4 ms·

>there was nothing I could do about it you could pay more in taxes so that these people could have section 8 housing and food stamps so that they don't have to

>there was nothing I could do about it you could pay more in taxes so that these people could have section 8 housing and food stamps so that they don't have to dig in the trash in order to survive. edit: i see i'm getting downvoted. it boggles the mind. people are starving literally in his driveway (not in another state, not in another country, not abstractly) and he's complaining about the noise of their death rattle. like how do you square that? i'd love someone to actually respond/answer rather than downvote in indignation. are you upset at the politics of the suggestion that the solution to the problem is not getting rid of their sole means to survive but to actually help them? is it divisive because i invoked the hob goblin of hn (higher taxes)? just truly what is the appropriate response here? is it really "fuck em let die so i can sleep blissfully unaware"?

ch4s3 7y ago
I think part of the issue here is that section 8 is rent support payments. It doesn’t pay directly to build housing. California is already a very high tax state, there’s money there. However, because of overly restrictive zoning and the ability of neighbors to block construction, that kind of housing can’t get built.
- throwlaplace 7y ago
  that's fine. i'll gladly admit that i'm not a welfare economist and that my shoot from the hip solution isn't necessarily the correct one. but at least the thing i'm expressing is "how can we help them" instead of "how can we make life even more difficult for them". this isn't to say i'm proud of myself or something - i'm just sincerely flabbergasted at expressing the latter opinion.
mc32 7y ago
I didn’t downvote, but I’ll reply. When you send your (surplus) taxes to the city or state (or feds), you don’t get to earmark it. Also let’s say you could and this person got housed and they also decided they would not rummage thru trash. Someone else will take up the slack and rummage. For example the city of SF spends inordinate amounts on homelessness but the problem only gets bigger. When people talk of the military industrial complex, we know what it means. In SF there is a homelessness-industrial complex that exists for its own sake and is better off perpetuating homelessness than solving it. Don’t believe me? Propose homelessness solutions that cut out these orgs and see how well your ideas are received.
- throwlaplace 7y ago
  >When you send your (surplus) taxes to the city or state (or feds), you don’t get to earmark it. fine then give that homeless person the $20 yourself - they're in your driveway! you could literally pay them a couple of bucks a day (the worth of the cans in your trash) to skip your house. my point is simple: the reflexive reaction is "banish them" instead of "help them" even if helping them is the most straightforward way to solve the problem. >Someone else will take up the slack and rummage. "let's not try to cure any diseases because there will always be new ones" does that make sense? >When people talk of the military industrial complex, we know what it means. In SF there is a homelessness-industrial complex that exists for its own sake and is better off perpetuating homelessness than solving it this is utterly incredible. please do tell which services are rendered to the homeless at exorbitant cost to anyone (e.g. tax payers) such that it merits comparison with defense contractors.
  - JadeNB 7y ago
    > >When people talk of the military industrial complex, we know what it means. In SF there is a homelessness-industrial complex that exists for its own sake and is better off perpetuating homelessness than solving it > this is utterly incredible. please do tell which services are rendered to the homeless at exorbitant cost to anyone (e.g. tax payers) such that it merits comparison with defense contractors. I don't know much about the situation, and do not mean to assert any facts here, only a different interpretation of the grandparent from the one I think you had. I think mc32 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21889186 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21889186) was suggesting that the money is funneled to the people allegedly solving homelessness, not to the homeless themselves, and that those solvers have the perverse incentive that they are more interested in the continuing revenue stream than in actually solving the problem. Of course comparisons to the military-industrial complex are hyperbole: such expenditures will fall far short of those spent on defence, as all expenditures in the US do.
  - kirstenbirgit 7y ago
    >you could literally pay them a couple of bucks a day (the worth of the cans in your trash) to skip your house You sound really naive.
nitwit005 7y ago
You're blaming a random stranger on the internet for taxation and benefits policies which you know they don't control. They might even agree with you. Every time homelessness comes up on hacker news there are people who leap on posts they think don't show enough sympathy. This behavior never seems helpful.
- throwlaplace 7y ago
  i'm not blaming them for the homelessness - i'm blaming them for casting the issue as the homeless antagonizing the well-heeled rather than as society failing the homeless. >leap on posts they think don't show enough sympathy i do not understand what the issue with that response is. we should shun the unempathetic.
  - jes 7y ago
    What about meeting people lacking empathy where they are at, and trying to connect with them? Sometimes a perceived lack of empathy has its roots in a lack of human connection.
    - throwlaplace 7y ago
      i have meditated long and hard on this. when i was younger i gave people the benefit of the doubt - if you comfort and reassure them they make themselves vulnerable to you and become empathetic. after decades of experience i can safely say that many many people will never overcome whatever barriers they have to empathy (cowardice, jealousy, etc) and moreover i'm not jesus - i'm not responsible for everyone. given that i'm finite (time and energy) priority goes to those that are disempowered rather than those that have power and can't see their way to using it benevolently.
- zasz 7y ago
  You very much can exert control when it comes to policies on the local level, but you'd have to be actually civically engaged to do so.
  - 7y ago
fennecfoxen 7y ago
I also downvoted this, well after your comment, because the comment directs someone to go out and do something that they cannot actually do (i.e. rewrite politics), because the political parties in power in California are perfectly happy to spend money on these matters already, but mostly because it is nontrivially likely that someone rifling through trash at such hours is a homeless person who has bigger problems than the availability of housing vouchers, so the specific policy perspectives offered will have only a marginal effect.

ch4s3 7y ago

I think part of the issue here is that section 8 is rent support payments. It doesn’t pay directly to build housing. California is already a very high tax state, there’s money there. However, because of overly restrictive zoning and the ability of neighbors to block construction, that kind of housing can’t get built.

throwlaplace 7y ago
that's fine. i'll gladly admit that i'm not a welfare economist and that my shoot from the hip solution isn't necessarily the correct one. but at least the thing i'm expressing is "how can we help them" instead of "how can we make life even more difficult for them". this isn't to say i'm proud of myself or something - i'm just sincerely flabbergasted at expressing the latter opinion.

mc32 7y ago

I didn’t downvote, but I’ll reply. When you send your (surplus) taxes to the city or state (or feds), you don’t get to earmark it. Also let’s say you could and this person got housed and they also decided they would not rummage thru trash. Someone else will take up the slack and rummage. For example the city of SF spends inordinate amounts on homelessness but the problem only gets bigger. When people talk of the military industrial complex, we know what it means. In SF there is a homelessness-industrial complex that exists for its own sake and is better off perpetuating homelessness than solving it. Don’t believe me? Propose homelessness solutions that cut out these orgs and see how well your ideas are received.

throwlaplace 7y ago
>When you send your (surplus) taxes to the city or state (or feds), you don’t get to earmark it. fine then give that homeless person the $20 yourself - they're in your driveway! you could literally pay them a couple of bucks a day (the worth of the cans in your trash) to skip your house. my point is simple: the reflexive reaction is "banish them" instead of "help them" even if helping them is the most straightforward way to solve the problem. >Someone else will take up the slack and rummage. "let's not try to cure any diseases because there will always be new ones" does that make sense? >When people talk of the military industrial complex, we know what it means. In SF there is a homelessness-industrial complex that exists for its own sake and is better off perpetuating homelessness than solving it this is utterly incredible. please do tell which services are rendered to the homeless at exorbitant cost to anyone (e.g. tax payers) such that it merits comparison with defense contractors.
- JadeNB 7y ago
  > >When people talk of the military industrial complex, we know what it means. In SF there is a homelessness-industrial complex that exists for its own sake and is better off perpetuating homelessness than solving it > this is utterly incredible. please do tell which services are rendered to the homeless at exorbitant cost to anyone (e.g. tax payers) such that it merits comparison with defense contractors. I don't know much about the situation, and do not mean to assert any facts here, only a different interpretation of the grandparent from the one I think you had. I think mc32 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21889186 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21889186) was suggesting that the money is funneled to the people allegedly solving homelessness, not to the homeless themselves, and that those solvers have the perverse incentive that they are more interested in the continuing revenue stream than in actually solving the problem. Of course comparisons to the military-industrial complex are hyperbole: such expenditures will fall far short of those spent on defence, as all expenditures in the US do.
- kirstenbirgit 7y ago
  >you could literally pay them a couple of bucks a day (the worth of the cans in your trash) to skip your house You sound really naive.

nitwit005 7y ago

You're blaming a random stranger on the internet for taxation and benefits policies which you know they don't control. They might even agree with you. Every time homelessness comes up on hacker news there are people who leap on posts they think don't show enough sympathy. This behavior never seems helpful.

throwlaplace 7y ago
i'm not blaming them for the homelessness - i'm blaming them for casting the issue as the homeless antagonizing the well-heeled rather than as society failing the homeless. >leap on posts they think don't show enough sympathy i do not understand what the issue with that response is. we should shun the unempathetic.
- jes 7y ago
  What about meeting people lacking empathy where they are at, and trying to connect with them? Sometimes a perceived lack of empathy has its roots in a lack of human connection.
  - throwlaplace 7y ago
    i have meditated long and hard on this. when i was younger i gave people the benefit of the doubt - if you comfort and reassure them they make themselves vulnerable to you and become empathetic. after decades of experience i can safely say that many many people will never overcome whatever barriers they have to empathy (cowardice, jealousy, etc) and moreover i'm not jesus - i'm not responsible for everyone. given that i'm finite (time and energy) priority goes to those that are disempowered rather than those that have power and can't see their way to using it benevolently.
zasz 7y ago
You very much can exert control when it comes to policies on the local level, but you'd have to be actually civically engaged to do so.
- 7y ago

fennecfoxen 7y ago

I also downvoted this, well after your comment, because the comment directs someone to go out and do something that they cannot actually do (i.e. rewrite politics), because the political parties in power in California are perfectly happy to spend money on these matters already, but mostly because it is nontrivially likely that someone rifling through trash at such hours is a homeless person who has bigger problems than the availability of housing vouchers, so the specific policy perspectives offered will have only a marginal effect.