6 ms·

Right here there is a private company trying to help ease the homeless problem That's not true: they are making an investment in housing, based on economica

Right here there is a private company trying to help ease the homeless problem That's not true: they are making an investment in housing, based on economical considerations, that they expect to cover by reducing the health liabilities of the covered individuals. I don't think this means that they should be shit on, or that the situation is bad. On the contrary: it looks like health externalities (homelessness) have been appropriately internalized, and it is enabling correct match-up between resources and needs. But it just sounds silly when you say they are "trying to help ease the homeless problem"

hpoe 7y ago
Sure maybe their motive is economic rather than altruistic but to quote my mother "if it's stupid and it works it isn't that stupid" I mean Steve Jobs didn't care about anything but the profits when launching the iPhone but it was arguably a significant factor in getting us to the state where we are at today where pretty much everyone has an internet enabled smart phone. It just sometimes there is the group think on HN that all companies and big corporations are always evil and are some sort of malevolent force and so we can't give them credit for any good they do because they don't meet our moral standard. I mean that's like saying Lincoln's role in freeing the slaves was fundamentally evil because he didn't also extend everyone the same protections enshrined in the Civil Rights act. Ultimately in my years of software engineering I have become convinced that big huge grand programs are almost always bloated ineffective and full of bugs whereas most real value derives from incremental improvements.
- 49531 7y ago
  It isn't about good or evil, it's about the fact that relying on large corporations' profit interests to solve public ills is a fools errand. So, sure, the public might get some good from a corporation's program, but as soon as the profit dries up, the corporation will move on. This isn't a moral thing, it's just a thing profit-driven organizations do. People don't want welfare infrastructure to be contingent on a corporations ability to profit, because in the end it will be a fickle thing.
  - afarrell 7y ago
    Will it be more fickle than a politician's ability to get votes? The answer here is probably "yes". But the question is worth asking. If we can construct some system where the profit motive does motivate ongoing maintenance of welfare infrastructure, thats a win.
    - 49531 7y ago
      Not only will it be more fickle, there is 0 accountability from the public, and the corporation has unilateral control over the programs existence. Contrast that with entrenched public goods like schools, libraries, police and fire departments. Most politicians don't have the ability to suspend those programs if the quarterly numbers are low. So yes, private welfare infrastructure is inherently less stable than public. > If we can construct some system where the profit motive does motivate ongoing maintenance of welfare infrastructure, thats a win. There are some things that just aren't profitable, and never will be, like rural mail delivery. Not to be dramatic or anything, but I think if the last 30 years have taught us anything, it is that the more we try to solve problems with profit driven organizations the more anemic our society will become.
  - danShumway 7y ago
    Will this effort make it harder to build public infrastructure in the future? I'm sympathetic to the argument you're making, and I've even used it a couple of times when talking about stuff like browser standards, Facebook Basic Internet, etc... It's not a dumb argument. But at the same time, homeless people don't care about your theoretical utopia. They need help right now, and there's a very real cost to saying, "nobody should help this person suffering until we can do it right." There's a balancing act here. Unless private care is going to make it harder to solve homelessness in the future, we should embrace it as a band-aide solution while we work on public infrastructure. Because let's be honest, public solutions like guaranteed housing are likely pretty far in the future -- I don't see a lot of evidence that there is enough political momentum right now to make that happen. The evidence I see suggests Medicaid has a decent chance of even getting worse in the immediate future. We need band-aide solutions right now.
- mercutio2 7y ago
  > I mean Steve Jobs didn't care about anything but the profits when launching the iPhone I have many, many, many criticisms of Steve Jobs as a human being, and as a leader, but I have literally never before read anyone claiming “he didn’t care about anything but profits”. If by this you mean Steve Jobs killed a bunch of unprofitable products, and generally Apple as a company on his watch didn’t sell anything without a sizable markup above the marginal cost of production, I would trivially agree. But your formulation basically reduces a complicated contentious figure down to an absurdly inaccurate caricature. He clearly cared very deeply about a lot of different things.
- ianai 7y ago
  No need for a group think that corporations are evil. HN just likes to tear apart any premise presented to it. There are plenty of instances where they tear into the argument that corporations are evil and argue instead that capitalism is best-no regulation or taxes needed.
kingkawn 7y ago
The argument that helping others will lead both to reduced social costs and improved economic participation is ripe to be made. These companies may be stumbling onto it through trial and error, but the economic world where people are not dying on the street will be more productive for us all. Whatever path gets us there gets us there.
EricE 7y ago
> That's not true: they are making an investment in housing, based on economical considerations, that they expect to cover by reducing the health liabilities of the covered individuals. And why, exactly, is that a problem? Not sure what planet you live on, but here in the real world economics is the primary motivating factor for all societies. > But it just sounds silly when you say they are "trying to help ease the homeless problem" Why is it silly to say that? It's EXACTLY what they are trying to do since it directly affects their bottom line. They have contracts with the state to provide medicare - this let's them do it far more efficiently. If they can also do it while dramatically improving the lives of those they serve why shouldn't they get credit for that too? It just boggles my mind that the Automatic assumption in this country is that all corporations or profit motives are immediate evil/immoral. Talk about real silly ideas...

hpoe 7y ago

Sure maybe their motive is economic rather than altruistic but to quote my mother "if it's stupid and it works it isn't that stupid" I mean Steve Jobs didn't care about anything but the profits when launching the iPhone but it was arguably a significant factor in getting us to the state where we are at today where pretty much everyone has an internet enabled smart phone. It just sometimes there is the group think on HN that all companies and big corporations are always evil and are some sort of malevolent force and so we can't give them credit for any good they do because they don't meet our moral standard. I mean that's like saying Lincoln's role in freeing the slaves was fundamentally evil because he didn't also extend everyone the same protections enshrined in the Civil Rights act. Ultimately in my years of software engineering I have become convinced that big huge grand programs are almost always bloated ineffective and full of bugs whereas most real value derives from incremental improvements.

49531 7y ago
It isn't about good or evil, it's about the fact that relying on large corporations' profit interests to solve public ills is a fools errand. So, sure, the public might get some good from a corporation's program, but as soon as the profit dries up, the corporation will move on. This isn't a moral thing, it's just a thing profit-driven organizations do. People don't want welfare infrastructure to be contingent on a corporations ability to profit, because in the end it will be a fickle thing.
- afarrell 7y ago
  Will it be more fickle than a politician's ability to get votes? The answer here is probably "yes". But the question is worth asking. If we can construct some system where the profit motive does motivate ongoing maintenance of welfare infrastructure, thats a win.
  - 49531 7y ago
    Not only will it be more fickle, there is 0 accountability from the public, and the corporation has unilateral control over the programs existence. Contrast that with entrenched public goods like schools, libraries, police and fire departments. Most politicians don't have the ability to suspend those programs if the quarterly numbers are low. So yes, private welfare infrastructure is inherently less stable than public. > If we can construct some system where the profit motive does motivate ongoing maintenance of welfare infrastructure, thats a win. There are some things that just aren't profitable, and never will be, like rural mail delivery. Not to be dramatic or anything, but I think if the last 30 years have taught us anything, it is that the more we try to solve problems with profit driven organizations the more anemic our society will become.
- danShumway 7y ago
  Will this effort make it harder to build public infrastructure in the future? I'm sympathetic to the argument you're making, and I've even used it a couple of times when talking about stuff like browser standards, Facebook Basic Internet, etc... It's not a dumb argument. But at the same time, homeless people don't care about your theoretical utopia. They need help right now, and there's a very real cost to saying, "nobody should help this person suffering until we can do it right." There's a balancing act here. Unless private care is going to make it harder to solve homelessness in the future, we should embrace it as a band-aide solution while we work on public infrastructure. Because let's be honest, public solutions like guaranteed housing are likely pretty far in the future -- I don't see a lot of evidence that there is enough political momentum right now to make that happen. The evidence I see suggests Medicaid has a decent chance of even getting worse in the immediate future. We need band-aide solutions right now.
mercutio2 7y ago
> I mean Steve Jobs didn't care about anything but the profits when launching the iPhone I have many, many, many criticisms of Steve Jobs as a human being, and as a leader, but I have literally never before read anyone claiming “he didn’t care about anything but profits”. If by this you mean Steve Jobs killed a bunch of unprofitable products, and generally Apple as a company on his watch didn’t sell anything without a sizable markup above the marginal cost of production, I would trivially agree. But your formulation basically reduces a complicated contentious figure down to an absurdly inaccurate caricature. He clearly cared very deeply about a lot of different things.
ianai 7y ago
No need for a group think that corporations are evil. HN just likes to tear apart any premise presented to it. There are plenty of instances where they tear into the argument that corporations are evil and argue instead that capitalism is best-no regulation or taxes needed.

kingkawn 7y ago

The argument that helping others will lead both to reduced social costs and improved economic participation is ripe to be made. These companies may be stumbling onto it through trial and error, but the economic world where people are not dying on the street will be more productive for us all. Whatever path gets us there gets us there.

EricE 7y ago

> That's not true: they are making an investment in housing, based on economical considerations, that they expect to cover by reducing the health liabilities of the covered individuals. And why, exactly, is that a problem? Not sure what planet you live on, but here in the real world economics is the primary motivating factor for all societies. > But it just sounds silly when you say they are "trying to help ease the homeless problem" Why is it silly to say that? It's EXACTLY what they are trying to do since it directly affects their bottom line. They have contracts with the state to provide medicare - this let's them do it far more efficiently. If they can also do it while dramatically improving the lives of those they serve why shouldn't they get credit for that too? It just boggles my mind that the Automatic assumption in this country is that all corporations or profit motives are immediate evil/immoral. Talk about real silly ideas...