6 ms·

It's actually more than twice as high haha $57K, https://www.hoover.org/research/despite-spending-11-billion-san-francisco-sees-its-homelessness-problems-spira

It's actually more than twice as high haha $57K, https://www.hoover.org/research/despite-spending-11-billion-san-francisco-sees-its-homelessness-problems-spiral-out https://www.hoover.org/research/despite-spending-11-billion-...

kwhitefoot 3y ago
Surely it would be just as effective to pay the homeless that money directly!
- mynameishere 3y ago
  If you are trying to expand the number of homeless, then it would work even better.
- opyate 3y ago
  It's never that easy. You'd be surprised the number of homeless folks being in that situation because of things like addiction, mental health issues, etc. Just giving them the money is mostly not helpful.
  - MSFT_Edging 3y ago
    Even if a percentage just burned through it on drugs, it definitely would be that easy for most of the situational homeless. It would also help to prevent others from falling down the addiction/mental health rabbit hole. Being homeless on the street is a highly stressful endeavor, that constant stress exacerbates the mental health issues, motivates drug use, etc. Just handing over that money to people about to be homeless would do far more than paying administrators to badly run a shelter that homeless avoid because they get all their shit stolen regularly.
    - candiodari 3y ago
      The problem is what San Francisco already experiences: it will attract more homeless from elsewhere for 2 reasons, one bad, one horrible 1) homeless will want this, and move by themselves 2) other state and city governments will dump homeless on San Francisco as a cheap way to "solve" the problem in their city.
- meowtimemania 3y ago
  If today you give every homeless person in SF 50k, tomorrow we'll have even more homeless because tomorrow a new batch of homeless people will come to collect their 50k.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
If you just gave me 57K in cash, could I afford to live there? Take away the stigma of the homeless and ask, if any regular normal person, drop them in SF with 57K, can they live? Or would they become homeless too? Because it is expensive.
- mikeyouse 3y ago
  The problem with those silly numbers represented by bad faith actors is they’re akin to counting your bugs at the end of the year, dividing those into your annual budget and claiming you spent $/bug. Think about what they’re claiming and how it would change if they were more successful - e.g. if by some breakthrough at the same budget level, they cut the number of homeless people in half —- their cost/person would look much worse…
- MSFT_Edging 3y ago
  That 57k would provide a huge runway for people to get their footing. Say 5 months of expenses, where they can maintain their address, phone, shower regularly, have a safe place to keep food, etc. Once you lose your residence, those things snowball. How do you apply for a job without a permanent mailing address? Where do you keep your nice interview clothes? How can you be contacted when your phone was stolen from your locker at the shelter for the second time that month?

kwhitefoot 3y ago

Surely it would be just as effective to pay the homeless that money directly!

mynameishere 3y ago
If you are trying to expand the number of homeless, then it would work even better.
opyate 3y ago
It's never that easy. You'd be surprised the number of homeless folks being in that situation because of things like addiction, mental health issues, etc. Just giving them the money is mostly not helpful.
- MSFT_Edging 3y ago
  Even if a percentage just burned through it on drugs, it definitely would be that easy for most of the situational homeless. It would also help to prevent others from falling down the addiction/mental health rabbit hole. Being homeless on the street is a highly stressful endeavor, that constant stress exacerbates the mental health issues, motivates drug use, etc. Just handing over that money to people about to be homeless would do far more than paying administrators to badly run a shelter that homeless avoid because they get all their shit stolen regularly.
  - candiodari 3y ago
    The problem is what San Francisco already experiences: it will attract more homeless from elsewhere for 2 reasons, one bad, one horrible 1) homeless will want this, and move by themselves 2) other state and city governments will dump homeless on San Francisco as a cheap way to "solve" the problem in their city.
meowtimemania 3y ago
If today you give every homeless person in SF 50k, tomorrow we'll have even more homeless because tomorrow a new batch of homeless people will come to collect their 50k.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

If you just gave me 57K in cash, could I afford to live there? Take away the stigma of the homeless and ask, if any regular normal person, drop them in SF with 57K, can they live? Or would they become homeless too? Because it is expensive.

mikeyouse 3y ago
The problem with those silly numbers represented by bad faith actors is they’re akin to counting your bugs at the end of the year, dividing those into your annual budget and claiming you spent $/bug. Think about what they’re claiming and how it would change if they were more successful - e.g. if by some breakthrough at the same budget level, they cut the number of homeless people in half —- their cost/person would look much worse…
MSFT_Edging 3y ago
That 57k would provide a huge runway for people to get their footing. Say 5 months of expenses, where they can maintain their address, phone, shower regularly, have a safe place to keep food, etc. Once you lose your residence, those things snowball. How do you apply for a job without a permanent mailing address? Where do you keep your nice interview clothes? How can you be contacted when your phone was stolen from your locker at the shelter for the second time that month?