4 ms·
On the contrary, a lot of homeless people’s primary impediment is the fact that they don’t have their own living space. There‘s a lot of evidence that “housing
by jakelazaroff 7y ago
On the contrary, a lot of homeless people’s primary impediment is the fact that they don’t have their own living space. There‘s a lot of evidence that “housing first” is an effective way of combatting homelessness [1].
More broadly, unless a system is truly overwhelmed by bad actors, I’m inclined to not worry about them at all. Is it really that important that we only help anyone who “truly” need it — and burn the whole system down to that end?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First
- dls2016 7y ago> Is it really that important that we only help anyone who “truly” need it — and burn the whole system down to that end? The welfare queen has been replaced by means testing.
- tantalor 7y agoThis shouldn't be a new thing; it was understood in greater detail as "hierarchy of needs" in the 1940s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
- gerbilly 7y ago> More broadly, unless a system is truly overwhelmed by bad actors, I’m inclined to not worry about them at all. It's more expensive to means test many of these programmes than to just hand the money/benefits out. But it's a common human bias that cheating must be prevented, even when it doesn't make sense in the aggregate. It's a cognitive limitation we have to get beyond. This is why americans don't have universal healthcare, because they are obsessed with making sure that no one gets care who doesn't 'deserve' it as much as they do, even though it would actually benefit them in the aggregate if everyone in society was cared for.