2 ms·

> My homeless friends would really love for you to tell them this to their faces. Homeless make up ~0.17% of the US population. Of these, the majority live in

by unmole 5y ago

> My homeless friends would really love for you to tell them this to their faces. Homeless make up ~0.17% of the US population. Of these, the majority live in some form of shelter transitional housing. Tell me again how a system that manages to provide shelter to 99.9% of the population isn't working. > Everywhere that believes housing is an actual human need rather than an investment vehicle. Do the have have actual names or are they simply a concept?

genocidicbunny 5y ago
Your math doesn't add up. If .17% are homeless, then its 99.83% that it's 'working for.' But the part you missed is that anything less than 100% is unacceptable. If the system is working, it must work for 100.0% of the population, not 99.83%. Nothing less is acceptable for a 'working system'. Anything else is 'work in progress' Also, I would like to point out that .17% of 330 is 56000 people. Are you saying that 56000 people don't matter?
- unmole 5y ago
  > If .17% are homeless, then its 99.83% that it's 'working for.' Like I said, the majority of the people who are classed as homeless live in some form of shelter or transitional housing [0] > the system is working, it must work for 100.0% of the population, not 99.83%. Nothing less is acceptable for a 'working system'. Have fun in Narnia. > .17% of 330 is 56000 0.17% of 330 million is 561000. > Are you saying that 56000 people don't matter? I'm saying that a system that works for 99.9% of people must be doing something right and that helping the less than 0.1% population should not require a fundamental change. 0: https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-report-legacy/ https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homeless...
  - genocidicbunny 5y ago
    > Have fun in Narnia. And you have fun in your hellhole. > 0.17% of 330 million is 561000. Whoops, you're right I missed a zero. Thanks for furthering my point. > I'm saying that a system that works for 99.9% of people must be doing something right and that helping the less than 0.1% population should not require a fundamental change. You're basically arguing for status quo and I contend that status quo is not enough. A system that works for 99.9% of people could be better if it worked for 99.99% of people, and even better yet, if it worked for 100% of people.

by unmole 5y ago

genocidicbunny 5y ago

Your math doesn't add up. If .17% are homeless, then its 99.83% that it's 'working for.' But the part you missed is that anything less than 100% is unacceptable. If the system is working, it must work for 100.0% of the population, not 99.83%. Nothing less is acceptable for a 'working system'. Anything else is 'work in progress' Also, I would like to point out that .17% of 330 is 56000 people. Are you saying that 56000 people don't matter?

unmole 5y ago
> If .17% are homeless, then its 99.83% that it's 'working for.' Like I said, the majority of the people who are classed as homeless live in some form of shelter or transitional housing [0] > the system is working, it must work for 100.0% of the population, not 99.83%. Nothing less is acceptable for a 'working system'. Have fun in Narnia. > .17% of 330 is 56000 0.17% of 330 million is 561000. > Are you saying that 56000 people don't matter? I'm saying that a system that works for 99.9% of people must be doing something right and that helping the less than 0.1% population should not require a fundamental change. 0: https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-report-legacy/ https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homeless...
- genocidicbunny 5y ago
  > Have fun in Narnia. And you have fun in your hellhole. > 0.17% of 330 million is 561000. Whoops, you're right I missed a zero. Thanks for furthering my point. > I'm saying that a system that works for 99.9% of people must be doing something right and that helping the less than 0.1% population should not require a fundamental change. You're basically arguing for status quo and I contend that status quo is not enough. A system that works for 99.9% of people could be better if it worked for 99.99% of people, and even better yet, if it worked for 100% of people.