3 ms·

This is weird political propaganda. The first post misrepresented annual costs of housing.

by snissn 6mo ago

dwroberts 6mo ago
Yeah this was my immediate impression as well. The assertion that homing every homeless person is the same as putting them up in unique per-person accommodation that ends up costing 65 billion is absurd.
- littlestymaar 6mo ago
  > the same as putting them up in unique per-person accommodation And a new one every year, at that.
littlestymaar 6mo ago
The first one is utterly stupid. Housing is a very complex issue that goes well beyond the sheer cost of the housing unit. Do I think “solving homelessness” is easy with $10B? No. Does the calculation made in the answer makes any sense: absolutely not.
- southerntofu 6mo ago
  Came here to say this. It takes political will, but money is certainly not the issue. It's just like with healthcare, free healthcare for all costs much less per person than privatized healthcare like they have in the USA. It's just a matter of designing the system properly so the money doesn't get siphoned off by parasite investors.
- Kwpolska 6mo ago
  Also, how do you solve homelessness? Giving every homeless person a subsidised house isn't going to work out if that person can't afford it (especially when the subsidies run out), because they're also unemployed, or because they have a drinking problem which means they trash the house or spend all their income on alcohol and can't afford rent. For some people, temporary free housing, rehab, and help with finding employment could be a cheap and effective way to get them back on track and able to afford a place with their own income after a few months.
  - littlestymaar 6mo ago
    > Also, how do you solve homelessness? That's the problem: there are many completely different situations that lead someone to become homeless, and the solutions must be tailored to the specific case you are targeting. (it's a variant of the Anna Karenina principle: “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”) And you also need to take into account the role of homelessness as a coercive force in modern societies: it the treat that keeps worker behave at work, prevent unhappy women from leaving their husband, and make sure tenants pay their rent to their landlord and make sure people repay their mortgage before any other expense. Remove it suddenly and then you'll probably end up needing way more housing than what you planned for previously homeless people. And it would absolutely tank the real estate market. I'm convinced that all of the above would be a good thing for society, but the shock would be absolutely gigantic. It's not just about investing a few billions of dollar, the cost of the housing per se would be negligible in the earthquake that it would cause.
- nailer 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - littlestymaar 6mo ago
    > > The first one is utterly stupid. > OK, why? Come on. I literally spent the rest of the comment on that. … > > Housing is a very complex issue > OK, why? Because you can't increase it enough without also tanking the real estate market. And because homelessness has many factors you can't fix with a one size fits all solution. > > Does the calculation made in the answer makes any sense: absolutely not. > OK, why? Because nobody is ever going to pay a brand new home to each homeless every year (which is what the calculation is about). There's no point in participating in any kind of adult discussion if you can't read the other's comment. Also brandolini's law.
    - nailer 6mo ago
      It's possible you and I might be discussing different things by 'the answer'. The second item (the first is about election predictions) is: > It would cost about $1 billion annually to end family homelessness. And about $10 billion to end all homelessness. But our politicians would rather spend that on genocide. with the answer being: > False. Since 2019, California has spent about $24 billion on homelessness, but in this five-year period, homelessness increased by about 30,000. Which is fairly clear, I don't think would label 'bullshit' and it doesn't seem like you're trying to refute. If you mean something else by 'the answer' I apologize.
      - littlestymaar 6mo ago
        > with the answer being: > > False. Since 2019, California has spent about $24 billion on homelessness, but in this five-year period, homelessness increased by about 30,000 Ah, I see the problem now, OP changed their previous answer to this question, which explains the lack of mutual understanding between the two of us. The previous answer, which I called bullshit, used to multiply the number of homeless people in California by the price of a buying house and used that as an argument. I think we can agree that this is a very poor one as I've not see anyone suggesting buying real estate at market rate and giving it to homeless people for free. Also, it used to be the first question. That being said, I don't think the question makes any sense anyway even with its updated answer: how you spend the money has as much impact as how much money you spend. The answer means we can agree that California's current policy to fight homelessness is arguably a failure, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be a cheaper policy leading to better results (like how European countries spend much less in healthcare than Americans for a significantly better health and higher life expectancy). But on the flip side, even if such a good policy existed, that wouldn't mean solving homelessness is trivial like the original tweet suggests.
adamm255 6mo ago
All the references about Data Center water use were from one guy too.
zug_zug 6mo ago
I agree. Also put some about global warming on there, or pollution, or efficacy of the covid vaccine.

This is weird political propaganda. The first post misrepresented annual costs of housing.

by snissn 6mo ago

This is weird political propaganda. The first post misrepresented annual costs of housing.

Yeah this was my immediate impression as well. The assertion that homing every homeless person is the same as putting them up in unique per-person accommodation that ends up costing 65 billion is absurd.

littlestymaar 6mo ago
> the same as putting them up in unique per-person accommodation And a new one every year, at that.

littlestymaar 6mo ago

The first one is utterly stupid. Housing is a very complex issue that goes well beyond the sheer cost of the housing unit. Do I think “solving homelessness” is easy with $10B? No. Does the calculation made in the answer makes any sense: absolutely not.

southerntofu 6mo ago
Came here to say this. It takes political will, but money is certainly not the issue. It's just like with healthcare, free healthcare for all costs much less per person than privatized healthcare like they have in the USA. It's just a matter of designing the system properly so the money doesn't get siphoned off by parasite investors.
Kwpolska 6mo ago
Also, how do you solve homelessness? Giving every homeless person a subsidised house isn't going to work out if that person can't afford it (especially when the subsidies run out), because they're also unemployed, or because they have a drinking problem which means they trash the house or spend all their income on alcohol and can't afford rent. For some people, temporary free housing, rehab, and help with finding employment could be a cheap and effective way to get them back on track and able to afford a place with their own income after a few months.
- littlestymaar 6mo ago
  > Also, how do you solve homelessness? That's the problem: there are many completely different situations that lead someone to become homeless, and the solutions must be tailored to the specific case you are targeting. (it's a variant of the Anna Karenina principle: “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”) And you also need to take into account the role of homelessness as a coercive force in modern societies: it the treat that keeps worker behave at work, prevent unhappy women from leaving their husband, and make sure tenants pay their rent to their landlord and make sure people repay their mortgage before any other expense. Remove it suddenly and then you'll probably end up needing way more housing than what you planned for previously homeless people. And it would absolutely tank the real estate market. I'm convinced that all of the above would be a good thing for society, but the shock would be absolutely gigantic. It's not just about investing a few billions of dollar, the cost of the housing per se would be negligible in the earthquake that it would cause.
nailer 6mo ago
[flagged]
- littlestymaar 6mo ago
  > > The first one is utterly stupid. > OK, why? Come on. I literally spent the rest of the comment on that. … > > Housing is a very complex issue > OK, why? Because you can't increase it enough without also tanking the real estate market. And because homelessness has many factors you can't fix with a one size fits all solution. > > Does the calculation made in the answer makes any sense: absolutely not. > OK, why? Because nobody is ever going to pay a brand new home to each homeless every year (which is what the calculation is about). There's no point in participating in any kind of adult discussion if you can't read the other's comment. Also brandolini's law.
  - nailer 6mo ago
    It's possible you and I might be discussing different things by 'the answer'. The second item (the first is about election predictions) is: > It would cost about $1 billion annually to end family homelessness. And about $10 billion to end all homelessness. But our politicians would rather spend that on genocide. with the answer being: > False. Since 2019, California has spent about $24 billion on homelessness, but in this five-year period, homelessness increased by about 30,000. Which is fairly clear, I don't think would label 'bullshit' and it doesn't seem like you're trying to refute. If you mean something else by 'the answer' I apologize.
    - littlestymaar 6mo ago
      > with the answer being: > > False. Since 2019, California has spent about $24 billion on homelessness, but in this five-year period, homelessness increased by about 30,000 Ah, I see the problem now, OP changed their previous answer to this question, which explains the lack of mutual understanding between the two of us. The previous answer, which I called bullshit, used to multiply the number of homeless people in California by the price of a buying house and used that as an argument. I think we can agree that this is a very poor one as I've not see anyone suggesting buying real estate at market rate and giving it to homeless people for free. Also, it used to be the first question. That being said, I don't think the question makes any sense anyway even with its updated answer: how you spend the money has as much impact as how much money you spend. The answer means we can agree that California's current policy to fight homelessness is arguably a failure, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be a cheaper policy leading to better results (like how European countries spend much less in healthcare than Americans for a significantly better health and higher life expectancy). But on the flip side, even if such a good policy existed, that wouldn't mean solving homelessness is trivial like the original tweet suggests.

adamm255 6mo ago

All the references about Data Center water use were from one guy too.

zug_zug 6mo ago

I agree. Also put some about global warming on there, or pollution, or efficacy of the covid vaccine.