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

Post by HDThoreaun » Sun, Jun 04, 2023, 3:13 PM UTC

ramblenode wrote: post #604

meowtimemania wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've tested housing first programs in SF. https://twitter.com/garrytan/status/1659972231328583680?s=20 25% died (overdose on drugs), and 21% returned to the streets. We need to recognize that drug addicts don't make rational decisions for themselves. We shouldn't leave them on the streets to do drugs, we shouldn't give them free housing to do drugs, we should put them in rehab. If they don't want to go to rehab, cha…

Rehab might be one of the least effective solutions of all [0]. If it's inpatient then you are paying for housing anyway, but without any of the benefits of stability that would allow someone to use it as a springboard to get a job. [0] https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2018/02/15/opioid-treatment...

Post by HDThoreaun » Sun, Jun 04, 2023, 3:27 PM UTC

ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #22

rottencupcakes wrote: post #3

Homelessness is a failure of the Federal government that nobody there is even willing to talk about. This can't be solved at a local or state level in a country with unrestricted freedom of movement.

Let me just quality a bit further: homelessness is a failure of the neoliberal ideology (land free markets/privatization never worked, from the enclosures [1] to modern times, see Georgism for a solution [2]) and further a failure of the metaphysics of meritocracy based in desert-people's belief "by the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground", which simply isn't the case today, and i…

Post by HDThoreaun » Sun, Jun 04, 2023, 4:00 PM UTC

yellowapple wrote: post #710

HDThoreaun wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LVT probably wouldn't be enough to fund the government at this point, and it's regressive. Throw in some 0% base rate progressive income taxes, pigouvian taxes, maybe a small vat and you're on the right track.

> LVT probably wouldn't be enough to fund the government at this point The government could and should be pared down considerably if that's the case. > and it's regressive It's the literal opposite of regressive, especially when paired with UBI. The tax burden rests entirely on landowners, who already skew toward wealth; ownership of land value correlates strongly with net worth (and is indeed typically a major compo…

Post by muglug » Sun, Jun 04, 2023, 8:25 PM UTC

EarlBlack wrote: post #982

muglug wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That CEO runs an organisation that delivered food for 90 million meals to residents of the greater Boston area last year (according to them). That salary is on par with a senior engineer at a big tech company who, one might reasonably argue, does not contribute a similar good to the world.

You've compared 2 positions that command a high salary. The average American only made 60K in 2022. You could argue that the CEO faces a higher cost of living, but to the average voter, this salary is obscene.

Post by strangattractor » Sun, Jun 04, 2023, 9:36 PM UTC

strangattractor wrote: post #440

godelski wrote: post #120

This reads as a political ad, not a news story. The ad is good at pulling heart strings and getting people riled up (see comments here) but does not do any actual reporting. How did California spend the money? Were there leaky buckets? How does California have 50% of the homeless and 12% of the population? Are people being bussed in, making this a federal problem? Who's responsible? Don't just tell me the governor, t…

The chronically homeless I encounter in SF are primarily (not all) 1. Addicted to drugs 2. Suffering from psychiatric issues. No amount of affordable housing is going to fix that. No amount of training, educational assistance, universal income etc will fix that. They are not in any condition to work or hold a job or do personal health maintenance. Give them shelter and they wonder off. Affordable housing is affecting…