4 ms·
As I understand it, it is a matter of looking at the total picture instead of just the free house. I don't have specific numbers, but I recall an article I read
by shard 7y ago
As I understand it, it is a matter of looking at the total picture instead of just the free house. I don't have specific numbers, but I recall an article I read several years ago which was talking about costs that are incurred by a homeless person, covering such services such as police, hospitals, etc, and concluded that the costs were way higher than giving the homeless person a house. Therefore, the reason to give a homeless person a house is not motivated by just altruism, but actually also from saving taxpayer money. It's a similar concept to making sure the poor have good healthcare, so that the spread of diseases are contained.
- xyzzyz 7y ago> I don't have specific numbers, but I recall an article I read several years ago which was talking about costs that are incurred by a homeless person, covering such services such as police, hospitals, etc, and concluded that the costs were way higher than giving the homeless person a house. Therefore, the reason to give a homeless person a house is not motivated by just altruism, but actually also from saving taxpayer money. This assumes that the world is steady state, and that government policies don't create any incentives to change behavior. Sure, it might be cheaper, all else being equal, but such program would not make all else equal. You'd get more people who otherwise wouldn't be homeless, but the free house for homeless program made them decide that it's worth it to become one. As a result, you'd have many more homeless people than before, and so your free house for the homeless program quickly becomes very expensive. Indeed, you need to look at the total picture, instead of just the free house.