7 ms·

I'm a big fan of a basic income as a replacement to our existing welfare system, but this: >its been proven that its cheaper to give the homeless housing than

• toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > but we don't need to engage in overly sweeping or simplistic arguments to make that case. Utah has shown, through data, that it is cheaper to provide housing directly to the homeless. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/housing-first-solution-to-homelessness-utah http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/housing-first-so... http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free
  • asift 11y ago
    Your claim is sweeping because you're taking the results from one particular case study and extrapolating it out into a generic claim. It's overly simplistic because you're not acknowedging the reality that these conditions could change or may not be applicable in other situations (assuming there were no flaws in the underlying case study analysis to begin with). Edit: this comment was made in response to toomuchtodo's comment prior to editing stating their claim was neither sweeping nor overly simplistic
    • blawson 11y ago
      But isn't that how evidence in support of these these programs should be generated? If not, how else can these programs be accurately evaluated prior to implementing on a more generic scale? The idea is to find better solutions than we have now. The counterarguments you are raising sound to me like they could equally be applicable to any proposed solution. If we can't seriously consider something until we know it works in exactly the same conditions, I feel like nothing would ever change. Let me know if I've read you wrong though.
      • asift 11y ago
        There's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing to empirical evidence to support a claim (in fact, that is an excellent thing to do!). The issue I have with the original claim is that it isn't proven that giving away housing is a cheaper long-term solution than other forms of welfare. I certainly don't think we need to wait until something is proven to have an opinion or move forward in trying to make the world a better place (if we did, we would never take action in most cases), but we shouldn't present research in a way that disingenuously overstates our knowledge.
        • tosseraccount 11y ago
          Cherry picking is allowed in contentious political questions. Apparently.
    • cmdrfred 11y ago
      There is a big moral hazard issue here as well. When you are working for minimum wage to rent the cheapest apartment in town why not become 'homeless' and get a house for free. I have no doubt that if you could eliminate the frauds from the system it would be cheaper, but I don't think you could.
      • gohrt 11y ago
        What is a "fraud"? The simple way to solve this is to offer housing free to all comers, but make it less attractive than existing options.
        • cmdrfred 11y ago
          I'm sure logic like that works well on the playground and at the grateful dead concert, what about all the people who invested in property? What about the value of homes in general? Where would you even house all these people? It isn't always so simple.
          • toomuchtodo 11y ago
            If homes lose value, so be it. And where would we house all of these people? ~500K people in the US are homeless [1], providing housing for 1/600th of the US population is not difficult. [1] http://endhomelessness.org/library/entry/the-state-of-homelessness-in-america-2015 http://endhomelessness.org/library/entry/the-state-of-homele...
          • Daishiman 11y ago
            Well, do you buy property to live on it, or to "invest"? Real estate speculators hardly seem to add any value to the economy.
          • s73v3r 11y ago
            Why do we care about people who treat property as an investment, rather than actually using the property?
      • nosuchthing 11y ago
    • MetricMike 11y ago
      This is usually a fair point to make, but you're pointing at neither the flaws in the underlying case study nor the weakness in generalizing Utah to a wider area. That's not really fair, especially since parent comment is providing data.
      • asift 11y ago
        The parent comment is now significantly different from when I replied to it. The articles were originally cited, but my response was in reference to their claim that their prior statement: >its been proven that its cheaper to give the homeless housing than to pay for the resulting issues of not providing housing ...was neither sweeping nor overly-simplistic. The merits of the referenced case study--which may be an excellent case study--provide no grounds for refuting my claim that their prior statement was sweeping and overly-simplistic. Also, when making an argument based on extrapolated data, the burden for justifying extrapolation lies on the person making that argument. Regardless, my only real point here is that the original claim (that giving people housing is cheaper than other forms of welfare has been "proven") is simply too powerful of a claim. It might be a good policy and it may in fact be cheaper, but it's incorrect to say any position on this topic has been "proven".
        • toomuchtodo 11y ago
          asift, I did indeed edit my comment, removing my assertion that my claim was not sweeping and overly-simplistic (I wish HN would keep an edit history that was visible). With that said, I still disagree with you. If an experiment takes place, and data is apparent, that data stands on its own merit; if that data can then be used to make a statement, its proof, not "sweeping and overly-simplistic". You can disagree with me, that's fine. I believe, based on the data, that we should be giving housing to the homeless. If you don't agree, I encourage you to engage politically; I do, and I'm passionate about positive social change. I appreciate you engaging in discourse with me in a civil manner; it happens much less than I wish it would (in general).
          • asift 11y ago