How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness • Hacker News Board

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#181

Post by ergothus » Fri, Mar 17, 2017, 7:58 PM UTC

Jach wrote: post #168

noonespecial wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Unfortunately you'll find a good portion being spent on 20th century drugs, which suck immensely. There's the hardest part about UBI. Its the same thing that makes our welfare systems so awful right now as well. The terrible fear that if we give people money... they might spend it on stuff we don't think they should .

It's not even a fear: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-miserable-21... (and https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/economic/conf/gr... ) The overwhelming majority of prime-age men on welfare spend most of their time on consuming multimedia, doped up on pain medication like Oxycontin. As beautiful as I personally find the ideal of letting people be free from economic concern beyond their basics (if…

...and yet when there was mandatory drug testing it showed a drug use rate lower than the general population. How do you reconcile those contrasting data points? (honest question, not a troll)

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#182

Post by noobermin » Fri, Mar 17, 2017, 7:58 PM UTC

mabbo wrote: post #42

The 'Housing First' model was really pushed hard by Stephen Harper as Prime Minister of Canada. It was weird because he is such a staunch right-wing kind of guy, yet here he was putting money towards what seems like a very left-wing socialist idea. But he, like Lloyd Pendleton in this article, apparently figured out that it saves a lot of money, ideology be damned. Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing…

>Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing politicians to agree to some left-wing ideals[...]

Why is this a goal for anyone?

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#183

Post by Consultant32452 » Fri, Mar 17, 2017, 7:59 PM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #170

Consultant32452 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without government intervention it would be harder for mega corporations to exist in the first place. The broadest example is how insane our patent and copyright laws are right now. I do support monopoly laws and think we don't drop that hammer nearly enough.

I'm not quite sure I follow...You're saying the govt should break up monopolies more (I agree), but without the govt we'd have fewer monopolies? So far as I know, pure free-market capitalism always tends towards monopolies or oligarchies absent some level of intervention. It is simply too hard to be a well-informed consumer, and we consumers prioritize our short term convenience over societies (or even just our own)…

Just as a thought experiment, try to imagine a world with no patent or copyright laws. I'm not suggesting we make that a reality, but just consider it. How would Lockheed Martin, GE, Disney, etc. look? Without local government granted monopolies, how would Comcast look? It would be a completely different world.

Look into the concept of regulatory capture. The Dodd-Frank regulations that went into place are a great example of this. They were sold to us plebes as a way to protect us from future banking failures. Except the regulations were basically written by the big banks and forced the small banks out of business. They have actually increased the risk of future crisis by consolidating the industry. Here's an article about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/04/14/has-dodd-fra...

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#184

Post by Swizec » Fri, Mar 17, 2017, 7:59 PM UTC

m-j-fox wrote: post #173

WillPostForFood wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Utah's success should be replicated where it makes sense. But just because Utah can reduce chronic homelessness 90% by adding 1,000 beds in a low land value, low labor cost state doesn't mean you can simply transfer the program to San Francisco or San Diego and achieve the same success. One of the achievements of Utah is actually putting together decent living conditions in their homeless housing. I fear California's…

There's plenty of cheap land and labor 100 miles east of San Francisco. Why don't we build homelessville there?

Because nobody wants to live there? That's why it's cheap.

I fear a lot of SF homeless enjoy being in SF for similar reasons that a lot of the not-homeless do. Can the prospect of free housing in a random area lure them away? Maybe? It's hard to say.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#185

Post by sf_rob » Fri, Mar 17, 2017, 8:04 PM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #62

mabbo wrote: post #42

The 'Housing First' model was really pushed hard by Stephen Harper as Prime Minister of Canada. It was weird because he is such a staunch right-wing kind of guy, yet here he was putting money towards what seems like a very left-wing socialist idea. But he, like Lloyd Pendleton in this article, apparently figured out that it saves a lot of money, ideology be damned. Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing…

> Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing politicians to agree to some left-wing ideals: prove that it will save money and let them lower taxes. I've certainly heard this argument from the (few) libertarian sources that are considering basic income. They are opposed to "entitlement" programs, but see a (theoretically) cheaper entitlement program as better than an expensive one. (Perhaps they also think t…

>the (few) libertarian sources that are considering basic income

While it's not necessarily popular in libertarian circles today, the negative income tax (which is closely related to UBI but not identical) has a long history among libertarian thought leaders. Milton Friedman was a proponent of these policies.

The US already has the Earned Income Tax Credit, so the basic idea of a negative income tax is already in place though highly constrained. I think expanding/modifying that program would be a path of least resistance rather than pushing for independent UBI legislation.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#186

Post by Mz » Fri, Mar 17, 2017, 8:06 PM UTC

Maybe "enlightened self interest" as a governing principle will catch on.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#187

Post by Symmetry » Fri, Mar 17, 2017, 8:08 PM UTC

tn13 wrote: post #109

ergothus wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe that's a good example of how to get right-wing politicians to agree to some left-wing ideals: prove that it will save money and let them lower taxes. I've certainly heard this argument from the (few) libertarian sources that are considering basic income. They are opposed to "entitlement" programs, but see a (theoretically) cheaper entitlement program as better than an expensive one. (Perhaps they also think t…

> . The US has known for at least a decade that spending more on IRS agents would earn more money than it would cost. Isn't that proven to be a mostly false notion? Lower taxes tend to bring in more revenue and create more employment.

Your referring to an idea called the Laffer Curve. It's true that the government would bring in essentially $0 revenue with an income tax rate of 0% and it's, well, more or less true for a tax rate of 100% too. And so logically there is a point between those two where revenue is maximized. But in the US at least we're no where near that point. For people payed in proportion to their labor like people working hourly jobs it seems to peak over 50% and for salaried professionals the peak seems to be between 70% and 80%. So if you're talking about lowering the top tax bracket from 90% to 70% you can raise more money. But you can't for any of the sorts of tax rates we have today.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#188

Post by ergothus » Fri, Mar 17, 2017, 8:10 PM UTC

linkregister wrote: post #155

ergothus wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lower taxes tend to bring in more revenue and create more employment. Two responses: 1) A bit of an irrelevant point, since we're not talking about RAISING taxes, we're talking about collecting taxes that are due under current rules. (You can argue that's an effective tax increase, but I doubt people/companies that aren't following the rules are a good basis for policy - with lower taxes they'll still cheat) 2) But…

Did Kansas's economy tank? I was under the impression that unemployment has dropped at similar rates to comparable states. The primary impact has been massive reduction in the ability of the state government to provide services, including education. That is too long-term to be immediately measurable.

First - I was wrong to mention the "local economy" because I don't actually know. I _meant_ the govt budget.

Second - Despite being willing to admit I don't know, I HAVE heard it, so I'm definitely open to having what I've heard proven/disproven (to the degree we can with so many variables).

As far as I can tell from my quick searches:

* Kansas private-sector job growth post-tax plan is low. (both regionally and nationally) * The Govt budget has definitely been hit * Kansas unemployment rate is actually BETTER than the national rate...but it seems like it always has been, for the last 25 years at least. (There's a recent spike since May, but even a skeptic of the Brownback plan such as myself is unwilling to attribute the spike to the tax rate without more data) * Kansas GDP growth rate is lower than the regional average and has been since the tax plan was enacted (this may be a red herring, couldn't see what it did before the tax plan, nor how the state GDP compares to it's theoretical potential which would impact tax rate)

So: Based on this I can't conclude the Kansas economy has "tanked" as I originally said...but I also don't see anything indicating an improvement due to the plan either. If cutting tax rates leads to more investment and growth, where should we be seeing that?

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#189

Post by LoonyBalloony » Fri, Mar 17, 2017, 8:12 PM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #160

NewCathargo wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the best argument for UBI I've heard yet. It gives people an option to "exit" shitty societies. Unfortunately you'll find a good portion being spent on 20th century drugs, which suck immensely. But if the people in power are willing to take that risk, then it might be a positive thing. One glaring flaw is that humans are a social species and calculate rank and favors and grudges almost autonomously. Receiving…

> Unfortunately you'll find a good portion being spent on 20th century drugs, which suck immensely Leaving aside any evaluation of the quality of modern drugs... You raise my one concern about UBI. I'm fairly liberal, and particularly with the rise in automation, I see something like UBI becoming necessary. Unlike some conservatives, I have no real concern about people "mooching" or getting money they don't "deserve"…

People would still give to charities I assume. Perhaps more so when they get more money from UBI.

How about establishing a trust in that person's name where they can't touch the money but it will pay for needed services? Someone like that sounds like they would need professional help...

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#190

Post by slv77 » Fri, Mar 17, 2017, 8:14 PM UTC

xraystyle wrote: post #21

_m8fo wrote: post #3

I wonder if better/more accessible health care would eliminate homeless as a side effect. It seems much of the homeless in Boston, anyway is mental health/health related. I doubt anyone will say that what Utah did here is bad , but you have to wonder what's preventing a more comprehensive solution (the answer is politics, but ideally you'd get a more specific answer).

It seems to me that largely the issue is there's no mechanism to force people into treatment for drug/alcohol addiction and mental illness. Here in Los Angeles the number of homeless who are severely mentally ill is incredibly high. It's quite common to see homeless people standing on street corners, yelling and screaming at non-existent antagonists, behaving bizarrely, urinating and defecating in broad daylight, and…

In the US the Supreme Court ruled in 1978 that unless an individual was a threat to themselves or others they couldn't be institutionalized. This was one step of a much bigger reform of care for those that are disabled or mentally ill called deinstitutionalization.

In the past those with mental illness or disability were locked up in facilities with little support for reintegration into society. In many cases being committed was effectively a life sentence. There were also cases of abuse of the system where people were committed for rebelling against parents, homosexuality or political dissidence.

Deinstitutionalization was supposed to transition patients to community based care but it was never funded to the level that would have been needed to support the transition. Even in the US today mental health care is typically the bastard child of the US health care system with minimal coverage. A $50,000 dollar a year arthritis medication is covered but only a couple of days to stabilize a patient in a mental health crisis.

I'm not sure if community based care would have ever worked even with the right funding and that a lot of the addiction and mental health issues may be related to the lack of environments that support mental health. I'm pretty sure that the alternative from earlier in the century also isn't the right approach.