It's plan to see, even in the comments in this forum so many are really quick to jump to "but mental illness..." "but drugs..." etc...
It makes me sad to realize this is unlikely to change during my lifetime.
“Utah reduced chronic homelessness by 91%. Here’s how”
https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chroni...
"... housing comes first, services later. Clients do have to pay some rent — either 30 percent of income or up to $50 a month, whichever is greater."
And those homes don't have to be big, sprawling, 1000-footers either. An address, bathing, electric, a share in the cost ... is a leg up and a way to escape the terrors. Has to be a hell of a relief.
Housing homeless is less costly than providing jails + ambulances + other services needed when people are on the street.
The data is all there, but people will use sophism to make arguments that are either not proven, or that have been actively disproved. I mean, many arguments against helping the poor can be boiled down to: 'it isn't good enough, so let them rot'.
Especially after trauma. I know for me the stress of earning rent is WAY, WAY orders of magnitude less than living on the street. For many people it is that way, that is why they choose not to. Most people on the street don't want to be there (though you wouldn't know it, they are working poor who mostly sleep in their cars, what you see as homeless is only a small percentage of homeless)
You could experience trauma too. It can change anyone. A little empathy goes a long way.
How can you work full-time and not afford even the shantiest room somewhere?
And most landlords now a days do background checks. If you have been in prison, had a foreclosure, bankruptcy, etc many places won't rent to you at all. So you have to go to predatory places which charge way more than your regular housing.
However, this is all very basic information on this topic.
Since you seem to not know these very basic facts, may I suggest not holding an opinion or judgement until you may do a little reading on the topic.
It's my experience in my life that when I gave an opinion on something I was ignorant on, I generally felt ashamed afterwards. It's been a big motivator in me trying to know a little before giving an opinion. I think it's made me a better person.
Two decades ago, there was a big press campaign in Germany over "lazy professors" with some prominent illustrative examples (which I am sure existed). As a consequence academia was covered with bureaucracy to prevent this. Now professors do paperwork instead of science or teaching.
For the greater good society should be able to cope with a few free-riders.
Regarding lazy professors, we were (and still are) the exact same problem in Poland - dunno what the situation is in Germany, but here I'm convinced the laziness is absolutely prevalent, and almost no one is doing any real research. We also had the heavy buruecratic reform imposed on the academics, and the main difference is that now they expend a lot of effort pretending they're doing research, up to the point of creating collusion rings where everybody is citing everybody else (so that their citation count looks decent) etc.
On a broader scale, I don't believe that people do well in utopias imposed by bureucrats - and that's what the "help the homeless" and other socialist programs ultimately are. A lot of us just can't relate to something as impersonal as the state, and see no problem cheating it or stealing from it. What's worse, it's a slippery slope that leads to general moral corrosion. The professors are one of myriad examples of this - under socialism, most of them learned to game the system in a way that allows them to do nothing, to the point that it became a part of the Polish academic culture, which is now absolutely immoral and corrupt (just speak to young Polish scientist how actually want to do science, and who haven't yet given up and left the country). These people then pass such values to their children, who may enter different areas of live, and spill the cynicism of their parents there. Over a couple of generations, you end up with an absolutely broken and apathetic society - just look at Russia.
Have you ever heard the word data?
You are trying to argue data that has been gathered meticulously with an anecdote.
If I need to explain more, I'm afraid we won't be able to communicate.
To say what the data is, would be to literally post the text which you are answering to (you know, the one you supposedly read before commenting)
A text which has facts that you contradicted several times in this thread.
On top of this you don't seem to know what the meaning of the words you use are. Let me help you, socialism is when the state controls the means of production. Unless you are literally arguing that helping a homeless person is the same as the government nationalizing every company on the stock exchange, then you are using words wrong. Though not surprising, given that you seem to comment on articles you haven't read.
BTW, the way Portland tried is terrible. That is why these successful experiments are so interesting to read about for those who don't have closed minds.
The linked article is not research or even data - it's a Guardian article, which has close to zero credibility as far as I am concerned (nothing against Guardian per se, newspapers are terrible sources of knowledge in general).
Even having said that, the article does not seem to have any data on what I was worrying about - i.e. to what degree subsidising homeless people is incentivising homelessness. It instead talks about a programme (not homelessness itself), which seems to be dealing with homelessness by... providing subsidised housing. They don't say how much they're spending a year (presumably many millions, judging by the scale of the operation), and in 2018 their results are... six people who stopped needing the subsidy and went on to live independently. Given the fact that they house 3500 people, a yearly conversion rate of 0.2% seems abysmal, and may actually point to what I was worrying about - i.e. homeless people not wanting to be go back to the society that much, as long as the state is subsiding their housing.
Funny aside, according to the article, 70% of homless in Finland do not actually live on the streets, but with friends or family (but, I am assuming, would prefer to live on their own). According to this standard, there are millions of homeless in Poland. Although I wouldn't be suprised if this particular bit of reporting was mangled and that the truth is more complicated.
Before you were talking about 'communist Portland', you also said that all initiatives to help the homeless are 'socialism'.
I honestly want to learn about this. You might have a point, but you seem to have an agenda, for example you made up up that all costs related to homeless programs are new costs (on top of existing programs) when the article clearly states otherwise.
It seems you want to play to win, not to learn and your mind is already made up. You have already made up facts multiple times in this thread and used words wrong without regard for the truth. This to me shows a lack of intelectual honesty and I don't really feel like engaging such behavior any further.
No one said free.
But no. The thought of someone getting help triggers you emotionally. So you use sarcasm and exaggerations to have to avoid a topic where you probably don't have the data to back your argument.
Since you mention the words moral hazard, and you made up an argument to bring up the point, maybe you feel a moral hazard without really having viewed the data? In which case, I'm wondering where that comes from? (truly, not trying to imply anything)
Adults talk about other adults who have mental health issues and who cost society more money now than it would to house them.
We talk about directing existing resources.
We talk about data and studies.
I'm afraid you are making points based on things you are just pulling out of your... head - or you can prove me wrong and point me to a study that backs up what you said, explaining the significant percentage (it has to be since you are bringing it up) of homeless who feel the way you portray. I'll be glad to issue a retraction if you do.
I previously suggested to you a little compassion. I think a little thinking and research would also do you well. Maybe then you could formulate a cohesive argument without using some extreme 1% example to try and prove that 99% of the problem is not addressable.
Of course some people have a negative opinion of the homeless due to negative interactions - being scammed, not really homeless, taking advantage of people.
There are things in your argument that are implicit, but you left out or it would reduce your argument. I added those implicit things back in so that the full argument has to be addressed for what it is.
Hyperbole, but go on. To hear it from some people the 5,000 people that died during 9/11 was the worst thing to happen to humanity, ever.
> We need to give the common person a path out of poverty that doesn't involve higher education.
Like a .................... living wage? That's not very popular with the law and order crowd.
> Once those people are able to move up the ladder, those at the very bottom (homeless) will be able to move up as well.
A nation of 180 million able bodied Americans can only tackle one task at a time. We are incapable of chewing gum and walking. The buffer will overflow!
I am not sure. Cruel, yes. But it is the 'survival of the fittest' attitude, which although cruel, is natural.
You could say "Well, humans are just animals and we were always fighting for scraps so this is our natural state". But humans only thrived and evolved because we were so good at adapting to changes. So if now our social and economic reality is artificially rigged by those with wealth and power to stagnate everyone in some paleolithic struggle for survival, instead of being allowed to enjoy the true fruits of our advancement as a species, how natural is it really? And are we being deprived of the next step of our evolution because of the resistance to keep leveling the playing field for everyone instead of the few.
I'm not a scientist so I don't know the answers to any of these. I actually sort of believe in the idea of arrow of time so literally everything "is natural" and unavoidable. It is natural that the "few" have wrestled control of resources from the "many". And maybe it is natural that this goes on forever.. but it's just as likely or even more likely that it doesn't go on.
I'm not so interested in what is cruel and what is not (although I certainly want everyone to prosper and lead a life of fulfillment and meaning). But life of any kind is such a rare thing in the universe and keeping it going seems to be a dance on the sword's edge. So I'm more interested in what is better for ensuring that life just keeps going, rather than keeps going under a set of pleasant circumstances.