Capitalism is not a victim-less crime.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?
Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless
51–60 of 101 posts
Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless
#52If I couldn't afford both an apartment and office i'd get something like this http://www.podtime.co.uk/
That's assuming I was doing IT work which required having a business address.
Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Housing is only an investment asset in certain disfunctional housing markets (e.g., NYC, SF). The problem in these markets is that it's illegal to sell only housing - you can usually only sell housing + weird quasi-property rights (rent control/stabilization, landlord isn't allowed to easily get rid of tenants, etc). In a market of renters who have leases that don't need to be renewed except via mutual consent of bot…
Yet ask people where they would prefer to live and more want to live in New York than Houston. A city is more than just a sprawl of houses. Much of the attraction of cities comes from other things.
Even more relevant, should Houston become more preferable to New York, you'll see the same silly regulations and rules crop up to keep the riff-raff out.
Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless
#54That are just shocking pictures to me. Well educated (as it seams) and hard working people, that can not afford at least a small regular spot of living. With the last big real estate deal in NY, the problem will be rising. The federal poverty line does not consider the greed of investment companies. It also does not help, to count the number of breads you can (theoretically) buy. Lets face it: Human labor is losing i…
But isn't most people's response to high rent in NY to commute from NJ and not live on a roof? I can't help but think that this man's choice to live on a roof isn't the one that most people would make.
Of course there are different solutions. But is the solution really to travel more? ... and even more, when the rents in the adjacent areas also have gone up?
Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless
#55If I couldn't afford both an apartment and office i'd get something like this http://www.podtime.co.uk/ That's assuming I was doing IT work which required having a business address.
According to the FAQs, the pod's internal temperature matches that of its surroundings. So, unfortunately it will still be brutal in the winter, albeit better than exposed directly to the elements.
But more importantly, where do you put this thing? If you were living in NYC without an apartment, I can't imagine you could just plop this down in the middle of Central Park.
Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless
#56If I couldn't afford both an apartment and office i'd get something like this http://www.podtime.co.uk/ That's assuming I was doing IT work which required having a business address.
According to the FAQs, the pod's internal temperature matches that of its surroundings. So, unfortunately it will still be brutal in the winter, albeit better than exposed directly to the elements. But more importantly, where do you put this thing? If you were living in NYC without an apartment, I can't imagine you could just plop this down in the middle of Central Park.
in an office
Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless
#57That are just shocking pictures to me. Well educated (as it seams) and hard working people, that can not afford at least a small regular spot of living. With the last big real estate deal in NY, the problem will be rising. The federal poverty line does not consider the greed of investment companies. It also does not help, to count the number of breads you can (theoretically) buy. Lets face it: Human labor is losing i…
But isn't most people's response to high rent in NY to commute from NJ and not live on a roof? I can't help but think that this man's choice to live on a roof isn't the one that most people would make.
He didn't have a stable enough income to always maintain a gym membership. I doubt a daily commute and rent would be cheaper.
Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm moved by your story, but wonder what would you propose as a workable alternative for someone in your position? It seems like the requirement that you not share sleeping space makes your situation a very difficult one to address, no? No-cost private hotel rooms seems financially a non-starter.
I read about a scheme in the USA, where they had built single-room accommodation on the edge of some town. These were small huts, no larger than a shed, and held a very small studio/bedsit setup. These were standalone units, basically sheds/huts. The huts were cheap, and being self-contained they were good tools to help someone re-enter the world of housing, of taking care of housing, of cooking for oneself and clean…
The way I see it (my background is Austrian economics), the poor and the homeless are people who cannot afford to live in a city. City-living isn't a right, it's for those who can afford it. No one is owed anything for not having enough money to live in a city.
That means in general I am against helping the poor and the homeless stay in the city, since the point of city is to be a wealth-creation center, not a welfare experiment.
You say you have been homeless. I'd like to ask you what you think of my idea: instead of giving the homeless shelter in the city, and having them drain resources from people who produce wealth, meanwhile not producing anything, why not give them a cheap house in a small farmland with some chicken or turkey, rabbits, a vegetable garden, etc?
That way we solve many problems. 1. the poor are now productive, they produce their own food instead and don't need to drain other people's resources to have food and shelter; 2. they are far from the city, which won't encourage laziness by sending people a message that they can't try and game the system by getting help while still living in the city as a non-producer; 3. it will teach these poor people good work ethics and how work is necessary for everyone to survive, and that they can't just rely on the fact that other people work.
I'd say that besides the farm life, they should have good public libraries nearby in case they want to learn something in order to be able to later join the city life again, this time as a productive member.
Am I being inhumane for trying to make producers out of every human being, and for thinking even the disabled can help pick fruit from bushes or wash them or otherwise contribute in a communal farm setting? Would you be for a program to send the poor and the homeless to farms and basically instate a rule where you can't live in a place you can't afford?
Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read about a scheme in the USA, where they had built single-room accommodation on the edge of some town. These were small huts, no larger than a shed, and held a very small studio/bedsit setup. These were standalone units, basically sheds/huts. The huts were cheap, and being self-contained they were good tools to help someone re-enter the world of housing, of taking care of housing, of cooking for oneself and clean…
The way I see it (my background is Austrian economics), the poor and the homeless are people who cannot afford to live in a city. City-living isn't a right, it's for those who can afford it. No one is owed anything for not having enough money to live in a city. That means in general I am against helping the poor and the homeless stay in the city, since the point of city is to be a wealth-creation center, not a welfar…
The idea that the poor are just too stupid to know how to work is insulting. And 'transporting' folks is what they did to criminals in Britain in the bad old days (usually to Australia).
The point of a city isn't anything like what is suggested. Its a place where a lot of people gathered to live. Some got squeezed out as prices and the job situation changed rapidly. Blaming them is pointless.
I don't think this plan will get much traction.
Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way I see it (my background is Austrian economics), the poor and the homeless are people who cannot afford to live in a city. City-living isn't a right, it's for those who can afford it. No one is owed anything for not having enough money to live in a city. That means in general I am against helping the poor and the homeless stay in the city, since the point of city is to be a wealth-creation center, not a welfar…
The idea that the poor are just too stupid to know how to work is insulting. And 'transporting' folks is what they did to criminals in Britain in the bad old days (usually to Australia). The point of a city isn't anything like what is suggested. Its a place where a lot of people gathered to live. Some got squeezed out as prices and the job situation changed rapidly. Blaming them is pointless. I don't think this plan…
> The idea that the poor are just too stupid to know how to work is insulting.
I read it twice, and I didn't see anywhere in which planfaster suggested that the poor were stupid. Either I'm missing it, or you're reading in to something that isn't there.
> Some got squeezed out as prices and the job situation changed rapidly. Blaming them is pointless.
I agree that the point of cities is inaccurate, but the problem isn't that they've been squeezed out, it's that they don't have homes, but are otherwise still there. Perhaps I'm just being pedantic here, but squeezed out implies that they aren't there any more, and in the case of city homeless, they generally are.
That said, you've completely ignored the point of the post. Utah has had success in giving away vacant homes to their homeless, with the qualifier that if you're getting a free home, you don't also necessarily get to pick its location. Comparing it to penal colonies is a straw man, but regardless, the question is whether or not a homeless person in NYC would accept a free home, perhaps slightly upstate. If not, why not? There are currently more vacant homes across America than there are homeless persons, and it's not infeasible to suggest that if adverse possession were slightly restructured, we could completely solve the problem of involuntary homelessness within a decade, though of course any such solution will introduce new problems as well.