3 ms·

"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

by 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.

by sershe 4y ago

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.