4 ms·

>I find it strange that you're just shrugging off the objections as "outrage", rather than trying to engage/address them in any serious way. I think the concept

>I find it strange that you're just shrugging off the objections as "outrage", rather than trying to engage/address them in any serious way. I think the concept of fairness, and the fact that people might be incentivized to freeload are legitimate concerns. You might not think they're valid, but if you want their tax dollars to fund the social programs you want, it seems entirely reasonable that their concerns be addressed. Your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense without that sense of outrage. Especially if you make the ridiculous economic argument you're making. Firstly, there are serious housing shortages in many places in the US, driving up prices and making housing unaffordable for many. What's more, it's really hard to hold a job when you have no place to shower or store your stuff (I know this from personal experience), so homeless folks could be contributing to society (BTW, the data says that less than 10% of homeless folks have drug abuse/serious mental illness issues). As such, providing most homeless folks with real housing (as compared with "shelters" which are dangerous and often unsanitary) can boost the economy by giving more folks the opportunity to work, make a living and contribute to the community/society. It's really very simple. As James Ridgeway[1] pointed out back in 1988 or so (I've searched and searched for the Village Voice article over the years, but haven't been able to find it online) when he asked (then answered his own question): "What do homeless people want?" The answer being, "homes, mostly." This is not a new issue, nor is it particularly complicated. The vast majority of homeless people are willing and able to support themselves, but circumstance (medical bills, lawsuits, layoffs death of a partner/fellow breadwinner) has taken away their ability to afford rent. And given that a majority of Americans[2] (~60%) can't come up with $1,000 for an emergency expense should give you some pause. Spending some money to get folks to a place where they can once again support themselves and their children (yes, I'm going with the "think of the children" trope, although in this case it seems useful/relevant), so they can earn a living in excess of that expenditure helps the homeless people, the economy where that person resides and the community in which they live. And since "housing" people in shelters is more expensive[0] than putting these unfortunate folks in apartments, that's another strong reason to find permanent housing for homeless folks. tl;dr: Since the economics of homelessness and our response to it broadly calls out for paying (at least until folks are able to pay themselves) rent on permanent housing rather than the half-assed measures that cost more, your argument about "fairness" falls really flat. [0] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/homeless-shelters-more-ex_n_513366 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/homeless-shelters-more-ex_n_5... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ridgeway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ridgeway [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/19/56percent-of-americans-cant-cover-a-1000-emergency-expense-with-savings.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/19/56percent-of-americans-cant-... Edit: Fixed link references.

gruez 4y ago
>Your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense without that sense of outrage. Or maybe perhaps you're not fully understanding their position? It's super tempting to write them off as "they're just being illogical/evil/bigoted, how can they possibly disagree with my position when my position so obviously right!?", but that's not going to help you change minds, or figure out which part of your policy needs to be changed to get widespread support. That's basically what the parent post is stuck at. The guy has a policy proposal that he thinks is good and wants to get passed, but clearly he doesn't have enough supporters to do so. Instead of figuring out why people oppose his proposal, he rounds off all the opposition to "offense" and "outrage", then sulks about how "nothing will change". > Especially if you make the ridiculous economic argument you're making. What "economic argument" did I make? I literally made zero arguments in support or in opposition to the proposed policy itself last comment. I was only pointing out how the parent was rounding off all opposition as "outrage", and how that was wrong way to approach this. Moreover, the whole "economic argument" that comprises the bulk of your comment also misses the point, because people care more than just dollars and cents. As you might be able to infer, the "Why should some one/freeloader/whatever get a free place to live when I have to pay" argument isn't really an economic one at all. It doesn't try to analyze the costs of the program vs its benefits, or even point out how unaffordable it would be. Instead, it tries to invoke the concept of fairness, or what is right, which makes it moral argument rather than an economic one. Suppose, you move into a neighborhood and the local mob demands $100/month from you as "protection". You're a highly paid software engineer, so you can totally afford it. Hell, it's probably not even worth your time to report it to the police, given how much you make per hour. Given this, would you feel right about paying the protection money? Sure, you can invoke a bunch of economic theory about how the mob is basically extracting rents from your community, and activities like that are a drag on the economy and is therefore bad, but most people have a more straightforward argument, that it's wrong for people to demand money from you for no reason. Needless to say, this isn't to say that giving people free housing is like a mob extracting protection, it's to point out that the "economic argument" isn't the be all end all of policy debates.
- nobody9999 4y ago
  >>Your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense without that sense of outrage. >Or maybe perhaps you're not fully understanding their position? It's super tempting to write them off as "they're just being illogical/evil/bigoted, how can they possibly disagree with my position when my position so obviously right!?", but that's not going to help you change minds, or figure out which part of your policy needs to be changed to get widespread support. >That's basically what the parent post is stuck at. The guy has a policy proposal that he thinks is good and wants to get passed, but clearly he doesn't have enough supporters to do so. Instead of figuring out why people oppose his proposal, he rounds off all the opposition to "offense" and "outrage", then sulks about how "nothing will change". No. I understand just fine. "Why should I pay rent when someone else doesn't have to. That's not fair!" sounds like outrage to me. GP may well be attempting to persuade, but I'm not GP. And my goal here isn't to convince or convert. I gave that up years ago. Because you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. And "someone is getting something I'm not! That's so unfair!" is a poster boy for unreasoned belief. All that said, I agree that GP might catch more flies with honey than with vinegar (but not balsamic vinegar). >What "economic argument" did I make? I literally made zero arguments in support or in opposition to the proposed policy itself last comment. I was only pointing out how the parent was rounding off all opposition as "outrage", and how that was wrong way to approach this. You said: "I think the concept of fairness, and the fact that people might be incentivized to freeload are legitimate concerns. You might not think they're valid, but if you want their tax dollars to fund the social programs you want, it seems entirely reasonable that their concerns be addressed." First, moral and economic arguments aren't mutually exclusive. Second, policies concerning the disbursement of public funds are definitely economic arguments, even if there are other arguments that might be relevant. And finally, one can certainly make the moral argument that helping those in need in your community makes that community stronger and is a moral good. >Moreover, the whole "economic argument" that comprises the bulk of your comment also misses the point, because people care more than just dollars and cents. As you might be able to infer, the "Why should some one/freeloader/whatever get a free place to live when I have to pay" argument isn't really an economic one at all." That falls flat because the homeless already get free housing: at homeless shelters. I've yet to hear anyone say "why should some one/freeloader/whatever get a free cot and a plastic box for their belongings at a homeless shelter when I have to pay?" And since outcomes for folks who are put in actual apartments are better than for those in shelters and it costs less to do so, the entire argument falls apart. Yes, I get that folks making an argument based on feelings don't focus on boring things like cost analyses, but that doesn't make such arguments any more valid, nor does it excuse local legislators/executives from doing those "boring" things -- after all, it's what we've elected them to do.

gruez 4y ago

>Your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense without that sense of outrage. Or maybe perhaps you're not fully understanding their position? It's super tempting to write them off as "they're just being illogical/evil/bigoted, how can they possibly disagree with my position when my position so obviously right!?", but that's not going to help you change minds, or figure out which part of your policy needs to be changed to get widespread support. That's basically what the parent post is stuck at. The guy has a policy proposal that he thinks is good and wants to get passed, but clearly he doesn't have enough supporters to do so. Instead of figuring out why people oppose his proposal, he rounds off all the opposition to "offense" and "outrage", then sulks about how "nothing will change". > Especially if you make the ridiculous economic argument you're making. What "economic argument" did I make? I literally made zero arguments in support or in opposition to the proposed policy itself last comment. I was only pointing out how the parent was rounding off all opposition as "outrage", and how that was wrong way to approach this. Moreover, the whole "economic argument" that comprises the bulk of your comment also misses the point, because people care more than just dollars and cents. As you might be able to infer, the "Why should some one/freeloader/whatever get a free place to live when I have to pay" argument isn't really an economic one at all. It doesn't try to analyze the costs of the program vs its benefits, or even point out how unaffordable it would be. Instead, it tries to invoke the concept of fairness, or what is right, which makes it moral argument rather than an economic one. Suppose, you move into a neighborhood and the local mob demands $100/month from you as "protection". You're a highly paid software engineer, so you can totally afford it. Hell, it's probably not even worth your time to report it to the police, given how much you make per hour. Given this, would you feel right about paying the protection money? Sure, you can invoke a bunch of economic theory about how the mob is basically extracting rents from your community, and activities like that are a drag on the economy and is therefore bad, but most people have a more straightforward argument, that it's wrong for people to demand money from you for no reason. Needless to say, this isn't to say that giving people free housing is like a mob extracting protection, it's to point out that the "economic argument" isn't the be all end all of policy debates.

nobody9999 4y ago
>>Your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense without that sense of outrage. >Or maybe perhaps you're not fully understanding their position? It's super tempting to write them off as "they're just being illogical/evil/bigoted, how can they possibly disagree with my position when my position so obviously right!?", but that's not going to help you change minds, or figure out which part of your policy needs to be changed to get widespread support. >That's basically what the parent post is stuck at. The guy has a policy proposal that he thinks is good and wants to get passed, but clearly he doesn't have enough supporters to do so. Instead of figuring out why people oppose his proposal, he rounds off all the opposition to "offense" and "outrage", then sulks about how "nothing will change". No. I understand just fine. "Why should I pay rent when someone else doesn't have to. That's not fair!" sounds like outrage to me. GP may well be attempting to persuade, but I'm not GP. And my goal here isn't to convince or convert. I gave that up years ago. Because you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. And "someone is getting something I'm not! That's so unfair!" is a poster boy for unreasoned belief. All that said, I agree that GP might catch more flies with honey than with vinegar (but not balsamic vinegar). >What "economic argument" did I make? I literally made zero arguments in support or in opposition to the proposed policy itself last comment. I was only pointing out how the parent was rounding off all opposition as "outrage", and how that was wrong way to approach this. You said: "I think the concept of fairness, and the fact that people might be incentivized to freeload are legitimate concerns. You might not think they're valid, but if you want their tax dollars to fund the social programs you want, it seems entirely reasonable that their concerns be addressed." First, moral and economic arguments aren't mutually exclusive. Second, policies concerning the disbursement of public funds are definitely economic arguments, even if there are other arguments that might be relevant. And finally, one can certainly make the moral argument that helping those in need in your community makes that community stronger and is a moral good. >Moreover, the whole "economic argument" that comprises the bulk of your comment also misses the point, because people care more than just dollars and cents. As you might be able to infer, the "Why should some one/freeloader/whatever get a free place to live when I have to pay" argument isn't really an economic one at all." That falls flat because the homeless already get free housing: at homeless shelters. I've yet to hear anyone say "why should some one/freeloader/whatever get a free cot and a plastic box for their belongings at a homeless shelter when I have to pay?" And since outcomes for folks who are put in actual apartments are better than for those in shelters and it costs less to do so, the entire argument falls apart. Yes, I get that folks making an argument based on feelings don't focus on boring things like cost analyses, but that doesn't make such arguments any more valid, nor does it excuse local legislators/executives from doing those "boring" things -- after all, it's what we've elected them to do.