10 ms·

It's more or less the same in NYC. DHS budget is about $2.2 billion to serve 90K people in shelters, and that doesn't count all of the service spending from age

It's more or less the same in NYC. DHS budget is about $2.2 billion to serve 90K people in shelters, and that doesn't count all of the service spending from agencies not directly responsible for housing and feeding them.

teaearlgraycold 3y ago
Part of the problem is that if you actually just do the most efficient thing, giving people money to go find housing and food (and I understand some won't be able to manage that and need help) then you end up poking a hole in the idea of how our society works. Why should someone grind away barely surviving when they could become homeless and get UBI instead? Now you need to pay UBI for way more than just 90k people. Not that I think we shouldn't try to solve the problem, shouldn't work towards UBI, etc. Just saying the shortest path from status quo to the ideal will break the system.
- jeremyjh 3y ago
  I think some studies have refuted this and found that most often if you house people they become productive. But those are very small studies and I am skeptical they could scale that well or persevere long-term, it will just bother too many others who are not benefiting from it, and people will find ways to manipulate the system and steal from it. But UBI is inevitable, we will have to figure it out or watch our civilization fail.
  - AmericanChopper 3y ago
    > it will just bother too many others who are not benefiting from it The bit this comment misses is that the people who are not getting anything from it would be the people who pay for it. You can’t create such a strong incentive for failure and not expect failure to increase.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      The thing that frustrates me about that is that the people who pay for it will get something from it. They get cleaner, safer streets. This leads to more sustainable street-level businesses (because there's more foot traffic), which leads to more choice and better prices. Overall it's just a higher quality of living. Now, as a well-off person who can afford to (perhaps sometimes grudgingly) pay more taxes, it's not hard for me to see that. But I can see how it might be difficult for someone who is barely scraping by to adopt my perspective.
      - AmericanChopper 3y ago
        The basis of your premise is correct. If people are sufficiently deprived, some non-trivial portion of them will become highly anti-social, often violent, often criminal, and otherwise just disruptive to society. Even if it’s entirely their own fault for ending up that way. But you’re missing a couple of things. Firstly, if you reward people for failing, you’re incentivising more people to fail. So the problem isn’t that a poorly conceived welfare program wouldn’t manage the anti-social aspect of society properly, it’s that it would create more of it. Secondly, the people in the middle who pay for everything have a choice about how to manage this problem. They can take the big social safety net approach like an idealised Scandinavian system. Or they can take the heavy handed law and order approach, like say Singapore or Saudi Arabia or even Japan, which are some of the safest places in the world. So yes, managing depravation at the bottom has a benefit for society. But the threat of “give us money or we’ll just rob you all the time and otherwise ruin society as much as possible” isn’t specifically a good argument for the type of policy you’re advocating.
        Aeolun 3y ago
        > Or they can take the heavy handed law and order approach, like say Singapore or Saudi Arabia or even Japan, which are some of the safest places in the world. I feel like you are conflating two things here that are not related. These places can take the heavy handed law and order approach they have because they are some of the safest places in the world. Unsurprisingly, at least in Japan, it’s nearly impossible to not have some form of housing if you want it. Even the lowest convenience store job will give you enough income to pay for the rent on a one-room apartment.
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    You don’t have to house the people in very desireable locations. If becoming homeless means that you instead get relegated to a massive concrete block, most productive members of society would do their hardest to leave as soon as possible. Those that don’t (for a variety of reasons) are at least off the streets.
    - mike50 3y ago
      That situation would be significantly better then a temporary bunk in a warehouse which is the best case scenario given all the problems with way homeless people are provided with shelter in the US.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - samatman 3y ago
    Ah yes. The problems of SF, and NYC... are Republican's fault. That makes sense, and is absolutely not a cope, at all.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - kelnos 3y ago
        Never watched Fox News, so I'll take your word for it. I live in SF and consider myself fairly left-leaning. I see individual homeless people. I see large encampments. I see drug-addicted people on the street screaming at and being aggressive with people, or at best mumbling nonsense to themselves. We spend $57k per homeless person per year, and the problem does not seem to be getting better. I don't see how we can blame Republicans for SF's failure to house people, when Democrats and progressives dominate city politics. I'm not going to accuse our leadership of intentionally spending more to do less, lest some "undeserving" person gets a free handout, because I don't think that's what's happening. Maybe instead of sliding down the path to Godwin's Law and making weak rebuttals, you actually explain how Republicans are at fault for SF's homeless problems?
        FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        What would I rebut? I never blamed SF on Republicans. The other poster did. I was implying there is a strong 'US Christian' attitude to be more outraged by accidentally helping someone that doesn't need it, that outweighs being 'Christian' and helping those that do need help. I'm not sure Christians are even glossing over this anymore. And this does lead to more bureaucracy to ensure this doesn't happen, and that is done by the legislatures when they create the organizations. Then the other guy brought up "SF". A single word argument as if that was a 'rebuttal'. His 'rebuttal' was actually three words, "SF", "New York". What are they implying by their one word argument? I say something about Christians/Republican's, they just respond "SF". As if "SF" is in itself an entire argument against anything liberal or progressive and hence why we need to return to 'Old Testament' Bible values. "SF" is just another dog whistle for them, that we shouldn't be 'soft' on people. You are bringing up actual problems. But what Republicans 'hear', is 'be more harsh on people'. Don't solve those problems, put them in jail. And that despite Godwin's Law, this seemed very much in line with how Republicans argue (debate, market), they repeat the same short slogans over and over again. For so many years people have over used calling each other 'Nazi', that now we can't make any comparisons or someone brings up 'Godwin'. When there are actual real parallels that we should be pointing out. So. My error is maybe lumping all Republicans in as Evangelical Christians. I guess the problem is you listed a lot of different problems, and they all combine into something bad. But the article was about each individual program/organization trying to maintain itself. So I'd say this is one of those 'multi-polar' problems where each organization is trying their best, but they solve for a local minimum that is not optimal. Is it really a single program spending $57K per person? Or is that number from adding up a number of programs? And it is all these different organizations, each solving part of the problem in-efficiently. And never solving the root problem, because that is out of the scope of any one program. And, even if someone just handed me $57K in cash, could I afford to live in SF? Isn't SF somewhat landlocked? hard to expand housing? And isn't housing somewhat geared towards the rich that skew right? Is it really progressives trying to keep away housing? This is a bit all over place. We could talk details about: 1. real world SF problems, 2. or how Republican Marketing techniques really do follow the Nasi playbook Goodwin or not, 3. or how organizations in general get stuck in some local minimum of bad incentives. There is no one rebuttal to this thread. It is complex, and Republicans boil it down to a slogan, that is exactly what that nasi quote says to do.
- Maxion 3y ago
  > Part of the problem is that if you actually just do the most efficient thing, giving people money to go find housing and food (and I understand some won't be able to manage that and need help) then you end up poking a hole in the idea of how our society works. This is a cultural thing that is harder to change - but it does not result in this. I live in Finland and the only reason someone is actually homeless here is because they refuse to take the aid that's given to them. I can assure you, that no one who doesn't have severe mental issues WANT to live on social wellfare.
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    In the US, the homeless commonly refused aid too. Mark Laita, who runs the large yt channel where he talks to the homeless, has spoken at length about this.
    - mike50 3y ago
      Because of policies mandating to stop using drugs, follow a specific religion or give up their possessions and live in bunks without private spaces or storage for personal items.
      - Workaccount2 3y ago
        Mark is intimately aware of those programs and the hurdles they can create, he works directly with many of them. However he has repeatedly had people who come to him begging for help, and then they do nothing to actually realize that help. Even the most basic "Be outside your motel room I bought you at 11am to get in the car I will send that will take you to the counselor I'll pay for" and then they ghost it. At the end of the day, they would in fact rather live on the street doing dope rather than live in a (paid for) motel room (or even apartment) and work a job.
  - wyager 3y ago
    If you try to take Finnish cultural norms around work and apply them to the entire American population, you're going to have a bad time. There are a lot of people in America who want to live on social welfare. I don't think this is something you can change intentionally without extreme and politically unviable interventions.

teaearlgraycold 3y ago

Part of the problem is that if you actually just do the most efficient thing, giving people money to go find housing and food (and I understand some won't be able to manage that and need help) then you end up poking a hole in the idea of how our society works. Why should someone grind away barely surviving when they could become homeless and get UBI instead? Now you need to pay UBI for way more than just 90k people. Not that I think we shouldn't try to solve the problem, shouldn't work towards UBI, etc. Just saying the shortest path from status quo to the ideal will break the system.

jeremyjh 3y ago
I think some studies have refuted this and found that most often if you house people they become productive. But those are very small studies and I am skeptical they could scale that well or persevere long-term, it will just bother too many others who are not benefiting from it, and people will find ways to manipulate the system and steal from it. But UBI is inevitable, we will have to figure it out or watch our civilization fail.
- AmericanChopper 3y ago
  > it will just bother too many others who are not benefiting from it The bit this comment misses is that the people who are not getting anything from it would be the people who pay for it. You can’t create such a strong incentive for failure and not expect failure to increase.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    The thing that frustrates me about that is that the people who pay for it will get something from it. They get cleaner, safer streets. This leads to more sustainable street-level businesses (because there's more foot traffic), which leads to more choice and better prices. Overall it's just a higher quality of living. Now, as a well-off person who can afford to (perhaps sometimes grudgingly) pay more taxes, it's not hard for me to see that. But I can see how it might be difficult for someone who is barely scraping by to adopt my perspective.
    - AmericanChopper 3y ago
      The basis of your premise is correct. If people are sufficiently deprived, some non-trivial portion of them will become highly anti-social, often violent, often criminal, and otherwise just disruptive to society. Even if it’s entirely their own fault for ending up that way. But you’re missing a couple of things. Firstly, if you reward people for failing, you’re incentivising more people to fail. So the problem isn’t that a poorly conceived welfare program wouldn’t manage the anti-social aspect of society properly, it’s that it would create more of it. Secondly, the people in the middle who pay for everything have a choice about how to manage this problem. They can take the big social safety net approach like an idealised Scandinavian system. Or they can take the heavy handed law and order approach, like say Singapore or Saudi Arabia or even Japan, which are some of the safest places in the world. So yes, managing depravation at the bottom has a benefit for society. But the threat of “give us money or we’ll just rob you all the time and otherwise ruin society as much as possible” isn’t specifically a good argument for the type of policy you’re advocating.
      - Aeolun 3y ago
        > Or they can take the heavy handed law and order approach, like say Singapore or Saudi Arabia or even Japan, which are some of the safest places in the world. I feel like you are conflating two things here that are not related. These places can take the heavy handed law and order approach they have because they are some of the safest places in the world. Unsurprisingly, at least in Japan, it’s nearly impossible to not have some form of housing if you want it. Even the lowest convenience store job will give you enough income to pay for the rent on a one-room apartment.
- Aeolun 3y ago
  You don’t have to house the people in very desireable locations. If becoming homeless means that you instead get relegated to a massive concrete block, most productive members of society would do their hardest to leave as soon as possible. Those that don’t (for a variety of reasons) are at least off the streets.
  - mike50 3y ago
    That situation would be significantly better then a temporary bunk in a warehouse which is the best case scenario given all the problems with way homeless people are provided with shelter in the US.
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
[flagged]
- samatman 3y ago
  Ah yes. The problems of SF, and NYC... are Republican's fault. That makes sense, and is absolutely not a cope, at all.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - kelnos 3y ago
      Never watched Fox News, so I'll take your word for it. I live in SF and consider myself fairly left-leaning. I see individual homeless people. I see large encampments. I see drug-addicted people on the street screaming at and being aggressive with people, or at best mumbling nonsense to themselves. We spend $57k per homeless person per year, and the problem does not seem to be getting better. I don't see how we can blame Republicans for SF's failure to house people, when Democrats and progressives dominate city politics. I'm not going to accuse our leadership of intentionally spending more to do less, lest some "undeserving" person gets a free handout, because I don't think that's what's happening. Maybe instead of sliding down the path to Godwin's Law and making weak rebuttals, you actually explain how Republicans are at fault for SF's homeless problems?
      - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        What would I rebut? I never blamed SF on Republicans. The other poster did. I was implying there is a strong 'US Christian' attitude to be more outraged by accidentally helping someone that doesn't need it, that outweighs being 'Christian' and helping those that do need help. I'm not sure Christians are even glossing over this anymore. And this does lead to more bureaucracy to ensure this doesn't happen, and that is done by the legislatures when they create the organizations. Then the other guy brought up "SF". A single word argument as if that was a 'rebuttal'. His 'rebuttal' was actually three words, "SF", "New York". What are they implying by their one word argument? I say something about Christians/Republican's, they just respond "SF". As if "SF" is in itself an entire argument against anything liberal or progressive and hence why we need to return to 'Old Testament' Bible values. "SF" is just another dog whistle for them, that we shouldn't be 'soft' on people. You are bringing up actual problems. But what Republicans 'hear', is 'be more harsh on people'. Don't solve those problems, put them in jail. And that despite Godwin's Law, this seemed very much in line with how Republicans argue (debate, market), they repeat the same short slogans over and over again. For so many years people have over used calling each other 'Nazi', that now we can't make any comparisons or someone brings up 'Godwin'. When there are actual real parallels that we should be pointing out. So. My error is maybe lumping all Republicans in as Evangelical Christians. I guess the problem is you listed a lot of different problems, and they all combine into something bad. But the article was about each individual program/organization trying to maintain itself. So I'd say this is one of those 'multi-polar' problems where each organization is trying their best, but they solve for a local minimum that is not optimal. Is it really a single program spending $57K per person? Or is that number from adding up a number of programs? And it is all these different organizations, each solving part of the problem in-efficiently. And never solving the root problem, because that is out of the scope of any one program. And, even if someone just handed me $57K in cash, could I afford to live in SF? Isn't SF somewhat landlocked? hard to expand housing? And isn't housing somewhat geared towards the rich that skew right? Is it really progressives trying to keep away housing? This is a bit all over place. We could talk details about: 1. real world SF problems, 2. or how Republican Marketing techniques really do follow the Nasi playbook Goodwin or not, 3. or how organizations in general get stuck in some local minimum of bad incentives. There is no one rebuttal to this thread. It is complex, and Republicans boil it down to a slogan, that is exactly what that nasi quote says to do.
Maxion 3y ago
> Part of the problem is that if you actually just do the most efficient thing, giving people money to go find housing and food (and I understand some won't be able to manage that and need help) then you end up poking a hole in the idea of how our society works. This is a cultural thing that is harder to change - but it does not result in this. I live in Finland and the only reason someone is actually homeless here is because they refuse to take the aid that's given to them. I can assure you, that no one who doesn't have severe mental issues WANT to live on social wellfare.
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  In the US, the homeless commonly refused aid too. Mark Laita, who runs the large yt channel where he talks to the homeless, has spoken at length about this.
  - mike50 3y ago
    Because of policies mandating to stop using drugs, follow a specific religion or give up their possessions and live in bunks without private spaces or storage for personal items.
    - Workaccount2 3y ago
      Mark is intimately aware of those programs and the hurdles they can create, he works directly with many of them. However he has repeatedly had people who come to him begging for help, and then they do nothing to actually realize that help. Even the most basic "Be outside your motel room I bought you at 11am to get in the car I will send that will take you to the counselor I'll pay for" and then they ghost it. At the end of the day, they would in fact rather live on the street doing dope rather than live in a (paid for) motel room (or even apartment) and work a job.
- wyager 3y ago
  If you try to take Finnish cultural norms around work and apply them to the entire American population, you're going to have a bad time. There are a lot of people in America who want to live on social welfare. I don't think this is something you can change intentionally without extreme and politically unviable interventions.