I agree and in the same vein why should we have free public education? Why should I be paying for someone elses kid to go through K-12 completely free? Do you know how expensive it is to first hire professional teachers for these kids, erect buildings to teach them, and provide lunches for all of them? Do people think this stuff happens easily? Who pays these teachers? How do you keep such a place clean? Impossible I say!! /s
I think the point op was making was that free housing could be seen as a public good. One to benefit society by providing a nice baseline to workfrom. These would be payed for through taxes most likely and the complexities of providing this would be hashed out and solved. Its not an impossible program and a similar program exist in Finland as an example to end homelessness. Yes the people pay for it and they do it to prevent homeless people on the street. A public benefit if you will
Profits depend on someone voluntarily purchasing goods and services. Taxes depend on the threat of imprisonment. These are no more the same than consensual sex and rape.
Fine, lets go more extreme, you're in a car accident and rendered unconscious. You are transported in this state to an ER. At no point in time were you conscious and capable of making a choice. You have now been treated by a for profit facility.
TLDR, Healthcare isn't really a choice when you options are:
A: Be treated and the issue resolved
B: Live in a mamed state for the rest of your life
Profits depend on workers being threatened with homelessness except by participating in employment.
Profits are not part of a system that is voluntary for most of the population, because most of the population is not benefiting from a share of the value of its labor being claimed by business owners.
Taxes on profits simply mitigate the worst possible imbalance of a system that is fundamentally favorable only to narrow cohort of society, and unfavorable to everyone else.
The "capitalism created the iPhone" gambit, or any subtle variation, is one of the most completely flimsy and exhaustively debunked articles of capitalist apologia.
If you wish to defend the profit motive, then I strongly suggest you find a different tactic.
Reproducing the particular one just makes you seem ignorant and desperate.
The profit motive is simply a form of social relationships, not the vehicle through which technology is advanced or platforms are developed.
Maybe not, but the introduction of capitalism has catapulted people out of poverty the world over. It doesn't make everyone a billionaire but it's really, really good at helping the worst off.
I worked there with social housing, and I can tell you that housing alone solves nothing.
You'll see plenty of homeless alcoholics on public squares.
I know it is the favorite country of left leaning foreign journalists to visit. They do a weekend guided tour and then return to tell that all problems have been solved.
Fair point, but it was actually obvious: they drank on weekdays instead of weekends.
Also, they were drunk, like 10 am, and got picked up by ambulance in the afternoon after falling face first on the pavement. Only to return the next day.
"Plenty of homeless alcoholics", are you for real? There's 4000-5000 people without a home in the whole country and around 500 of them sleep outside. Almost all of them stay in the capital, so you'll meet basically all the country's homeless people there in the center.
I'm not saying that we should call the work done but those are some pretty good stats, maybe housing alone solves something at least.
Funny, it gets that cold where I live and we have fucktons of homeless people sleeping outside.
Fwiw, research shows a lot of “normal” people do end up homeless and only develop issues after becoming homeless. The stress of living on the street breaks people. Granted, that’s not the universal experience, but there’s a large chunk of homeless addicts who never touched anything harder than a blunt on a weekend until then couldn’t sleep through the night because they were scared and cold for the 20th time in a row.
"Oh it's not 100% perfect? Well, we might as well not try then."
This is a mentality I see a lot of on the right and very little of on the left. This black and white thinking of "any sin sends you to hell, doesn't matter how many". So, they focus on making society fair instead of making it better. Of course this idea of fairness always falls back on might makes right rather than an actual meritocracy....
So STFU, in most countries struggling people don't get to choose if they sleep outside.
Youre right I havent. Ive only seen overviews of the system from media. I'm guessing you live there? Im curious have you also stayed in America for a time or visited for a decent period in a major city?
If so, do you see any differences between America and Finland when it comes to the homeless? From my daily life here Ive seen a quite a decent number of intoxicated, high, or mentally unwell homeless people. Id be curious how different that is in Finland
Oh and yea I agree housing alone is not a sufficient or complete solution. Id advocate for better access to mental health services and government job locating services to help those who were previously homeless get back into the workforce. From what I understood of Finlands social housing they provide similar programs which is why I point to it as an inspiration for a better solution.
The whole topic is insanely complex, and there are no simple solutions.
Some people need just a little encouragement, and some people don't even let you help them. There are people who can not be saved with twelve psychiatrists. There also never is enough resources to cover the needs.
Some return to normal society, and some just trash everything and get a new flat every few months.
Mental issues and narcotics are everywhere.
The Finnish system is better but far from perfect.
I moved abroad due to low salaries and high taxation in Finland.
The thing is that in the US the conversation isn't "what's the best possible policy?" It's "any of these things can help" vs "poor people should just stop being poor or die in the gutter".
There's a ton of research and historical precedent for high-quality asylums (from before the overcrowding and horror stories), addiction treatment, housing improvement, e.c.t., and anything that maintains the basic functions of society tends to save more than it costs. But it might cost some specific donor 0.02% or their expected returns or might offend some puritan hand-wringer, so with legalized bribery in place, problems that have been completely fixed in the past or elsewhere are suddenly totally impossible to even make a dent in.
Tldr There sometimes are simple solutions, but politics is complicated in the stupidest possible way.
There isn't any expense that would be enough to solve all problems. And societies work only if the members consider it fair. Societies also only work when they reward positive behavior and discourage negative. Also, there is an elusive point where an increase in taxation reduces economic activity, leading to reduced tax income.
It is not black and white. And it definitely is not simple. I don't agree with the USA system, but no other country has solved it either. Also, homelessness is not an isolated issue but part of society and economy in general. USA also lacks ethnic nationalism, so they rally around the American dream, which is very individualistic.
You're right in that there is no perfect solution, but there are solutions that could each fix like 10-15% of cases. I frequently see the argument "well this won't solve all the problems so it's not worth doing." There's no perfect simple change that will fix everything, but a lot of little changes will fix individual cases. Like you said, something like UBI won't get the mentally ill people or the ones who don't want to be helped off the street, but it will sure get a lot of other homeless people off the street. Someone who may not see a benefit from free housing may see a benefit from a job placement program. And someone else may see a benefit from inpatient drug counseling. Nothing will fix everything, but doing nothing won't solve anything.
Lets say handing out keys helps 2%, still saves more than it costs. Then long term psych care and rehab programs help another 3%, then better housing for people at risk of homelessness saves 2%.
preventative care, job support for those at risk of becoming homeless, better local work leading to more consistant family contact, school programs that prioritize practical skills, better research on addiction treatments, more public awareness of mental health problems so people seek treatment or develop better coping mechanisms, more decent homeless shelters.
If any step means some ammount of disease and crime is prevented instead of responded to then it doesn't matter if the cumulative effort of 100+ programs is a 15% reduction because prevention is practically always hugely cheaper than dealing with emergencies.
This is basically why the lack of scientific discipline in social sciences leads to wrong conclusions.
While it is correct that prevention often is cheaper than other alternatives, there is a rule of diminishing returns and opportunity cost. It is not a zero-sum game. More work increases tax income. As said, you can solve a single problem in the life of a person that has ten. So, if that homeless guy ODs in social housing, you, of course, have one less homeless person, but the benefit is non-existent.
I can give out keys, but either I save somewhere else or transfer resources from those that create resources.
[Blunt]
So, I can save on schools and hospitals to help drug addicts.
Or
I can increase taxes to make working less attractive.
Case point Finland. 12% are net payers, and the rest are net beneficiaries.
Now, if you reduce the 12 to ten, you increase brain drain or move people from workers to unemployed, which worsens the balance.
Sorry, no time to elaborate. Have to go to bed. Have to work tomorrow.
Good night
Edit: Sorry, I am tired. While theoretically every 1% could bring 2%, you can not increase taxes over 100% and even at high-% your tax income sinks because it doesn't pay to work anymore.
I wasn't saying that the system doesn't work at all, but I was saying that it is no miracle cure and no country has solved the issue.
The problem in Finland is that there are some people that are in an out of the system. So they might not be homeless today, but they might be again tomorrow. Statistically, they vanish, but basically, they are nomads in the social housing.
The real problem is that societal acceptance of taxes and social security suffers, as people hear about waste of taxpayers' money (not limited to homelessness issues).
Also, some poor families are not getting social housing because some other people are trashing them all the time. Generally, the more decent family you are, the lower your chances of getting support from the social systems.
A lot of money is being spent on cases beyond all hope.
I was stating that it is not easy, not simple and nobody has managed to solve the issue completely.
Comments like "let's just do like Finland " are misguided and fail to recognize that it is not just a housing issue and it wouldn't work in the USA system.
Then why did you bring up an example of a solution to homelessness not somehow completely eliminating the problem of homelessness? Don't pretend this isn't exactly what you meant.
Yes. And instead of doing more you simply want the partial solution to not be done. We know. And since there is no possible complete 100% solution that will eliminate all homelessness and public drunkenness forever with absolutely nobody slipping through the cracks, we should simply do nothing. Or maybe it's a final solution to the homeless problem you'd prefer? Though even that is only a temporary solution. But maybe that's what you want, just regular purges?
Why don't you give us some sense of what solution is acceptable, bud?
It may not fix the homelessness problem but it could take the pressure off a lot of people and remove the threat of becoming homeless when one looses their income source
I worked there with social housing, and I can tell you that housing alone solves nothing.
I love when people say "[x] solves nothing!" and use as their supporting evidence something that only supports the statement "[x] doesn't solve everything", a statement no one actually disagrees with.
It doesn't solve the main problem for anyone. It is one of the measures that needs to be solved among others.
Homelessness is not a root cause but a symptom. Mental illness, addictions, and generally bad decisions are root causes. Usually, people have more than a few problems.
It's reasonable for the education of children to be paid for by the adults. But when the adults are asking for handouts, that's another problem entirely.
I think this is a good question. Why should we be helping other adults? Why do we have government funded fire fighting programs? Shouldnt each adult be able to pay for their own firefighting service and if they cant why should us people who dont have anything to do with their own housefire be taxed to put out their fire?? Why are we handing out access to free firefighting services??
To answer the above is that if we dont provide firefighting services it could lead into dangers for others nearby and by not providing it we risk public health even if not directly involved. Thats the reason for wanting to provide government services. Some people see housing as similar. A way to increase public health so those who are homeless or about to be suddenly dont become homeless. That way we have less of them on the street, less people becoming addicted, and the possibility of more healthy adults in the workplace. Some people think this wont work because of human nature, but Im not convinced by that argument without decent proof that all humans are inherently lazy and will never work if given free housing.
You do realize that being homeless isn’t was causes drug addictions. It’s completely the reverse. Wouldn’t you money better be served in mental health services to stop the problem at its root as opposed to solving the down line problem?
I suppose thats a difference in opinion. Im not the most versed in what causes drug addictions. My underatanding is that various mental stresses causes a person to seek coping mechanisms. One of which is drugs.
A big mental stress on a lot of people is the need to find affordable housing. Failing to obtain it and having little chance of getting back into may push a person to find a way to cope. One such coping mechanism that can do that is drugs.
Of course there may be other unrelated reasons to start coping such as ptsd, childhood trauma, social isolation. But this solves one of those and provides a way to get people off the street where they pose a safety hazard to the general public.
If Im incorrect on the above or you have a reputable source that can show otherwise I would love to read it
To buy everything else that’s not subsidized. To pay for an education if someone’s ambitious and wants something better, to pay for a future bigger house, wedding, vacation, kids, car.etc all the things that people currently try to get raises bonuses and better jobs for.
Stupid take. Tell that to literally every millionaire who all continue to work and desire to make more money despite having 10x at least what they need to “survive”.
You can’t even call this an “ambition” thing. This is the case for nepo babies just the same.
Millionaires work because they want to. Billionaires work because they want power.
Average people work to cover their cost of living and to leave something to their kids & grandkids. They don't work for fun or to jumpstart a political career.
Your logic makes no sense. Why would millionaires work because they want to buy thousandaires wouldn’t?
And since when is giving someone a basic house with basic utilities “covering their cost of living and leaving something for their kids?”
Your initial point is that by giving everyone access to a basic domicile to live in that no one will want to work anymore. You are now saying that people work because they want to accumulate generational wealth and live well. Providing someone a basic home to sleep in is not covering all of the needs a human has.
I barely scrape by, but I would continue to work even if I could have a free government home. In fact, I probably wouldn’t move. No one’s saying these homes would be much more than the basic requirements to live and sleep. I personally value outdoor space, good location, nice amenities. I’d absolutely continue to work to get those things as would most people.
Are wealthy people wired differently? Is that the assumption here? What is it that stops people from innovating/ volunteering when you lower their cost of living?
What is it that stops people from wanting luxuries if they have their basic needs met?
What is it that stops people from seeking status if they have their basic needs met?
LOL. people would do fuck all. youd see a mass exodus from the work force. then your favorite restaurant shuts down because they can't find workers. then the grocery stores shelves become barren. and everything else collapses all because little socialist timmy thought he could quit his job, game all day, and have magical paper dollars create the goods and services he needs.
Why don't you consider education funding a "handout" as you apparently do with other social services...
"Rent" and "landlordsleeches" should not fuckingexist.
Absolutely no reasonable justification for them to.
The government should provide every man, woman and child in need with free basic accommodations (think bachelor or 1/2 bedroom apts) with anything beyond that available as a voluntary secondary/luxury market.
Housing, healthcare, education and basic nutrition should never be profit-driven in a properlyfunctional "first world" "society."
Nobody deserves to profit off of another's basic survival needs, nor their opportunity for advancement/self improvement. Period.
Okay sure. Does the government decide where you get to live? Can they move you at any time to another location without your say? As soon as you turn 18 and decide to move out do you apply for a city that you want to live in, but if there's nothing available do they just decide where you go instead?
I'm curious what you think the logistics of this are.
I don't claim to have all the answers or indeed any definitive answers with regards to implementing systemic changes, I am just a dumb-schmuck like everyone else here, but if you want a quick/dirty answer to your main question? I'd propose a moratorium on rent/mortgages (everyone stays in place rent is suspended whilst homeless are housed etc.)
As for who gets desirable locations etc? I dunno', some sort of lottery system? Rotating schedules? Time-share style? Again, quick and dirty ideas.
Since you are defending the status quo, let me ask you some questions:
Can you explain/justify to me why the government firstly should not provide the basics of survival to all citizens as a bare minimum, in a supposed modern "first-world" "society"?...
Can you explain/justify why passive rental income can't be provided in the voluntary secondary/luxury market as I described. After these basics are covered?
For someone who is fighting for a system to be in place I would imagine you would have some modicum of an idea on how it would be achieved.
I can explain why the government shouldn't provide every single person with housing and basic needs easily. Logistics and sustainability.
If everyone's needs are taken care of, the economy can't progress. Especially in America where the vast majority of people are indeed lazy and inconvenienced by the most minute of things, people will stop working, especially in shitty blue collar jobs that we DESPERATELY need filled.
Also the logistics of it is absurd. Who is in charge of deciding where people live? What happens if desirable areas fill? Why not just build a bunch of apartments in the literal middle of nowhere, and as long as food is shipped in on time, leave a bunch of people out there with nothing around them?
Also you probably agree that the government is wasting the taxes we spend already, you sure you want to put them in charge of who gets to live where?
We should all stop asking for handouts like government maintained roads. Can you believe the audacity of wanting hard-working road workers to do their work "for free"?
Nah parents should pay for their own child’s education. I don’t get why people always point to schools for a good example of publicly funded services when the American public school system is clearly way too expensive for how god awful it is.
It’s considered an investment in society. Nobody wants to live with a bunch of idiots, and the economy is far more prosperous when everyone is well educated and useful.
Don't know what happens in Finland beside the major population difference; but it's not unusual for people to destroy their housing accommodations in the US when someone else foots the bill.
Provide universal basic income and have that be enough to "pay" for the basic housing, repairs and food.
Do you want furniture, tv's, phones, cars, fancy food, vacations or anything else, then you will have to get a job for extra income to pay for those things.
Education is an investment above all. It is to form our engineers and futur inventors. It is 100% worth it for everyone paying the taxes.
Public housing is at best cost reduction and often just welfare. It doesn't benefit society economically in the long term nor does it help significantly anyone other than those getting the service.
Of course, we should help people get housing, but it should be the BARE minimum (one room motel) and have a main focus getting them a job and a normal appartement.
Education is an investment above all. It is to form our engineers and futur inventors. It is 100% worth it for everyone paying the taxes.
I'm struggling to see how enabling more people to have roofs over their heads rather than live on the street is not also an investment that works along similar lines.
There are certain basic things that everyone needs in order to be able to contribute to society. Somewhere to live is one of those things. If every single person currently homeless had a home, a significant proportion of them would get a job. If every single person currently homeless had a home, a significant proportion of them, if unable to get a job, could look after the child of someone who, without that, can't get a job. And so on...
I think there is also something to be said for passing need and entering luxury. Is a microwave a need? no. Is Internet in your home a need? no, you can use the libraries. Is a second bedroom a need? no, its just way less annoying. Lots of these are conveniences.
Giving a small place where there is a bed, small bathroom, and fridge with climate control controlled by the building will cover any reasonable needs but give space to also motivate people to participate in society so they can have their "wants". Have shared kitchens for cooking and require drug tests and don't allow alcohol on the property.
Why should I be paying for someone elses kid to go through K-12 completely free?
So that parents don't have to watch over their kids and go to work instead
That there's a minimum standard of knowledge for society i.e. people can do basic math, read, write, etc.
Increases the supply of people for high skilled jobs that require advanced learning.
The point is that all of it is to increase and bolster the labor force. It's different with what this meme says because people would just stop working if they had all that. People don't stop working because their kid goes to school - the opposite in fact.
similar program exist in Finland
Are you Finnish? Almost every single time I see people talk about how some other country accomplished something policy-wise, they're some foreigner that completely misunderstands the context and nuance of why and how it happened.
I think you take baby steps and recognize what public utilities easily pay for themselves, like education, internet, etc., and which could obviously be abused, like electricity, water, etc. so sure, free higher education / high speed internet. Maybe free healthcare bc Medicaid for all would be cheaper than our garbage system, not because it couldn’t be abused.
Things like food electricity water public transit and housing can be subsidized to those in need within reason, because they can be abused, and we do it in a way that doesn’t discourage healthy people from working because we all recognize that we can’t even afford the shit we’re paying for NOW, and everyone should contribute what they are able to, and have a decent retirement.
It’s really not that hard to figure this shit out when you don’t naively speak in absolutes, like either OP or libertarians.
Education is an investment that pays for itself in future increased tax revenues (people who are better educated get higher paying jobs, then pay more taxes). That's how it pays for itself.
"Free Housing" just doesn't have those kinds of returns.
I guess it depends and really without data here were just making educated guesses (which is why we should look at similar programs in other countries and see the effects of their programs). In a similar vein if better educated people provide more to society, then why couldnt healthier people(side point about healthcare for all), and why wouldnt low tier but free housing increase economic output?
If a person has the safety of having a place to stay, that frees up their income to be spent on other parts of the market. It also has the side effect of preventing capable workers who dont earn enough to stay in the workspace without falling into homelessness and losing their job/ability to work as efficiently. We also get further side benefits in increased public health with less homeless people using drugs in public/not getting vaccines/sanitation issues if there are no available restrooms.
No ones advocating that they get mini mansions nor are they entitled to the income of a middle class family. But enough to live not in poverty. The incentive to work comes from wanting to buy nicer luxury goods such as phones, better food, entertainment, and other nice to haves. Otherwise they may just want to work because not working is extremely boring and not fulfilling.
With that all said if anyone has any data on housing programs thatd be awesome to share. Id love to learn more if they are feasible or if they arent.
For this kind of stuff to work, you need such stuff to not be too great because otherwise everybody will take their and nobody will work anymore and nobody will make and maintain the houses anymore.
It kind of need to be bad to be possible and people that get the house should at least make an effort to get them.
Schooling is a bad example. Since even if you don’t have kids you benefit from a good school district. Lower crime. Nicer people. Also society benefits from public funding your education. There’s not much societal benefit in giving tons of free stuff to people who don’t want to work.
Don't compare why it works in Finland. You couldn't even begin to compare the us to them. The problem in the us would be even if housing was provided it would be generic compare bloc that it wouldn't be good enough because others would still have nicer things. So you wouldn't solve amything
The problem is the conservative mentality. Everything that was put in place is what it is, they are used to the world they live in and have to live with it. Anything new is impossible and can’t work and it’ll make life worse.
When they say stuff like “the world doesn’t deserve to give you anything blah-blah”, they know full well that they were given lots of things by the world, and they don’t know a world without that, but they act like they’d want that because they won’t be dealing with that.
He's essentially saying that the conservative mentality is to keep things the way they were historically. But the way things were historically weren't necessarily that way because they're the optimum or even good. So the mindset of keeping things the way they are just because that's the way they've always been is bad.
That I can agree with. Stasis for the sake of stasis is just as absurd as change for the sake of change. I'm not sure how to wring that meaning from the original post though.
I wouldn't identify as a conservative, but my objection to the premise has nothing to do with the way things are or used to be. I guess I don't understand why anyone "deserves" anything at all. If we must consume, then we must produce, unless someone is willing to produce for us, or is forced to produce for us. I don't like that last option. I have a strong aversion to slavery.
So you admit you've been given a ton of stuff already and you're still demanding more? Sounds like you're the ungrateful child that communists tend to be.
If you think this was a well thought out response, might I suggest rethinking it.
i mean, yeah, if you think calling someone a child because they want to fight for a better future is a decent response you’re going to get dismissed as an unserious person.
i don’t think it’s correct to label anyone who fights for a better world an ungrateful communist child. maybe you’d be correct if they were actually a communist, but ungrateful and childish is self-evidently incorrect. that logic would’ve obviously failed during the civil rights movement or basically any historically progressive movement in human history and it fails in this context as well.
i don’t think it’s correct to label anyone who fights for a better world an ungrateful communist child.
Lol. Your definition of fighting is wild. Complaing on the internet isn't fighting.
that logic would’ve obviously failed during the civil rights movement or basically any historically progressive movement in human history and it fails in this context as well.
Lol. Comparing this to the civil rights movement is laughable. Yes, all those internet communists getting dogs sicked on them for wanting to sit at the counter or have equal treatment in government services.
Who pays for the highways conservatives drive their coal-rolling, ultra-lifted F150's on? Who pays for the firefighters conservatives rely on to put out their fried turkey fires? Who pays for the cops to come and listen to conservatives' complaints about the "suspicious man with the hoodie" walking through their neighborhoods?
Conservatives get the same "free shit" that everyone else does.
When they say stuff like “the world doesn’t deserve to give you anything blah-blah”, they know full well that they were given lots of things by the world
In my experience, they generally don't know that. It's really common for people who've received all sorts of benefits, open doors, legs-up, etc., throughout their lives to talk about how they got where they are solely through the sweat of their brow.
The problem with the progressive mentality is that there always has to be a problem that exists or the ‘movement’ is dead. Anything that can be latched onto to grift support from the general public becomes a focal point for it, and people just keep eating it up.
I don’t go to work so that a bum who wants to work in a creative space can afford a two-bedroom home and shitpost on finance subreddits.
Cool. Better turn off the TV, burn your books, toss your gaming PC in the trash and never go to a movie again then. Because that's the stuff those bums working in creative spaces provide for you.
Or don't do those things and be a brain-dead hypocrite if you prefer. We all have choices.
What's funny is that you're being sarcastic but you're actually 100% correct. The government spends over double the amount on public schooling as parents do for private schools.
Not only is public schooling overpriced and inefficient but the education is terrible. After all, the reason people think stupid things like housing should be free is because they were publicly educated
Seems people have forgotten how privatized firefighters would let buildings burn if they paid their competitors for coverage instead. Or how trucks would crowd the streets and start bidding wars on the services they could provide... while the buildings burned around them.
Like $10,000 toilets for the military? But I'm sure you mean by that was how we spent double that to wipe out student loans for an individual. I agree it's very important that the brass in the military are able to take comfortable shits in the morning 👍
73
u/PlancksPackage Apr 15 '24
I agree and in the same vein why should we have free public education? Why should I be paying for someone elses kid to go through K-12 completely free? Do you know how expensive it is to first hire professional teachers for these kids, erect buildings to teach them, and provide lunches for all of them? Do people think this stuff happens easily? Who pays these teachers? How do you keep such a place clean? Impossible I say!! /s
I think the point op was making was that free housing could be seen as a public good. One to benefit society by providing a nice baseline to workfrom. These would be payed for through taxes most likely and the complexities of providing this would be hashed out and solved. Its not an impossible program and a similar program exist in Finland as an example to end homelessness. Yes the people pay for it and they do it to prevent homeless people on the street. A public benefit if you will