3 ms·

> The conundrum with mutual aid is that it's non-trivial to identify the right size community for a given type and/or level of aid. I don't think this is actua

> The conundrum with mutual aid is that it's non-trivial to identify the right size community for a given type and/or level of aid. I don't think this is actually a hard problem at all. The algorithm is quite simple: 1. Start with the individual as the smallest community (a community of one). 2. Does the current level of community have the resources to deal with the problem? If so, problem solved, exit. 3. If not, go to the next larger level of community. 4. Return to 2. The problem is that greedy people refuse to provide aid because they don't think they'll need aid. In fact, greedy people insist on acquiring all the resources which could be used to provide aid to others. Zuckerberg or Musk could end homelessness in the US easily and still be in the top 10 richest people in the world.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
> Does the current level of community have the resources to deal with the problem? and you propose to establish this how, precisely? ps. I'm skeptical about the "end homelessness" claim. I agree that (a) the current superrich should be forced to give up some of their wealth (b) that most of it should be diverted towards the poor (c) it would help many of them substantially. However, problems like poverty (and its sidekick, homelessness) are systemic, and recurrent. The US has spent several trillion since the 1960s on poverty, and while it caused a substantial reduction in levels of poverty (especially among the elderly), poverty remains with us as a problem. So by all means take from the rich and give to the poor, but don't expect that to "end" poverty.
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  > and you propose to establish this how, precisely? Depends on the community. Doesn't mean it's difficult. > The US has spent several trillion since the 1960s on poverty, and while it caused a substantial reduction in levels of poverty (especially among the elderly), poverty remains with us as a problem. The US has spent several trillion on "end poverty" theater. US anti-poverty programs are intentionally designed to exclude as many people as possible. Much of the money spent, is spent on ensuring that people who conservatives have decided don't deserve aid, don't get aid, with reams of paperwork to validate that those in need are deserving. These barriers are severe enough to prevent many people from even being able to apply, and instead of reducing the barriers, the solution has been to pay case workers to leap some of the barriers for those in need--not only does this not work, it also is expensive. The solution to homelessness is homes. Not shelters where you have no privacy or ownership of the space where you can keep pets or possessions. Homes. This is not complicated. Poverty, mental illness, bigotry, unemployment, etc., are all related problems, but they don't have to be solved to solve homelessness. Look at Zuckerberg and Musk's net worths, then look at the number of homeless, then look at the cost of land and building a modest house, and do some napkin math. Yes, I'm aware a sudden demand for housing would drive up the cost of land and building houses: double it and the numbers still work. Yes, there are other potential issues, but none of them are unsolvable. We need to stop pretending this is more complicated than it is.
sershe 4y ago
"Zuckerberg or Musk could end homelessness in the US easily and still be in the top 10 richest people in the world." [citation needed] Major cities spend 100s of millions per year each on homelessness (LA is $500m-1B iirc, depending on how you attribute), for combined spending of a few B per year, and they cannot even make a dent. As much as I would be receptive to an argument that this is because most public employees are malicious, incompetent grifters, (1) I doubt Musk/etc. could do even an order of magnitude better, especially in the real world, with real-world employees and regulations, (2) even if Musk himself "could" somehow be much more efficient, mutual assistance schemes that would expropriate and use his wealthwould attract, and would be taken over by, the same kinds of structures - public sector unions, etc., as they were pretty much everywhere anything like this has been attempted. With predictable results.
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  > Major cities spend 100s of millions per year each on homelessness (LA is $500m-1B iirc, depending on how you attribute), for combined spending of a few B per year, and they cannot even make a dent. The solution to homelessness is homes. If you aren't spending money giving homeless people homes--not shelters, homes--you're not spending anything on homelessness. You're spending money on compassion theater to make people feel better. Which cities are spending money on giving homeless people homes? There was a Dutch program at one point, but as far as I can tell there hasn't been a single government program that did this in the US. Note that programs which require extensive paperwork to validate that you need assistance, are effectively unavailable to most homeless people, as mental illness makes it difficult to go through extensive application processes. This is by design, so that people can point at spending on "assistance" and say it doesn't work, as you are doing. I'm not saying that's your motivation, but it's certainly the origination of the ideas you're promoting. > As much as I would be receptive to an argument that this is because most public employees are malicious, incompetent grifters, That's not what I said at all. On the contrary, I think that most public employees are doing the best they can to do as much good as they can within a system that isn't designed to fix homelessness. > (1) I doubt Musk/etc. could do even an order of magnitude better, especially in the real world, with real-world employees and regulations, (2) even if Musk himself "could" somehow be much more efficient, mutual assistance schemes that would expropriate and use his wealthwould attract, and would be taken over by, the same kinds of structures - public sector unions, etc., as they were pretty much everywhere anything like this has been attempted. Again, actual attempts to address homelessness have never been attempted on any scale (in the US), because real estate owners, NIMBYs, and people who oppose any public assistance have blocked it at every turn.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

> Does the current level of community have the resources to deal with the problem? and you propose to establish this how, precisely? ps. I'm skeptical about the "end homelessness" claim. I agree that (a) the current superrich should be forced to give up some of their wealth (b) that most of it should be diverted towards the poor (c) it would help many of them substantially. However, problems like poverty (and its sidekick, homelessness) are systemic, and recurrent. The US has spent several trillion since the 1960s on poverty, and while it caused a substantial reduction in levels of poverty (especially among the elderly), poverty remains with us as a problem. So by all means take from the rich and give to the poor, but don't expect that to "end" poverty.

kerkeslager 4y ago
> and you propose to establish this how, precisely? Depends on the community. Doesn't mean it's difficult. > The US has spent several trillion since the 1960s on poverty, and while it caused a substantial reduction in levels of poverty (especially among the elderly), poverty remains with us as a problem. The US has spent several trillion on "end poverty" theater. US anti-poverty programs are intentionally designed to exclude as many people as possible. Much of the money spent, is spent on ensuring that people who conservatives have decided don't deserve aid, don't get aid, with reams of paperwork to validate that those in need are deserving. These barriers are severe enough to prevent many people from even being able to apply, and instead of reducing the barriers, the solution has been to pay case workers to leap some of the barriers for those in need--not only does this not work, it also is expensive. The solution to homelessness is homes. Not shelters where you have no privacy or ownership of the space where you can keep pets or possessions. Homes. This is not complicated. Poverty, mental illness, bigotry, unemployment, etc., are all related problems, but they don't have to be solved to solve homelessness. Look at Zuckerberg and Musk's net worths, then look at the number of homeless, then look at the cost of land and building a modest house, and do some napkin math. Yes, I'm aware a sudden demand for housing would drive up the cost of land and building houses: double it and the numbers still work. Yes, there are other potential issues, but none of them are unsolvable. We need to stop pretending this is more complicated than it is.

sershe 4y ago

"Zuckerberg or Musk could end homelessness in the US easily and still be in the top 10 richest people in the world." [citation needed] Major cities spend 100s of millions per year each on homelessness (LA is $500m-1B iirc, depending on how you attribute), for combined spending of a few B per year, and they cannot even make a dent. As much as I would be receptive to an argument that this is because most public employees are malicious, incompetent grifters, (1) I doubt Musk/etc. could do even an order of magnitude better, especially in the real world, with real-world employees and regulations, (2) even if Musk himself "could" somehow be much more efficient, mutual assistance schemes that would expropriate and use his wealthwould attract, and would be taken over by, the same kinds of structures - public sector unions, etc., as they were pretty much everywhere anything like this has been attempted. With predictable results.

kerkeslager 4y ago
> Major cities spend 100s of millions per year each on homelessness (LA is $500m-1B iirc, depending on how you attribute), for combined spending of a few B per year, and they cannot even make a dent. The solution to homelessness is homes. If you aren't spending money giving homeless people homes--not shelters, homes--you're not spending anything on homelessness. You're spending money on compassion theater to make people feel better. Which cities are spending money on giving homeless people homes? There was a Dutch program at one point, but as far as I can tell there hasn't been a single government program that did this in the US. Note that programs which require extensive paperwork to validate that you need assistance, are effectively unavailable to most homeless people, as mental illness makes it difficult to go through extensive application processes. This is by design, so that people can point at spending on "assistance" and say it doesn't work, as you are doing. I'm not saying that's your motivation, but it's certainly the origination of the ideas you're promoting. > As much as I would be receptive to an argument that this is because most public employees are malicious, incompetent grifters, That's not what I said at all. On the contrary, I think that most public employees are doing the best they can to do as much good as they can within a system that isn't designed to fix homelessness. > (1) I doubt Musk/etc. could do even an order of magnitude better, especially in the real world, with real-world employees and regulations, (2) even if Musk himself "could" somehow be much more efficient, mutual assistance schemes that would expropriate and use his wealthwould attract, and would be taken over by, the same kinds of structures - public sector unions, etc., as they were pretty much everywhere anything like this has been attempted. Again, actual attempts to address homelessness have never been attempted on any scale (in the US), because real estate owners, NIMBYs, and people who oppose any public assistance have blocked it at every turn.