Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 285 posts

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#141

Post by ProAm »

organsnyder wrote: post #86
ProAm wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I disagree, that's like asking a scientist to collect false facts and report on it every year? Is that still good science? No. Will the scientist still get funding and look like he is doing something meaningful? Yes. Is society better off because of his work? No.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#142

Post by JustSomeNobody »

ergothus wrote: post #62
mabbo wrote: post #42

The '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. 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…

"Hmmm... My spreadsheet says you earned a bit more than your neighbor down the road last year. I'm going to have to take that, mmmkay?"

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#143

Post by komali2 »

mabbo wrote: post #42

The '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…

I thought right-wingers liked raising taxes? See: most American Republican Party tax plans.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#145

Post by vinay427 »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #138
mabbo wrote: post #42

The '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…

Now, how do you get a left-wing politician to agree to some right-wing ideals? I mean, just to be fair, right?

I consider myself on the left, and I would for instance agree to less regulation when it favors increased consumer choice without sacrificing quality of life. There are a few cases of this, but in the end many industries have opted to solely favor profits instead, resulting in regulation that often has bipartisan support.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#146

Post by organsnyder »

ProAm wrote: post #141
organsnyder wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I disagree, that's like asking a scientist to collect false facts and report on it every year? Is that still good science? No. Will the scientist still get funding and look like he is doing something meaningful? Yes. Is society better off because of his work? No.

They're not "false facts". We're interested in the change of the metric from year to year. Unless there are other factors gaming the statistics, the change over time is valid and useful.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#147

Post by dahart »

edavis wrote: post #137
mabbo wrote: post #42

The '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. I think this is a fine approach for the left to take, as long as the moral foundation is never sacrificed. In other words, it should always be "we should do this because it's the right/moral/dignified thing to do (and if it saves money too, great)" rather than "…

> I think this is a fine approach for the left to take, as long as the moral foundation is never sacrificed

This is why we have Republicans in the first place who won't even consider implementing social programs. They believe so strongly in their moral foundation of lower taxes that they refuse to consider the evidence.

Being willing to look at the evidence objectively is something everyone needs to get better at, conservatives and liberals alike.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#148

Post by vondur »

xraystyle wrote: post #21
_m8fo wrote: post #3

I wonder if better/more accessible health care would eliminate homeless as a side effect. It seems much of the homeless in Boston, anyway is mental health/health related. I doubt anyone will say that what Utah did here is bad , but you have to wonder what's preventing a more comprehensive solution (the answer is politics, but ideally you'd get a more specific answer).

It seems to me that largely the issue is there's no mechanism to force people into treatment for drug/alcohol addiction and mental illness. Here in Los Angeles the number of homeless who are severely mentally ill is incredibly high. It's quite common to see homeless people standing on street corners, yelling and screaming at non-existent antagonists, behaving bizarrely, urinating and defecating in broad daylight, and…

You care completely correct about the obvious need for mental health and addiction care. I'm guessing 90% of the people living on the street are drug addicts and have mental illnesses. It's a hard problem to deal with as just giving someone housing that has these kinds of issues won't fix the underlying problems and they'll end back up on the streets. In California, due to a court order and some newly enacted laws via propositions, a lot of people have been released from jails, which I'm guessing is where many of the mentally ill/drug addicts previously ended up.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#149

Post by kvb »

tn13 wrote: post #109
ergothus wrote: post #62

Earlier 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…

> . The US has known for at least a decade that spending more on IRS agents would earn more money than it would cost. Isn't that proven to be a mostly false notion? Lower taxes tend to bring in more revenue and create more employment.

No, see Brownback's Kansas tax cuts for just one recent example showing that (at least in our current tax regime) lowering rates brings in less revenue.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#150

Post by Tenhundfeld »

ska wrote: post #131
Consultant32452 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're a wealthy person anywhere in the world and you have a really terrible disease you're probably going to come to the US to get care. Why? Because we have the highest quality healthcare in the world. There's a reason why there was some mild drama over Danny Williams (Premier of Canadian province) hopped the border to have heart surgery in the US. We're the best. What we lack is healthcare access for the poor.…

Why? Because we have the highest quality healthcare in the world. This is one of those statements that kind-of true, but not in the sense that people bringing it up mostly mean. In fact "best in the world" care depends largely on disease, in many cases the best teams in the world are in the US, in others they are not. If you are (globally) rich, you go wherever the best care is. But that typically isn't "the US", tha…

Exactly, the US has many of the leading (highest quality) medical specialists, which you would expect from the richest country with the best research university system.

That does not mean the US has the highest quality healthcare in terms of health outcomes for the population.

If anyone reading this believes we (the US) have the highest quality health outcomes, please do some research with an open mind. We're not terrible, just far worse than you'd expect given our wealth. We are actually great in some cases, e.g., certain types of cancer treatment (I think, don't have stats at hand). But in many, many categories, our outcomes are middle of the pack or towards the bottom for developed countries. For example, IIRC, we're quite middling/mediocre in life expectancy, infant mortality, heart attack mortality, % of diabetics with managed care, efficiency of spend, etc.

Post reply on HN