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

Post by reverius42 » Fri, Jul 17, 2026, 11:05 PM UTC

reverius42 wrote: post #80

Swizec wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how some group would go about preserving a problem like homelessness, even unintentionally Simplistic version: San Francisco spends roughly $100,000/year on each homeless person. In services, salaries for people working on it, rent for office buildings etc. I am willing to bet many of these people would not be homeless if we just gave them $100,000/year without all the middle bureaucracy layers.

How many of the homeless people in SF are from other parts of the US and are given one-way bus tickets to SF by their own hometowns? Because just giving them money could only possibly make that problem worse. (Yes, this is a real thing that happens, though I'm not sure the extent. See https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/... )

Post by verteu » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 12:46 AM UTC

AussieWog93 wrote: post #112

verteu wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not likely: SF has ~7,973 homeless people now, and current spending provides housing for 14,498 "previously homeless" people: https://media.api.sf.gov/documents/Agenda_Item_9_HSH_Budget_... Thus, cutting all budget for cash transfers could increase homelessness by 80%! (Are those 14,498 now-homeless people eligible for this year's $100k? They can't be, since you already spent it on the 7,973 currently-homeless people…

If those are the actual numbers, you're proving GP's point. You can give each of those 14.5k people ~$55-60k instead of giving 8k people $100k and homelessness is still solved.

Post by mettamage » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 1:10 AM UTC

golly_ned wrote: post #94

My favorite is ignoring or downplaying a problem. 95% of apparent 'problems' are best ignored in favor of solving the worthwhile 5%. Sometimes this means 'creating' a new problem by pointing to something unconsidered that's 10x more important.

Post by inigyou » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 1:26 AM UTC

verteu wrote: post #113

AussieWog93 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If those are the actual numbers, you're proving GP's point. You can give each of those 14.5k people ~$55-60k instead of giving 8k people $100k and homelessness is still solved.

No, housing those people is only half the budget, so it's like $25k/person. It's unlikely there's a trivial arbitrage to eliminate homelessness in a city full of engineers.

Post by Ferret7446 » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 1:57 AM UTC

inigyou wrote: post #98

SoftTalker wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the homelessness example, it's not so much that the programs and groups want to justify their continued existence (though that might be happening too). It's that the programs themselves incentivize more of the problem. When they give things to homeless people, such as food, shelter, clothes, social services, even needles and a "safe place" to get high in some cases, and often with few or no conditions, they make b…

I don't think many people are being homeless by choice no matter how comfortable it is. Perhaps it makes more of them choose homelessness over suicide but I don't think it's making anyone choose homelessness over homefulness. You know what does though? Making it really hard to get a home. That makes more people homeless. I hope that's obvious.