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

How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 285 posts

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#191

Post by telchar »

rhizome wrote: post #154
noonespecial wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Every cent of UBI will be absorbed by housing cost I think you're wrong about that because UBI frees people to go and live anywhere . They won't be trapped in lousy housing one bus-ride from their McJob anymore. The only way housing would suck up the entire UBI is if everyone were trapped in a California situation where new housing was impossible.

The only way housing would suck up the entire UBI is if everyone were trapped in a California situation where new housing was impossible. Provided there are no location/COL adjustments.

I think providing location/COL adjustments would be a big mistake for a UBI system. Providing a flat rate encourages people to move to lower-COL places which would reduce the amount of economic activity tied up in rent. It seems to me that adjusting for COL would just reward those who choose to prop up rents and worsen the rent COL cycle.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#192

Post by gdwatson »

jtraffic wrote: post #177
dahart wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think this is a fine approach for the left to take, as long as the moral foundation is never sacrificed This is why we have Republicans in the first place who won't even consider implementing social programs. They believe so strongly in their moral foundation of lower taxes that they refuse to consider the evidence. Being willing to look at the evidence objectively is something everyone needs to get better at, co…

Agreed. I also think we need to allow ourselves room to question our moral foundations and make attempts at reconciling them with the foundations of "the other side," whoever that is for each of us.

Everyone should read Jonathan Haidt's book The Righeous Mind on the foundations of moral psychology and how they are used by liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. I think it's a great foundation for discussions about this kind of thing, and it makes it easier to understand where the other side is coming from.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#193

Post by InitialLastName »

douche wrote: post #76
st3v3r wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who claims the minimum wage level is absurd has clearly never tried to live on it.

Last i checked they had increased the minimum wage beyond what trained heavy equipment operators were making. That is absurd, no matter how you slice it.

Do you mean absurd that trained heavy equipment operators are making so little?

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#194

Post by richdougherty »

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 [people] to agree to [some other people's] ideals: prove that it will [have more benefits than costs].

If only!

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#195

Post by isleyaardvark »

sf_rob wrote: post #185
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 (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 pla…

Hayek as well.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#196

Post by ergothus »

greedo wrote: post #178
ergothus wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"…

There's no realistic (as in adding up mathematically) way that UBI will be cheaper than the social programs of today.

Oh? I won't claim to be an expert (or even close), but it seems to me that remove the vast majority of the overhead of the current web of social programs with a far more simple "Has this person gotten their $X" would free up a bunch of money, even if $X is given to vastly more people. (And I believe that most social programs are relatively efficiently run - those that disagree would consider the benefit of closing the programs to be greater)

That said, theorycrafting isn't numbers.

Today the US population is roughly 350 million, and we spend 927 billion on social programs between state and federal. That works out to $2800 and change spent per person. (assuming my numbers are correct) That's, as you say, not nearly enough.

Okay, perhaps we can say some large portion of that population is children that would cost less. also families can benefit from shared housing. So let's switch to a theoretical family of four model. For ease of calculations, let's assume large families and small families balance out: $11,200 per (theoretical) family of 4...which isn't the individual poverty line.

So....yeah, you seem to be totally correct. Which makes me wonder what numbers those libertarians in favor of UBI are using?

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#197

Post by differentView »

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…

I suspect many people who claim to be libertarians just haven't discovered classical liberalism.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#198

Post by ergothus »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #183
ergothus wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ex…

> try to imagine a world with no patent or copyright laws

I'm not a big fan of the laws as we have them, but sure, i'll play along:

> How would Lockheed Martin, GE, Disney, etc. look?

...I'm not sure they'd look substantially different. LM would still only be in competition with a few others because of high barriers to entry. GE...I lack even passing knowledge to speculate. Disney would lose out on a lot of merchandizing money, but once someone in a field like animation or entertainment got ahead, they'd have an easier time attracting both customer AND talent, which provide a feedback loop to their benefit.

> how would Comcast look?

...of my many, MANY complaints about Comcast, I don't know that copyright or patent issues show up. Comcast isn't what they are via govt monopoly (so far as I know, though they have of course abused govt power) but because the cost of entry is so high that there are few competitors. Even when there ARE competitors, they choose not to compete (see recent admission that comcast and time-warner don't even compete pre-merger).

> Look into the concept of regulatory capture

Not qualified to even speculate - let's just say I have some skepticism but don't reject your claims.

All in all, it seems like you are arguing that the govt creates monopolies. I won't argue against that. BUT my claim is that you have MORE monopolies in (certain) unregulated markets. I can very well be wrong...do you have any evidence to that point?

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#199

Post by andreasklinger »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #135
and0 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd have to look into this, but I'd imagine the fact that the best doctors preside a.) in the richest country in the world with b.) the most lucrative health industry has a lot to do with the former as well as the latter. Danny Williams also claimed he traveled to the US to see a specific specialist, not because no one in his own province could do the surgery, although we can't know for sure. To make your arguments a…

>the most lucrative health industry Yes, that's the whole point of my argument. We have the best because it's lucrative. The health care plans people tend to put forth to fix our system would make our healthcare system less lucrative. >Danny Williams also claimed he traveled to the US to see a specific specialist, not because no one in his own province could do the surgery, although we can't know for sure. Right, he…

Re lucrative:

"Private" doctors exist also in single payer models.

If you want the premium model pay for the premium model. There is just a good enough alternative available to everyone.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#200

Post by andreasklinger »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #156
Tenhundfeld wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has many of the "highest quality" specialists. The US population does not receive the highest quality healthcare in the world. If you are rich and sick, there's a decent chance that the world's leading specialist on your illness will be in the US. If you are poor and sick, you will receive higher quality healthcare in many other developed countries. These are not the same thing; you are conflating them, I assu…

>Just look at any ranking of healthcare outcomes for developed nations. Yes, I addressed that. Look at our obesity rates. That has almost nothing to do with healthcare access and almost everything to do with our average lifespan.

Isnt obesity usually linked to economic inequality which links to not being able to properly afford health care?

Basically: a) "poor people tend to be more obese" b) "healthcare costs are a problem for people who struggle financially"

Post reply on HN