California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working • Hacker News Board

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#721

Post by fwungy » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 11:31 PM UTC

freddybobs wrote: post #302

There is an episode of the "you're wrong about" podcast, that discusses homelessness. In that episode there are several discussion about several projects in California around homelessness. Those projects provided housing. The studies based on those projects showed that overall the cost was less that not having some housing and services. The podcast goes into more details, but as I remember this was because * It remov…

You cannot have a welfare state and a liberal immigration policy.

Sure, if you do nice things for poor people their lives improve, and so does society, not only because we are kinder, but also because their problems don't become problems for unrelated people.

But, if you do nice things for poor people as a government and open the door we have the objective truth that there are billions of poor people in the world who would love to be taken care of too. You will attract them and, like the Tragedy of the Commons, everyone will be poorer and less happy.

Before anyone says "this isn't the right topic" I must point out that the population of the US has doubled since the 1950's, but the infrastructure has not. The rise in population is immigration, not native. There is a cost of immigration that is borne by the local population outside of the government for immigration if the housing stock does not keep pace with population, and if immigration is used to attack prevailing wages. What happens is that housing costs increase and income goes down, i.e. the native population gets poorer.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#722

Post by DoreenMichele » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 11:32 PM UTC

shepardrtc wrote: post #454

hnarn wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The strategy is called “housing first” and has been proven to work in Finland: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle... The idea that homeless people need homes to be able to advance further seems to trigger some people — after all, most of us pay for our housing, so why should they get it for free? What people don’t consider is that when “we”, the people with houses, don’t spend our dollars ho…

> why should they get it for free? They shouldn't get it for free. They should be required to be in recovery programs and have jobs. Create state or federal jobs for them if necessary.

FYI: One risk factor for homelessness is being seriously handicapped, so handicapped it is an impediment to employment.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#723

Post by bandrami » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 11:33 PM UTC

fwungy wrote: post #721

freddybobs wrote: post #302

There is an episode of the "you're wrong about" podcast, that discusses homelessness. In that episode there are several discussion about several projects in California around homelessness. Those projects provided housing. The studies based on those projects showed that overall the cost was less that not having some housing and services. The podcast goes into more details, but as I remember this was because * It remov…

You cannot have a welfare state and a liberal immigration policy. Sure, if you do nice things for poor people their lives improve, and so does society, not only because we are kinder, but also because their problems don't become problems for unrelated people. But, if you do nice things for poor people as a government and open the door we have the objective truth that there are billions of poor people in the world who…

Canada has a more comprehensive welfare state than the US and a higher percentage of the population are immigrants than in the US. So there may at some point be a required tradeoff but the US isn't there yet.

What Canada doesn't have is a "homelessness-industrial complex" of NGOs and nonprofits that soak up billions of dollars in public money without actually providing significant housing for homeless people: instead, the government just does it.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#724

Post by OpieCunningham » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 11:38 PM UTC

dangwhy wrote: post #620

hnarn wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The strategy is called “housing first” and has been proven to work in Finland: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle... The idea that homeless people need homes to be able to advance further seems to trigger some people — after all, most of us pay for our housing, so why should they get it for free? What people don’t consider is that when “we”, the people with houses, don’t spend our dollars ho…

Why are all the lofty examples from countries that are hostile to refugees/immigrants like Scandinavian countries. Would love to hear examples of great public welfare/healthcare programs from countries that accepts 6 million refugees / year like USA. In my head these are two opposing goals but curious to know if there are counterexamples.

The US accepted 22,645 refugees in 2022. Since 1990 the U.S. has accepted, on average, roughly 75,000 per year.

In 2021, the US accepted 11,411 refugees (approx. 1 refugee per 28,900 citizens), and Finland accepted 1,282 refugees (approx. 1 refugee per 4,300 citizens).

* https://www.statista.com/statistics/200061/number-of-refugee...

* https://www.worlddata.info/europe/finland/asylum.php

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#725

Post by jtode » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 11:39 PM UTC

When I want to know about effective ways to fight homelessness, the WSJ is my first stop.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#726

Post by WeylandYutani » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 11:40 PM UTC

hnuser847 wrote: post #441

jonny_eh wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s no easy fix for homelessness True, but that's only because there's no easy way to add housing in modern society. Homelessness is caused primarily by a lack of homes.

Nah, it’s caused by mental illness and drug addiction. Short of rounding them up and forcing them to get help, there’s actually nothing we can do to get these people off the street.

What is this help anyway? Can you magically fix someone who was fucked in the ass by foster parents as a child or someone who was born with schizophrenia?

Some people fall through the cracks. My mother was a therapist and she used to tell me tragic stories about her clients. If I had lived those lives I'd be out there smoking crack too.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#727

Post by millimeterman » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 11:46 PM UTC

mjevans wrote: post #660

ajmurmann wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, social housing isn't my preferred solution. My solution is radical upzoning; removal of minimum unit-sizes; drastically simplify the approval/permit process and remove all local hearings etc. from the process, if it fits the regulations, you can build it; forced rehab for addicts; institutionalize mentally ill who cannot take care of themselves (this is the hardest part, I am least certain about).

Disagree on 'minimum unit sizes', at least where I live 0-bedroom loft-only units are already small enough! I do agree with other ideas that promote more flexible application of possibly small units. Ideas such as 'fire proof' (no flammable materials in building construction) buildings with relaxed regulations about access to egress, so that stupid middle hallway can be removed. Very agree with an easier and known ap…

Minimum unit sizes necessarily increase the price of housing and lower supply - there's no free lunch. Small apartments suck, sure, but you have to ask yourself whether it's a good idea to ban them and thus force everyone to pay more. Personally, I don't think small apartments have enough negative externalities to justify such regulation.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#728

Post by milesvp » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 11:50 PM UTC

femiagbabiaka wrote: post #337

milesvp wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure you can make such a bold claim. If California is spending money on homelessness, then all things being equal, it will attract more homeless people than if it didn't spend money on homelessness. Some percentage of these homeless will come from other states. For any two states there is going to be migration of homeless between the 2, and the attractiveness of the state is very much effected by the amount o…

In the absence of data, this is pure conspiracy. And considering the obvious issue of California being one of the most expensive places to live on the continent, it seems like quite a stretch.

There is an important phrase in economics, “all other things being equal”. That phrase covers the idea that if you chose another state that was equally expensive as california, and was equavalent in every other aspect, then this one difference would have this expected effect. You are correct that I don’t have emperical evidence to cite, and it would be a very very difficult experiment to run on a state level. But economists definitely try to run these kinds of experiments trying to find as similar as possible locals to try to answer the kinds of questions as “do changes in spending attract things that the money are spent on?”.

Now, I consider what I said to be self evident, but I certainly accept that my line of reasoning may be flawed, and it is possible that spending on homelessness does not increase incentives that attract homelessness. I’m extrapolating from the belief that spending money on business attracts business, but that may also be incorrect as popular as that idea is.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#729

Post by fwungy » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 11:51 PM UTC

bandrami wrote: post #723

fwungy wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot have a welfare state and a liberal immigration policy. Sure, if you do nice things for poor people their lives improve, and so does society, not only because we are kinder, but also because their problems don't become problems for unrelated people. But, if you do nice things for poor people as a government and open the door we have the objective truth that there are billions of poor people in the world who…

Canada has a more comprehensive welfare state than the US and a higher percentage of the population are immigrants than in the US. So there may at some point be a required tradeoff but the US isn't there yet. What Canada doesn't have is a "homelessness-industrial complex" of NGOs and nonprofits that soak up billions of dollars in public money without actually providing significant housing for homeless people: instead…

Housing prices in Canada are ridiculously high now and locals cannot afford to get into the housing market in major cities.

Canada has started to ban outside investors from buying homes in certain areas[0].

Canada is also experiencing record high inflation[1].

Low skilled immigrants require major government assistance. The government will simply print money to handle their housing and services as needed. Trudeau is not popular, and most Canadians are not happy with the direction of the government, but if you're a poor immigrant it's an amazing deal if you can get there.

[0] https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/01/business/canada-bans-home-pur...

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/22/canada-inflation-rises-to-ne...

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#730

Post by dangwhy » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 11:52 PM UTC

OpieCunningham wrote: post #724

dangwhy wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are all the lofty examples from countries that are hostile to refugees/immigrants like Scandinavian countries. Would love to hear examples of great public welfare/healthcare programs from countries that accepts 6 million refugees / year like USA. In my head these are two opposing goals but curious to know if there are counterexamples.

The US accepted 22,645 refugees in 2022. Since 1990 the U.S. has accepted, on average, roughly 75,000 per year. In 2021, the US accepted 11,411 refugees (approx. 1 refugee per 28,900 citizens), and Finland accepted 1,282 refugees (approx. 1 refugee per 4,300 citizens). * https://www.statista.com/statistics/200061/number-of-refugee... * https://www.worlddata.info/europe/finland/asylum.php

Sorry my original number was slightly off.

2.76 border crossings in 2022 . I know there might be dups in this number but there are also crossings that are unaccounted for. There are also 1 million visa overstays/yr. This is on top of 1 million legal immigrants.

Rough math is 3 million just for refugees ( ppl who cross the border apply for refugee status). All this not event accounting for hundreds thousands of work visas, millions of ppl living in usa in legal immigration queues, birthright tourism ect ect.

But I think no one really has any idea what the actual number is.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/migrant-border-...

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/04/re...

https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/chinese-national-pleads...