5 ms·

Just IMO, many Americans probably don't think homeless people deserve free housing, because they have (the taxpayers) have to pay for their own housing and also

Just IMO, many Americans probably don't think homeless people deserve free housing, because they have (the taxpayers) have to pay for their own housing and also contribute to homeless housing via taxes. "Fuck you got mine" is real here. Just see the nauseating argument against discharging student loans.

tempestn 3y ago
Even from a selfish perspective, I expect "solving" homelessness would ultimately save money for taxpayers, when you consider all of the police and healthcare resources that go into it now, as well as the negative effects on communities. But it would take a lot of time and consistent effort to get there, and the costs would be a lot more obvious and direct than the benefits. Not sure I agree on student loans though. The main reason I struggle with that one is because it seems to me to be a regressive policy: most people with student loans (though certainly not all) are better off that people who didn't have the opportunity to pursue higher education at all. So forgiving student loans benefits a chunk of the population, but does nothing for those who are even more in need (some of whom might have chosen a different path if they'd known they could have their debts forgiven). I'd rather see policies that can benefit everyone in financial need proportionally.
- Timon3 3y ago
  This kind of selfishness is not about yourself getting more, it's about others getting less. As harsh as it sounds, this is the center of many political ideas. This is what happens when you start from "we should do X", instead of "I want things to be Y, so let's find out how to best get there". Just think about the droves of people fighting to teach abstinence in schools, although studies have shown time and time again it leads to more abortions!
- iudqnolq 3y ago
  You don't even need to get into the second order social costs. SF spends about $70,000 per shelter bed per year, or $5,800 per month. Rent in SF is expensive, but not that expensive. https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/s-f-report-puts-a-1-4-billion-price-tag-on-17686136.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/s-f-report-puts-a-1-4...
- ragazzina 3y ago
  >Even from a selfish perspective, I expect "solving" homelessness would ultimately save money for taxpayers If saving money were more important than putting down poor people, the US would have universal healthcare by now.
saiya-jin 3y ago
Well that's the core (or one of the cores) of modern US society - everybody for themselves. Maybe its not written on dollar bill, but if you look closely enough you can see it in various aspects of society. Gun wielding (for protection from other folks but government too, very common mindset in gun culture), having right to shoot folks that enter your property, whole health insurance system, whole social system, and definitely higher education. Basically a class system based on wealth/income. I just named basic pillars of any modern society. Yes economic approach is very effective in open markets and due to historical reasons gives US top spot in global economy, but society as a whole is much more selfish and less humane. Not something future generations will look and judge kindly, unless we reverse massively due to some catastrophes (and then nobody will care about the past anyway). One of the reasons very few people from richer western Europe strive to move to US, its just a bad quality of life overall and more 'primitive' cruel society, which define actually important stuff in life much more than just raw paycheck amount. And yes its cruel, walk among homeless folks in LA that should be in professional psychiatric facilities, and not dying slowly on streets in front of everybody, without much care, for decades.
- selimthegrim 3y ago
  Original draft of declaration of independence had “life, liberty, and pursuit of property”
vidarh 3y ago
More so than "fuck you got mine", my impression is that a lot of it comes down to at some level believing in "karma" or the Just World fallacy. That is, the notion that you get what you deserve somehow. Even if you don't consciously say it, if you deep down has some troubling sense that someone homeless must either be lazy or otherwise have done something to deserve the situation they're in even when there's no direct causal link, it's easy to think that they either don't deserve the help and/or will mess up even if you bother. It then becomes a lot easier to do the bare minimum to try to prevent homeless from being a nuisance to others even when helping them properly might be cheaper and better overall. A lot of social dysfunction makes a lot more sense if you assume a large chunk of people actually do go around thinking that both good and bad outcomes must have been earned somehow and so are deserved whether or not you can establish a causal link.
Gamemaster1379 3y ago
Student loans argument is not 1:1 at all. Every student loan forgiveness proposal I see suggests that taxpayers foot the bill and the counterargument is why should those who did not attend and/or those who paid off have to foot the bill. I agree with that counterargument and will never vote for forgiveness. However, send put a proposal in front of me that seizes assets from the universities selling these degrees that apparently can never pay for themselves and sell off their assets to pay down student loan debt? You'll get my vote.
- pacoWebConsult 3y ago
  Not to mention it was the fact that we are giving children loans that are risk-free to the lender due to the government's guarantee is what resulted in the costs skyrocketing to begin with. Colleges were always going to use that consistent free cash flow from indentured young people to enrich themselves. A lot of this would solve itself if people in student loan debt could discharge it through bankruptcy. Colleges that can't produce degrees where students can pay their loans off would close and many people wouldn't be able to get student loans, and I argue that would be a good thing.
- ddoolin 3y ago
  It seems 1:1 to me. With your counterargument logic then, why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill for homeless people? It's not like it's your fault they're homeless; you pay your own rent/mortgage so why should you foot the bill for others?

tempestn 3y ago

Even from a selfish perspective, I expect "solving" homelessness would ultimately save money for taxpayers, when you consider all of the police and healthcare resources that go into it now, as well as the negative effects on communities. But it would take a lot of time and consistent effort to get there, and the costs would be a lot more obvious and direct than the benefits. Not sure I agree on student loans though. The main reason I struggle with that one is because it seems to me to be a regressive policy: most people with student loans (though certainly not all) are better off that people who didn't have the opportunity to pursue higher education at all. So forgiving student loans benefits a chunk of the population, but does nothing for those who are even more in need (some of whom might have chosen a different path if they'd known they could have their debts forgiven). I'd rather see policies that can benefit everyone in financial need proportionally.

Timon3 3y ago
This kind of selfishness is not about yourself getting more, it's about others getting less. As harsh as it sounds, this is the center of many political ideas. This is what happens when you start from "we should do X", instead of "I want things to be Y, so let's find out how to best get there". Just think about the droves of people fighting to teach abstinence in schools, although studies have shown time and time again it leads to more abortions!
iudqnolq 3y ago
You don't even need to get into the second order social costs. SF spends about $70,000 per shelter bed per year, or $5,800 per month. Rent in SF is expensive, but not that expensive. https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/s-f-report-puts-a-1-4-billion-price-tag-on-17686136.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/s-f-report-puts-a-1-4...
ragazzina 3y ago
>Even from a selfish perspective, I expect "solving" homelessness would ultimately save money for taxpayers If saving money were more important than putting down poor people, the US would have universal healthcare by now.

saiya-jin 3y ago

Well that's the core (or one of the cores) of modern US society - everybody for themselves. Maybe its not written on dollar bill, but if you look closely enough you can see it in various aspects of society. Gun wielding (for protection from other folks but government too, very common mindset in gun culture), having right to shoot folks that enter your property, whole health insurance system, whole social system, and definitely higher education. Basically a class system based on wealth/income. I just named basic pillars of any modern society. Yes economic approach is very effective in open markets and due to historical reasons gives US top spot in global economy, but society as a whole is much more selfish and less humane. Not something future generations will look and judge kindly, unless we reverse massively due to some catastrophes (and then nobody will care about the past anyway). One of the reasons very few people from richer western Europe strive to move to US, its just a bad quality of life overall and more 'primitive' cruel society, which define actually important stuff in life much more than just raw paycheck amount. And yes its cruel, walk among homeless folks in LA that should be in professional psychiatric facilities, and not dying slowly on streets in front of everybody, without much care, for decades.

selimthegrim 3y ago
Original draft of declaration of independence had “life, liberty, and pursuit of property”

vidarh 3y ago

More so than "fuck you got mine", my impression is that a lot of it comes down to at some level believing in "karma" or the Just World fallacy. That is, the notion that you get what you deserve somehow. Even if you don't consciously say it, if you deep down has some troubling sense that someone homeless must either be lazy or otherwise have done something to deserve the situation they're in even when there's no direct causal link, it's easy to think that they either don't deserve the help and/or will mess up even if you bother. It then becomes a lot easier to do the bare minimum to try to prevent homeless from being a nuisance to others even when helping them properly might be cheaper and better overall. A lot of social dysfunction makes a lot more sense if you assume a large chunk of people actually do go around thinking that both good and bad outcomes must have been earned somehow and so are deserved whether or not you can establish a causal link.

Gamemaster1379 3y ago

Student loans argument is not 1:1 at all. Every student loan forgiveness proposal I see suggests that taxpayers foot the bill and the counterargument is why should those who did not attend and/or those who paid off have to foot the bill. I agree with that counterargument and will never vote for forgiveness. However, send put a proposal in front of me that seizes assets from the universities selling these degrees that apparently can never pay for themselves and sell off their assets to pay down student loan debt? You'll get my vote.

pacoWebConsult 3y ago
Not to mention it was the fact that we are giving children loans that are risk-free to the lender due to the government's guarantee is what resulted in the costs skyrocketing to begin with. Colleges were always going to use that consistent free cash flow from indentured young people to enrich themselves. A lot of this would solve itself if people in student loan debt could discharge it through bankruptcy. Colleges that can't produce degrees where students can pay their loans off would close and many people wouldn't be able to get student loans, and I argue that would be a good thing.
ddoolin 3y ago
It seems 1:1 to me. With your counterargument logic then, why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill for homeless people? It's not like it's your fault they're homeless; you pay your own rent/mortgage so why should you foot the bill for others?