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

Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 560 posts

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#221

Post by fjsolwmv »

CodeSheikh wrote: post #130

I dont't care if this is a PR stint to ward of recent criticism Bezos is getting from Bernie et al but if this fund goes and actually help and make a real life impact on the lives of homeless people, then I am fine and I will hold back my criticism of Amazon. I mean clearly I have not done enough to mitigate homelessness in this country who am I to question others motives trying to solve the same problem?

Bezos could fight a lot of homelessness directly by paying his warehouse workers a decent wage.

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#222

Post by ageitgey »

dmode wrote: post #101

Finally someone realizes that there is a problem. There is no justification in the biggest economy of the world to have this much poverty and homelessness. I am amazed every time I travel to Europe, how few homeless people there are, despite their economic growth lagging the US. And it is inherently a solvable problem with adequate resources. We have $1 trillion for the military. Surely, we can spare a few billions a…

Agreed 100%. I live in California which has the same massive homelessness issues as Seattle. I also travel to Europe frequently and have noticed the same stark contrast where they seem to do much better at this.

To try to understand why homelessness feels so much worse an California than in Europe, I did some very basic research (which I also posted on a similar thread once before). The numbers are shocking:

San Francisco population: 884,363 (2017/Wikipedia)

San Francisco unsheltered population (conservative): 6,600 (7,499 SF self-reported homeless count * 88.2% HUD estimated unsheltered rate)

Unsheltered population rate (conservative): ~0.75% of residents (my calculation) - nearly 1 in 100!

Compare that with London, a city also experiencing a homelessness epidemic due to explosively rising housing costs:

London population: 8,825,000 (2017/Wikipedia)

London unsheltered population: 1,137 (homeless.org.uk)

Unsheltered rate: ~0.01% of residents (my calculation)

Homelessness rates in SF are absurdly high. In fact, there are more unsheltered homeless people in SF than the entire country of England(!):

San Francisco unsheltered population: 6,600 (2017)

England unsheltered population: 4,751 (2017)

They are not equivalent situations obviously, but somehow a country with a population greater than the state of California manages to have fewer homeless people than one relatively tiny city in California. Something is very wrong.

Homelessness is a complex issue with lots of intertwined causes and no single solution. Not only is affordable housing an issue, but mental health treatment is an equally important problem. I don't have the answers. But I do know that it is a public health crisis and we are currently completely failing to solve it. We need big changes if we actually care about addressing it and we as a country definitely have the resources to do it.

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#223

Post by fjsolwmv »

asdfman123 wrote: post #207
capdeck wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like this was cheaper than upping the salaries of warehouse workers to get them off food stamps and provide healthcare. For Bezos this is just another calculation, nothing more.

I feel people like Jeff Bezos, who already have all the money in the world, are more interested in winning/power and money is only a way of keeping score. Bezos is probably interested in growing Amazon into the biggest business in the world, and part of that strategy is cutting costs to the bone. What I'm trying to say is he's looking for a way to maximize Amazon's growth rate, not necessarily pinch pennies (pinch bi…

That is contradictory. If money is how he keeps score than he isn't going to give any way.

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#224

Post by fixermark »

RandallBrown wrote: post #189
godzillabrennus wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lived in California for close to two years and I agree. The streets may not be the best sample though. There are homeless people who work and live in their cars. Getting government and NIMBYISM out of housing policy will lead to affordable housing and is paramount to fixing this. Opportunity Zone Investments should also help some.

Seattle's homeless camping problem has gotten really out of hand in the last 2 years. I moved away about a year and a half ago, when homeless tents were pretty common. When I visited recently, it was stunning how much worse it is. Almost every green space in the city (except for popular parks) is filled with tents. It's really crazy.

It's one of the side-effects of having a relatively nice climate.

Quite frankly, given how many decades Seattle has had a significant homeless population, I'm surprised the city hasn't taken point on treatment and housing programs. They have a unique opportunity to really help a lot of people out if they'd step up and do it.

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#225

Post by ithilglin909 »

CydeWeys wrote: post #197
ithilglin909 wrote: post #158

This isn’t popular, but I’d challenge anyone who thinks homelessness in Seattle isn’t primarily an addiction and mental illness problem to go spend a few afternoons in areas with significant homeless populations (3rd Ave in Pioneer Square is a great place, if you need a suggestion). It’s not that affordable housing isn’t a problem in Seattle. I know people who couldn’t live on their own in Seattle anymore due to rent…

You're not seeing all the other homeless people though who were displaced by high housing prices and who aren't spending all their time drugged out in highly visible urban areas. There are many homeless people living out of cars or shelters, or in tents. Many of them even still have jobs, they just can't afford housing. See: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ucla-anderson-forecast...

I'm not against programs to help people who can't afford normal housing. However, that's not the specific, hugely obvious problem in Seattle.

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#226

Post by corysama »

skrebbel wrote: post #186
1053r wrote: post #118

Homelessness in the USA in most places is an emotional or mental problem, but in some parts of the country, it's actually an affordability / NIMBYism / price control problem. For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, there is a broad swath of folks who work full time (or more!) who have three choices: 1) Live with roommates, often exceeding the legal limits on the dwelling on the number of occupants, or live in ill…

I'm a clueless foreigner [0], and HN is my only window into the Bay Area (and, in a more general sense, into America), so I appreciate your writeup. On HN my impression that absolutely everybody agrees that SF and the cities near it should just build more and higher. It appears to solve all the problems (insane rent, extreme commutes, homelessness, poo), so why is it politically untenable? Who exactly is pro insane r…

Property owners in SF are extremely motivated to be politically active. The insane raises in property values are literally their profits. Voting is not the only avenue. Try to build anything and the whole neighborhood will call for “studies on the effect on the community” to keep you tied up in court for years.

SF does spend a huge amount on its homeless. But, it’s apparently not effective. I can’t speak to why.

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#227

Post by jorblumesea »

dmode wrote: post #101

Finally someone realizes that there is a problem. There is no justification in the biggest economy of the world to have this much poverty and homelessness. I am amazed every time I travel to Europe, how few homeless people there are, despite their economic growth lagging the US. And it is inherently a solvable problem with adequate resources. We have $1 trillion for the military. Surely, we can spare a few billions a…

Do you really think the problem is at the realization phase?

I'd say we all know this to be true, but whether we care enough is another question. There's a fair amount of people in this country that see homelessness as "lazy".

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#228

Post by toasterlovin »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #176
ithilglin909 wrote: post #158

This isn’t popular, but I’d challenge anyone who thinks homelessness in Seattle isn’t primarily an addiction and mental illness problem to go spend a few afternoons in areas with significant homeless populations (3rd Ave in Pioneer Square is a great place, if you need a suggestion). It’s not that affordable housing isn’t a problem in Seattle. I know people who couldn’t live on their own in Seattle anymore due to rent…

Lived in California for close to two years and I agree. The streets may not be the best sample though. There are homeless people who work and live in their cars. Getting government and NIMBYISM out of housing policy will lead to affordable housing and is paramount to fixing this. Opportunity Zone Investments should also help some.

Defining what you mean by the term 'homeless' is actually very important to having productive discussions about homelessness. The vast majority of people are referring to people living on the streets when they take issue with the homeless. They are not referring to people who are living in their cars or whatever.

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#229

Post by asdfman123 »

karangoeluw wrote: post #2

I have always wondered which one is better: 1. Contribute early on little by little 2. Contribute nothing to very little for a while amassing huge fortunes (and compound interest magic), then donate big. Pretty much the same question as lump sum vs dollar cost averaging in investing. Have there been studies on this?

That ignores the psychology of your Bezoses and Gateses, though.

They are maniacally obsessed with growing their companies as much as possible, and everything they do works towards that goal. They don't have time for philanthropy, or worrying about social issues, while they're doing that.

Gates was able to give so much away because he shifted focus after leaving Microsoft. Hopefully others like him will follow.

Post reply on HN