3 ms·

Even from a selfish perspective, I expect "solving" homelessness would ultimately save money for taxpayers, when you consider all of the police and healthcare r

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.

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.