12 ms·

The nuanced answer is critically examining where the money goes and making value judgments based on how effective the programs are relative to their expenses. T

The nuanced answer is critically examining where the money goes and making value judgments based on how effective the programs are relative to their expenses. Then possibly funding alternative programs instead of the ones that aren't cost effective. "Cost effective" sounds awfully inhumane but it's a very real and valid concern because there's only so much money to go around.

notch656a 4y ago
Housing unskilled labor in one of the most expensive areas of the US for real estate is as far from "cost effective" as it gets. I think there's a real case to be made that if you want to spend $1B on these disadvantaged persons that offering them housing along with free trade school in Alabama or something could be better for everyone. It's not like after they get back on their feet it's going to do them any favors to be stuck breaking into one of the most brutal housing areas of the US on whatever entry-level salary they'll be on. Of course if they want to stay in SF living on the street, they ought not be forced to leave -- it's a free country. Note: I've been homeless twice. Both times I wanted to get out of it my step A has literally been "find lowest cost of living place in the country with low unemployment and work in day-labor agencies until I have enough for rent." It's worked both times, and relatively straightforward. It would not have worked in SF.
- jljljl 4y ago
  This would require Alabama to offer those services or housing though, it's not so simple to just relocate people to other states. SF does have a program that will help you travel back to Family in other states/cities, but I don't think they can just ship people to a lower cost location
  - notch656a 4y ago
    I imagine there is some law that prevents SF from spending tax money in Alabama in that manner, but I don't see fundamentally why it wouldn't work. SF sets up satellite company in Alabama that administers the program, accepts the $1B minus whatever the bureaucrats normally shave off for their own corruption, and then administer the jobs training and housing along with industry partners except the money goes 2x or 3x as far. Added bonus, those who are capable of getting back on their feet can actually afford to live there afterwards instead of endlessly cycling through welfare cliffs.
    - bifrost 4y ago
      Yes, Scott Wiener made a law that basically made it illegal for SF to do business with almost every state in the US. Often using incorrect methods of determination for why.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > I think there's a real case to be made that if you want to spend $1B on these disadvantaged persons that offering them housing along with free trade school in Alabama or something could be better for everyone You could get a lot of the (arguable) benefits with less transportation costs and a whole lot fewer political/legal problems by doing it in, say, Merced County.

notch656a 4y ago

Housing unskilled labor in one of the most expensive areas of the US for real estate is as far from "cost effective" as it gets. I think there's a real case to be made that if you want to spend $1B on these disadvantaged persons that offering them housing along with free trade school in Alabama or something could be better for everyone. It's not like after they get back on their feet it's going to do them any favors to be stuck breaking into one of the most brutal housing areas of the US on whatever entry-level salary they'll be on. Of course if they want to stay in SF living on the street, they ought not be forced to leave -- it's a free country. Note: I've been homeless twice. Both times I wanted to get out of it my step A has literally been "find lowest cost of living place in the country with low unemployment and work in day-labor agencies until I have enough for rent." It's worked both times, and relatively straightforward. It would not have worked in SF.

jljljl 4y ago
This would require Alabama to offer those services or housing though, it's not so simple to just relocate people to other states. SF does have a program that will help you travel back to Family in other states/cities, but I don't think they can just ship people to a lower cost location
- notch656a 4y ago
  I imagine there is some law that prevents SF from spending tax money in Alabama in that manner, but I don't see fundamentally why it wouldn't work. SF sets up satellite company in Alabama that administers the program, accepts the $1B minus whatever the bureaucrats normally shave off for their own corruption, and then administer the jobs training and housing along with industry partners except the money goes 2x or 3x as far. Added bonus, those who are capable of getting back on their feet can actually afford to live there afterwards instead of endlessly cycling through welfare cliffs.
  - bifrost 4y ago
    Yes, Scott Wiener made a law that basically made it illegal for SF to do business with almost every state in the US. Often using incorrect methods of determination for why.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> I think there's a real case to be made that if you want to spend $1B on these disadvantaged persons that offering them housing along with free trade school in Alabama or something could be better for everyone You could get a lot of the (arguable) benefits with less transportation costs and a whole lot fewer political/legal problems by doing it in, say, Merced County.