4 ms·

> If you want short term solutions; government guarantee of a place in mass housing (not particularly pleasant conditions, but indoors, safe & sanitary) + 3 me

> If you want short term solutions; government guarantee of a place in mass housing (not particularly pleasant conditions, but indoors, safe & sanitary) + 3 meals a day. People shouldn't be starving on the street but people need to fund their own lifestyles - not taxpayers. Be honest, what you're suggesting has nothing to do with cost effectiveness for the taxpayer and everything to do with believing that people should be made to suffer if the "market wants" (a phrase that you used above without any apparent irony) them to suffer. It's definitely not about saving the taxpayer money. The $600/month we're debating in the United States is quite cheap compared to what you suggested. As a brief exercise in costing out your solution, consider what the government spends per day putting a person up in a barracks, incarceration facility, shelter, or literally anywhere at any time.

roenxi 6y ago
> It's definitely not about saving the taxpayer money. Nonsense. And two of your baseline costs (barracks and prisons) are silly because the cost includes total control over the lives of the people in the facility. Take an annual cost of stimulus as $600/mo/person, and the cost of a homeless shelter as $2,000/mo/person (and that is probably an overestimate). Article says ~40M people at risk of eviction. That means a shelter plan would have to absorb more than 14 million people (the population of a large city) without rents collapsing to an affordable level. Even ignoring the fact that the renters will be out trying to find profitable ways to contribute to society, or looking for more rational living arrangements where they can afford it. There is no way the shelter plan would end up costing more. The major issues are logistical in nature. I can imagine good arguments that it is a plan that can't be implemented if it actually turned out 10 million people needed new homes - but until it becomes impossible to find alternative shelters it is better to leave the landlords out of pocket. As a starting point the original alternative of "something has gone wrong, lets pump unearned money towards landlords" is worse. > people should be made to suffer if the "market wants" That is an attack that you cannot support. I've helpfully offered a bunch of suggestions where nobody has to suffer. Moving home isn't so bad it counts as suffering.
- justin66 6y ago
  > And two of your baseline costs (barracks and prisons) are silly because the cost includes total control over the lives of the people in the facility. Those were examples, but when I wrote literally anywhere at any time I meant, think of anyplace where the government puts people up and feeds them - even just the cost of putting an employee up at a hotel and feeding them for a day - and use that as your baseline. The government just cannot do this cheaply, and changing the government so profoundly that this becomes their job is a weird idea. Creating a new form of housing for millions of displaced people instead of simply preventing them from becoming displaced in the first place is tremendously expensive, immoral, and disruptive. There's just no reason to do it except sadism. > I've helpfully offered a bunch of suggestions where nobody has to suffer. You believe displacing millions of people rather than just giving them the money they need to make rent is not going to involve suffering. That is not "helpful," it is delusional. > Moving home isn't so bad it counts as suffering. The entire population does not consist of college kids away at school, or whatever you're fantasizing about.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    > Those were examples, but when I wrote literally anywhere at any time I meant, think of anyplace where the government puts people up and feeds them - even just the cost of putting an employee up at a hotel and feeding them for a day - and use that as your baseline. Hotel accommodation is also silly; that comes with daily sheet cleaning and such. It'll save you some typing if you stick to relevant examples, is my point. You've listed 4 so far, 3 of them aren't related to the cost of providing basic shelter. Amenities are expensive. > Creating a new form of housing for millions of displaced people instead of simply preventing them from becoming displaced in the first place is tremendously expensive, immoral, and disruptive. Expecting taxpayers to swoop in and pay people's rent is also expensive, immoral, and disruptive. Taxpayers shouldn't be funding something they have no control over. And as I pointed out and I'm not sure you read, my option is much cheaper than $600/month/person. > You believe displacing millions of people rather than just giving them the money... No I don't. I have an encyclopedic knowledge of things I believe and that isn't something I ascribe to. > The entire population does not consist of college kids away at school, or whatever you're fantasizing about. That isn't relevant and you are representing that moving houses is an insufferable hardship. It isn't. I moved house this year, and I'm not even close to being a college student.

roenxi 6y ago

> It's definitely not about saving the taxpayer money. Nonsense. And two of your baseline costs (barracks and prisons) are silly because the cost includes total control over the lives of the people in the facility. Take an annual cost of stimulus as $600/mo/person, and the cost of a homeless shelter as $2,000/mo/person (and that is probably an overestimate). Article says ~40M people at risk of eviction. That means a shelter plan would have to absorb more than 14 million people (the population of a large city) without rents collapsing to an affordable level. Even ignoring the fact that the renters will be out trying to find profitable ways to contribute to society, or looking for more rational living arrangements where they can afford it. There is no way the shelter plan would end up costing more. The major issues are logistical in nature. I can imagine good arguments that it is a plan that can't be implemented if it actually turned out 10 million people needed new homes - but until it becomes impossible to find alternative shelters it is better to leave the landlords out of pocket. As a starting point the original alternative of "something has gone wrong, lets pump unearned money towards landlords" is worse. > people should be made to suffer if the "market wants" That is an attack that you cannot support. I've helpfully offered a bunch of suggestions where nobody has to suffer. Moving home isn't so bad it counts as suffering.

justin66 6y ago
> And two of your baseline costs (barracks and prisons) are silly because the cost includes total control over the lives of the people in the facility. Those were examples, but when I wrote literally anywhere at any time I meant, think of anyplace where the government puts people up and feeds them - even just the cost of putting an employee up at a hotel and feeding them for a day - and use that as your baseline. The government just cannot do this cheaply, and changing the government so profoundly that this becomes their job is a weird idea. Creating a new form of housing for millions of displaced people instead of simply preventing them from becoming displaced in the first place is tremendously expensive, immoral, and disruptive. There's just no reason to do it except sadism. > I've helpfully offered a bunch of suggestions where nobody has to suffer. You believe displacing millions of people rather than just giving them the money they need to make rent is not going to involve suffering. That is not "helpful," it is delusional. > Moving home isn't so bad it counts as suffering. The entire population does not consist of college kids away at school, or whatever you're fantasizing about.
- roenxi 6y ago
  > Those were examples, but when I wrote literally anywhere at any time I meant, think of anyplace where the government puts people up and feeds them - even just the cost of putting an employee up at a hotel and feeding them for a day - and use that as your baseline. Hotel accommodation is also silly; that comes with daily sheet cleaning and such. It'll save you some typing if you stick to relevant examples, is my point. You've listed 4 so far, 3 of them aren't related to the cost of providing basic shelter. Amenities are expensive. > Creating a new form of housing for millions of displaced people instead of simply preventing them from becoming displaced in the first place is tremendously expensive, immoral, and disruptive. Expecting taxpayers to swoop in and pay people's rent is also expensive, immoral, and disruptive. Taxpayers shouldn't be funding something they have no control over. And as I pointed out and I'm not sure you read, my option is much cheaper than $600/month/person. > You believe displacing millions of people rather than just giving them the money... No I don't. I have an encyclopedic knowledge of things I believe and that isn't something I ascribe to. > The entire population does not consist of college kids away at school, or whatever you're fantasizing about. That isn't relevant and you are representing that moving houses is an insufferable hardship. It isn't. I moved house this year, and I'm not even close to being a college student.