7 ms·

I quite like the main points of this article. I don't quite agree though with the "go to space VS help homeless people, on the margin" part of the frame. Marg

by netcan 5y ago

I quite like the main points of this article. I don't quite agree though with the "go to space VS help homeless people, on the margin" part of the frame. Marginalist thinking is useful for understanding the dynamics of many economic phenomenon. I don't think it tends to describe the trade offs in this case though. Neither homelessness nor space take up a big enough piece of the pie to trade off against each other meaningfully. IMO, these are kind of disingenuous rhetorical cliches. It's a spectrum, obviously. "Infrastructure or defense" as a dichotomy has more reality attached to it. These are both actually significant government expenditures. They actually require big chunks of available, and competitive resources. There's a real history of diverting resources from infrastructure to defense during wartime, and building infrastructure after wars as part of the demilitarization. We're never presented with a "street signs vs waste treatment" dichotomy. It's on the "doesn't relate to reality" end of the spectrum... just like "homeless shelters vs particle colliders" doesn't.

blkhawk 5y ago
I am so glad i did not post my comment - you put it much better than I could have had. I am really annoyed by this rhetoric false choice as well because I am always feeling like I need to justify not "helping the homeless". It always baffles me that people seriously bring it up against space exploration instead of at least argue against something sensible like by mail advertisements thats is completely useless and inarguably damaging.
- malfist 5y ago
  Any public expenditure could be weighed against "helping the homeless" or "feeding the hungry" I don't know why space is about the only thing that falls victim of it. You could literally throw anything against it i.e., why build an airport/road/hydropower dam/new city hall/park bench/etc when there's homeless here? It's frustrating. But I think it gives you a good insight on if someone is a long term or short term thinker.
  - netcan 5y ago
    Or private expenditure, in the case of this article.
djrobstep 5y ago
I think you’re taking this a bit too literally - nobody is saying that space exploration money alone can cure homelessness. The point is that it’s emblematic of all the frivolous, useless things resources get allocated to, instead of curing poverty - which is extremely straightforward to do (redistribute downward) except that rich folks hate redistribution downward but love redistribution upward.
- netcan 5y ago
  I didn't mean to take it literally. I'm criticising the rhetorical use, and I think it's common enough to consider a cliche. My objection to your argument is that (a) it applies everywhere. Public health, defense, education, rock and roll... all take away from poverty eradication efforts. (b) It's only true in the most abstract rhetorical sense. It doesn't tend to be true in a way that relates to reality. A culture with rock and roll isn't more likely to have more poverty. Closer to actionable reality, rock and roll, space exploration and poverty eradication don't meaningfully trade off against each other. They don't really compete for resources, except in the sense that everything competes with everything else. Is environmentalism the enemy of humanitarianism? If the frame is extreme marginalism, as it is in the "space vs homeless" cliche, the answer to that is yes. I don't think that's correct. You can have a society that is both. In fact, we do, to some extent.
roenxi 5y ago
Also, on the subject of the dichotomy, I'd quite like to actually see the specific details of the plan to end homelessness, costed, with some sort of serious legwork proving that it hasn't been tried and failed before. As far as I'm aware we've had centuries of rhetoric where people have promised everything from small reforms to big sweeping programs to open revolt and replacing of governments in various well-intentioned attempts to end poverty. So far, none of them have worked. There is a shortage of evidence that we can end poverty by trading away rich people having interesting toys. There is a surplus of evidence the other way around; the enlightenment was enlightening and has had an outsized impact on achieving the outcomes people want.
- astrange 5y ago
  Homelessness isn't caused by poverty in the US (or drugs), it's caused by not having enough homes. This sounds tautological, but the homelessness rate in West Virginia is not that high compared to SF, which doesn't match the poverty rates or the opioid crisis. SF spending even more money on it won't help as long they're willing to do anything except building homes - all they can do is bid up the price of existing ones forever.
  - onion2k 5y ago
    it's caused by not having enough homes California has 9 empty homes for every homeless person. https://www.self.inc/info/empty-homes/ https://www.self.inc/info/empty-homes/
    - wbsss4412 5y ago
      > What is an ‘empty home’? >An empty home is what the government refers to as a ‘vacant housing unit’, which, for whatever reason, is not occupied by a citizen. This can include vacation homes but also properties which have sold but are not occupied. Not sure this implies what you believe it to imply. If you actually look at the data they’ve mapped out in that article, you’d see that California actually has a shockingly low number of “empty houses” per homeless person - the lowest in the nation. Mississippi has 166, Indiana 151, and West Virginia 128!

by netcan 5y ago

blkhawk 5y ago

I am so glad i did not post my comment - you put it much better than I could have had. I am really annoyed by this rhetoric false choice as well because I am always feeling like I need to justify not "helping the homeless". It always baffles me that people seriously bring it up against space exploration instead of at least argue against something sensible like by mail advertisements thats is completely useless and inarguably damaging.

malfist 5y ago
Any public expenditure could be weighed against "helping the homeless" or "feeding the hungry" I don't know why space is about the only thing that falls victim of it. You could literally throw anything against it i.e., why build an airport/road/hydropower dam/new city hall/park bench/etc when there's homeless here? It's frustrating. But I think it gives you a good insight on if someone is a long term or short term thinker.
- netcan 5y ago
  Or private expenditure, in the case of this article.

djrobstep 5y ago

I think you’re taking this a bit too literally - nobody is saying that space exploration money alone can cure homelessness. The point is that it’s emblematic of all the frivolous, useless things resources get allocated to, instead of curing poverty - which is extremely straightforward to do (redistribute downward) except that rich folks hate redistribution downward but love redistribution upward.

netcan 5y ago
I didn't mean to take it literally. I'm criticising the rhetorical use, and I think it's common enough to consider a cliche. My objection to your argument is that (a) it applies everywhere. Public health, defense, education, rock and roll... all take away from poverty eradication efforts. (b) It's only true in the most abstract rhetorical sense. It doesn't tend to be true in a way that relates to reality. A culture with rock and roll isn't more likely to have more poverty. Closer to actionable reality, rock and roll, space exploration and poverty eradication don't meaningfully trade off against each other. They don't really compete for resources, except in the sense that everything competes with everything else. Is environmentalism the enemy of humanitarianism? If the frame is extreme marginalism, as it is in the "space vs homeless" cliche, the answer to that is yes. I don't think that's correct. You can have a society that is both. In fact, we do, to some extent.

roenxi 5y ago

Also, on the subject of the dichotomy, I'd quite like to actually see the specific details of the plan to end homelessness, costed, with some sort of serious legwork proving that it hasn't been tried and failed before. As far as I'm aware we've had centuries of rhetoric where people have promised everything from small reforms to big sweeping programs to open revolt and replacing of governments in various well-intentioned attempts to end poverty. So far, none of them have worked. There is a shortage of evidence that we can end poverty by trading away rich people having interesting toys. There is a surplus of evidence the other way around; the enlightenment was enlightening and has had an outsized impact on achieving the outcomes people want.

astrange 5y ago
Homelessness isn't caused by poverty in the US (or drugs), it's caused by not having enough homes. This sounds tautological, but the homelessness rate in West Virginia is not that high compared to SF, which doesn't match the poverty rates or the opioid crisis. SF spending even more money on it won't help as long they're willing to do anything except building homes - all they can do is bid up the price of existing ones forever.
- onion2k 5y ago
  it's caused by not having enough homes California has 9 empty homes for every homeless person. https://www.self.inc/info/empty-homes/ https://www.self.inc/info/empty-homes/
  - wbsss4412 5y ago
    > What is an ‘empty home’? >An empty home is what the government refers to as a ‘vacant housing unit’, which, for whatever reason, is not occupied by a citizen. This can include vacation homes but also properties which have sold but are not occupied. Not sure this implies what you believe it to imply. If you actually look at the data they’ve mapped out in that article, you’d see that California actually has a shockingly low number of “empty houses” per homeless person - the lowest in the nation. Mississippi has 166, Indiana 151, and West Virginia 128!