve every year because capitalism 'allocates' significantly more food to rich westerners rather than the billions in the global south. Do those people count? Do they not work hard enough? I've studied history and I learned the most savage ideology is American capitalism. Before you comment, I don't like the USSR or the CCP, so skip whatever tired retort about "STALIN/MAO KILLED 193272 BILLION PEOPLE" you're inevitably thinking of.
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    Or we could talk about how we have a problem where a certain % of the population can't house themselves, and the rest of us pay more in prisons and ambulances than other cities do in housing them and avoiding the high costs of prison and ambulances. No one said free. But no. The thought of someone getting help triggers you emotionally. So you use sarcasm and exaggerations to have to avoid a topic where you probably don't have the data to back your argument.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  I find it interesting that in an article and on a topic where no one said free, you feel the need to qualify things that way, in order to create a moral hazard. It's literally a scare crow argument. Since you mention the words moral hazard, and you made up an argument to bring up the point, maybe you feel a moral hazard without really having viewed the data? In which case, I'm wondering where that comes from? (truly, not trying to imply anything)
  - badpun 7y ago
    There are homeless people who just do not want to work for money - they choose "freedom" over being part of a standard society. The only home you can provide to them is free, as they won't be able to pay even for highly subsidised housing.
    - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
      Again, no one mentioned the word free. Adults talk about other adults who have mental health issues and who cost society more money now than it would to house them. We talk about directing existing resources. We talk about data and studies. I'm afraid you are making points based on things you are just pulling out of your... head - or you can prove me wrong and point me to a study that backs up what you said, explaining the significant percentage (it has to be since you are bringing it up) of homeless who feel the way you portray. I'll be glad to issue a retraction if you do. I previously suggested to you a little compassion. I think a little thinking and research would also do you well. Maybe then you could formulate a cohesive argument without using some extreme 1% example to try and prove that 99% of the problem is not addressable.
- luckydata 7y ago
  "Moral hazard" is like many other smart sounding but empty phrases coined by the powers that be: something we apply ruthlessly to the poor and we ignore with a little giggle for the rich and corporations.

badpun 7y ago

There's a moral hazard there though - if we're housing homeless for free, then why buy/rent a house, when you can just declare yourself homeless and live in one for free?

Bakary 7y ago
Doesn't really work like that though. In the Utah example, it was "experience years of homelessness and other problems" then you get your house. Hardly a great choice of lifestyle.
- badpun 7y ago
  There's a youtube channel where a guy interviews homeless people. A lot of them just chose to live on the streets over the the pressures of making rent money in a job. They chose to check out of society. If there's a program that says "live on the street for 3 years and you get a free flat", I'm betting it would be an ok deal for some.
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    Not everyone experiences pressures the same. Especially after trauma. I know for me the stress of earning rent is WAY, WAY orders of magnitude less than living on the street. For many people it is that way, that is why they choose not to. Most people on the street don't want to be there (though you wouldn't know it, they are working poor who mostly sleep in their cars, what you see as homeless is only a small percentage of homeless) You could experience trauma too. It can change anyone. A little empathy goes a long way.
    - badpun 7y ago
      > they are working poor who mostly sleep in their cars How can you work full-time and not afford even the shantiest room somewhere?
      - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
        They don't have full time. Many of the worst jobs in our society are given on part time/hours basis only. And most landlords now a days do background checks. If you have been in prison, had a foreclosure, bankruptcy, etc many places won't rent to you at all. So you have to go to predatory places which charge way more than your regular housing. However, this is all very basic information on this topic. Since you seem to not know these very basic facts, may I suggest not holding an opinion or judgement until you may do a little reading on the topic. It's my experience in my life that when I gave an opinion on something I was ignorant on, I generally felt ashamed afterwards. It's been a big motivator in me trying to know a little before giving an opinion. I think it's made me a better person.
  - chopin 7y ago
    So you are essentially not solving a problem for fear of a minuscule amount of suckers? Two decades ago, there was a big press campaign in Germany over "lazy professors" with some prominent illustrative examples (which I am sure existed). As a consequence academia was covered with bureaucracy to prevent this. Now professors do paperwork instead of science or teaching. For the greater good society should be able to cope with a few free-riders.
    - badpun 7y ago
      I lived in communist Poland, who tried, via lots of socialist policies, to fix the "social injustices". Over time, it created an absolutely insane amount of free-riding behaviours, to the point that if you did not took advantage of the state, you were the sucker. People living in Western countries have not experienced socialism on that scale yet, so they haven't seen how corroding to the human character the state-given freebies can be. Regarding lazy professors, we were (and still are) the exact same problem in Poland - dunno what the situation is in Germany, but here I'm convinced the laziness is absolutely prevalent, and almost no one is doing any real research. We also had the heavy buruecratic reform imposed on the academics, and the main difference is that now they expend a lot of effort pretending they're doing research, up to the point of creating collusion rings where everybody is citing everybody else (so that their citation count looks decent) etc. On a broader scale, I don't believe that people do well in utopias imposed by bureucrats - and that's what the "help the homeless" and other socialist programs ultimately are. A lot of us just can't relate to something as impersonal as the state, and see no problem cheating it or stealing from it. What's worse, it's a slippery slope that leads to general moral corrosion. The professors are one of myriad examples of this - under socialism, most of them learned to game the system in a way that allows them to do nothing, to the point that it became a part of the Polish academic culture, which is now absolutely immoral and corrupt (just speak to young Polish scientist how actually want to do science, and who haven't yet given up and left the country). These people then pass such values to their children, who may enter different areas of live, and spill the cynicism of their parents there. Over a couple of generations, you end up with an absolutely broken and apathetic society - just look at Russia.
      - 7y ago
qwsxyh 7y ago
Sounds like we should just make housing free, then, and avoid this problem altogether.
- badpun 7y ago
  Even better, let's make everything free! All problems solved with one brilliant move.
  - qwsxyh 7y ago
    This, but completely unironically.
    - sampo 7y ago
      Historically, this kind of ideology has always ended up in murdering citizens en masse. Tread carefully. Or better: Study history.
      - kljhsdfkhjdf 7y ago
        And the 'American' ideology hasn't? What about the people killed in CIA-lead coups in South America? What about when the US overthrew a government for a fucking banana company? Hundreds of thousands of civilians in the Iraq war? Vietnam? Millions of people starve every year because capitalism 'allocates' significantly more food to rich westerners rather than the billions in the global south. Do those people count? Do they not work hard enough? I've studied history and I learned the most savage ideology is American capitalism. Before you comment, I don't like the USSR or the CCP, so skip whatever tired retort about "STALIN/MAO KILLED 193272 BILLION PEOPLE" you're inevitably thinking of.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  Or we could talk about how we have a problem where a certain % of the population can't house themselves, and the rest of us pay more in prisons and ambulances than other cities do in housing them and avoiding the high costs of prison and ambulances. No one said free. But no. The thought of someone getting help triggers you emotionally. So you use sarcasm and exaggerations to have to avoid a topic where you probably don't have the data to back your argument.
4ntonius8lock 7y ago
I find it interesting that in an article and on a topic where no one said free, you feel the need to qualify things that way, in order to create a moral hazard. It's literally a scare crow argument. Since you mention the words moral hazard, and you made up an argument to bring up the point, maybe you feel a moral hazard without really having viewed the data? In which case, I'm wondering where that comes from? (truly, not trying to imply anything)
- badpun 7y ago
  There are homeless people who just do not want to work for money - they choose "freedom" over being part of a standard society. The only home you can provide to them is free, as they won't be able to pay even for highly subsidised housing.
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    Again, no one mentioned the word free. Adults talk about other adults who have mental health issues and who cost society more money now than it would to house them. We talk about directing existing resources. We talk about data and studies. I'm afraid you are making points based on things you are just pulling out of your... head - or you can prove me wrong and point me to a study that backs up what you said, explaining the significant percentage (it has to be since you are bringing it up) of homeless who feel the way you portray. I'll be glad to issue a retraction if you do. I previously suggested to you a little compassion. I think a little thinking and research would also do you well. Maybe then you could formulate a cohesive argument without using some extreme 1% example to try and prove that 99% of the problem is not addressable.
luckydata 7y ago
"Moral hazard" is like many other smart sounding but empty phrases coined by the powers that be: something we apply ruthlessly to the poor and we ignore with a little giggle for the rich and corporations.