18 ms·
> why should they get it for free? They shouldn't get it for free. They should be required to be in recovery programs and have jobs. Create state or federal
by shepardrtc 3y ago
> why should they get it for free?
They shouldn't get it for free. They should be required to be in recovery programs and have jobs. Create state or federal jobs for them if necessary.
- hotpotamus 3y agoWhat jobs do you imagine these people will be compelled to do?
- HDThoreaun 3y agoMost homeless people are just normal people who dont have a home. They can pick up garbage or dig ditches or plant trees at the very least. Plenty of menial labor that needs to be done.
- hotpotamus 3y agoAnd if they don't want to do this menial labor?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- HDThoreaun 3y agoOptions include: 1. send them to extremely cheap housing in bumfuck 2. jail 3. let them be homeless if thats what they want Imo most of the people who think this way are addicts or mentally ill and should be involuntarily committed, so my preferred option is 4. Rebuild the asylums and commit people(with heavy oversight) who are completely incapable of caring for themselves. Although this option is similar to 2
- hotpotamus 3y agoSounds pretty illiberal to me. Lately (due to the whole pandemic/vaccine controversies), I've begun to wonder what drugs the state can force individuals to take or not take, and increasingly it seems that individual freedom is the rule in the US at least.
- HDThoreaun 3y agoPrison is a concept that has existed since the dawn of society. Maybe you disagree with criminalizing homelessness, that's certainly understandable and perhaps a bit illiberal, but it's certainly not unprecedented. And anyway, what I'm calling for is mandatory community service for the homeless, and then imprisonment/commitment/send them to kansas when they refuse to do it, not just criminalizing homelessness. But if your question is if I believe in absolute freedoms, I absolutely do not. You are not free to harass people on the street. Not free to monopolize public parks. Certainly not free to be violent.
- hotpotamus 3y agoSeems like a bit of a burn on Kansas; some people live there voluntarily. I wonder who it is you imagine will administer this involuntary servitude program? Does it particularly matter if the work is done to some standard or other? Do you imagine the state of California is competent to manage this system?
- HDThoreaun 3y agoThe state already runs community service programs. They can be expanded to handle the people living in the housing we built. I'm not sure how giving someone a home and money for essentials is involuntary servitude. If these people don't want to do the service they can get a different job. I just realize that a lot of the homeless have what it takes to be successful, they just need structure and a little help.
- hotpotamus 3y agoI suppose I missed your option 3 which basically seems to be our current status quo. But government run make-work programs just seem like a non-starter in the modern US.
- imtringued 3y agoAsylum? Send them to labor camps I mean private prison and also prescribe more opioids and shut down all drug addiction clinics. Don't do this.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- adamrezich 3y agowhy should any society cater to able-bodied people who physically live in it while refusing to contribute anything toward it? 100 years ago this question would've sounded ridiculous, yet here we are today.
- hotpotamus 3y agoRead a bit about Diogenes if you think this is a recent question. But I do wonder, what do you think members of society should be required to contribute to that society?
- adamrezich 3y agorefraining from relieving oneself in the middle of a street or sidewalk would be a great first step.
- nulbyte 3y agoTo the sibling: Where else do you go when no one will let you use the bathroom?
- adamrezich 3y agoshitting literally anywhere but the dead center of the street or sidewalk shows a non-zero amount of caring about how one conducts oneself as part of a society. when one stoops to the level of shitting in the middle of where everyone walks (I visited SF in 2016, and from what I understand, it has not gotten any better since), one implicitly displays a complete and utter disregard for his fellow man. shitting in any bush or patch of grass is a step up from that. even pooping in a bag (I was going to say "free grocery bag" but I suppose they don't have those in SF anymore, do they?) and leaving it in a gutter is better than depositing your feces right in the middle of a public thoroughfare! if I woke up tomorrow on the streets of SF, homeless, without a penny to my name, and in dire immediate need of taking a dump, I would do it literally anywhere that could even be slightly considered "out of the way of other people," and it would never even cross my mind to even consider dropping a fat steamy deuce right where everyone can step in it. when you take a shit in the middle of a crosswalk or sidewalk, you're implicitly displaying your total rejection of even the most baseline expected behavior of the society you physically reside within. this is completely obvious to anyone who has never immersed themselves in one of these decaying societies to the point where they become numb to it.
- killdozer 3y agoPeople like this don't see people poorer than them as humans with agency, they're just cattle or insects.
- killdozer 3y agoThese are people not a free source of labor.
- shepardrtc 3y agoNo one said they were going to be free. First of all, they'd be getting a home. Second, yes they should be paid something so they can afford food and other essentials. The point is to help them recover. Just throwing housing or money at them and saying good luck, do whatever you want, isn't going to work. With sponsored work, they can look for better jobs and tell their prospective employers that they've been working for a year or two with no issues at the state/federal job. That would go a long way.
- hdisllcn 3y agoThey received 17b that they didn’t earn, surely they can work a little
- deprecative 3y agoUnless you can cite the source that they actually received that $17B it sure seems like you're looking to punish people for being poor rather than to fix the system which creates the environment and situations that lead to these outcomes. That's not going to work. It never has worked and it never will.
- nielsbot 3y agoOk, call it handouts. But if you just care about the budget, providing housing is the cheapest way to solve the problem. Will some people "take advantage" of this arrangement? Sure. Does it matter that much?
- redeeman 3y agoyes, it does... otherwise feel free to send me about three fifty :)
- kelnos 3y agoBut why does it matter, if the alternative is objectively worse for everyone concerned, even the taxpayer funding this "free" housing that some might abuse?
- Clubber 3y agoIt's a perverse incentive. When people figure out the loophole, people who don't need the help will fill up all the allotted space, because who doesn't want free rent? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
- jeremyjh 3y agoThis is great if you don’t want to engage with the actual issues or solve the problem.
- candiodari 3y agoFortunately San Francisco has had decades of social workers "dealing with the actual issues" and "solving the problem". To put it mildly, they didn't solve the issues. This is a lot better than social workers "helping" people on the street with "treatment".
- bombcar 3y agoThey did deal with and solve the problem, mainly that people didn’t think enough was being done and that the social workers wanted jobs.
- legitster 3y agoI want this person off of the streets for completely selfish reasons to myself. Recovery program or not, they are going to have to live somewhere. If it's not a publicly funded home then it's going to be a tent in a public park that I am paying taxes for.
- oh_sigh 3y agoIt's not selfish to want the public to be able to enjoy public spaces.
- unethical_ban 3y agoI think you're on the same page with the person you're responding to. @shepardrtc said people who get free housing should work for it, and @legitster is saying that it is in the taxpayer's self-interest to spend some taxes housing the unhoused. I took that to mean that a work requirement is secondary to getting them off the street in the first place. I agree that we should be providing drug recovery mechanisms and promoting a work ethic in people who are long-term houseless, but our options seem to be (leave them on the streets, parks and front lawns of our cities), (put them in prison), or (put them in publicly funded housing ala halfway houses). First one seems like none of us want it (unless you live in the suburbs and have fled the problem). Second one is too far, and even with good healthcare services, involuntary commitment should only happen for the severely ill. That leaves the third.
- adamrezich 3y agofor some reason many people have stopped caring about the notion of societal trust and cohesion—even the idea of valuing it as something to be desired and strived for. it's an odd kind of defeatist nihilism, and I've seen it spread year after year. these are the same people who will scoff when you suggest that stealing from Walmarts or Targets or whatever is wrong. they'll tell you, "dude, shrinkage is a thing, they build the cost of stolen or damaged goods into their budgets. and, anyway, why do you care so much about massive corporations' bottom lines, anyway?" obviously I don't, but I sure do care about living in a place where brazen broad-daylight theft is rare, and not something you see every time you go to the store!
- DoreenMichele 3y agoFYI: One risk factor for homelessness is being seriously handicapped, so handicapped it is an impediment to employment.