101–108 of 108 posts
Oh look, it worked again.
It says nothing about what happened 5 years after the participants stopped getting the money.
And I'll remind you that giving money to people directly instead of creating complex government programs is exactly what Reagan wanted in the 1960s when a lot of the programs started--so must be a suspect idea
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're paying ~$50K for every person that's incarcerated, BUT nobody takes into account the income we're losing from their taxes and spending if they were living a sane life in the free world. It is exceptionally difficult to move people from a life of crime and addiction back into society, though. And I have insane respect for the people that do it full time. I've worked in that space and it's a world of absolute une…
50k is a pittance compared to the amount of suffering the average criminal causes. I'd pay $1 million /year to incarcerate more people so long as we got the right people. I'd pay any amount. The cost of being a victim is monstrously high it doesn't matter
Now, what did society gain from locking that kid up? Not $50,000 worth, that's for sure. Definitely not a million dollars' worth. No, it just fucked up some dude's life, and made some jackass at the tow yard $600 richer. If anybody had asked me, my idea of justice would be a few weekends community service, maybe a small fine, and a molotov through the tow-yard office's window.
Don't get me wrong, there are crimes worth the societal cost to punish. Violent crimes, crimes that cause serious emotional or financial damages. Abuses of power. But that isn't most criminals. In my book, if a victim wouldn't seriously consider killing the perpetrator, we probably shouldn't be in the business of incarcerating them.
Because incarceration basically carries the message of "We the people want to fuck your life up, but don't have the stomach to kill you".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The proper method to administrate social benefits is via charity. In this way, there is no deadweight loss through unnecessary taxes. We've tried this for years, it doesn't work at scale. And the end result is that you and I are still taxed, just more expensively and differently. We pay more for cops, prisons, healthcare etc because we're unwilling to solve it at scale.
When did we try this? I'd argue we haven't tried it since the 16th Ammendment went into effect. This isn't a problem that needs solving at scale. It's a problem that needs local/hyperlocal solutions with very strict strings attached. If we're not able to monitor the outcomes of each participant and ensure not a single drop of benefits aren't spent on no essentials (self improvement allowable), then we are wasting dol…
If it's a problem across the US, in multiple states then yes. It's a problem that needs to be solved at scale, because it's a problem innate to the US.
> It's a problem that needs local/hyperlocal solutions with very strict strings attached.
Means-testing doesn't work either. It's been tried. It usually means 'convert to our religion or you get no benefits' or 'gays do not apply'. See: Salvation Army.
> If we're not able to monitor the outcomes of each participant and ensure not a single drop of benefits aren't spent on no essentials (self improvement allowable), then we are wasting dollars on lazy.
This is just the usual 'lazy poor' rhetoric. It's out of date by about 15 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When did we try this? I'd argue we haven't tried it since the 16th Ammendment went into effect. This isn't a problem that needs solving at scale. It's a problem that needs local/hyperlocal solutions with very strict strings attached. If we're not able to monitor the outcomes of each participant and ensure not a single drop of benefits aren't spent on no essentials (self improvement allowable), then we are wasting dol…
> This isn't a problem that needs solving at scale. If it's a problem across the US, in multiple states then yes. It's a problem that needs to be solved at scale, because it's a problem innate to the US. > It's a problem that needs local/hyperlocal solutions with very strict strings attached. Means-testing doesn't work either. It's been tried. It usually means 'convert to our religion or you get no benefits' or 'gays…
I fail to see how this is a problem. Beggers can't be choosers. If you need help, it may not be the worst thing to follow some guidance from folks that have figured things out. Note: Christian faiths would likely preach against queerness but not use it as a disqualifying event. At most they would state that the lifestyle isn't consistent with scripture. (of course extremes exist).
I'll have to look up on literature about means testing. I still fail to see how some person's poor decisions across the country should affect me. It should be a local issue to resolve governmentally. I'm sure the country would open their arms voluntarily if prompted. See Grover Cleveland and the farm disaster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This isn't a problem that needs solving at scale. If it's a problem across the US, in multiple states then yes. It's a problem that needs to be solved at scale, because it's a problem innate to the US. > It's a problem that needs local/hyperlocal solutions with very strict strings attached. Means-testing doesn't work either. It's been tried. It usually means 'convert to our religion or you get no benefits' or 'gays…
> It usually means 'convert to our religion or you get no benefits' or 'gays do not apply'. See: Salvation Army. I fail to see how this is a problem. Beggers can't be choosers. If you need help, it may not be the worst thing to follow some guidance from folks that have figured things out. Note: Christian faiths would likely preach against queerness but not use it as a disqualifying event. At most they would state tha…
No, but charities can be choosers and beggers don't get a choice. I literally just pointed out a charity which does exactly what I said, one of the biggest charities in the US and the greatest example of how just relying on charity doesn't work, especially as they behave contrary to the literal scripture.
> I'll have to look up on literature about means testing. I still fail to see how some person's poor decisions across the country should affect me.
It will always affect you. Who do you think pays for when people have to go to the hospital and seek aid? Or when our 'charity' fails and people that would otherwise be fine with things like unemployment aid end up homeless? Or when we need more police because people who need medication or food can't afford it? It's you and me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It usually means 'convert to our religion or you get no benefits' or 'gays do not apply'. See: Salvation Army. I fail to see how this is a problem. Beggers can't be choosers. If you need help, it may not be the worst thing to follow some guidance from folks that have figured things out. Note: Christian faiths would likely preach against queerness but not use it as a disqualifying event. At most they would state tha…
> I fail to see how this is a problem. Beggers can't be choosers. If you need help, it may not be the worst thing to follow some guidance from folks that have figured things out. Note: Christian faiths would likely preach against queerness but not use it as a disqualifying event. At most they would state that the lifestyle isn't consistent with scripture. (of course extremes exist). No, but charities can be choosers…
Providing universal food, healthcare means the gov increases demand. This leads to higher prices. Maybe more producers jump in to drive supply up and the equilibrium neutralizes back at the initial level. Suddenly the capital that was redirected to increase that supply reduces supply in other markets and drives up costs. The gov has manipulated the market, and they have the power to continue doing so on a whim. Consumers, especially those who are taxed at much higher progressive levels, lose purchasing power and those markets must adjust.
Maybe this is better than the outcome where we do the same thing but force cops to lock up everyone that is stealing for free food. After all, when everyone is in jail you have the same problem of gov interference in food, healthcare, and housing markets. But the additional overhead of law enforcement administration. Plus the total loss of economic contribution from those imprisoned.
But those dollars redistributed from the wealthy hurt. They really do. Especially since the progressive taxation hits middle income earners so fiercely. For example, I pay a little over $50k/year for two kids in daycare. The state wants to tax 1% of my (married) income above $200k to let other people send their kids to daycare for free. So suddenly demand increases, raising the $50k price I already pay, and now I lose $x dollars a year from my ability to spend freely. Why? So somebody can enter the labor market and drag down wages?
Maybe it's better. It probably is. It sounds a lot nicer. I don't think I earn enough to feel good about it though. I feel like it's throwing money into the pit of dispair as my ability to pursue my life's passions slips further away from the present (e.g., fire).
But maybe society will be nicer.
Edit: I forgot to mention that the 1% tax doesn't provide free daycare to all. It's really quite selective. So a universal program would be orders of magnitude more expensive, and taxation rates would be tremendous.
I already pay a little over 30% effective rate. It's demoralizing that, of the annual income, I don't get to keep it until approximately Easter. Society would have to be much, much nicer for me to work for free until June or July without being permanently grouchy. Plus wealth taxes, apart from being bad policy, are not federally legal because wealth isn't income, so the state would have to implement it, and we all know some states wouldn't so they could attract the wealthy, which means that those low wealth, medium to high earners would be paying even more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: > The program prioritized underrepresented populations. That includes young parents, who made up 43% of participants by the end of the period. Homeless parents are almost always women with very few exceptions. Now, in my personal opinion, "underrepresented populations" in this kind of environment refers to people who are at greater immediate risk while homeless, which obviously include women & gende…
>The program prioritized underrepresented populations. Do you know why they did this? Transgenderism or being a woman is an orthogonal concept to homelessness. Whatever demographic you're in, if you are homeless, you are suffering and I assume are exposed to the same gender neutral dangers that arise from being homeless. What exactly is the greater danger that would need such prioritization?
trans people are at greater risk of violence and sexual assault (sometimes because sex work is the only way for them to survive). being arrested as a trans woman could mean being placed in a jail/prison with cis men, again, putting them at greater risk of violence and sexual assault.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're welcome to walk yourself down to Skid Row or your nearest homeless camp and conduct a detailed survey if you want the specifics. Or, a simple Google search will provide several studies including demographic details.
> You're welcome to walk yourself down to Skid Row or your nearest homeless camp and conduct a detailed survey if you want the specifics. What country is the subject of this discussion? I assumed the US because the article was about Oregon. Most homeless people in the US do not live in camps.[1] > Or, a simple Google search will provide several studies including demographic details. Simple searches found researchers…
The visible homeless are heavy drug users. In LA, over 90% of the visible homeless are drug addicts. The same is true in San Diego and the SF Bay Area. In LA, LAHSA likes to goose the statistics to to include the economic homeless, but the economic homeless don't use LAHSA's services because LAHSA exclusively services the drug users (because their funding is based on long term placements, which the economic homeless do not need).