Why "even"? Why are we still pretending that Silicon Valley has the answers to everything, that tech in general is an all-purpose panacea?
> Between 2011 and 2012, SF spent $157 million on homeless services. By the 2015-2016 fiscal year, it was up to $242 million. In the most recent 2019-2020 budget proposals, the figure hit more than $364 million. But the consensus remains that more is needed.
(Source: https://sf.curbed.com/2019/12/19/21027974/san-francisco-home... )
That money's not going to the homeless people. It's going to the people who run the services to support them. You think they'd want to see homelessness end?
And, indirectly, the Police make money from homelessness because they can use it to get their budgets increased.
Yes, I think those people want to see homelessness end. Why else would you want a career in that field?
Climate scientists also want action to be taken to fight climate change, even if it might put them out of a job. Folks who work for the UN to tackle world hunger want world hunger to end, even if it puts them out of a job.
I don't think rank-and-file workers are psychopaths.
The people who want a career in that field who actually interact with the homeless are pretty detached from the big decisions.
At 40k a year per homeless person..how are they homeless. Answer: they aren't getting 40k of benefits.
SF's budget is basically $40-50k per homeless person yet each person receives a fraction of that, maybe 10%, its incredibly inefficient. Its even been called "The Homeless Industrial Complex" by a variety of outspoken locals.
There's a really interesting character from SF who posts on twitter (@MyTwolffamily) about his personal experience of being a homeless drug addict, it might be enlightening to read some of his posts.
Yes, any proper non corrupted police would love to see that.
Seeing the most downtrodden people in society continually crushed is an awful experience for people on both sides of the table.
I'd encourage you to talk to a single person actually working on the problem. Literally anyone.
But no, they can’t do that. It would piss too many people off. The problem with homelessness is that it’s always someone else’s problem. Everyone agrees that it should be dealt with, just that no one wants to deal with it themselves.
You also don’t have to divide it equally among homeless people. You could start with a few and add more to the program over time, as the endowment grows. Those getting the money would be assessed based on potential to get off the streets permanently and find jobs, housing, etc.
Because then it pays for itself. Look at the Nobel prizes. Look at Harvard University. Look at the Norwegian pension fund. These are backed by HUGE endowments which pay for themselves with profits earned on the market. They are also extremely stable.
On the other hand, look at Social Security in the US. Any sort of benefits program paid for by taxes is exposed to political interference. That makes them inherently unstable.
One of the problems with homelessness is that it's a systemic issue.
Another problem with homelessness is that it's dozens of problems, because different people have different reasons for being homeless.
A mother living with her two kids in a tent could see most of her problems solved with a monthly cash injection; she could get an apartment, make sure her kids have sufficient care while she works, or just take care of them herself using the stipend.
The guy who sits on a bench howling at the moon because he's convinced it's implanted digital worms in his teeth? If you cut him a check, he's not going to be equipped to spend it in a way that's beneficial for himself.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/lifeline-program-low-income-cons...
When Trump said he wanted to eliminate it, tons of politicians and whatnot defended it as essential to getting cell phones into the hands of poor people.
Trump did reform it rather than eliminate it, putting stricter requirements and adding things (less payment to the companies, must be a smart phone, must provide some data, etc.). But up until this, I knew of one company that had about 30 employees and earned over $200mil per year directly from the government operating as an MVNO. The industry was rife with fraud (and likely still is for all I know, it was absolutely shocking before which is why they reformed it, but hopefully it's better now) - recipients had to fill out a stack of paperwork, but they would pay independent contractors to go to methadone clinics, homeless shelters, etc. with pre-filled paperwork and get people to just sign their name and hand them a phone. It was also a scam for the recipients who were in on it somewhat, as they would switch providers every month or sign up for multiple, and get gift cards (or booze, cigarettes etc.) from the independent contractors for doing so. Companies I worked with would have churn up to 80% per month so they constantly had to refill with "new" people who the independent contractors found.
I have seen so much fraud in various government programs that have a veneer of "doing good" but the end result is legions of private companies that execute the mandate and collect the check. If you are an enterprising person and want easy money, government programs are a great place to look, which is sadly why it attracts so much fraud.
Give free or extremely cheap housing to every homeless person and the lucrative real estate companies and investment funds will disappear.
But the money might have to come from the government. Private prisons don't seem to mind.
This is very closely related to the idea of reform vs. revolution. Sometimes you just need to burn the whole thing down to get the outcome you want.
Even if you truck in prefab, where will you put it if no one will zone or sell you the land to place it on? Everyone wants to be upwardly mobile, and many signal status with their housing. Would you live in a trailer park with your kids? Would you invite your coworkers over for game night to the double wide? No one wants to live next to trailer parks, I know because I try to buy and build them. Existing trailer parks are valuable because zoning for new ones is incredibly difficult, and the cap rates (return on investment) are higher than single family homes or smaller multi family.
Perhaps you'll argue that prefab isn't a trailer. Fair. People still want to live in the best neighborhood with the best schools their money can buy, which is rarely a prefab or inexpensively constructed community (see: signaling, with a dash of entrenched interests such as taxing authorities and builder profits).
Remember white flight? Very similar. Humans are tribal, will always seek status, and always measure themselves against others. These are deep rooted socioeconomic problems to solve. It's not just a matter of spitting housing out of a factory Gigafactory style.
People don't mind. If you note, demand for suburban properties is still high. The more land you buy, the less density = better quality of life while also appreciating in value year over year. If people wanted dense city life, why are they fleeing metros now that they can work remote?
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/18/coronavirus-update-people-fl...
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-are-eyeing-homes...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/12/new-york-exo...
You're aware of how the pandemic uniquely impacted New York, causing 17,000+ deaths in the city alone, along with the massive lock down that accompanied them, right?
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/estimate...
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/demographic-and-e... (near the bottom)
> Likewise, recent U.S. population growth also has been uneven. Urban counties have grown at roughly the overall national rate of 13% since 2000. Suburban and small metropolitan areas have grown more briskly. Rural counties have lagged, and half of them have fewer residents now than they did in 2000.
> Suburbs growing more rapidly than rural or urban areas
> About 46 million Americans live in the nation’s rural counties, 175 million in its suburbs and small metros and about 98 million in its urban core counties.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/26/us-popu...
> Newly released census data for the first seven years of this decade signal a resumption of the population dispersal that was put “on hold” for a good part of the post-Great Recession period. The Census Bureau’s annual county and metropolitan area estimates through 2017 reveal a revival of suburbanization and movement to rural areas along with Snow Belt-to-Sun Belt population shifts. In addition, the data show a new dispersal to large- and moderate-sized metro areas in the middle of the country—especially in the Northeast and Midwest. If these shifts continue, they could call into question the sharp clustering of the nation’s population—in large metropolitan areas and their cities—that characterized the first half of the 2010s.
In fact, the very existence of these zoning laws shows that people would be willing to live more densely than they are currently allowed to. They wouldn't exist if people didn't want it (you don't need laws to prevent density if nobody actually wants density).
And the fact that they are fleeing looks a lot more like it is due to high costs than actual quality of life. I grew up in suburban America...it was boring as shit and I'm never going back. Literally the worst quality of life you could possibly present me with.
There is urban housing demand, simply not as much as suburban demand.
Thanks for clarifying the motivation behind your opinion.
And the cities are expensive because the density in American cities is still laughably low. We live in Seattle and we had to settle for a house because the kind of a condo that I want simply doesn't physically exist. Yes, living in a condo next to 2.5 restaurants in a middle of single family zoned area is worse than living in a house - but that's due to lack of density, SFH areas simply suck. The dense land is extremely scarce, so all they build there are overpriced luxury condos - they can get away with that because the demand is huge.
Some, yes. Others because they want the space. I am SO glad I am not living in an apartment. I'm really enjoying my garden, not having to hear my neighbors, etc.
> suburbs are super cheap everywhere except SFBA
I wish!!! (Portland suburb dweller here)
What I wrote is a bit long for a headline. What they wrote sums it up nicely.
E.g. the idea that you can handle fundamental social problems though purly technological solutions if absurd but exactly that idea is commonly pushed by SV.
Really? Which SV companies are pushing that idea?