Housing, not houses. And they don't own the property. In most programs like this, the person gets a single room or (if they have a family) a small apartment. It's considered temporary - only until they can get back on their feet financially.

It's still only one step above complete destitution. Most people would prefer better and would still work hard.

It's a lot easier for a person to get a job, or beat any personal issues they have if they have a stable, safe roof over their heads. You gotta give people boots so they have bootstraps to pull themselves up by.

You don't have to guess and wonder. What happens is that a small percentage stays dependent, but the majority becomes economically productive by getting education and jobs.

If you can afford to keep people afloat, you should do it. The less complicated and less strings attached the more effective and cheaper is your solution.

There are people who steer the discussion to those who stay dependent. They claim that some of those are "incentivized" to do so, in other words: they are lazy and greedy. Well that's true, and it's a problem. Primarily because they can be used as an excuse and as a scapegoat to distract from the fact that capital _owners_ are extracting power and value that is generated by workers and small businesses.

What would I do if I were in that position? Be Jeff? I don't know, I'd probably be just as full of myself to believe that I deserve to be treated like a monarch and be able to buy what ever I want, while cheating my business partners, exploiting and surveilling my workers, manipulating my customers and ignoring my responsibilities as a citizen.

Power should be somewhat proportional with responsibility. I'm pretty sure it isn't, not at that scale.

What are you trying to suggest? That people only work to avoid homelessness? That homeless people deserve to be homeless? That providing homes to the homeless would cause people to stop being productive members of society?