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

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

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 1001 posts

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

#71

Post by skrebbel »

atdrummond wrote: post #24
skrebbel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is giving people money unconditionally not treating them as “humans with potential and aspirations”? I’m not entirely sure what your point is. Are you saying that adding more rules and conditions and whatnot is better? I don’t have a well-formed opinion here myself, just that most people arguing for treating benefit recipients humanely argue for fewer rules, not more. So I’d like to understand your point better.

I’m not at all against unconditional cash grants. I work for a non-profit that does just that. What I am against is a totally unstructured program where they hand cash out knowing that 90% of it goes into an open air drug market that they make no attempt to shut down or control. I’m not arguing for work requirements or time limits. People who are legitimately struggling will fall through the cracks. But I don’t think…

Awesome, thanks for clarifying. This makes a lot of sense to me.

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

#72

Post by nwienert »

zhte415 wrote: post #20
atdrummond wrote: post #8

That’s because Cali’s approach is insane. They give you hundreds a month in cash grants (some make $1k a month in SF) and require you to make NO alterations to your lifestyle. I was amazed when living in SF how many of the homeless are not locals. Not even Californians! I myself lived on the streets for a number of years and have dealt with addiction issues. It is absolutely insane how we’ve stopped treating homeless…

> I was amazed when living in SF how many of the homeless are not locals. Not even Californians! Source? Because this seems to be banded around in comments without anyone sourcing. I dropped this actual source [1] in another comment, that measures 13% of unsheltered homeless as coming from out of state for LA. [1] https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/jun/28/dispelling-my...

On my street in the Mission there were mostly illegal immigrants living on the sidewalk in tents, they told me as much.

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

#73

Post by pc_edwin »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #46
pc_edwin wrote: post #30

[flagged]

> These are uncivilised people (by definition), a lot of it is mental illness and the rest is refusal be a civilised human. Spoken from a position of priviledge and perceived moral superiority. Where do you live, and how much do you earn? Have you ever considered what it would be like if you couldn't afford where you live, no matter how much you earn? Cost of living has gone up but wages haven't. Minimum wage hasn't…

I grew up around poor people. I remember watching my cousin cry to my aunt for money to buy pens/pencils whilst my aunt knew she didn't have the money nor did her husband working 12 hours on a pineapple plantation.

I have another uncle who threw away 15 years of his life being a truck driver in the deserts of Saudi Arabia just so that his son and daughter could get a decent education. Meanwhile his wife (my aunt) raised two kids alone, whilst herding goats, chickens and managing a rubber planation.

Don't talk to me about privilege. These people are scum. Low lifes. Not only do they have access to handouts (especially in europe), they have access to an infinite amount of jobs.

How do you think tens of thousand of UNSKILLED people cross the border illegally with no money, work low skilled jobs and make enough money not only to sustain themselves but also to send money back.

You have no idea how privileged and uninformed you are. All these stories I told is because of communism. We are from one of the most blessed regions in the world, rivaling california and florida in beauty but communism ruined my state. Now everybody above 90 IQ is forced to be flee the country.

Everybody I know including myself are expats. Nobody wants to leave but they have no choice, there is no future here. So yeh I would have unfettered capitalism over your delusional childish theories of good vs bad.

Side Note: price increased are due to inflation caused by the expansion of the money supply. Guess what expands the money supply? Also in central banking system, this expansion is done through the banking system creating massive bubbles and extreme money concentrations.

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

#74

Post by dalbasal »

senttoschool wrote: post #2

Everyone already knows that the more money California spends on homeless, the more of them will come to California. It's a service. The state/city that provides the best service for homeless people - that's where I will try to go if I don't have a home. Politicians don't seem to understand this. Or maybe they do, but they do the wrong thing in order to drum up politically correct votes. Take San Francisco. It spends…

Well...

The logical (and operative) end of this thought process is "make them miserable and they'll leave."

Some/many politicians do implement these kinds of policies, but you'll rarely hear the quite part out loud.

Nasty problems breed dishonesty. Humane homeless policies increases homelessness, and the visibility of homelessness... especially if homeless migration is prevalent.

The inhumane homelessness reduction policy is "abuse homeless people, then some will go away" No one wants to admit the other side of whatever coin they like. C'est la politique.

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

#75

Post by zumu »

zhte415 wrote: post #20
atdrummond wrote: post #8

That’s because Cali’s approach is insane. They give you hundreds a month in cash grants (some make $1k a month in SF) and require you to make NO alterations to your lifestyle. I was amazed when living in SF how many of the homeless are not locals. Not even Californians! I myself lived on the streets for a number of years and have dealt with addiction issues. It is absolutely insane how we’ve stopped treating homeless…

> I was amazed when living in SF how many of the homeless are not locals. Not even Californians! Source? Because this seems to be banded around in comments without anyone sourcing. I dropped this actual source [1] in another comment, that measures 13% of unsheltered homeless as coming from out of state for LA. [1] https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/jun/28/dispelling-my...

That source quotes a study from LA county (not SF) in 2018, which discloses no methodology. So not a bullet-proof statistic by any means.

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

#77

Post by atdrummond »

akira2501 wrote: post #57
skrebbel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is giving people money unconditionally not treating them as “humans with potential and aspirations”? I’m not entirely sure what your point is. Are you saying that adding more rules and conditions and whatnot is better? I don’t have a well-formed opinion here myself, just that most people arguing for treating benefit recipients humanely argue for fewer rules, not more. So I’d like to understand your point better.

> How is giving people money unconditionally not treating them as “humans with potential and aspirations”? If access to money is not their actual impediment then you may be making their situation worse. > I’m not entirely sure what your point is. Are you saying that adding more rules and conditions and whatnot is better? You are drowning. I throw $1000 at you. Are you saying I should have done more? > argue for fewer…

This is a great response.

One of the most under appreciated aspects of this is that the current policies actually hurt the homeless people who are stuck in a poverty trap and want to get out. They have to live daily with an ever increasing number of people who are allowed to engage in dangerous and uncivil behaviour. There are parents and children on the streets who want nothing more than to get off them - but until that happens, their quality of life has been made considerably worse by the policies presently in place.

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

#78

Post by mschuster91 »

realjhol wrote: post #67
mschuster91 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The left's idea or "doing something about it" is making the problem worse not better. It would be better to do nothing than actively facilitate and incentivize homelessness and drug addiction with cash payments. It at least keeps people alive. The problem is that the causes of homelessness are not addressed at all - there is nowhere near enough affordable housing stock.

> It at least keeps people alive. It may well keep people alive - in a way, but it's no solution if it creates a mass of people who are destroying themselves and the city community. It's still death - just in slow motion. > The problem is that the causes of homelessness are not addressed at all - there is nowhere near enough affordable housing stock. Yes, and that's not going to change, so alternative solutions are r…

> Yes, and that's not going to change, so alternative solutions are required.

And which ones, bar building housing, should that be?

Locking them up for the crime of not being able to afford a home (or being judged too unworthy of credit by three ultra-large black box corporations) is inhumane and costs the government way more than just giving them outright cash.

Locking them up in mental wards has the same issues and there's a reason involuntary commitment fell out of favour - it's ripe for abuse.

And driving them off via whatever measures just shifts the problem elsewhere.

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

#79

Post by atdrummond »

heavyset_go wrote: post #59
realjhol wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving addicts drug money instead of providing for their needs is the peak of inhumanity.

The majority of homeless people are homeless for economic reasons, like loss of income, cost of living increases, or lack of affordable housing, or changes in co-living situations caused by break-ups/divorce/abuse/loss of partner's income/etc. Families are the fastest growing homeless demographic.

And that group is hurt the most by having to share the streets with people whose uncivil and dangerous behaviour puts their life and well being in danger.

Treating unhoused persons as a homogenous population is probably the original sin of modern American homeless policy.

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

#80

Post by user- »

roenxi wrote: post #70
rottencupcakes wrote: post #3

Homelessness is a failure of the Federal government that nobody there is even willing to talk about. This can't be solved at a local or state level in a country with unrestricted freedom of movement.

Why? Is it illegal to discriminate based on place of birth? It seems like it'd be politically palatable to allow places to run homeless programs that are only available to locals. There isn't a downside for anyone.

Is this a real question?

How will you define a local? What happens if someone lives in a town for 10 years then loses their home. What if theyre not a local but they are a minor? Or if they are an immigrant?

Post reply on HN