California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working • Hacker News Board

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#591

Post by zizee » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 10:06 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #563

hnarn wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The strategy is called “housing first” and has been proven to work in Finland: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle... The idea that homeless people need homes to be able to advance further seems to trigger some people — after all, most of us pay for our housing, so why should they get it for free? What people don’t consider is that when “we”, the people with houses, don’t spend our dollars ho…

It's very hard to work around human nature and the whole "why am I paying rent like a sucker when the drug addicts on the street are getting free apartments?" I also think that people who point out that a huge percentage of the people on the street are on drugs, so the drugs are the problem are not entirely correct either. The drug use is a symptom that also exacerbates the problem. One of the big contributing factor…

Are there any good studies into the most prevalent causes of homelessness? I'd be especially interested that are trying to tease apart cause and effect, without the study author trying to prove out their own preconceptions.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#592

Post by bee_rider » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 10:06 PM UTC

drcode wrote: post #541

legitster wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want this person off of the streets for completely selfish reasons to myself . Recovery program or not, they are going to have to live somewhere . If it's not a publicly funded home then it's going to be a tent in a public park that I am paying taxes for.

Without a recovery program, some people will still just spend their day smashing car windows to get money for drugs, then go home to their free apartment It might still be worth it regardless, but keep that in mind

This hypothetical person will either smash windows and go to an apartment, or smash windows and go sleep somewhere in public. If they are already at the point of smashing windows, then there’s some element of desperation or misanthropy that makes me prefer that they spend their night somewhere private.

Anyway if we’re designing hypothetical people, we can come up with sympathetic ones too, so it seems like a wash policy-wise.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#593

Post by p0pcult » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 10:07 PM UTC

meowtimemania wrote: post #555

dv_dt wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea of worrying about who gets what for free before actually solving the problem, is a major blocker in solving the homelessness problem. And not only do the homeless suffer for it, the people who have work or homes in the area suffer for the lack of pragmatism about it.

I agree with you, I just feel like if I were working a minimum wage job busting my ass to pay rent to my landlord, I’d be deeply offended that you can be rewarded free housing essentially for being addicted to drugs.

[dead]

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#594

Post by jimbobimbo » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 10:08 PM UTC

nfw2 wrote: post #542

jonny_eh wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly an element, but that's largely washing your hands and victim blaming. There's a direct correlation between housing costs and homelessness rates. Update, here's a reference: https://endhomelessness.org/blog/new-research-quantifies-lin...

I agree blaming the homeless is oversimplifying a complicated issue, but I don't think it's evident that shortage of housing is the primary cause. There are plausible explanations for non-causal correlations between housing costs and homelessness. For example: - homeless tend towards warm climates, which have higher housing costs because most people prefer warm climates - homeless tend towards cities, where they can…

>Cities also have higher costs of living because they are densely populated

Isn't population density supposed to introduce efficiencies that would lead to lowering costs? I think, that's the usual argument against suburban sprawl.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#595

Post by chrsw » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 10:08 PM UTC

How many of these homeless people are actually from California?

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#596

Post by rcpt » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 10:08 PM UTC

Luckily a San Franciscan figured it all out over one hundred years ago:

> THE GREAT PROBLEM IS SOLVED. We are able to explain social phenomena that have appalled philanthropists and perplexed statesmen all over the civilized world. We have found the reason why wages constantly tend to a minimum, giving but a bare living, despite increase in productive power:

> As productive power increases, rent tends to increase even more — constantly forcing down wages.

> Advancing civilization tends to increase the power of human labor to satisfy human desires. We should be able to eliminate poverty. But workers cannot reap these benefits because they are intercepted. Land is necessary to labor. When it has been reduced to private ownership, the increased productivity of labor only increases rent. Thus, all the advantages of progress go to those who own land. Wages do not increase — wages cannot increase. The more labor produces, the more it must pay for the opportunity to make anything at all.

http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp23.htm

A Land Value Tax fixes our problems but in California we voted in Prop 13 which is about as far from that as you can get. And now here we are.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#597

Post by smsm42 » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 10:09 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #480

fullspectrumdev wrote: post #413

Having lived/spent time in a few places with varying homeless problems and approaches to homelessness, I find it fucking depressing every time I read about how badly - and inefficiently - the US handles it. Probably because I see alarming parallels with my own country. Billions going where, exactly? If the problems growing, and you are just sinking billions into it without making any measurable impact, where the fuck…

> Billions going where, exactly? If the problems growing, and you are just sinking billions into it without making any measurable impact, where the fuck is the money going? Well, that’s simple. Most of the money goes to politically well connected non-profits with missions around alleviating homelessness. The problem is that if you alleviate homelessness, the money goes away and everybody at that non-profit loses thei…

The funny thing is, you don't even need corruption. Every single one person in those GONGOs could be genuinely willing to help the homeless. The problem is, if their financing is detached from whether their strategies are successful - and even smart and honest people have great capacity for self-delusion, which is only enhanced when the mission is morally laudable - then the money could be wasted as thoroughly as if they were corrupt.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#598

Post by p_j_w » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 10:09 PM UTC

meowtimemania wrote: post #555

dv_dt wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea of worrying about who gets what for free before actually solving the problem, is a major blocker in solving the homelessness problem. And not only do the homeless suffer for it, the people who have work or homes in the area suffer for the lack of pragmatism about it.

I agree with you, I just feel like if I were working a minimum wage job busting my ass to pay rent to my landlord, I’d be deeply offended that you can be rewarded free housing essentially for being addicted to drugs.

And yet, in spite of being offended by it, your life would actually be better for them getting free housing.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#599

Post by hellojesus » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 10:09 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #563

hnarn wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The strategy is called “housing first” and has been proven to work in Finland: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle... The idea that homeless people need homes to be able to advance further seems to trigger some people — after all, most of us pay for our housing, so why should they get it for free? What people don’t consider is that when “we”, the people with houses, don’t spend our dollars ho…

It's very hard to work around human nature and the whole "why am I paying rent like a sucker when the drug addicts on the street are getting free apartments?" I also think that people who point out that a huge percentage of the people on the street are on drugs, so the drugs are the problem are not entirely correct either. The drug use is a symptom that also exacerbates the problem. One of the big contributing factor…

What I haven't understood is: why don't people move away if they're doing min wage jobs in a place where they are clearly incapable of delivering any quality of life?

Bring labor supply down and suddenly the market has to pay more. This seems to be simple oversupply in a saturated market.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#600

Post by boucher » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 10:10 PM UTC

meowtimemania wrote: post #555

dv_dt wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea of worrying about who gets what for free before actually solving the problem, is a major blocker in solving the homelessness problem. And not only do the homeless suffer for it, the people who have work or homes in the area suffer for the lack of pragmatism about it.

I agree with you, I just feel like if I were working a minimum wage job busting my ass to pay rent to my landlord, I’d be deeply offended that you can be rewarded free housing essentially for being addicted to drugs.

You seem really intent in your comments on this post to conflate drug addiction and homelessness, which are overlapping but definitely separate issues.

Also, there are housing assistance programs for everyone who makes less than a certain amount of money, and I think everyone who advocates for more housing for the homeless would agree with more affordable housing in general. Mostly people who work in this space agree that housing costs are the primary driver of homelessness.