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

Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)

improvesomething.today

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 174 posts

Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)

#91

Post by QuiDortDine »

didgetmaster wrote: post #20

People often attribute the government's inability to solve a problem even after throwing billions of dollars at it; as a sign of incompetence. While there is plenty of incompetence within government; I think the 'Preserve the Problem' response is mostly to blame. If we 'solved' crime, homelessness, drug use, poverty, etc.; then budgets would decrease and political power would diminish. Those in charge of solving the…

Possibly the dumbest take I've ever seen on HN.

Like politicians are going "without the homeless, I won't have anything to do anymore!". Like the street workers are thinking "shit, what'll I do if this goldmine dries up"?

Ridiculous.

Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)

#92

Post by aanet »

One doesn't need to be a consultant to realize how people respond to problems (other than solving them).

But it helps. Perhaps. Maybe even more so if you (=consultant) leave with just the recommendations, without actually implementing them. Which is what most of the Big 4 consulting companies do.

(Guilty, to be honest. And that's why (partly) I gave up mgmt consulting)

But it helps to understand where people are coming from to realize why the problems exist in the first place.

Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)

#93

Post by Swizec »

RugnirViking wrote: post #77
Swizec wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how some group would go about preserving a problem like homelessness, even unintentionally Simplistic version: San Francisco spends roughly $100,000/year on each homeless person. In services, salaries for people working on it, rent for office buildings etc. I am willing to bet many of these people would not be homeless if we just gave them $100,000/year without all the middle bureaucracy layers.

But the idea that that is intentionally done is the leap, right? In my model of the world, it's very easy to believe how overlapping & duplicate programmes, middleman corruption, and ineffective programs can cause this without meaning to, rather than some deliberate attempt to engineer the morass of beuracracy.

I didn't say it was intentional, it's the result of millions of little decisions that all make total sense in isolation.

Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)

#95

Post by AlexandrB »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #83
nostrademons wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All you have to do is promote policies that make the problem more palatable but don't actually solve it. Treatments instead of cures. As long as the problem needs treatment, the organizations dedicated to treating it will still be around, but as soon as it is no longer a problem at all, those organizations will cease to exist and everyone working on it needs a new job. For homelessness, it's things like shelters, fre…

> For homelessness, it's things like shelters, free meals, needle exchanges, etc. Make the life of the homeless easier without actually getting them into permanent housing. The actual solution to eliminate homelessness is to build more housing, along with financial arrangements to incentivize ownership and make it possible. I love the idea of building more housing, but I think a lot of homeless people have an income…

> I love the idea of building more housing, but I think a lot of homeless people have an income of literally 0, so wouldn't they be homeless regardless of how cheap housing is?

There's research that shows why increased housing prices cause increased homelessness. One of the mechanisms is that the family and friends of the homeless can no longer afford the additional space to house the folks who have literally $0 because they themselves are priced out of larger homes or have to rent space to make ends meet.[1]

> Unlike Diona’s mom, Sherman’s parents had extra space. That’s very common among homeowning, empty-nest parents, meaning that a great deal of vacant housing is in the hands of the two people who are most likely to love and forgive an adult child in dire circumstances. But in more expensive regions, fewer parents (or other loving figures) have that resource, either because they couldn’t afford to buy a house in the first place or because there are demands from multiple family members to share the legacy residence.

[1] https://doodles.mountainmath.ca/posts/2025-01-16-homelessnes...

Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)

#96

Post by throw9383848 »

>The most obvious example of how AI destroys the human ability to learn and think critically is its ubiquitous use in high schools and colleges. A study released in October 2025 found that 84 percent of high school students use AI to brainstorm ideas, edit or revise essays, and/or conduct research and find sources. Another 69 percent use ChatGPT to help with school assignments and homework.

Perhaps I am not as smart as author, but how is "brainstorming ideas" doing the "destroys the human ability to learn and think critically"? It is just cooperative work! Rich kids have private tutors, and do the "brainstorming" all the time!

I heard similar arguments when google search become widely available!

Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)

#97

Post by dmitrygr »

srveale wrote: post #82
dmitrygr wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t you say that the lowered crime rate enjoyed by the innocent as a result is an improvement?

Why not just incarcerate everyone between the age of 15-27, if what we're worried about is crime rate.

Because most of those people are not repeat violent criminals? We only need to incarcerate repeat violent offenders to reduce crime noticeably. This is not controversial. The data is linked-to above.

Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)

#98

Post by inigyou »

SoftTalker wrote: post #44
MattGrommes wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm genuinely curious about even a hypothetical more detailed example of how some group would go about preserving a problem like homelessness, even unintentionally. I can't wrap my mind about how it would actually happen beyond simplistic sayings. I live in Portland, OR where we have a large homeless problem and I continually hear that the groups being given money to help are incentivized to keep homelessness high fo…

In the homelessness example, it's not so much that the programs and groups want to justify their continued existence (though that might be happening too). It's that the programs themselves incentivize more of the problem. When they give things to homeless people, such as food, shelter, clothes, social services, even needles and a "safe place" to get high in some cases, and often with few or no conditions, they make b…

I don't think many people are being homeless by choice no matter how comfortable it is. Perhaps it makes more of them choose homelessness over suicide but I don't think it's making anyone choose homelessness over homefulness.

You know what does though? Making it really hard to get a home. That makes more people homeless. I hope that's obvious.

Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)

#99

Post by shermantanktop »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #46
shermantanktop wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think people look in the mirror and say “I’m going to be a terrible person today?” They look in the mirror and say “good job playing the hand you’re dealt - keep it up!” even while what they do is objectively terrible. Humans have an incredible capacity for rationalizing their own behavior.

> Do you think people look in the mirror and say “I’m going to be a terrible person today?” Not so directly, but I do think that a lot of people don't put any effort into being a good person. Think of the shopping cart problem. Good people return their shopping carts to the store or a cart return. Many people can't be bothered to do that. People think "oh I'm not bad for leaving my cart in a parking spot" they think…

They might agree that they would be a better person if they returned their shopping cart. But how many would sincerely state "I won't return the cart because I don't care about putting any effort into being a good person"?

I'd bet you'd get a litany of complaints about the parking lot, the cart, the store, the weather, anything but their own decisions.

Re: Three ways people respond to a problem (other than solving it)

#100

Post by verteu »

Swizec wrote: post #73
MattGrommes wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm genuinely curious about even a hypothetical more detailed example of how some group would go about preserving a problem like homelessness, even unintentionally. I can't wrap my mind about how it would actually happen beyond simplistic sayings. I live in Portland, OR where we have a large homeless problem and I continually hear that the groups being given money to help are incentivized to keep homelessness high fo…

> how some group would go about preserving a problem like homelessness, even unintentionally Simplistic version: San Francisco spends roughly $100,000/year on each homeless person. In services, salaries for people working on it, rent for office buildings etc. I am willing to bet many of these people would not be homeless if we just gave them $100,000/year without all the middle bureaucracy layers.

This is a fallacy because it's not the same people homeless each year. There's substantial turnover in the homeless population.

"Replace services with direct transfers" would eliminate homelessness for 1 year. Then new people would become homeless, and you'd have no services, because your budget is already committed to the "year 1 homeless-cohort."

The money spent grows quadratically (not linearly) over time.

Post reply on HN