81–90 of 108 posts
Libertarians who want the impoverished to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" don't realize what that takes. Nobody deserves to live without a home. We need successes like these so that as many people as possible can get assistance.
Ostrom provided the solution to the tragedy of the commons: self-organizing, collective governance. It is no coincidence that Agile is a convergent solution to the exact same principles. We were told for decades that the only options are the state or the market, Ostrom proved that false. But we don't live in an evidence-based world, we live in one shaped by power dynamics. We have the blueprint for collective prosper…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but most straight male homeless individuals are homeless because of substance abuse, so giving them money doesn't address the cause of their homelessness in any way. The targeted populations were primarily homeless for economic reasons, so the point of the experiment was to demonstrate that the simplest/most efficient solution was just to give them some money.
> most straight male homeless individuals are homeless because of substance abuse Do you have a citation for this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs This is such awild thing to say. What do you think the point of society is? Also, there is no way you "Totally agree" if at the same time you are saying this. Also if you understand the cost of incarceration and the negative social ills of poverty, then being against social programs, broadly, makes no sense.
Social programs are definitionaly nonpublic. That is, they do not provide nonrivalous and nonexcludable benefits. The proper method to administrate social benefits is via charity. In this way, there is no deadweight loss through unnecessary taxes.
We've tried this for years, it doesn't work at scale. And the end result is that you and I are still taxed, just more expensively and differently. We pay more for cops, prisons, healthcare etc because we're unwilling to solve it at scale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Queer people are at a greater risk of being estranged from their families, if nothing else.
Aren't all homeless people estranged from families? I assume family would help if it was a possibility.
Don't assume. Your life is nothing like theirs. You have no idea what it's like. I know some of them; I have no idea what they face on the daily.
Not fearing being kicked in the middle of the night while you sleep is part of the privilege that keeps you from understanding what they live in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This makes sense, targeting youth likely has a higher chance of a better outcome?
From my experiences, it does have a higher chance of better outcome, as homeless youth are usually homeless because of some family issue and not because they are unable to hold down a job as a result of drug abuse or being homeless.
Plus, homeless youth can include kids as young as 14 or 15, who are especially vulnerable to predators on the street.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also wild just how cost-effective interventions like this can be. You can pay a thousand here and there, or a few hundred thousand incarcerating these people when they turn to crime out of desperation.
Totally agree. I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs but the reality is if we don't find effective policies I end up paying more in taxes for emergency treatment and society take major economic hits for the other secondary problems, like crime, that homelessness causes. Of course the other argument for this is that society clearly has a hand in the path that took these people to where they are at now s…
(/s because poes law)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Larger and larger until we're just flat out testing UBI is fine by me. If you want to test UBI, there's no better way than implementing UBI.
[flagged]
Maybe you’ll get bored and spend some of your time doing something productive, or maybe not, and that’s OK too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be happy to pay taxes going to social programs also for my own benefit: not only as a form of insurance, but for getting a more pleasant day to day experience - like not having to step over homeless, less insecurity in darker areas, not having to live imprisoned in gated communities, and so on. A man can dream...
How much would you have to pay to no longer enjoy the benefit? I think that's the major question. I wouldn't much mind 1% in income tax for that, for example, but when you start pushing 10% it's an entirely different story.