4 ms·

I really hope you didn't take the book that seriously. Shellenberger's central thesis is that addiction, mental illness, and "disaffiliation" are the primary c

by jquery 4y ago

I really hope you didn't take the book that seriously. Shellenberger's central thesis is that addiction, mental illness, and "disaffiliation" are the primary causes of homelessness. However, this oversimplified view ignores the complex interplay of factors such as affordable housing shortages, job loss, and systemic inequalities that contribute to the problem. By focusing solely on progressive policies, Shellenberger turns a blind eye to the broader socio-economic context that has given rise to homelessness in the Bay Area. The book's methodology is highly suspect. Shellenberger relies heavily on secondhand accounts and outdated ethnographic studies while failing to engage with the current experiences of homeless individuals. This glaring omission undermines the credibility of his analysis and reveals a lack of empathy for those affected by the issue. Shellenberger's penchant for exaggeration and misrepresentation further erodes his argument. He is quick to criticize progressive approaches such as harm reduction and housing first policies but offers little in the way of evidence-based alternatives. Instead, he proposes vaguely authoritarian solutions that betray a deep-seated ideological bias. Ultimately, the book's distorted portrayal of homelessness serves only to fan the flames of the culture wars.

jbm 4y ago
Is this a ChatGPT response? I ask because the first sentence I literally say "Interesting, but not completely convincing", which makes it clear I don't consider it the final word on the subject. I don't necessarily agree with the book, but I feel I need to respond. - Criticizing something doesn't imply offering a solution. This has been a bedrock of philosophy and discussion from Socrates. So let's dispense with that first. - Two, I'm not part of any political religion and I don't consider single-handed critiques of any group to be a problem. Considering that so much slant is added to my information from progressive sources, reading an alternative perspective is helpful. - A lack of empathy is thrown around loosely, especially in certain circles, but frankly I don't think that's fair. How much empathy do you think is required for a situation where people are engaged in activities that are harmful to themselves and others? - All government-imposed solutions are "vaguely authoritarian". I'm not an anarchist, I don't see why this should bother me. To take a separate example that you would agree with, repealing zoning laws at the state / provincial level and forcibly changing the characteristic of a neighborhood is fairly authoritarian measure (as it strips local autonomy) but we accept its necessity. - What does exaggeration and misrepresentation (the start of your paragraph) have to do with criticizing "progressive" policies? - Can you clarify what you mean by an "ethnographic study"? - Many of your criticisms seem to be based on vague allusions to things in the book, can you offer concrete examples? I'm willing to be convinced that the book is complete nonsense but not by the arguments you are presenting.
- jquery 4y ago
  It's unfortunate that instead of addressing the points I raised in my response, you've chosen to question my authenticity as an HN member. The book propagates misguided notions that stem from a privileged perspective, which views poverty as a choice and supports harsh legal actions against the destitute. I believe my original response provided clear and cogent arguments, and considering your unfounded accusation, I don't see the value in continuing this discussion. EDIT: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken." My initial response was clear and specific. Rather than addressing my main argument, you assigned me a task/homework. I take your assumption of me being a bot as a compliment, as I've been striving to enhance the professionalism of my HN comments, particularly in discussions with strong opinions where emotions run high.
  - jbm 4y ago
    If you read it, or had first hand information, it would be easy to share meaningful details about what, exactly, is wrong, instead of vague pandering that seem to be generated by a language model. Even this response reads like a response from such a model.
    - mannerheim 4y ago
      I haven't read Shellenberger myself, but if his thesis is that homelessness is primarily caused by addiction, mental illness, etc., and not housing unaffordability, then from the empirical data I've heard of, I would have to disagree. > Because unlike poverty and mental illness and drug abuse and weather and welfare benefits and other factors, the places that have the highest housing costs, and the least housing supply, have the largest homeless populations: > [graphs] > In literally any other realm, this would come as no surprise. You can’t have what you can’t afford. If someone says, “I want a $2000 laptop, but can’t afford it,” nobody would find that hard to believe. But if someone says, “I really want the single largest and most crippling expense known to man, housing, but can’t afford it,” for some bizarre reason people would say, “that’s not true!,” or “correlation isn’t causation,” or “homelessness isn’t a housing problem,” or something patently insane. As I said before, the topic of homelessness breaks people’s brains. > The story of homelessness in America is perfectly captured by the following quote in the Economist: >> Few Americans lived on the streets in the early post-war period because housing was cheaper. Back then only one in four tenants spent more than 30% of their income on rent, compared with one in two today. The best evidence suggests that a 10% rise in housing costs in a pricey city prompts an 8% jump in homelessness. > And that’s just it: before modern-day homelessness, there was poverty, there was mental illness, there was nice weather, there was welfare, there were liberal places, and there were drugs. So, something must have changed. And what changed were the rents: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/everything-you-think-you-know-about https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/everything-you-think-you-k... A related critical article I found on the Wikipedia page for his book seems to be exactly along these lines: https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/blog/san-fransicko-incorrect-about-housing-affordability-and-homelessness https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/blog/san-fransicko-incorrect-a... Nevertheless, it's entirely possible that San Francisco's other policies have exacerbated the issues caused by homelessness and housing unaffordability. I don't think it's too much to ask that the city should allow more housing to be built and that organised retail theft gangs be punished.
diebeforei485 4y ago
> while failing to engage with the current experiences of homeless individuals He has posted multiple videos of himself interviewing homeless people on his Twitter page, so this is a very strange criticism of him.

by jquery 4y ago

jbm 4y ago

Is this a ChatGPT response? I ask because the first sentence I literally say "Interesting, but not completely convincing", which makes it clear I don't consider it the final word on the subject. I don't necessarily agree with the book, but I feel I need to respond. - Criticizing something doesn't imply offering a solution. This has been a bedrock of philosophy and discussion from Socrates. So let's dispense with that first. - Two, I'm not part of any political religion and I don't consider single-handed critiques of any group to be a problem. Considering that so much slant is added to my information from progressive sources, reading an alternative perspective is helpful. - A lack of empathy is thrown around loosely, especially in certain circles, but frankly I don't think that's fair. How much empathy do you think is required for a situation where people are engaged in activities that are harmful to themselves and others? - All government-imposed solutions are "vaguely authoritarian". I'm not an anarchist, I don't see why this should bother me. To take a separate example that you would agree with, repealing zoning laws at the state / provincial level and forcibly changing the characteristic of a neighborhood is fairly authoritarian measure (as it strips local autonomy) but we accept its necessity. - What does exaggeration and misrepresentation (the start of your paragraph) have to do with criticizing "progressive" policies? - Can you clarify what you mean by an "ethnographic study"? - Many of your criticisms seem to be based on vague allusions to things in the book, can you offer concrete examples? I'm willing to be convinced that the book is complete nonsense but not by the arguments you are presenting.

jquery 4y ago
It's unfortunate that instead of addressing the points I raised in my response, you've chosen to question my authenticity as an HN member. The book propagates misguided notions that stem from a privileged perspective, which views poverty as a choice and supports harsh legal actions against the destitute. I believe my original response provided clear and cogent arguments, and considering your unfounded accusation, I don't see the value in continuing this discussion. EDIT: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken." My initial response was clear and specific. Rather than addressing my main argument, you assigned me a task/homework. I take your assumption of me being a bot as a compliment, as I've been striving to enhance the professionalism of my HN comments, particularly in discussions with strong opinions where emotions run high.
- jbm 4y ago
  If you read it, or had first hand information, it would be easy to share meaningful details about what, exactly, is wrong, instead of vague pandering that seem to be generated by a language model. Even this response reads like a response from such a model.
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    I haven't read Shellenberger myself, but if his thesis is that homelessness is primarily caused by addiction, mental illness, etc., and not housing unaffordability, then from the empirical data I've heard of, I would have to disagree. > Because unlike poverty and mental illness and drug abuse and weather and welfare benefits and other factors, the places that have the highest housing costs, and the least housing supply, have the largest homeless populations: > [graphs] > In literally any other realm, this would come as no surprise. You can’t have what you can’t afford. If someone says, “I want a $2000 laptop, but can’t afford it,” nobody would find that hard to believe. But if someone says, “I really want the single largest and most crippling expense known to man, housing, but can’t afford it,” for some bizarre reason people would say, “that’s not true!,” or “correlation isn’t causation,” or “homelessness isn’t a housing problem,” or something patently insane. As I said before, the topic of homelessness breaks people’s brains. > The story of homelessness in America is perfectly captured by the following quote in the Economist: >> Few Americans lived on the streets in the early post-war period because housing was cheaper. Back then only one in four tenants spent more than 30% of their income on rent, compared with one in two today. The best evidence suggests that a 10% rise in housing costs in a pricey city prompts an 8% jump in homelessness. > And that’s just it: before modern-day homelessness, there was poverty, there was mental illness, there was nice weather, there was welfare, there were liberal places, and there were drugs. So, something must have changed. And what changed were the rents: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/everything-you-think-you-know-about https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/everything-you-think-you-k... A related critical article I found on the Wikipedia page for his book seems to be exactly along these lines: https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/blog/san-fransicko-incorrect-about-housing-affordability-and-homelessness https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/blog/san-fransicko-incorrect-a... Nevertheless, it's entirely possible that San Francisco's other policies have exacerbated the issues caused by homelessness and housing unaffordability. I don't think it's too much to ask that the city should allow more housing to be built and that organised retail theft gangs be punished.

diebeforei485 4y ago

> while failing to engage with the current experiences of homeless individuals He has posted multiple videos of himself interviewing homeless people on his Twitter page, so this is a very strange criticism of him.