3 ms·

And if laws against vagrancy were better-enforced, businesses wouldn't find it possible to employ people for poverty wages. They'd have to raise wages to the po

And if laws against vagrancy were better-enforced, businesses wouldn't find it possible to employ people for poverty wages. They'd have to raise wages to the point that people can afford housing. This idea that we need to allow people to camp all over public space because the employment market is malfunctioning in some way is indicative of a "caring" mindset that's making it impossible to actually solve the real, underlying problems of resource misallocation. Our inability to address the homeless problem is a direct result of "caring" and "nurturing" eclipsing all other values. We've become incapable of enacting any policy that someone might call "harsh", even if that policy would be better for everyone in the long term. Sometimes the right approach really is tough love.

city41 7y ago
I'm not trying to suggest a solution. I think this is an incredibly complex problem and not something I have expertise in. I'm merely pointing out there is some recent evidence to suggest the make up of homeless people may be shifting.
dtech 7y ago
It sounds very unlikely that the reason for stagnant and too low wages is inadequate prosecution of the most vulnerable people in society.
- quotemstr 7y ago
  > It sounds very unlikely that the reason for stagnant and too low wages is inadequate prosecution of the most vulnerable people in society. That's a pretty loaded statement presented without evidence. Vagrants are aren't "the most vulnerable people in society'. They're criminals. If we punish them like criminals, they'll stop their criminal behavior or spent time in prison where they can't cause problems for everyone else.
  - DrJosiah 7y ago
    > Vagrants are aren't "the most vulnerable people in society'. They're criminals. That's a pretty loaded statement presented without evidence.
    - quotemstr 7y ago
      Vagrants are breaking the law, by definition, because vagrancy is a crime. When someone commits a crime, we call him a criminal and remove him from society for a while. I see no reason to abandon this tradition now.
      - DrJosiah 7y ago
        > When someone commits a crime, we call him a criminal and remove him from society for a while. Wow. I've received 3 speeding tickets, and 2 right on red tickets in my life. I committed a crime. I paid fines. I was not removed from society. That is the case with a huge number of crimes, today, otherwise we would have an even worse prison problem. > I see no reason to abandon this tradition now. We've already abandoned it, and we are reducing the sizes of prisons as you prattle on about the problems of vagrancy. Let's get mental health care facilities, rehab, and more, to the levels that existed before Republicans gutted them starting in the 50's. I don't know, like institute new-deal type things so people aren't wanting for basic needs, and maybe vagrancy will go away. Well, it did the last time we did that. Why wouldn't we do the exact same thing that worked last time?
        quotemstr 7y ago
        What happens when people refuse to use these new rehab facilities, preferring a life of drugs on the street? I'm all for improved mental health care, but at some point, we need to involuntarily remove vagrants from the street and put them in places where they can get help overcoming their problems.
        DrJosiah 7y ago
        > What happens when people refuse So give them that chance to say no. Right now, you're advocating for paying $81k/year (average for CA prisons) to keep people in prison, instead of trying to fix the underlying causes. Estimates put the number of homeless people in California at roughly 120k+, including families, children, etc. So if we solve the problem as you are proposing, by putting them in prison right now, that's $9.7 billion / year. It would more than double the current California prison population, from current 115k people, to 235k+, and we'd need new child prisons, because a lot of those homeless folks are families with children. Putting "vagrants" and other "homeless" people in prison is stupidly expensive, pointlessly punitive, and doesn't solve the underlying economic or social problems. It doesn't stop people from being poor, it just makes being poor suck worse than it already does. All you've done is put a bunch of vulnerable people in prison.

city41 7y ago

I'm not trying to suggest a solution. I think this is an incredibly complex problem and not something I have expertise in. I'm merely pointing out there is some recent evidence to suggest the make up of homeless people may be shifting.

dtech 7y ago

It sounds very unlikely that the reason for stagnant and too low wages is inadequate prosecution of the most vulnerable people in society.

quotemstr 7y ago
> It sounds very unlikely that the reason for stagnant and too low wages is inadequate prosecution of the most vulnerable people in society. That's a pretty loaded statement presented without evidence. Vagrants are aren't "the most vulnerable people in society'. They're criminals. If we punish them like criminals, they'll stop their criminal behavior or spent time in prison where they can't cause problems for everyone else.
- DrJosiah 7y ago
  > Vagrants are aren't "the most vulnerable people in society'. They're criminals. That's a pretty loaded statement presented without evidence.
  - quotemstr 7y ago
    Vagrants are breaking the law, by definition, because vagrancy is a crime. When someone commits a crime, we call him a criminal and remove him from society for a while. I see no reason to abandon this tradition now.
    - DrJosiah 7y ago
      > When someone commits a crime, we call him a criminal and remove him from society for a while. Wow. I've received 3 speeding tickets, and 2 right on red tickets in my life. I committed a crime. I paid fines. I was not removed from society. That is the case with a huge number of crimes, today, otherwise we would have an even worse prison problem. > I see no reason to abandon this tradition now. We've already abandoned it, and we are reducing the sizes of prisons as you prattle on about the problems of vagrancy. Let's get mental health care facilities, rehab, and more, to the levels that existed before Republicans gutted them starting in the 50's. I don't know, like institute new-deal type things so people aren't wanting for basic needs, and maybe vagrancy will go away. Well, it did the last time we did that. Why wouldn't we do the exact same thing that worked last time?
      - quotemstr 7y ago
        What happens when people refuse to use these new rehab facilities, preferring a life of drugs on the street? I'm all for improved mental health care, but at some point, we need to involuntarily remove vagrants from the street and put them in places where they can get help overcoming their problems.
        DrJosiah 7y ago
        > What happens when people refuse So give them that chance to say no. Right now, you're advocating for paying $81k/year (average for CA prisons) to keep people in prison, instead of trying to fix the underlying causes. Estimates put the number of homeless people in California at roughly 120k+, including families, children, etc. So if we solve the problem as you are proposing, by putting them in prison right now, that's $9.7 billion / year. It would more than double the current California prison population, from current 115k people, to 235k+, and we'd need new child prisons, because a lot of those homeless folks are families with children. Putting "vagrants" and other "homeless" people in prison is stupidly expensive, pointlessly punitive, and doesn't solve the underlying economic or social problems. It doesn't stop people from being poor, it just makes being poor suck worse than it already does. All you've done is put a bunch of vulnerable people in prison.