2 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- justin66 6y ago
  > It'll save you some typing if you stick to relevant examples, is my point. It's telling that you haven't offered any counterexamples, which is understandable, since the whole idea you've posited that government can do this cost effectively is just totally absurd. > Taxpayers shouldn't be funding something they have no control over. Unsupported dogmatism, and of a silly variety: taxpayers do this all the time. > And as I pointed out and I'm not sure you read, my option is much cheaper than $600/month/person. You asserted it without offering any real support for it. Congrats. > Expecting taxpayers to swoop in and pay people's rent is also expensive, immoral, and disruptive. Your calculation about what's least disruptive is completely wrong, so nothing else you say about this is making any sense. > That isn't relevant and you are representing that moving houses is an insufferable hardship. Becoming homeless is quite a hardship, and would be a widespread consequence if anyone adopted your weird policy ideas.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    > ... you haven't offered any counterexamples... I used $2,000/month/person sheltered for my back-of-the-envelope calculation. What more do you want? I'm not disagreeing, the issue is ~75% of your examples are bunk. You havn't really thought about what you are saying.

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.

justin66 6y ago
> It'll save you some typing if you stick to relevant examples, is my point. It's telling that you haven't offered any counterexamples, which is understandable, since the whole idea you've posited that government can do this cost effectively is just totally absurd. > Taxpayers shouldn't be funding something they have no control over. Unsupported dogmatism, and of a silly variety: taxpayers do this all the time. > And as I pointed out and I'm not sure you read, my option is much cheaper than $600/month/person. You asserted it without offering any real support for it. Congrats. > Expecting taxpayers to swoop in and pay people's rent is also expensive, immoral, and disruptive. Your calculation about what's least disruptive is completely wrong, so nothing else you say about this is making any sense. > That isn't relevant and you are representing that moving houses is an insufferable hardship. Becoming homeless is quite a hardship, and would be a widespread consequence if anyone adopted your weird policy ideas.
- roenxi 6y ago
  > ... you haven't offered any counterexamples... I used $2,000/month/person sheltered for my back-of-the-envelope calculation. What more do you want? I'm not disagreeing, the issue is ~75% of your examples are bunk. You havn't really thought about what you are saying.