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

Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

programmingisterrible.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 387 posts

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#81

Post by run4yourlives »

beat wrote: post #23
glesica wrote: post #18

I think that when people say "hard problems" they mean "problems that almost certainly have solutions if you are willing to put in the effort". Poverty on the other hand is a much, much harder problem than that. In fact, no one quite knows how to solve it in a general way (there are things that seem to work in certain contexts but not in others, many special case half-solutions). And on top of that, there probably is…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee The solution is simple. You simply give every adult citizen enough money every year to insure that they can afford food, shelter, and other basic needs. Give it to everyone, rich or poor, same amount. BAM! No more poverty, except in self-inflicted cases (drug addiction, for example), or things like severe and very expensive illness (which are covered by other means)…

While I like the idea of a Basic Income, and have actually come to support it heartily, (if you don't, take a look at some of the economists who have, and why they do) you are being naive to think that "self-inflicted cases" are somehow anything other than a vast majority.

Almost all homeless have mental illness and/or substance abuse issues. That's why they are unable to act on one of the endless options that exist at the moment that can get them even the most basic of accommodations and employment. The people your solution truly helps are the non-homeless poor. To be honest this is a much easier issue to address given some willpower. Then again, as a Canadian, I find basic medical care to be a no brainier as well, which seems to be something the US struggles with quite a bit.

You can't simply suggest that addiction/mental illness is "self inflicted", give them $10K and say "You're on your own, bud." That isn't solving anything. Solving homeless is the same as solving mental illness and/or addiction, and those are massively hard problems to address.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#82

Post by king_jester »

jarjoura wrote: post #32

There is a disparity between rich and poor in this country, sure, but come on. Most of the homeless in SF actually want to be on the streets. So many of them are young and it used to make me sad but I have just learned to accept it. I always make a point to package up leftovers and hand them out. I'll even reach into my wallet and hand out a few dollars too. If there were more I could do though, I would be more than…

> There is a disparity between rich and poor in this country, sure, but come on. Most of the homeless in SF actually want to be on the streets.

This is ludicrous. By almost every metric being homeless sucks: access to work is harder to find and keep, medical care isn't as available, physical safety is harder to keep, you are more likely to be arrested, you are more likely to be assaulted, etc. This mindset is straight out of the Victorian era.

> So many of them are young and it used to make me sad but I have just learned to accept it. I always make a point to package up leftovers and hand them out. I'll even reach into my wallet and hand out a few dollars too.

> If there were more I could do though, I would be more than happy to donate some of my time, as I'm sure many in this city would too.

Homelessness is a systemic issue that can't just be solved only with individual people's time and/or money.

> Also, is more public housing the answer? Not sure about that one. They all look like government buildings with horrible fluorescent off-green lighting filled with junkies and drug addicts far from being cured.

That is because the issues that go with homelessness are not simply done once someone gets shelter. Also, public housing in most places in the US is at capacity and cannot accommodate any more people until someone dies or moves out. Some locales also put qualifications on public housing that will, by definition, keep people homeless or dependent on that public housing indefinitely.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#83

Post by jiggy2011 »

brown9-2 wrote: post #76
jiggy2011 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then wouldn't businesses who sell a lot of goods to people on the minimum income just put their prices up to force the gov to increase the minimum income at above inflation rates every year? You also still have the problem of people like drug addicts who spend all of their minimum income on drugs/drink/gambling and are still left homeless.

I would imagine the smartest way to implement such a thing would be to index the amount of money to a basket of goods, much like the way in which inflation is calculated.

I think the problem would be with relatively inelastic things like housing. A landlord could easily just set their rates to 70% of minimum income and as other properties would be out of reach to those on minimum income there would be little competition. At that point you would get strong pressure to increase the minimum income or implement price controls.

We have had similar problems in the UK with private landlords renting out very poor quality housing at high prices to those on welfare. In the past we solving this by building lots of social housing.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#84

Post by MarkPNeyer »

i worked at uber and twilio in the city. I was so bothered by the homeless people I saw everyday that it seriously impeded my work performance. i'd walk by them and feel terrible for not being able to help, for having an easy time making money, and feel afraid that my bipolar disorder would get worse and i'd end up like them. it was hard to function properly at work when I'd start my day feeling guilty, powerless and afraid.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#85

Post by arrrg »

VMG wrote: post #79
jiggy2011 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those same arguments could be made against welfare to an extent. The advantage of this system is that it would be simpler and therefor cheaper to administer and possibly harder to game.

The fundamental problem is separating the cheaters from those who really deserve help. In a system where the individual can decide where to put the money, everybody can decide who is deserving of help. If you mandate wealth redistribution, you need to create a complex ruleset that decides who is eligible. The rules are established by the ineffective and opaque processes of politics and government. The resulting syste…

With a basic income guarantee everyone would get money, and the same amount. There is no need to divine who needs it because everyone does. No matter the income.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#86

Post by king_jester »

michaelkeenan wrote: post #55
jarjoura wrote: post #32

There is a disparity between rich and poor in this country, sure, but come on. Most of the homeless in SF actually want to be on the streets. So many of them are young and it used to make me sad but I have just learned to accept it. I always make a point to package up leftovers and hand them out. I'll even reach into my wallet and hand out a few dollars too. If there were more I could do though, I would be more than…

> Most of the homeless in SF actually want to be on the streets. To those surprised by this sentence, jarjoura might be influenced by this recent Priceonomics blog post: http://blog.priceonomics.com/post/43085729257/the-street-kid... "Most street kids we spoke to came from one of two backgrounds: either they had job prospects (whether good or dead-end) but preferred the freedom of homelessness, or were transient home…

The article focuses on a very specific demographic of homeless people in a specific area of SF. These people do not represent a complete picture of homelessness. For example, most of the people interviewed in the article are white, but other races (esp. black folks) are several times more likely to be homeless or occupying shelter spaces.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#87

Post by misc_closet »

VMG wrote: post #50
thenomad wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the homeless in SF actually want to be on the streets. {{Citation needed}}

same goes for the OP (or the inverse statement)

You need a citation to prove that homeless people don't want to be homeless?

Silicon Valley has peaked.

Idealistic, social-conscience-having nerds take note:

This is what happens when you let neoliberalism, Randroidism, and corporate psychopathy infect your tech community.

Technology is supposed to be used to create a Star Trek future. Not to spy on everyone as we make their jobs obsolete, drive up their rental costs, and put them on the street. Then demonstrate zero compassion for the victims that Silicon Valley has created.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#88

Post by hsitz »

madaxe wrote: post #38
hsitz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There's this odd commingling of the concepts of socialism and liberalism in the general populace's minds, for some reason. The two could not be more antithetical." The reasons for this are historical. What you call the "socialist" elements result from the idea that part of being truly "free" (i.e, liberty) requires that people be treated equally, thus liberals in this sense have a focus on social justice. (See this…

Indeed - perfectly familiar, have read my share of Tocqueville, Hayek, Hobbes and all the rest, but the fundamental point that divides socialism and liberalism is that of freedom of people, vs. freedom of the people - i.e. individualism vs. socialism. Liberalism has always been about social justice, and the idea that each and every human should be free to run or ruin their own lives (Positive vs. Negative freedom), w…

Classical liberalism (what you call "true" liberalism) focused on negative freedom. Modern liberalism (what you call "socialism" although it's not: modern liberals are still in favor of regulated but mostly free markets) focuses on ensuring positive freedom. Again, no big deal as long as we understand what each person means when they're talking about being a "liberal". In contemporary world, however, calling yourself a "liberal" in sense of classical liberalism tends to indicate you're that you're an academic, a libertarian, or some variety of free-market capitalist. In contemporary world, the usual meaning when someone says they're a "liberal" is that they're socially liberal, focus on equality and positive liberty. And the usual meaning is entirely correct, even though you apparently want to restrict use of the world to its meaning in classical liberalism.

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#89

Post by pfortuny »

VMG wrote: post #74
noonespecial wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need a great number of many to create a pool large enough to get those precious few that can advance humanity enough to do all of that providing by the few. Humanity could be two people living in a grass hut finding just enough berries to eat each day, but it wouldn't be much fun.

Those "precious few" will probably not come from unfit parents who already have six children. Broken families and lack of family planning lie at the heart of crime and poverty. (I can already see the "eugenictler" strawman being put up in the distance)

You -as well as I- most probably come from unfit ancestors with lots of children. And that is irrelevant, as far as I can tell.

So your argument is?

Re: Come here and work on hard problems – except the ones on our doorstep

#90

Post by misc_closet »

regis wrote: post #56
beat wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone actually PREFERS to be homeless, except for a few exotics. Most of the homeless in America are that way due to either a: unfortunate economic circumstances, or b: mental illness that precludes normal social functioning.

I think many people choose being homeless over giving into the pressures of our society like having to sustain a job in order to pay rent and go out for dinner etc... and all that stuff that 'normal' people desire. I've met homeless people that split their time between SF and some hills near Santa Cruz and only come into the city to sell some hash or hang out ith friends for a couple of days... but yes there are also…

Are you aware that we live in a period of peak unemployment?

There are literally millions of people who want jobs. The jobs were all made obsolete by Silicon Valley. The safety net was shredded by Silicon Valley-style neoliberal ethics based on Ayn Rand.

Post reply on HN