Studies show that it costs between two and four times as much to leave a homeless person on the the street as it would cost to house them and provide a case manager to help them get on their feet (see e.g. here, also summarizing similar studies). In light of this, it seems shocking that there are still homeless people living on the streets, and leads to interesting questions about political ignorance, symbolic punishments, and the value of letting some people suffer as a warning to others. It also has implications for other policy proposals, perhaps most importantly something like a guaranteed basic income, which is likely to be net beneficial to society but is strongly opposed on mostly emotional and principled grounds.
I wonder if there is anyone here would take the harder position, though: that, even if the net impact on society is negative, we should collectively suffer to ensure that certain people suffer to the fullest extent possible. This assumes that most homeless people bear significant blame for their plight, which is debateable, but for the sake of argument, it’s worth conceding. Similar paradoxes exist around prison sentencing, e.g. the cost of punishing some criminals is likely to be much higher than the damage those criminals do to society (even taking into account deterrent effects).
In such cases, would anyone argue that it is better that everyone suffer to ensure that the wrongdoers suffer more, or is it better to do what’s best for the whole even if it means some blameworthy people get a free lunch?
Well, if I wasn’t so certain that I would actually win, I would be glad to take up the strategy of your opponent, but considering our history …
The number one disease in the USA is “Heart Disease”; Bleeding Hearts vs Hard Hearts, Liberals vs Conservatives.
What ever happened to a healthy heart that provides blood when needed and not when it isn’t?
The issue of how much heart or blood to supply becomes an issue of; 1) true need.
And true need becomes an issue of understanding 2) “The Purpose”.
And since Man has never been able to properly resolve that issue, it all becomes an issue of 3) Insanity.
What should one do with 7 billion insane people, a large portion of which are not merely suffering but suffering as outcasts of humanity - homeless? Is it better to let Man continue his insane plight or to take up arms and suffer the slings an arrows against the love for those living?
Myehhh … I do what I do and you do what someone programmed you to do - “Us vs Them”, yet again.
Let me ask you a simpler question;
Regardless of whatever good or bad that “should” be done for whatever reasoning or impetus, 4) What do you honestly think that YOU could do about any of it?
Only from there is there hope - only from your own mended heart.
Yes, it’s a time tested strategy to maintain the utmost confidence that one is right, and to avoid exposing one’s ideas to anything that risks eroding one’s confidence.
This is a good question in general, and in voting today, I certainly tried to support candidates that seemed to know the limits of the position to which they aspire.
But in terms of personal action, I think there’s real merit in getting the ideas out there, discussing them, fleshing them out for myself and bringing them up in mixed company to try to convince others. Good ideas are contagious, so writing them up here does some small part to put them into the network of ideas that ultimately runs the world. Even better, it shines light on the holes that are in all our ideas, so that the next time I bring them up, the next time I let them shape my actions, they are better approximations of the the truth and the good.
So, to answer your question with regard to this specific issue: I honestly think I can shift some Baysian priors about when government handouts are called for. If you’d never thought about the cost of having homeless people living on the street, I imagine that finding out that it’s many times as expensive of simply providing them housing would shift you toward accepting government provision of housing the homeless as a cost-cutting strategy.
Maybe 10 years ago or so, I ran across a member of a committee appointed to fix the homeless problem (no doubt handed down from the UN). So in my usual style, I laid out a comprehensive list of issues concerning the needs of a person living under such a socialistic reign; Environment isolation (“shelter”), communication, transportation, information, inspiration, occupation, and so on. Then immediately recognized that there was really only one on the list that the Pharaoh actually had any interest in. So I explained how the government would benefit by providing communication in the form of cell-phones to the homeless. It took a few years for them to set it up through “capitalist” corporations, but eventually “free cell-phones for the homeless” was a reality.
You really just have to be speaking to the right person at the right time when it comes to socialist nations. Your financial breakdown concerning housing is a good example. It just has to be communicated to the right person at the right time (“the king’s ear-wig”). They are never bright enough to figure such things out for themselves, else they wouldn’t be qualified for socialist management.
But it still seems incredibly amazing to me that a nation such as the USA (United Supreme Archetype) with all of its resources and intellectual capacity can’t figure out how to properly occupy, inspire, and house its serfs and slaves. They really need to just vote a good engineer into the presidency for merely one term. The whole game would be over. But of course the Godwannabes would have hell trying to recapture absolute control, so that will never happen (or he would be shot within the first month or two).
Basically the peasant’s problems will all go away when and if the king ever actually wants them to. Currently he thrives on disguise, obfuscation, and extortion so he needs for people to be suffering miserably, else he loses control. There is no other real problem in the world to solve in any category. The actual insanity of the management is truly the only actual problem the entire world has.
In the US, the people are the king. And that, combined with widespread ignorance of what certain policies do, leads to a situation where it is very difficult to implement a program like this. I imagine many lawmakers who could increase housing for the homeless are aware that it would save money and be more humane, but because it’s virtually impossible to convince a majority of their voting constituency of that fact, they don’t try to move the programs forward.
“Permanent supportive housing” includes case management to connect individuals with public services.
It’s premature, in this conversation, to talk about the order in which this and other policies should be implemented. Here we’re discussing whether giving away housing to the homeless saves society money (and other similar situations where giving handouts to individuals who are regarded as undeserving is better for the collective). We’re not trying to build a comprehensive platform or outline the federal budget.
OK. One way to reduce the budget deficit seems to be housing the homeless, because it reduces net costs.
What use are kings who aren’t knowledgeable to/of their kingdoms. I don’t think we really have a choice, it’s either voting for devil A. or devil B. in elections choose wisely, except neither of them are a wise choice.
In a town that I lived in was this old lady that lived on the streets pushing around a shopping cart filled with her things. A poor person? No, she had money in the banks, she did not want a house, she had one when raising her family but, after, she sold it off, sold the family business and became a happy homeless lady. No household expenses and worries.
Homeless with children, yea they more than likely want a home. But, do all? Most likely not. If I had no family, I am not sure I would keep this place. Wandering about in my senior years has a certain youthful appeal.
Depends on how severe the problem is. Some can’t be helped.
I do take it into consideration. We are talking about this society as it is now. Those unable to function or unwilling to participate could possibly be integrated back into another kind of society.
This (our) society is not going to change overnight. It’s also not going to change to accommodate some small minority. Especially since any change will alienate someone else.
It could begin to change over night. Not even that has began taking place. People may wonder why, well it is because they are not knowledgeable. They follow “Ignorance is bliss”, they don’t know so why worry, without striving to know at all.
I am not implying, I am saying it. If I had no one I would be most likely without the pressures of a home. Shelter from weather can be found, why maintain an expense that just digs into your pockets if it is just one person. Not all of us are bound into keeping properties. Put, the numbers of homeless single people next to all the people that are not homeless. The ratio is about right. Think about those that wandered and discovered new parts of the world , on ships, horseback or on foot. There will be those that actually prefer not being attached to property. I am attached now, I prefer it, I also have family and all the social responsibilities attached to caring for family. If I lose my family, that is a whole other ball game.
