5 ms·

> So, building housing isn't going to a total solution. It's not a total solution but it's a prerequisite to any solution. You will never be able to get the ho

by khuey 5y ago

> So, building housing isn't going to a total solution. It's not a total solution but it's a prerequisite to any solution. You will never be able to get the homeless into permanent housing when that permanent housing costs 2.5k/month.

blitzar 5y ago
Lets pretend for a minute that you got housing down from 2.5k/month to 1k/month. How many homeless, jobless people would that take off the streets? Hint: zero.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
  Because the essential jobs that support the techies lavish lives don’t pay the $50k+ Needed to afford a $1k apartment. Get that rent down to 30% average median, with a healthy supply of housing at said cost, net income and then you’ll see that people do in fact want to work and provide for themselves. When that ability is robbed of then you’ll see all kinds of horrific antisocial behaviors. This is basic stuff. Many, and I’ll argue all, houseless people are put in impossible situations by the apathy, capriciousness, and greed of American society from the local level to thin air of the highest offices. Not every one can be a highly paid techie with a fancy pad and delivery services for everything. Geniuses are stuck working menial jobs all around the world because they’re necessary. To whom much is given, much is required. If the United States is to solve the houseless crisis then we must first get the highly compensated and wealthy to face the fact that their lives of privilege and excess come directly from the exploitation of billions of people and then accept the necessary concessions to allow everyone to live a dignified life. We can provide a clean and safe home, food, healthcare, and mass entertainment for everyone. We can’t provide sprawling estates and yachts for everyone. I’m in favor of getting rid of the yachts over a genocide of those unlucky enough to be born into privilege.
  - kcplate 5y ago
    > If the United States is to solve the houseless crisis then we must first get the highly compensated and wealthy to face the fact that their lives of privilege and excess come directly from the exploitation of billions of people and then accept the necessary concessions to allow everyone to live a dignified life. We can provide a clean and safe home, food, healthcare, and mass entertainment for everyone. When people stop risking their lives and the lives of their children to leave counties with marxist governments, I’ll consider your argument. Until then I am just going to assume that the Marxism brochures were really good at taking the pictures from the right angles.
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
      Care to be more specific about the countries you’re thinking of so I can pull up the relevant documents detailing the USA funded terrorism campaigns there?
- thephyber 5y ago
  Your statement is blatantly factually false. I’m trying to decide if you meant it to be literal or hyperbole. People already work low paying jobs in SF. They are likely living with multiple roommates or commuting from far away. Given a large influx of cheap housing would absolutely put downward pressure on housing insecurity. Also, your perception of homeless is probably limited to the visible population that is chronically homeless perhaps in tents. Most homelessness is acute and occurs when rental prices increase, temporary unemployment, during bankruptcy, or when the renter/owner kicks out a roommate. These homeless tend to live out of their car or try to couch surf often. Acute homeless tend to have much better odds of finding housing again (maybe not in SF and maybe not during the worst of economic downturns). Lowering rent costs by 60% absolutely would help reduce acute homelessness.
  - kcplate 5y ago
    You missed the word “jobless” in the comment. The jobless, especially when the person is in essence unemployable due to mental illness is not going to be successful at self maintaining housing at $2.5k, $1k, or even $100/mo.
    - thephyber 5y ago
      You are applying a boolean data type, when the facts on the ground are more complicated. The fact is that “mental illness” is super common, has many aspects (some are significant hurdles to employment and others are less significant. “Unemployable” changes over time as employers look at the cost trade offs and the hiring market. And Section 8 vouchers (one of the largest programs to increase housing stability) already pay $x00/mo, so there is absolutely some dollar about above $100/mo where additional rental supply does start to reduce the homeless population.
      - kcplate 5y ago
        If you are homeless, unemployed and unable to be employed due to mental health issues, anything more than “free” is too much for you to afford. Those were the people I’m speaking about, those are people that many of us see daily, and those are a large portion of the homeless wrecking havoc.
- malermeister 5y ago
  What if you got it down to 0/month? I think you're thinking too small.
augustuspolius 5y ago
What do you mean by getting the homeless into permanent housing? The state will give the homeless apartments free of charge for the rest of their lives? For a limited period of time? Any homeless person who relocates to California? How long does the person need to be homeless for before getting free permanent housing?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- thephyber 5y ago
  I interpreted your parent as discussing an outcome of a policy change which involves reducing cost / increasing supply of housing in which “permanent housing” is a permanent structure/dwelling (eg. Not a tent/car) that more people would have access to (including existing Section 8 housing subsidies). You seem to have interpreted that phrase as the new policy itself.

by khuey 5y ago

blitzar 5y ago

Lets pretend for a minute that you got housing down from 2.5k/month to 1k/month. How many homeless, jobless people would that take off the streets? Hint: zero.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
Because the essential jobs that support the techies lavish lives don’t pay the $50k+ Needed to afford a $1k apartment. Get that rent down to 30% average median, with a healthy supply of housing at said cost, net income and then you’ll see that people do in fact want to work and provide for themselves. When that ability is robbed of then you’ll see all kinds of horrific antisocial behaviors. This is basic stuff. Many, and I’ll argue all, houseless people are put in impossible situations by the apathy, capriciousness, and greed of American society from the local level to thin air of the highest offices. Not every one can be a highly paid techie with a fancy pad and delivery services for everything. Geniuses are stuck working menial jobs all around the world because they’re necessary. To whom much is given, much is required. If the United States is to solve the houseless crisis then we must first get the highly compensated and wealthy to face the fact that their lives of privilege and excess come directly from the exploitation of billions of people and then accept the necessary concessions to allow everyone to live a dignified life. We can provide a clean and safe home, food, healthcare, and mass entertainment for everyone. We can’t provide sprawling estates and yachts for everyone. I’m in favor of getting rid of the yachts over a genocide of those unlucky enough to be born into privilege.
- kcplate 5y ago
  > If the United States is to solve the houseless crisis then we must first get the highly compensated and wealthy to face the fact that their lives of privilege and excess come directly from the exploitation of billions of people and then accept the necessary concessions to allow everyone to live a dignified life. We can provide a clean and safe home, food, healthcare, and mass entertainment for everyone. When people stop risking their lives and the lives of their children to leave counties with marxist governments, I’ll consider your argument. Until then I am just going to assume that the Marxism brochures were really good at taking the pictures from the right angles.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
    Care to be more specific about the countries you’re thinking of so I can pull up the relevant documents detailing the USA funded terrorism campaigns there?
thephyber 5y ago
Your statement is blatantly factually false. I’m trying to decide if you meant it to be literal or hyperbole. People already work low paying jobs in SF. They are likely living with multiple roommates or commuting from far away. Given a large influx of cheap housing would absolutely put downward pressure on housing insecurity. Also, your perception of homeless is probably limited to the visible population that is chronically homeless perhaps in tents. Most homelessness is acute and occurs when rental prices increase, temporary unemployment, during bankruptcy, or when the renter/owner kicks out a roommate. These homeless tend to live out of their car or try to couch surf often. Acute homeless tend to have much better odds of finding housing again (maybe not in SF and maybe not during the worst of economic downturns). Lowering rent costs by 60% absolutely would help reduce acute homelessness.
- kcplate 5y ago
  You missed the word “jobless” in the comment. The jobless, especially when the person is in essence unemployable due to mental illness is not going to be successful at self maintaining housing at $2.5k, $1k, or even $100/mo.
  - thephyber 5y ago
    You are applying a boolean data type, when the facts on the ground are more complicated. The fact is that “mental illness” is super common, has many aspects (some are significant hurdles to employment and others are less significant. “Unemployable” changes over time as employers look at the cost trade offs and the hiring market. And Section 8 vouchers (one of the largest programs to increase housing stability) already pay $x00/mo, so there is absolutely some dollar about above $100/mo where additional rental supply does start to reduce the homeless population.
    - kcplate 5y ago
      If you are homeless, unemployed and unable to be employed due to mental health issues, anything more than “free” is too much for you to afford. Those were the people I’m speaking about, those are people that many of us see daily, and those are a large portion of the homeless wrecking havoc.
malermeister 5y ago
What if you got it down to 0/month? I think you're thinking too small.

augustuspolius 5y ago

What do you mean by getting the homeless into permanent housing? The state will give the homeless apartments free of charge for the rest of their lives? For a limited period of time? Any homeless person who relocates to California? How long does the person need to be homeless for before getting free permanent housing?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
thephyber 5y ago
I interpreted your parent as discussing an outcome of a policy change which involves reducing cost / increasing supply of housing in which “permanent housing” is a permanent structure/dwelling (eg. Not a tent/car) that more people would have access to (including existing Section 8 housing subsidies). You seem to have interpreted that phrase as the new policy itself.