4 ms·

From a humanitarian point of view, it seems strange that the money-saving aspect is the deciding factor on this, as opposed to improving quality of life. But ev

by Udo 13y ago

From a humanitarian point of view, it seems strange that the money-saving aspect is the deciding factor on this, as opposed to improving quality of life. But even so, even if it saves costs, people - including the prevailing winds on HN - are still against it. There seems to be a large number of opponents who'd rather spend a multiple of that housing and social care cost on jails and other measures designed to make sure these people stay away from society without any chance of coming back. I'd genuinely be interested to hear why. If a program exists that re-integrates a majority of these people, wouldn't it be worth the expense even if it cost more (which it apparently doesn't)?

_delirium 13y ago
> I'd genuinely be interested to hear why. Many Americans are sadists who think the poor deserve what's coming to them, and are actually willing to spend extra money to ensure it comes to them.
- mikeash 13y ago
  See also: just-world hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
- Udo 13y ago
  The word "perverse" has been used on this thread and on other occasions to describe social improvement measures. I'm not sure all these people here are sadists, there must be something else at work. As far as I can tell the standard argument seems to be that these homeless aren't productive members of society so it somehow makes sense to put resources into actively punishing them for it and making sure the conditions are reinforced that allowed them to become antisocials in the first place. Yet, at the same time, there are a lot of true parasites in society who actually get paid a lot, and who we kind of worship. In the end, you might be right. But it's not a satisfying explanation.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    >The word "perverse" has been used on this thread Only in the phrase 'perverse incentive'. Which simply means a system has a high potential for unintended consequences / being gamed. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the basic idea is noble.

by Udo 13y ago

_delirium 13y ago

> I'd genuinely be interested to hear why. Many Americans are sadists who think the poor deserve what's coming to them, and are actually willing to spend extra money to ensure it comes to them.

mikeash 13y ago
See also: just-world hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
Udo 13y ago
The word "perverse" has been used on this thread and on other occasions to describe social improvement measures. I'm not sure all these people here are sadists, there must be something else at work. As far as I can tell the standard argument seems to be that these homeless aren't productive members of society so it somehow makes sense to put resources into actively punishing them for it and making sure the conditions are reinforced that allowed them to become antisocials in the first place. Yet, at the same time, there are a lot of true parasites in society who actually get paid a lot, and who we kind of worship. In the end, you might be right. But it's not a satisfying explanation.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  >The word "perverse" has been used on this thread Only in the phrase 'perverse incentive'. Which simply means a system has a high potential for unintended consequences / being gamed. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the basic idea is noble.