34 ms·

"I think it's great reading for anyone who believes homelessness is an issue that can be solved by throwing free housing at people." By definition, if you give

• katbyte 5y ago
  give people a free home, someone is now making money/profit off it with all the incentives that creates, and you need more than a home to live and thrive. just give people money so they can decide what they need to be happy, as well pay regular businesses, restaurants, and landlords instead of the poverty industry.
  • immibis 5y ago
    (landlords are part of the poverty industry FWIW)
• spywaregorilla 5y ago
  So what should happen to andre?
  • tiahura 5y ago
    What used to happen was that he’d be sent to “the farm” for a few months to sober up and decide if he wanted to continue down the path he was on, or get his ** together. Alternatively, he’d get a bus ticket out of town. This was highly effective until activists decided that present-day Market Street was something to aspire to.
  • tomschlick 5y ago
    He should go to jail for theft and selling stolen merchandise.
    • AlvieH 5y ago
      And would that stop other people from stealing in the future? What's the return on investment for sending someone to jail over diapers stolen from a Walgreens?
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      • amatecha 5y ago
        right? I never understand this. the diapers are worth essentially ~nothing. the loss to society is nil. everyone is so hyper-focused on the momentary trivial material theft aspect and not realizing what society is actually losing is a person truly partaking in the rest of society in a productive or positive way.
        • tomschlick 5y ago
          The person they describe in the article is providing nothing to society. Only taking handouts and not using those handouts to better themselves, but instead continuing their life of crime and theft. No amount of extra help will lead them down a better path other than a long term mental institution (which we dont have anymore). They have betrayed the good will of the public providing those programs and jail is the only thing that will stop them at this point from continuing to lead a life of crime and theft.
          • amatecha 5y ago
            Receiving free housing doesn't obligate him into bettering himself. I know most people totally disagree with this, and people usually get angry when I say things like that. But I don't care. The government has far more than enough money to literally just give everyone a free apartment, or a basic income (and I already pay so much income tax, I am totally fine with some of it going to help support others who are struggling). Maybe if Andre's parents had received that 20 years ago it would have made a serious difference in his life. He's figured out how to survive on his own in the meantime, and spent the past 15-20 years living that way, so it's not going to be easy for him to change from that way of living. Throwing him in jail is not going to make that happen -- in fact he's more likely to end up with a far worse psychological outlook after spending time in jail for... stealing a pack of diapers? Here's a very relevant paper on the issue, where the researcher concludes a number of suggestions, including "we need to consider ceasing to use prison as punishment" and "we should draw on the research of what we know works to prevent recidivism, especially literacy programs, skills training and GED, as well as educating prisoners to associate’s degree level in higher education and restore financial support for these successful practices": https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258834307_On_the_Effectiveness_of_Prison_as_Punishment https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258834307_On_the_Ef...
  • carabiner 5y ago
    He should be arrested and prosecuted for his crimes. This is how Houston took care of its homeless problem: more housing (thanks to liberal zoning laws) and strong prosecution for even minor crimes. This is hard to implement in other places because conservatives do not want to build more housing, while liberals do not want either of these things.
  • rlewkov 5y ago
    That's up to Andre. If he makes better choices in his life he may stop selling stuff on the street corner.
    • Fatnino 5y ago
      Go after the buyers. Word gets out that if you buy from Andre you get hassled by the law and Andre's money dries up.
      • humanwhosits 5y ago
        They could put a police officer right next to him on the street, that'll keep the customers away
      • tomschlick 5y ago
        Or confiscate Andre's stolen property and give it back to the retailer. In cases where that's not apparent who the retailer is, give it to shelters.
    • immibis 5y ago
      Why does Andre make bad choices?
      • rlewkov 5y ago
        Because, as of yet, there has been little penalty for making bad choices
        • immibis 5y ago
          Really? That's it? Bad choices are made by default? How did caveman society ever survive without a strong police force?
          • themaninthedark 5y ago
            Before police there was mob justice, lynching and exile(often a death sentence)
  • morelisp 5y ago
    Obviously, like OP said, he should be committing tax fraud ("gladly pay people under the table") instead of petty theft. That's a respectable crime.
  • klyrs 5y ago
    He should get UBI just like everybody else.
  • mkoubaa 5y ago
    The only reliable technology humans invented that could cause a step change in someone's mentality is religion. But it's not a perfect technology and there isn't really a free market
• amatecha 5y ago
  I'm not sure what would solve things for Andre now, but what would have helped him in childhood was having a home and not being driven to sell stolen property to make ends meet. Some of the deepest solutions to societal problems take a long time to really see the results of. To shift it the other way, I grew up pretty privileged and never felt the need to steal things and steal them. However, I can easily determine that if I was homeless and poor I absolutely would have. There's no question. You do what you need to do to survive. To look at a 30-year-old guy and be like "what can we do" is missing the timeline by 20 years or whatever. His personality is now deeply invested in a "steal to live" mindset and it will be a constant struggle even if he got arrested and jailed repeatedly. Wait, I missed one piece of your message, "the money is going to the wrong people" -- it doesn't make a difference. You help people and some people take advantage but society gets a massive net boost all around. You WANT everyone in your society to be doing decently and not driven towards crime.
  • nemothekid 5y ago
    >I'm not sure what would solve things for Andre now, but what would have helped him in childhood was having a home and not being driven to sell stolen property to make ends meet. Some of the deepest solutions to societal problems take a long time to really see the results of. This is one of the most difficult things to get across with solutions like this. The GP is a prime example of this kind of thinking; it's a refusal to look at systemic problems and apply systemic solutions and only focusing on the individual. The implication that if you gave someone a house they would turn around and stop stealing the next day is mindboggling for everyone. No one (should) advocate for housing as a magic wand to undo 20 years of rot. Andre's "problem" isn't going to be fixed by anything other than likely expensive therapy and/or apprenticeships. The system has already failed him and it will be very expensive to fix. A cheaper solution is to not create "Andre" in the first place - a homeless 14 year old cannot possibly be expected to get an education or even begin integrating into society.
    • throwawayboise 5y ago
      But a lot of people do advocate for exactly that. They say that to solve homelessness we should just give people a place to live and that it's ultimately cheaper than any other solution (implying that all their other problems, such as addiction and criminal habits will just go away if they have a place to live.
• gruez 5y ago
  >By definition, if you give someone a home, they are not homeless. >"Andre lives in an apartment" >So he's not homeless. Sounds like "homeless" in this context means "can't be a productive member of society to fund his own living", not literal homelessness.
  • formersquatter 5y ago
    Well, at some level he is homeless. Statistics use things like "crashing in a friend's spare room" or "renting a cheap motel week by week" in their homeless numbers. They're not lacking a roof over their head, but they do lack standard, stable accommodation. However, you're getting at the truth - "homeless" here is an "emotional baggage" word, and so often conveys that implied image of some poor, struggling, but otherwise "good" people just trying to make it. Except that's largely a solved problem, folks actively trying to end their homelessness will spend an average of three months or less in some sort of "homeless" criteria (on a friends couch, a hotel, a temporary accommodation). The bulk of the issue is folks dropping out of society and causing trouble for their surrounding communities. Personally, I come from this community. I spent a majority of my middle and high school years bouncing around motels, squats, and friends spare rooms with my father. We were statistically homeless at some level, just not "sleeping rough." My father was and remains that way over a decade later - he cannot and will not be helped other than taking money for his own ends from an occasionally week-willed family member. He works under the table (an otherwise reasonably skilled plumber), pays no tax, bounces around a series of motels in a one-stoplight town along I-95, drinks, drugs, gets DUIs in a series of unregistered junk vehicles. At one point he did a few months for burning down our squat in a drug-bender gone wrong. There exists a large, and growing subset of the population who have no interest in playing ball, in straightening up and flying right. No amount of "free housing" or "free healthcare" or "free _" is going to solve a cultural rot. When no one cares they will simply abuse the good-natured systems that fail to take into account ill intent.
    • dash2 5y ago
      There’s also a third category of people who have really serious problems, which can’t be fixed by resources, but who aren’t necessarily just “bad guys”. I worked with some long term homeless guys as a volunteer, and many had problems going back to tragic episodes in their childhood, long term addictions, and other stuff that needed more than (a) materially-based “charity” or (b) punitiveness.
• seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  > The problem is the money is going to the wrong people. There are a lot of good and honest people that are homeless and/or struggling to pay their rent. Andre isn't one of them. Andre gets his housing for free while other people freeze and are basically forced to kill themselves. Why is that? Actually, the easy homeless cases (people who lack housing but can still work because they are not addicted to drugs/mentally ill/etc...) can already handled fairly effectively by social services. But as you point out, they aren't able to discriminate between them and the harder homeless cases (people who are addicted to drugs/mentally ill/etc...), and treating homeless problems homogeneously means throwing a lot of money away.
• Supermancho 5y ago
  > By definition, if you give someone a home, they are not homeless That is incorrect. The definition of "home" is not uniformly defined nor equivalent to shelter. Often the homeless are given shelter (with or without restriction, usually the latter) and choose not to utilize it. They are still homeless.
  • Arubis 5y ago
    How, then, would you define "homeless"? And does it have a different meaning from "does not have a home"? edit: Perhaps clarifying, are you using the term "homeless" to define a _state_ or a _trait_ of the person to whom you're applying it?
    • Supermancho 5y ago
      > How, then, would you define "homeless"? If someone has no secure[1] residence[2] that they rely on as their own. [1] Secure is a relative term, uniquely attributed to individuals [2] This is necessarily one legal residence, but practically may be a set of locations.
• WillPostForFood 5y ago
  Andre is an addict and/or has mental issues. If we avoid discussing that we can’t make progress on a solution.
  • morelisp 5y ago
    What evidence do you have that the greater part of his "mental issues" are not trauma responses from being homeless since childhood?
    • ativzzz 5y ago
      A trauma is often a precursor of mental illness. PTSD is an obvious example. Giving someone a house to live in doesn't magically cure it.
    • WillPostForFood 5y ago
      Does it matter at this point? You can't undo the damage with housing, it is a mental issue regardless of cause.
  • kingcharles 5y ago
    This is the answer. As someone who has been to jail with hundreds of thieves, a large proportion of it is addiction or undiagnosed/untreated mental-health issues.
• krnlpnc 5y ago
  >Andre said he has struggled with homelessness on and off since he was 14. You overlooked this part. > The problem is the money is going to the wrong people. There are a lot of good and honest people that are homeless and/or struggling to pay their rent. Andre isn't one of them. Andre gets his housing for free while other people freeze and are basically forced to kill themselves. Why is that? Because American society judges a persons value based on their ability to "work." Not everyone is capable of working a 9-5. Some people have physical illness, mental illness, disabilities or addictions. The social and medical support structures in the united states are clearly not adequate, nor successful in helping the vast majority of these people. Other first world countries don't have these problems. Why is that?
  • anaccountexists 5y ago
    If you have a permanent disability, there’s definitely government programs to support you indefinitely- I have several relatives on those programs (one for muscular dystrophy, one for autism) and they haven’t worked for a long time. There’s more challenges around the short term disabilities, but pretty much every US state has a low-income / zero-income healthcare program that helps cover those individuals. And as for overall homeless numbers, the US is pretty much middle of the pack per-capita with a lot of European countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_...
• EricE 5y ago
  "By definition, if you give someone a home, they are not homeless." See, you start from the false assumption that all these people lack is a home. Even if you gave them a home 90% (or more) wouldn't be interested. The problem of homelessness is far more complex and it's not just about money "going to the wrong people" (you mean people motivated to earn it?!?) or a lack of housing.
• immibis 5y ago
  Because a very large percentage of the population wants housing to be solved for the minimum number of people necessary, instead of for everyone.
• j_walter 5y ago
  >The problem is the money is going to the wrong people. I could not agree more. Not only is it going to the wrong people, it's going to the wrong organizations and government programs that have no real drive to reduce homelessness since that would be self-defeating. What they do is end up spending $60K/tent or $650K/unit on housing the homeless only to have rundown everything within a few years.