Live data from Hacker News

How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

npr.org

261–270 of 285 posts

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#261
post #25

I'm confused by this. My brother has an office in downtown SLC near the Rio Grande building, and it's pretty clear when I visit him that there are hundreds of homeless people living in that neighborhood alone. Pioneer Park is also covered in homeless people. If that is less than 200 people either I don't understand what "homeless" means or something is... off. How does one define "chronic homelessness?" I really want…

Salt Lake City has a lot of seasonal homeless, people who come for the summer and leave for the winter. Seasonal homeless are not counted as chronic homeless. There are no homeless people anywhere else in the state so the ones you see in Salt Lake are it. Not all panhandlers are homeless. Most of the homeless in Salt Lake City seem to disappear at night. There are no massive homeless camps like you see in San Francis…

>There are no massive homeless camps like you see in San Francisco, Portland and Seattle.

Uhh, you sure about that? I literally ride my bike by two almost weekly downtown. They are right off the exit ramp for I-15.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But bankrupting your govt because some people aren't paying their share is self-defeating. I'm all for oversight to limit the corruption of power, but trying NOT to give power to anyone will just accept that power falls to those that are ruthless and abusive to take it regardless. In this case, those same Regular Joes are getting the short end of the stick because the govt cuts programs to benefit them because wealth…

". . . but trying NOT to give power to anyone will just accept that power falls to those that are ruthless and abusive to take it regardless." This is the crux, and I've never seen a good Libertarian defense against this. Someone will always fill the power void.

This is why libertarians stop being libertarians. At some point, they realize that it's futile and impractical. Someone is going to be in charge, and that person is going to make the rules. Authority is an inevitability.

Libertarianism and Marxism are two sides of the same coin: theoretical utopias, if we can just get everyone to agree to play nice!

Well, in the real world where humans compete for resources to survive, people don't play nice. That's a hard biological fact, and no amount of indoctrination or force is going to be able to remove those hard-coded instincts for self-preservation, so it's best to adopt a system that is at least somewhat compatible with it.

That can take a while to fully internalize, which explains why so many young idealists adopt Libertarian and/or Marxist positions for a few years before they end up moving on.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The politicians likely remember the scandal from the 1980s of Regular Joes being torn apart by aggressive IRS agents. Saying "hiring more IRS agents brings in more money than they cost" is incredibly gauche to anyone who remembers it.

But bankrupting your govt because some people aren't paying their share is self-defeating. I'm all for oversight to limit the corruption of power, but trying NOT to give power to anyone will just accept that power falls to those that are ruthless and abusive to take it regardless. In this case, those same Regular Joes are getting the short end of the stick because the govt cuts programs to benefit them because wealth…

And targeting "regular joes" is a terrible way to make money. The vast majority of govt income comes from the wealthy, in particular because wealth distribution is so unbalanced.

That depends a lot on your definition of "wealthy" and "regular joes".

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-...

According to that, the top 1% contributes about 37% of income taxes. On the other hand, the bottom 50% contributes only 2.78%.

I guess a lot of people would consider the 1% to be wealthy, but most of the 1% are actually just doctors. I'm guessing that the real wealthy, those whose income is derived from capital rather than their labour, don't contribute much to federal tax income because of the low capital gains tax rate in the US.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Single-payer health care establishes a floor , not a ceiling of coverage. That in itself is a reason to do it, because it reduces overall costs due to the amortization effect of preventive medicine that people have a right to access. Single-payer coverage doesn't necessarily dry up the market for private insurance, either. Citizens of Canada and other countries have access to additional coverage that covers faster ac…

>That in itself is a reason to do it, because it reduces overall costs due to the amortization effect of preventive medicine that people have a right to access. Reducing the over-all cost isn't necessarily the only goal. One goal could also be to have the highest quality care in the world, which we have today. >Single-payer coverage doesn't necessarily dry up the market for private insurance, either. Comparing the pr…

Nobody needs the highest quality healthcare in the world. Did it get Steve Jobs or Satoru Iwata anywhere?

(The fancy book learnin term that applies here is "marginal cost")

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#265
post #178

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.

Even if it isn't cheaper, the costs are better to plan around.

We have an entire bureaucracy centered around benefits and making sure if folks have cheated their benefits. I'm sure we'll need some of the bureaucracy still, but it'll mostly be issues receiving their pay instead of having to screen everyone. Fraud will be more limited in scope because there will be fewer ways to commit this sort of fraud (identity theft, not reporting death, and folks inadvertently recieving double payments most commonly).

We'll still need some social programs. UBI simply won't be enough for some folks unless someplace has cheap, affordable healthcare. Otherwise, folks with expensive health needs still need some support. Yes, this will cost some money, but other folks will simply be able to retire and live off the UBI with no intervention. I'm pretty sure this will be cheaper than the current system. This likely goes down or away completely if everyone has healthcare they can afford.

We'll no longer need to maintain things like the SNAP system (food stamps) because this will simply be included in the UBI. You'll no longer have a seperate card to pay for whatever portion of your groceries are included. We can use existing infrastructure for the UBI payments like we already do for other cash benefits.

We could likely have more staighfoward payroll taxes and less paperwork to fill out with those, both on the government side and the employer side. I'm guessing there are other things I haven't looked over. I think overall we'll have fewer employed in this. Now, there will be the cost of the actual money plus distributing it to everyone in the country. This might make up for the savings above, I don't know as I've not done the math.

The point is this: If we can see these sorts of outcomes happening with UBI, then we can realistically estimate the costs and savings of the two systems. It'd take some work and research, sure, but I think it can be done.And for it to come out cheaper.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#266
post #166
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's noting that a significant factor in the creation of US-style right-wing libertarianism was an attempt by economically right-wing individualists to straddle the political left-wing gap by reaching out to left-libertarians on shared issues (left wing libertarianism pre-dates right-wing libertarianism by almost a century). E.g. Rothbard being a prominent example, with his "Left and Right - A Journal of Libertarian…

No, it more accurate to say that the "Left and Right - A Journal of Libertarian Thought" was an attempt by libertarians to highlight the fact that the one dimensional left/right line is obviously a very incomplete model of political thought. As your link quotes from the opening editorial: "Our title, Left and Right, reflects our concerns in several ways. It reveals our editorial concern with the ideological; and it a…

You start out seeming trying to argue against me, but nothing of what you've written contradicts what I wrote. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

> Whatever "right wing" is supposed to mean, I doubt it means these positions.

"Right wing" in this context is about economic positions, views on property etc. Right-wing libertarianism generally draw from the Austrian school, and people like von Mises and occasionally Ayn Rand etc.

Compare to left-wing libertarians who generally are anarchists or Marxists when it comes to economic views and views on property rights.

The entire point is that these two camps align with the traditional left and right on economic issues, but are aligned with each other on a lot of social issues and on anti-authoritarianism.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#267
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…

This is a great example to support a hope for the day ideology retreats from mainstream consciousness as acceptable thinking. Today, it dominates acceptable thinking about politics. By contrast, science, which relies on testing hypothesis, is a method that has propelled the world forward. Could you imagine if we still thought ideologically about nature--Isaac Newton did, and that's why he spent so much time on his wo…

And in the absence of evidence not yet collected, place their trust in traditions as those still remain the outcome of thousands of years of natural selection of cultures, as opposed to ditching old ways of doing things for the sake of being old.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nevada has been caught shipping theirs to CA, so that's still shipping them to CA, just less directly.

Really? Do you have a reference?

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Nevada-Settles-Homeles...

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#269
post #20
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some yes, some no. Let's remember that mental health care is not as easy as a magic pill. It can take months to stabilize someone. Someone with schizophrenia may have difficulty staying on a regimen. (The side effects are bad in many cases, and the drugs aren't a magic cure.) Some people would do best in a psychiatric ward more permanently, for example, but that's including housing. Bipolar treatment can stop working…

I agree with you, but (most) people don't start off homeless in life, so what factor(s) make people homeless? I bet one of the top ones are health reasons.

Luckily, we don't have to speculate. http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/why.html

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness

#270
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…

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…

Like everything to do with housing in CA, this idea is ruined by Prop 13. If San Francisco's property tax collections had been allowed to rise with property taxes, their tax revenue would naturally rise as land values rose and they would be able to afford land no matter how high the land values got. However Prop 13 stops their tax revenue from rising as fast as land values so land becomes increasingly unaffordable to them as land values rise.
Post reply on HN