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

Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)

improvesomething.today

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 174 posts

Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)

#131

Post by DeluluDon »

superb_dev wrote: post #122
Ferret7446 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite a few are homeless by choice. There are shelters available but they choose not to go because the shelters ban drugs. So they choose drugs over shelter.

Shelters also ban lots of normal things that make them harder to use, or have onerous rules around your schedule that make working impossible. There are a lot more reasons people don’t use shelters

I was homeless for 6 years in the PNW due to PTSD. A lot of people do not, under any circumstances, feel comfortable sleeping next to a violent offender, child abuser, or gang member. So they sleep outside and risk a lot instead.

When I was there, I counted about 2 drug users out of 100 people in a shelter in Spokane, Washington. The rest were either ex convicts, disabled/mental issues, or just simply lost their home.

Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)

#132

Post by Nevermark »

This is a gross oversimplification of my experience with conservative vs. liberal friends.

But there is enough truth in it to at least be worth the humor.

My conservative friends respond to a problem by mashing all its symptoms, and often operate on assumptions they have never tested. And would resist testing.

My liberal friends respond to a solution, veering away hard from the solution's costs, without first asking how they can be mitigated or if the accounting still works out positive.

Disclaimer: Could be anecdotal. Could be projection. But for my population of five people, the correlation is 100%! They would all likely agree too. Given enough beer, and with my recorder out of sight.

Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)

#133

Post by wqaatwt »

inigyou wrote: post #104
c22 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Identifying and distributing 100k to each homeless person would require many layers of bureaucracy. As it should. It is not responsible to give millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to an intern and tell them to start passing it out to random people on the street.

We could just give 50k to every person, and then increase taxes enough to make up for it.

[dead]

Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)

#134

Post by wqaatwt »

inigyou wrote: post #106
ChadNauseam wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For homelessness, it's things like shelters, free meals, needle exchanges, etc. Make the life of the homeless easier without actually getting them into permanent housing. The actual solution to eliminate homelessness is to build more housing, along with financial arrangements to incentivize ownership and make it possible. I love the idea of building more housing, but I think a lot of homeless people have an income…

If we literally gave them free housing it would be cheaper than whatever the fuck we're currently doing.

[dead]

Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)

#135

Post by verbify »

inigyou wrote: post #105
verteu wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a fallacy because it's not the same people homeless each year. There's substantial turnover in the homeless population. "Replace services with direct transfers" would eliminate homelessness for 1 year. Then new people would become homeless, and you'd have no services, because your budget is already committed to the "year 1 homeless-cohort." The money spent grows quadratically (not linearly) over time.

If you only gave $100k to the people who are currently homeless that year, then (ignoring that people would start keeping themselves homeless for several years on purpose) you'd still end up better than the present situation.

> ignoring that people would start keeping themselves homeless for several years on purpose

Don't you need to spend on bureaucracy to figure this out? That then increases the cost.

Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)

#136

Post by ocimbote »

0wis wrote: post #5

Nice article, interesting to keep an open mind. On "No. 0002. Preserving problems", it can happen to people too, no need for a complex system at the size of a company. I have often noticed recognized experts keeping the root of the problem unsolved because it was justifying their position. I may even have been subject of this curse. As an expert, you may know the root cause but have no incentive to solve it and it ca…

This specific problem reminded me of Batman.

Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)

#137

Post by brabel »

didgetmaster wrote: post #20

People often attribute the government's inability to solve a problem even after throwing billions of dollars at it; as a sign of incompetence. While there is plenty of incompetence within government; I think the 'Preserve the Problem' response is mostly to blame. If we 'solved' crime, homelessness, drug use, poverty, etc.; then budgets would decrease and political power would diminish. Those in charge of solving the…

> If we 'solved' crime, homelessness, drug use, poverty, etc.;

Crime is really hard to solve, but many cities in the USA and elsewhere have managed to largely do it.

Homelessness is something I think is very much an American problem among developed nations. It’s always shocking to see the campgrounds in American cities, some of the richest in the world, coming from Europe. I suspect it’s mostly related to drug abuse and the lack of social assistance for those in need which the Americans are allergic to solving due to the culture of freedom, or autonomy at all costs (which somehow gets interpreted as not having to pay taxes to help those in need).

Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)

#138

Post by brabel »

inigyou wrote: post #104
c22 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Identifying and distributing 100k to each homeless person would require many layers of bureaucracy. As it should. It is not responsible to give millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to an intern and tell them to start passing it out to random people on the street.

We could just give 50k to every person, and then increase taxes enough to make up for it.

It may sound crazy but that may be cheaper than maintaining the status quo. The idea is serious and it’s called Universal Basic Income, or UBI. It may arrive earlier than most think.

Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)

#139

Post by brabel »

DeluluDon wrote: post #131
superb_dev wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shelters also ban lots of normal things that make them harder to use, or have onerous rules around your schedule that make working impossible. There are a lot more reasons people don’t use shelters

I was homeless for 6 years in the PNW due to PTSD. A lot of people do not, under any circumstances, feel comfortable sleeping next to a violent offender, child abuser, or gang member. So they sleep outside and risk a lot instead. When I was there, I counted about 2 drug users out of 100 people in a shelter in Spokane, Washington. The rest were either ex convicts, disabled/mental issues, or just simply lost their home…

I thought most homeless were drug addicts?! It’s hard to believe a healthy person could fall into homelessness. Maybe as OC mentioned only those who don’t do drugs go to shelters.
Post reply on HN