4 ms·

Such a sign of the world we live in that restoring a old building raises a billion dollars, but we somehow can't afford to house people who are freezing to deat

Such a sign of the world we live in that restoring a old building raises a billion dollars, but we somehow can't afford to house people who are freezing to death in the streets.

ks2048 2y ago
The obvious compromise is build lots of gothic cathedrals for the homeless around the world.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
If a billion dollars was all it took to solve homelessness, it would have been solved a long time ago. France spends tens of billions on it annually and as you noted, it's far from solved.
- paxys 2y ago
  Heck a single city (San Francisco) spends over a billion dollars annually on homelessness, and the problem just gets worse every year.
  - fsckboy 2y ago
    if you pour money on a problem, you create all sorts of incentives for the problem not to go away.
    - User23 2y ago
      Put more simply, spending money on something tends to get you more of it.
      - lostlogin 2y ago
        Does that mean Notre Dame is going to burn more often?
        krisoft 2y ago
        They certainly increased the chances by replacing the burnt roof with an as of yet unburnt one. Not saying that that would have been the prefered solution. And of course they tried to mitigate this increase in flamability with a modern fire protection solution.
        User23 2y ago
        Who is spending money on burning it down? No, obviously, spending money on Notre Dame is getting us more of it, on account of one Notre Dame is more than no Notre Dame.
    - ladyinthelake 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - alexey-salmin 2y ago
    It's funny because the number of homeless people if I recall correctly is around 10k and total number of people receiving aid is double or triple of that. One may wonder where that billion goes.
    - FpUser 2y ago
      To pay salaries of people who debate how to "help" homeless
      - ladyinthelake 2y ago
        [flagged]
Aurornis 2y ago
France’s social spending is around $509 billion per year. France also has a form of guaranteed minimum income. Spending a billion to repair a historic national treasure is not only a drop in the bucket at the scale of a country, it’s likely ROI positive due to the tourist revenue that would be lost if France were to abandon their national treasures over the centuries. Being angry about this is irrational.
- tgv 2y ago
  > a drop in the bucket Don't forget it can be written off over 50 years or more. That's a paltry 20M/year.
khazhoux 2y ago
I’ll go a step further and say that we shouldn’t spend a single penny on homelessness that could instead be donated to cancer research. In fact, cancer research should receive zero funds that could instead be put towards care for needy children. And we shouldn’t even waste money on those kids, when it should instead be used ito fight climate change.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
inglor_cz 2y ago
If the French welfare state, by far the most expansive on the planet (France spends around a third of its GDP on social expenses), is too small for you, you will be sour for the rest of your life, because your demands are unrealistic. In practice, most people including me prefer to spread public spending into various projects, and yes, that means that the homeless don't get an absolute priority. I suspect that you, in your private life, do precisely the same. If you wanted to live your preached values, you would have to live Mother Theresa-like life of ascetism, spending your days and your income to help the poor instead of buying yourself nice electronic gadgets and eating good food. Do you do that? If not, why do you complain about the rest of the world not doing it either?
71bw 2y ago
>but we somehow can't afford to house people who are freezing to death in the streets. Why aren't you taking the freezing-to-death homeless people into your home?

Such a sign of the world we live in that restoring a old building raises a billion dollars, but we somehow can't afford to house people who are freezing to death in the streets.

ks2048 2y ago

The obvious compromise is build lots of gothic cathedrals for the homeless around the world.

bryanlarsen 2y ago

If a billion dollars was all it took to solve homelessness, it would have been solved a long time ago. France spends tens of billions on it annually and as you noted, it's far from solved.

paxys 2y ago
Heck a single city (San Francisco) spends over a billion dollars annually on homelessness, and the problem just gets worse every year.
- fsckboy 2y ago
  if you pour money on a problem, you create all sorts of incentives for the problem not to go away.
  - User23 2y ago
    Put more simply, spending money on something tends to get you more of it.
    - lostlogin 2y ago
      Does that mean Notre Dame is going to burn more often?
      - krisoft 2y ago
        They certainly increased the chances by replacing the burnt roof with an as of yet unburnt one. Not saying that that would have been the prefered solution. And of course they tried to mitigate this increase in flamability with a modern fire protection solution.
      - User23 2y ago
        Who is spending money on burning it down? No, obviously, spending money on Notre Dame is getting us more of it, on account of one Notre Dame is more than no Notre Dame.
  - ladyinthelake 2y ago
    [flagged]
- alexey-salmin 2y ago
  It's funny because the number of homeless people if I recall correctly is around 10k and total number of people receiving aid is double or triple of that. One may wonder where that billion goes.
  - FpUser 2y ago
    To pay salaries of people who debate how to "help" homeless
    - ladyinthelake 2y ago
      [flagged]

Aurornis 2y ago

France’s social spending is around $509 billion per year. France also has a form of guaranteed minimum income. Spending a billion to repair a historic national treasure is not only a drop in the bucket at the scale of a country, it’s likely ROI positive due to the tourist revenue that would be lost if France were to abandon their national treasures over the centuries. Being angry about this is irrational.

tgv 2y ago
> a drop in the bucket Don't forget it can be written off over 50 years or more. That's a paltry 20M/year.

khazhoux 2y ago

I’ll go a step further and say that we shouldn’t spend a single penny on homelessness that could instead be donated to cancer research. In fact, cancer research should receive zero funds that could instead be put towards care for needy children. And we shouldn’t even waste money on those kids, when it should instead be used ito fight climate change.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

inglor_cz 2y ago

If the French welfare state, by far the most expansive on the planet (France spends around a third of its GDP on social expenses), is too small for you, you will be sour for the rest of your life, because your demands are unrealistic. In practice, most people including me prefer to spread public spending into various projects, and yes, that means that the homeless don't get an absolute priority. I suspect that you, in your private life, do precisely the same. If you wanted to live your preached values, you would have to live Mother Theresa-like life of ascetism, spending your days and your income to help the poor instead of buying yourself nice electronic gadgets and eating good food. Do you do that? If not, why do you complain about the rest of the world not doing it either?

71bw 2y ago

>but we somehow can't afford to house people who are freezing to death in the streets. Why aren't you taking the freezing-to-death homeless people into your home?