So you redefined homelessness and end up counting less people in order to call it success.
How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness
81–90 of 285 posts
Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness
#82The 'Housing First' model was really pushed hard by Stephen Harper as Prime Minister of Canada. It was weird because he is such a staunch right-wing kind of guy, yet here he was putting money towards what seems like a very left-wing socialist idea. But he, like Lloyd Pendleton in this article, apparently figured out that it saves a lot of money, ideology be damned. Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing…
Policy is very regularly unrelated to ideology. I consider myself conservative in ideology, but very rarely agree with the policies of US conservatives, and relatively often agree with policies of US liberals, but I almost never agree on the principal arguments liberals might put forth to justify the policy. For example, I advocate for freedom of immigration and emigration as a matter of freedom of trade. I advocate…
Well said...
Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing politicians to agree to some left-wing ideals: prove that it will save money and let them lower taxes. I've certainly heard this argument from the (few) libertarian sources that are considering basic income. They are opposed to "entitlement" programs, but see a (theoretically) cheaper entitlement program as better than an expensive one. (Perhaps they also think t…
UBI is being pushed by a subset of the wealthy primarily because it will be a juicy source of rent, in both the economic and colloquial senses. Every cent of UBI will be absorbed by housing costs absent the sort of regulation that would itself make UBI politically untenable (i.e. because it would not benefit the wealthy.)
>Every cent of UBI will be absorbed by housing cost
I think you're wrong about that because UBI frees people to go and live anywhere. They won't be trapped in lousy housing one bus-ride from their McJob anymore. The only way housing would suck up the entire UBI is if everyone were trapped in a California situation where new housing was impossible.
Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness
#84The 'Housing First' model was really pushed hard by Stephen Harper as Prime Minister of Canada. It was weird because he is such a staunch right-wing kind of guy, yet here he was putting money towards what seems like a very left-wing socialist idea. But he, like Lloyd Pendleton in this article, apparently figured out that it saves a lot of money, ideology be damned. Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing…
"Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing politicians to agree to some left-wing ideals: prove that it will save money and let them lower taxes."
You could make the same case for health care. There are plenty of countries that get good quality health care at a much lower cost for the country but somehow in the US it's impossible to learn from that. I always though the US is a pragmatic country but over the last 15 years I have seen an increase in blind ideology. Things get opposed vigorously out of principle.
Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness
#85*From December 2015
Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
When was the US unemployment rate definition changed? I know there are debates around whether the rate we normally talk about is the most important indicator, but the definition has remained the same for decades, AFAIK.
Correct I see how I didn't explain well the point I was trying to make. Its always been the same, but it's a tad shady on what they actually count as unemployed. For instance they do not count discouraged workers and involuntary part-timers, or people who stopped looking because they simply cannot find work. The unemployment percent in the US is largely a political talking point/fodder wherein the government doesn't…
As long as you're tracking the same metric over time, it's still useful. I haven't studied the data to back this up, but I suspect that it and other unemployment metrics will tend to follow parallel trajectories over time. That's not to say that we can ignore the other metrics—they obviously provide useful information—but it still provides a good year-over-year comparison.
I see two scenarios that could be "shady": 1. The metric calculation is drastically changed (hasn't happened, to my knowledge) 2. The government somehow manages to "tweak" the economy in a way that artificially alters this metric (unlikely)
Regarding unemployment percent: The government doesn't have a lot of direct control over this (though federal spending does provide tons of jobs, obviously), but policy certainly can cause major implications. Health care, banking, and environmental regulations (to name a few) can cause massive shifts in employment.
Come to think of it, I can see a scenario where federal policy could keep the unemployment rate lower relative to other metrics: The Affordable Care Act made it easier for people to get coverage outside of employment. Perhaps this allowed some people to settle for less-than-full-time positions, or to remain unemployed for longer than they would have (perhaps to care for family, or to pursue an entrepreneurial dream, or education...). This could cause the traditional unemployment rate to remain artificially low, compared to before the ACA was implemented. No idea if this is actually true, and one could debate whether it's a good outcome or not, but it's an interesting possibility.
Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness
#87Vancouver tried the same thing. The made a policy of eradicating homelessness by X date and the city bought up SROs to put them in and other housing options. The problem is once the rest of Canada's homeless heard about this they came in droves, often given one way bus tickets by police, so it's impossible to solve chronic homelessness without some kind of national effort. Utah this strategy works because there isn't…
Homelessness is a serious problem in Vancouver. Just walking along granville st., aka "entertainment district" (hard to NOT be snarky here too many awful memories) there's vagabond population along the sidewalk in front of luxury shops.
They commit crimes because they are mentally ill and take drugs. They aggressively pan handle even while leeching off our generous social programs while the middle class can't even find proper homes.
Worse, people support the population by pretending to be generous but in reality self serving their own ego to be perceived as a "nice & empathetic human". Pan handlers know this very well and exploit it. Even getting pissy and whiny when you refuse to give change. It's like they feel entitled to free money and too strung out to even put an effort in it.
I've given money to street performers and people hustling. These homeless population in Vancouver are mostly drug addicts and broken humans who are unable to help themselves. They will buy drugs with the money you give them with high certainty.
It's seriously putting inconvenience to the rest of the city and you are absolutely right that the rest of Canada's homeless population are given a one way greyhound ticket to Vancouver.
I refuse to pay taxes towards people who have no desire to change their situation and instead feel entitled and constantly leeching off the backs of hard working folks who are also struggling.
When the housing market collapses in Vancouver, the city is going to have a tough time forcefully relocating the homeless population.
Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes thank you, the article does contain a lot more info than just the headline. Homelessness is a more complex issue than it appears at the surface. There a many stages of homelessness and different demographics of it. A shelter I contribute to here in Portland focuses specifically on homeless families who have recently fell on hard times and tries to address getting them back on their feet and into sustainable jobs…
Of course, but how is chronic defined and measured, and how has that changed historically? I've heard that the definition is ever-changing. I read the article
Did you really? The fifth paragraph defines it:
"The chronically homeless, on the other hand, are a subset of the homeless population that is often the most vulnerable. These are people who have been living on the streets for more than a year, or four times in the past three years, and who have a "disabling condition" that might include serious mental illness, an addiction or a physical disability or illness."
Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Salt Lake City has a lot of seasonal homeless, people who come for the summer and leave for the winter. Seasonal homeless are not counted as chronic homeless. There are no homeless people anywhere else in the state so the ones you see in Salt Lake are it. Not all panhandlers are homeless. Most of the homeless in Salt Lake City seem to disappear at night. There are no massive homeless camps like you see in San Francis…
Having Winter weather that will kill people sure makes not counting seasonal homeless a great way to say you don't have any homeless problems.
Also shipping your homeless and/or mentally ill to CA.
Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obama lowered taxes, in fact no Democratic president has raised taxes during my lifetime (I'm 25). It's pretty strange people always claim this is a thing when it's just flat false.
probably expecting a lot from username "douche"
That's the best you can come up with? Go home and start over