4 ms·

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 ab

by nailer 7mo 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 7mo 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.
- nailer 7mo ago
  > 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 Agreed.

by nailer 7mo ago

littlestymaar 7mo 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.

nailer 7mo ago
> 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 Agreed.