4 ms·

This has nothing to do with a UBI, regardless of the merits. SF spends around $50k USD/homeless person year. I'd be pretty interested in seeing what'd happen i

This has nothing to do with a UBI, regardless of the merits. SF spends around $50k USD/homeless person year. I'd be pretty interested in seeing what'd happen if we just gave 50k in unmarked bills to each homeless person. Add some verification process to confirm that they're both homeless and haven't received their 50k for the year. I suspect we'd end up with a better situation than today. If nothing else, many would return to their home cities, and it'd defund the homeless industrial complex.

HomeDeLaPot 6y ago
That would be tremendously unfair to working people in or around SF, especially those making $50k or less. That in itself isn't a reason not to raise a bunch of people out of poverty, but what evidence is there that homeless people would move out? One could just as easily argue that most would blow the money on drugs and/or wait around for next year's $50k. Also, is it really a good idea to defund all the programs that this $50k/person pays for in order to turn it into cash handouts? My understanding is that a majority of homeless people are homeless because of an inability to manage their finances and their life, whether we think that's any fault of their own or not. Handing out cash isn't going to fix these people's childhoods, drug addictions, etc. The real way to deal with homelessness is to address the core problems: a poor educational & economic outlook for both young and old, and a thriving underground economy for hard, addictive drugs. These two fuel homelessness, poverty, crime, and child abuse. Watch Mark Laita's Soft White Underbelly: much of this generation may be beyond hope, but the next generation might be helped before they arrive.
- titzer 6y ago
  I've heard this "unfair" argument since forever. You know what's tremendously unfair? Mental illness. And homeless are vastly more likely to suffer from mental illness. I'm sorry, but these people are actually suffering and need help. They need help. What part of that is so hard to internalize? And I've heard soooo many people argue "you know what the real cause of homeless is, right? X!" And then, "no, the real core problem is X's cause!" And then, "no, it's Y that is to blame!" And then "well ever since Z happened, we can't do W". And on and on...an unending stream of excuses, a mountain of reasons to not do anything about it, to not spend any money on it, and certainly not to actually study the problem. Instead, it's just more punishment for being stupid or poor and blame. Because everything else is unfair to those working saps. You know what might actually have half a chance of solving homelessness? Giving a damn about them. Not arguing over how fair this or that is, not quibbling about core reasons, putting things off until the unfixable things get fixed. GIVE A DAMN.
  - idrios 6y ago
    Serious question: is there a program that you would recommend donating to to help combat homelessness?
    - titzer 6y ago
      Support any local homeless shelter, soup kitchen, food donation drive, etc.
  - HomeDeLaPot 6y ago
    Okay, we're in agreement there. Homeless people's problems by and large aren't their fault. Certainly the solution isn't pointing fingers at them. I guess the main thing I'm trying to say is that I take issue with the parent comment. I think it would be a huge, absurd mistake to take the funding for programs that meet material needs and instead give it directly to people with mental illnesses, drug addictions, and other issues. If these people were in shape to handle money, they'd likely have some. They need help, and cash is not help. So... what exactly do you mean by "giving a damn?"
    - titzer 6y ago
      Volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate to a homeless shelter, donate food, clothing. The long term change that needs to happen is that we need to get back to paying slightly higher taxes and hiring more social workers.
- anon_tor_12345 6y ago
  >That would be tremendously unfair to working people in or around SF, especially those making $50k or less how is it unfair to miss out on something that you were never promised/offered/entitled to in the first place? that's like saying it's unfair to ... everyone ... when a poor person wins the lottery. >to address the core problems: a poor educational & economic outlook for both young and old really? i thought the core problem of the homeless is that they are without a home? isn't it right there in the word?
  - caddemon 6y ago
    A pretty large percentage of homeless people have severe mental illness [1]. Most people in that boat are not going to benefit much from being handed 50K without active support/guidance. But yeah it goes beyond "education", they need serious medical help. [1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/The_homeless_mentally_ill https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/The_homele...
    - boringg 6y ago
      A major contributor of the California homeless problem has been supposed to be tied to the de-institutionalization of many people of mental health institutions back in the 60s - its been a sad state of affairs since then. A patchwork of policy with good intentions but poor execution and funding. (https://www.kqed.org/news/11209729/did-the-emptying-of-mental-hospitals-contribute-to-homelessness-here https://www.kqed.org/news/11209729/did-the-emptying-of-menta...)
  - HomeDeLaPot 6y ago
    I started drafting a sincere reply, but I don't think you're arguing in good faith. What are you suggesting, that we give homes to homeless people? That's perfectly fine, then just say that.
    - anon_tor_12345 6y ago
      >I started drafting a sincere reply, but I don't think you're arguing in good faith. what is bad faith about taking someone's claims at face value? your claims are 1) 50k distribution to homeless people is unfair to people making less than 50k 2) the core issue of homelessness is a-bunch-of-things–none-of-which-is-being-without-a-home >What are you suggesting, that we give homes to homeless people? i'm not suggesting anything. i'm simply pointing out that your claims are vacuously false given some very obvious counterpoints. but let's "faithfully engage" with your premise; norway has the lowest homelessness rate in the world. what do they do? 1) Reduce eviction petitions by 50% and eviction itself by 30% 2) Prevent individuals recently released from prison or a treatment institution from requiring temporary housing 3) Improve the quality of overnight shelters 4) Limit temporary housing stays to less than three months 5) Ensure safe rental housing for families with children 6) Limit temporary housing to exceptional circumstances, with these arrangements not exceeding three months >The 2014 strategy plans to achieve these goals by providing assistance to individuals shifting from temporary to permanent housing, assistance in obtaining a suitable home within an insecure housing market, preventing evictions and social innovation." note that all of these policies revolve around (unsurprisingly) homes. [1] https://borgenproject.org/homelessness-in-norway/ https://borgenproject.org/homelessness-in-norway/
Hnrobert42 6y ago
$50k per homeless person year? That’s pretty hard to believe without data to back it up. You may very well be correct, but if you know your source, I would appreciate the chance to review it.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  IIRC, it takes the budget identified for homeless and enforcement and divides it by the number of permanent homeless residents identified by surveying and canvassing. The counter context is that this misses the people who were helped by these dollars and not included in the survey (temporarily homeless). It seems reasonable that it’s probably closer to $10k than !50k, but I don’t think the data is that good on the size of the missing population.
- sharkjacobs 6y ago
  You're right, it's not a good figure https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Businesses-must-contribute-more-to-city-s-13178743.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Bu... TLDR: > Last year, the city spent $305 million on homelessness. In the most recent one-night homeless tally in January 2017, the counters found 7,499 homeless people. People understandably divide the first number by the second and come up with the so-called fact that the city spends $40,672 per homeless person per year. > “That’s a ridiculous number,” said Jeff Kositsky, director of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. “If that was the case, I should definitely not have a job.” > Of the $250 million he spent last year, two-thirds went to people who aren’t homeless at all. That’s the amount spent on rental subsidies, eviction prevention and permanent supportive housing. Those are great causes, but they’re aimed at preventing people from becoming homeless or to house the formerly homeless. > But divide $57 million by 15,000 homeless people who need city help each year, and you see the city spends $3,800 per person per year. Or $10.41 a day.
  - scarmig 6y ago
    So, that ~200 million goes to supporting ~10k would-be homeless in supportive housing. That's ~$20k/year per person in supportive housing. That's also before accounting for Prop C which postdates that article, which will bring in an additional ~$250 million pa. You can't say "if you exclude the people SF spends the most on, then it doesn't spend that much per person!" Though I concede the average is probably closer to $25k/person serviced than $50k/person.
throwaway1777 6y ago
It would help some of them, but sadly I think many would not be able to budget the 50k properly and would be homeless again within a few months due to debts, addictions, scams, etc.
offtop5 6y ago
Eh , I grew up really poor. A significant number of those homeless people would spend the $50,000 on a new car. It's just not a very clear issue. I'd argue anyone who doesn't make arrangements to leave California when they catch themselves slipping economically plays at least a part in their homelessness. In almost every other place in America, you can make out an existence with a bit more than minimum wage. You might not have the best apartment but it's possible. California, specifically LA and San Francisco are best described as living hells. While a tiny minority is doing fine, most people are either homeless or almost homeless. Even making 100K a year, you're not going to be able to save any money. The vast majority of the city makes less than that.

HomeDeLaPot 6y ago

That would be tremendously unfair to working people in or around SF, especially those making $50k or less. That in itself isn't a reason not to raise a bunch of people out of poverty, but what evidence is there that homeless people would move out? One could just as easily argue that most would blow the money on drugs and/or wait around for next year's $50k. Also, is it really a good idea to defund all the programs that this $50k/person pays for in order to turn it into cash handouts? My understanding is that a majority of homeless people are homeless because of an inability to manage their finances and their life, whether we think that's any fault of their own or not. Handing out cash isn't going to fix these people's childhoods, drug addictions, etc. The real way to deal with homelessness is to address the core problems: a poor educational & economic outlook for both young and old, and a thriving underground economy for hard, addictive drugs. These two fuel homelessness, poverty, crime, and child abuse. Watch Mark Laita's Soft White Underbelly: much of this generation may be beyond hope, but the next generation might be helped before they arrive.

titzer 6y ago
I've heard this "unfair" argument since forever. You know what's tremendously unfair? Mental illness. And homeless are vastly more likely to suffer from mental illness. I'm sorry, but these people are actually suffering and need help. They need help. What part of that is so hard to internalize? And I've heard soooo many people argue "you know what the real cause of homeless is, right? X!" And then, "no, the real core problem is X's cause!" And then, "no, it's Y that is to blame!" And then "well ever since Z happened, we can't do W". And on and on...an unending stream of excuses, a mountain of reasons to not do anything about it, to not spend any money on it, and certainly not to actually study the problem. Instead, it's just more punishment for being stupid or poor and blame. Because everything else is unfair to those working saps. You know what might actually have half a chance of solving homelessness? Giving a damn about them. Not arguing over how fair this or that is, not quibbling about core reasons, putting things off until the unfixable things get fixed. GIVE A DAMN.
- idrios 6y ago
  Serious question: is there a program that you would recommend donating to to help combat homelessness?
  - titzer 6y ago
    Support any local homeless shelter, soup kitchen, food donation drive, etc.
- HomeDeLaPot 6y ago
  Okay, we're in agreement there. Homeless people's problems by and large aren't their fault. Certainly the solution isn't pointing fingers at them. I guess the main thing I'm trying to say is that I take issue with the parent comment. I think it would be a huge, absurd mistake to take the funding for programs that meet material needs and instead give it directly to people with mental illnesses, drug addictions, and other issues. If these people were in shape to handle money, they'd likely have some. They need help, and cash is not help. So... what exactly do you mean by "giving a damn?"
  - titzer 6y ago
    Volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate to a homeless shelter, donate food, clothing. The long term change that needs to happen is that we need to get back to paying slightly higher taxes and hiring more social workers.
anon_tor_12345 6y ago
>That would be tremendously unfair to working people in or around SF, especially those making $50k or less how is it unfair to miss out on something that you were never promised/offered/entitled to in the first place? that's like saying it's unfair to ... everyone ... when a poor person wins the lottery. >to address the core problems: a poor educational & economic outlook for both young and old really? i thought the core problem of the homeless is that they are without a home? isn't it right there in the word?
- caddemon 6y ago
  A pretty large percentage of homeless people have severe mental illness [1]. Most people in that boat are not going to benefit much from being handed 50K without active support/guidance. But yeah it goes beyond "education", they need serious medical help. [1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/The_homeless_mentally_ill https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/The_homele...
  - boringg 6y ago
    A major contributor of the California homeless problem has been supposed to be tied to the de-institutionalization of many people of mental health institutions back in the 60s - its been a sad state of affairs since then. A patchwork of policy with good intentions but poor execution and funding. (https://www.kqed.org/news/11209729/did-the-emptying-of-mental-hospitals-contribute-to-homelessness-here https://www.kqed.org/news/11209729/did-the-emptying-of-menta...)
- HomeDeLaPot 6y ago
  I started drafting a sincere reply, but I don't think you're arguing in good faith. What are you suggesting, that we give homes to homeless people? That's perfectly fine, then just say that.
  - anon_tor_12345 6y ago
    >I started drafting a sincere reply, but I don't think you're arguing in good faith. what is bad faith about taking someone's claims at face value? your claims are 1) 50k distribution to homeless people is unfair to people making less than 50k 2) the core issue of homelessness is a-bunch-of-things–none-of-which-is-being-without-a-home >What are you suggesting, that we give homes to homeless people? i'm not suggesting anything. i'm simply pointing out that your claims are vacuously false given some very obvious counterpoints. but let's "faithfully engage" with your premise; norway has the lowest homelessness rate in the world. what do they do? 1) Reduce eviction petitions by 50% and eviction itself by 30% 2) Prevent individuals recently released from prison or a treatment institution from requiring temporary housing 3) Improve the quality of overnight shelters 4) Limit temporary housing stays to less than three months 5) Ensure safe rental housing for families with children 6) Limit temporary housing to exceptional circumstances, with these arrangements not exceeding three months >The 2014 strategy plans to achieve these goals by providing assistance to individuals shifting from temporary to permanent housing, assistance in obtaining a suitable home within an insecure housing market, preventing evictions and social innovation." note that all of these policies revolve around (unsurprisingly) homes. [1] https://borgenproject.org/homelessness-in-norway/ https://borgenproject.org/homelessness-in-norway/

Hnrobert42 6y ago

$50k per homeless person year? That’s pretty hard to believe without data to back it up. You may very well be correct, but if you know your source, I would appreciate the chance to review it.

edmundsauto 6y ago
IIRC, it takes the budget identified for homeless and enforcement and divides it by the number of permanent homeless residents identified by surveying and canvassing. The counter context is that this misses the people who were helped by these dollars and not included in the survey (temporarily homeless). It seems reasonable that it’s probably closer to $10k than !50k, but I don’t think the data is that good on the size of the missing population.
sharkjacobs 6y ago
You're right, it's not a good figure https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Businesses-must-contribute-more-to-city-s-13178743.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Bu... TLDR: > Last year, the city spent $305 million on homelessness. In the most recent one-night homeless tally in January 2017, the counters found 7,499 homeless people. People understandably divide the first number by the second and come up with the so-called fact that the city spends $40,672 per homeless person per year. > “That’s a ridiculous number,” said Jeff Kositsky, director of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. “If that was the case, I should definitely not have a job.” > Of the $250 million he spent last year, two-thirds went to people who aren’t homeless at all. That’s the amount spent on rental subsidies, eviction prevention and permanent supportive housing. Those are great causes, but they’re aimed at preventing people from becoming homeless or to house the formerly homeless. > But divide $57 million by 15,000 homeless people who need city help each year, and you see the city spends $3,800 per person per year. Or $10.41 a day.
- scarmig 6y ago
  So, that ~200 million goes to supporting ~10k would-be homeless in supportive housing. That's ~$20k/year per person in supportive housing. That's also before accounting for Prop C which postdates that article, which will bring in an additional ~$250 million pa. You can't say "if you exclude the people SF spends the most on, then it doesn't spend that much per person!" Though I concede the average is probably closer to $25k/person serviced than $50k/person.

throwaway1777 6y ago

It would help some of them, but sadly I think many would not be able to budget the 50k properly and would be homeless again within a few months due to debts, addictions, scams, etc.

offtop5 6y ago

Eh , I grew up really poor. A significant number of those homeless people would spend the $50,000 on a new car. It's just not a very clear issue. I'd argue anyone who doesn't make arrangements to leave California when they catch themselves slipping economically plays at least a part in their homelessness. In almost every other place in America, you can make out an existence with a bit more than minimum wage. You might not have the best apartment but it's possible. California, specifically LA and San Francisco are best described as living hells. While a tiny minority is doing fine, most people are either homeless or almost homeless. Even making 100K a year, you're not going to be able to save any money. The vast majority of the city makes less than that.