3 ms·
> 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 shelt
by 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.