3 ms·

The US will do anything and everything to solve homelessness as long as it doesn't actually involve building more homes or giving homes to people. I mean that

The US will do anything and everything to solve homelessness as long as it doesn't actually involve building more homes or giving homes to people. I mean that in a fully genuine way. Just look at how much money gets set on fire cycling the same homeless people in and out of jails and emergency rooms and you can see that nobody actually cares about the amount of money being spent, but only that homes themselves aren't easier to get.

microbug 2y ago
imagine thinking that the "homelessness" crisis is only lack of homes. go talk to a sample and you'll quickly find out it ain't the lack of home.
- crooked-v 2y ago
  The point of my comment, in response to its parent, is that people in the US are willing to support immense amounts of money being spent on the homeless as long as it doesn't involve housing anyone. I think the institutional structure of most US states and cities wouldn't blink at spend huge amounts on schizophrenia drugs as long as it doesn't involve any kind of inpatient treatment (forced or not) that would put a roof over anyone's head.
- com2kid 2y ago
  For 20-30% of people it is a lack of an affordable home. If building more homes solves 30% of the problem and this drug solves another 10%, that is 40% of homeless taken care of. That would be a huge victory that would save hundreds of thousands of lives.
- consteval 2y ago
  The core issue with homelessness is one of how our modern capitalist socieites are laid out. In order to have a life, you must have a job. This is the underlying assumption that fuels everything. This assumption has a critical flaw: not everyone can have a job. For some segments of the population, we just "bolt on" fixes to this fundamental problem. 401k's so that workers may still get their money when they no longer work. Foster care, so that abandoned babies who cannot work can still live. For the severely mentally ill and drug addled, we haven't figured it out. The reality is these people cannot work a job and most will never be able to work steadily. Advancements in drugs may help, but even then there will always be some segment of the population who simply cannot work. Previously, we took an "out of sight, out of mind" approach. Institutionalize these people. It's cheap, particularly if we treat them like dogs. We've evolved and realized such an approach is inhuman and evil. Now, though, what do we do? If these people had a basic income available, they could at least pay to help themselves. This isn't a silver bullet, but I believe it's better than the current problem we have. The true solution is fixing the fundamental problem modern society has: everyone has to work. This is really hard.
the_optimist 2y ago
What qualifies to you as a home? Is it “nice”? Fully finished? Large? In a nice area? In an area with good weather? In good repair?
- crooked-v 2y ago
  In short, a couple of hundred square feet with decent temperatures, a sturdy lock, and basic facilities. I believe that the de facto illegalization of SROs in US cities is one of the more prominent factors when it comes to both invisibly and visibly homeless populations.
  - com2kid 2y ago
    We tore down all the slums because they were unhealthy and dangerous, and then shoved all the former tenants onto the streets.
    - macintux 2y ago
      Same basic story as asylums.
  - Something1234 2y ago
    School Resource Officers??? What are SROs?
    - crooked-v 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-room_occupancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-room_occupancy It's a category that's been mostly legislated out of existence in the US today.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I tend to agree. Unfortunately, such places are illegal to build and rent.
oatmeal1 2y ago
The US simply needs to undo the zoning laws, parking minimums, and setback requirements that make it illegal to build affordable housing.
datavirtue 2y ago
First, you need a politician to say: "your home is not an investment, it's an asset." They would be flayed. Might as well just belt out a "Dean scream" at a live event.

microbug 2y ago

imagine thinking that the "homelessness" crisis is only lack of homes. go talk to a sample and you'll quickly find out it ain't the lack of home.

crooked-v 2y ago
The point of my comment, in response to its parent, is that people in the US are willing to support immense amounts of money being spent on the homeless as long as it doesn't involve housing anyone. I think the institutional structure of most US states and cities wouldn't blink at spend huge amounts on schizophrenia drugs as long as it doesn't involve any kind of inpatient treatment (forced or not) that would put a roof over anyone's head.
com2kid 2y ago
For 20-30% of people it is a lack of an affordable home. If building more homes solves 30% of the problem and this drug solves another 10%, that is 40% of homeless taken care of. That would be a huge victory that would save hundreds of thousands of lives.
consteval 2y ago
The core issue with homelessness is one of how our modern capitalist socieites are laid out. In order to have a life, you must have a job. This is the underlying assumption that fuels everything. This assumption has a critical flaw: not everyone can have a job. For some segments of the population, we just "bolt on" fixes to this fundamental problem. 401k's so that workers may still get their money when they no longer work. Foster care, so that abandoned babies who cannot work can still live. For the severely mentally ill and drug addled, we haven't figured it out. The reality is these people cannot work a job and most will never be able to work steadily. Advancements in drugs may help, but even then there will always be some segment of the population who simply cannot work. Previously, we took an "out of sight, out of mind" approach. Institutionalize these people. It's cheap, particularly if we treat them like dogs. We've evolved and realized such an approach is inhuman and evil. Now, though, what do we do? If these people had a basic income available, they could at least pay to help themselves. This isn't a silver bullet, but I believe it's better than the current problem we have. The true solution is fixing the fundamental problem modern society has: everyone has to work. This is really hard.

the_optimist 2y ago

What qualifies to you as a home? Is it “nice”? Fully finished? Large? In a nice area? In an area with good weather? In good repair?

crooked-v 2y ago
In short, a couple of hundred square feet with decent temperatures, a sturdy lock, and basic facilities. I believe that the de facto illegalization of SROs in US cities is one of the more prominent factors when it comes to both invisibly and visibly homeless populations.
- com2kid 2y ago
  We tore down all the slums because they were unhealthy and dangerous, and then shoved all the former tenants onto the streets.
  - macintux 2y ago
    Same basic story as asylums.
- Something1234 2y ago
  School Resource Officers??? What are SROs?
  - crooked-v 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-room_occupancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-room_occupancy It's a category that's been mostly legislated out of existence in the US today.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I tend to agree. Unfortunately, such places are illegal to build and rent.

oatmeal1 2y ago

The US simply needs to undo the zoning laws, parking minimums, and setback requirements that make it illegal to build affordable housing.

datavirtue 2y ago

First, you need a politician to say: "your home is not an investment, it's an asset." They would be flayed. Might as well just belt out a "Dean scream" at a live event.