|
that was the population of Darwin twenty years ago
So, care to give homeless that solar powered shipping container house with moisture vaporator on an acre of land for a hundred thousand dollars or are you okay with the betrayal of your childhood dreams?
Six billion dollars and ten square miles will fix this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm barely keeping a roof over my own head. It may be selfish of me, but I honestly don't care about them right now because I have my own important problems in that area. I haven't even purchased any new Pathfinder stuff in months.
I probably am not alone in this, either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This assumes that folks classified as "homeless" would be willing to move into one of your sanctuary homes, or that they would want any help from you at all.
that was the population of Darwin twenty years ago
So, care to give homeless that solar powered shipping container house with moisture vaporator on an acre of land for a hundred thousand dollars or are you okay with the betrayal of your childhood dreams?
Six billion dollars and ten square miles will fix this.
It won't. They'd have to maintain it somehow, thats almost as costly as building it.
that was the population of Darwin twenty years ago
So, care to give homeless that solar powered shipping container house with moisture vaporator on an acre of land for a hundred thousand dollars or are you okay with the betrayal of your childhood dreams?
Six billion dollars and ten square miles will fix this.
But where will they get the Droids to maintain the vaporators?
Seriously, a large number would turn you down because they are happy living on the streets. Second a square mile of land in NYC would cost billions if you could find that much open land. Third, most won't want to leave where they are, which isn't enough space for your solar powered shipping container.
And just so we are clear, that is like having less than 10 homeless people in Darwin 20 years ago.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mathematics isn't your friend, is it, dingo?
Well, I think I knew that already, but this suggests that mathematics used to push you into your locker in secondary school and gaffer tape you to the underside of the bench in gym.
Spending six billion dollars -- $6,000,000,000 -- to help sixty thousand homeless -- 60,000. That works out to $100,000 per homeless person. For a hundred thousand you can do a lot better than an air-conditioned shipping container. The median price for a house in South Bend, Indiana, for example, is less than $100,000.
Or you could give each person $1000 a month as a rent voucher and they could rent an apartment anywhere they liked for more than eight years.
The other issue, of course, is that you can't fix homelessness by giving people houses, any more than you can fix malnutrition by giving people Twinkies. There's almost always a root cause -- in the case of the adult homeless population, it's typically drugs, alcohol, or mental illness. That's typically why they're in shelters in the first place and it's also typically why they go back to shelters soon after someone's found a placement for them -- because they're not equipped to handle the actual demands of living.
But I suppose it's more glamorous to propose robotic vaporators and redistribution of land than it is to propose something useful like fully-funded drug and alcohol treatment centers.
And since we're talking about NYC, comparing house prices in South Bend isn't really helpful. Even $1000/month for rent isn't going to get you far in NYC.
Except we're not talking about NYC if he plans to put each of his little shipping containers "on an acre of land" for $100,000 either.
Not enough room in his shipping container.
Trying to figure out why we're giving 100k to someone who couldn't manage to keep themselves off the street.
And thats not meaning to be snarky, either. These folks don't need a ton of money thrown at them- what they need is help. Take each person and find out *why* there are where they are and try to actually help their issue/problem. It probably wouldn't cost anywhere near 100k/person and would be far more useful to the person and to society as a whole.
Blowing a few billion on "housing and land" will just end up in alot of homeless people on alot of land, if you don't address the underlying issues behind their homelessness.
-S
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to figure out why we're giving 100k to someone who couldn't manage to keep themselves off the street.
We're not. Dingo is proposing that we do, which is considerably different.
Dingo proposes a lot of things, often using the official US government petition site to make such proposals. These proposals are universally idealistic but stupid ideas that would cost a lot of money to make the world a much worse place overall.
For this reason, they're very useful discussion and educational tools, in the same way that Plan 9 from Outer Space is instructive to film students.
|
Actually, Selgard is right. Why give $100000 when about $5000 would be everything they'd need to get their lives back on track?
https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/20 798745-cb9fbb39
Not enough room in his shipping container.But the dingo theory of superstring nuttery tells us that all 60k homeless people in NYC are really just one person in Australia who is really just a mango.
So there's plenty of room.
I had forgotten how deep the mango-hole goes. I stand corrected.
Actually, Selgard is right. Why give $100000 when about $5000 would be everything they'd need to get their lives back on track?
https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/20 798745-cb9fbb39
I'm not sure that's a representative finding. Given the number of homeless people with genuine mental illness, giving $5000 to a crazy person won't make them not-crazy. I suspect they screened the participants in that study rather carefully to make sure they were the high-functioning people who really just needed money instead of the more common sort that need intervention.
But, yes. If you're in a position that merely being given things will pull you out of homelessness, you don't need to be given very much. (One of the points that Dingo seems to miss is that there's a substantial turnover in homelessness in NYC; the people who can find jobs and apartments will be able to find them within a long-but-not-unimaginable time.) Conversely, the people who need more than just a check (or a house) could be handed the keys to New Hampshire and still end up in trouble.
A drastically oversimplified solution to an incredibly complex problem. Some can't be helped at any cost; their issues are such that only incarceration or permanent commitment would get them off of the street. Some may just need a few thousand dollars of medical treatment to get back into society. The problem is connecting with them, having someone with the necessary expertise figure out what they might need and then help them get it. There are thousands of private and government organizations trying to do just that. Suggesting that setting up some sort of reservation for them will solve the problem is pretty insulting, actually.
Actually, Selgard is right. Why give $100000 when about $5000 would be everything they'd need to get their lives back on track?
https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/20 798745-cb9fbb39
I never get tired of hearing that. :)
On a serious note:
They basically took a few people, looked at their needs, determined that they needed money, gave it to them, and then watched it work.
Yay.
If they had taken 20 people with medium-to-severe mental illnesses and done the same thing they'd have 20 people still on the street with alot of wasted money. (at least potentially. Its not impossible that some would actually seek medical care for their issues and use the remainder of their stipend to get off the streets, assuming the medical care was able to be successful.)
It goes back to- identify the problem rather than licking a one-size-fits-all stamp and sticking it on everyone.
-S
I did read it. And unless I missed something, they selected 13 people who didn't have mental illnesses and gave them the means to set their lives right.. and they did.
And thats awesome.
But "selected" is what is missing from the 100k plot of land and magic box theory.
I'm not even slightly against helping the homeless. I am completely against throwing money at people and hoping it fixes them.
Like I said in my original post- take that same amount of money (I think the OP said 6 billion or something) and use it to make individual assessments of every single homeless person in NYC (which is where the OP was getting his information from, unless I misremember) and Then fix each person as a person and individual. If they require counseling or drug abuse help or just some money to get off the street to get a job (amazingly difficult to get a job without a physical address) or whatever it is they need.
I am against a broad spectrum anti-homeless "cure" because it doesn't exist. We need to take each person as a person and assess their issue and why they are homeless if we are ever going to solve the problem.
It will be slow and it will be expensive. Some folks will need to be returned to the mental health facilities where they were ejected from and others will just need to be given abit of help that no one has ever bothered to give them before.
I'm totally against "throw money to everyone" like the article suggests- to the extent that you are literally giving them money. I am for *spending* some money on them all to figure out what the issue is and then helping with whatever it is from there- even if that help means actually giving them little green pictures of presidents.
-S
As far as I can tell, they didn't pick homeless without mental illnesses. The article doesn't say that.
The article doesn't say anything about how the participants were selected, and so there's equally no evidence that they didn't carefully pick the ones who were the sanest.
If this were an article submitted to a psych journal, an omission of that magnitude would get the paper rejected. As is,.... meh, it's a newspaper article, it's an interesting read, but it's about as credible for forming public policy recommendations as a Star Wars novel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or we can go with your plan of building a huge elaborate expensive intrusive bureaucracy to determine (based on their own whims and political pressure) who gets what kind of help. This is essentially just a scaled up version of what we've been doing for decades. Not that anything actually implemented will really be scaled up, of course.
Actually, this is wrong. The huge intrusive scaled-up bureaucracy worked relatively well for decades, before Reagan cut funding for mental health care and the shelters and clinics were forced to dump people on the streets. That's basically where the homelessness problem originated and why it continues.
That's one of the reasons why I'm fairly sure that better mental health treatment and greater availablity is one of the best ways to treat homelessness. Because we've done that experiment, and it works.
Customer Service Dire Care Bear Manager
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Universal Healthcare in the US would solve many of the challenges faced by the US homeless and, as it would help free up income and help resolve health issues for people who are not homeless but close to running into the red, it would not be wasted money for anyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the same people who end up in charge of health care are the ones in charge of education, then we should expect the death rate to go up.
That is the main issue I have with it. I'm one of the ones who could benefit if this is managed competently... but I'm also one of the ones who could easily end up dead if things are mismanaged. The last thing I need is my treatment plan decided by someone else's political ambitions.
I'm think I'm going to stop posting in this thread and just favorite Selgard's posts to reinforce how right he is. And Sarah Marie's.
It's far better to leave that where it belongs, in the hands of insurance company's bottom line.If the same people who end up in charge of health care are the ones in charge of education, then we should expect the death rate to go up.
That is the main issue I have with it. I'm one of the ones who could benefit if this is managed competently... but I'm also one of the ones who could easily end up dead if things are mismanaged. The last thing I need is my treatment plan decided by someone else's political ambitions.
It's kinda an Alien vs. Predator situation on this one. No matter who wins, I'm probably worse off when it's all over with.
It's far better to leave that where it belongs, in the hands of insurance company's bottom line.If the same people who end up in charge of health care are the ones in charge of education, then we should expect the death rate to go up.
That is the main issue I have with it. I'm one of the ones who could benefit if this is managed competently... but I'm also one of the ones who could easily end up dead if things are mismanaged. The last thing I need is my treatment plan decided by someone else's political ambitions.
Definitely much better...at least they know what they are doing unlike our government who can not even do the jobs they suppose to be doing now well.
And if what they're doing is making a profit by refusing to pay for care, that's just the free market in action.Definitely much better...at least they know what they are doing unlike our government who can not even do the jobs they suppose to be doing now well.It's far better to leave that where it belongs, in the hands of insurance company's bottom line.If the same people who end up in charge of health care are the ones in charge of education, then we should expect the death rate to go up.
That is the main issue I have with it. I'm one of the ones who could benefit if this is managed competently... but I'm also one of the ones who could easily end up dead if things are mismanaged. The last thing I need is my treatment plan decided by someone else's political ambitions.
In that case you can sue them.
And if the refuse care because you just happen to disagree with them? That is just politics as usual...
You can trust all the power to the government if you want...but don't be too shock if people might not think that is such a great idea.
This isn't even about money. Read that again. Not about money.
There is a greater principle at stake here.
Around 0,7% in every population will develop schizophrenia during their lives. In a city of 10 million people or so, that's 70,000 people. A good number of these accept care, and can be helped to function better, so long as they take medication.
But some absolutely refuse such medication. And they never get better for that reason.
Say that half of these homeless people have schizophrenia. 30,000 people. They are the people who never get better. See, medication is necessary to improve such a condition.
So, what to do? Forcibly round them up and inject them every two weeks? Even if the medications would be free (they most certainly are not), is that okay? Do we want to give the police or health care professionals the right to do this to people who have not done anything wrong?
If you ask them, they typically want to be left alone. They do not want your medication. They are suffering, but so long as they don't hurt anyone, is their suffering so much of a problem for you that you get the right to do this to them? Not to mention, most of them have been ill for such a long time that the effects of the medications are limited at best. You're not going to get miracles.
I can see doing this to the young, to at least give them a proper diagnosis and attempt treatment before they return to the streets. But the older people? I can see very little to gain in it.
If they are a danger to themselves or other (beyond just "not having a house". I mean *danger* like, knife/gun wielding attacker type) then yes- round 'em up and stick a needle in whether they like it or not.
If they *aren't* a danger then they have the right to choose no medication and to be homeless or whatnot. If someone doesn't want to work or have a house or.. well.. anything.. then they should be allowed to have that choice.
(note, I know nothing about schizophrenia.)
If they are well enough to decide not to be medicated they are also well enough to realize folks may not want unmedicated homeless people around, though. What to do then? I dunno. What to do with someone who wants to be homeless when you have a whole city trying to fix its homelessness?
I don't envy the political mess that would create.
-S
Let's just assume that those that ARE significantly dangerous (a very small population) have been amply taken care of already. Those that remain are functioning well enough not to be dangerous and do manage to survive - but do want to be left alone.
Its an interesting mental exercise.
If someone spent 6 billion dollars to clean up the homeless in NYC and either get their lives back on track or otherwise safely in places where they were well taken care of and given proper medications- would there be places left for the willingly homeless?
People like you describe who want to be left alone, no meds and no help are likely being assisted by clinics, soup kitchens and housing shelters.
Under a plan where so much money was being foisted into getting the homeless off the streets it is entirely feasible that such locations would disappear. (no need to soup kitchen the homeless when all but 6% are gone and those 6% have chosen to be so.)
They may want to be left alone but to survive they may have to "cooperate" anyway, and that is even assuming they would be given a choice.
While I do not believe anyone should be forced- I think the reality is that if a place such as NYC were to dump 6 billion into fixing the homeless problem, they would likely be less than thrilled to have 6% of them say "no thank you I'll stay here." They could very well find themselves evicted from the city entirely.
(not saying it would or wouldn't be "right" to do so- only that it is a very real possibility that it *would* happen.)
-S
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good luck with that. Of course you can sue them, if you're not too busy fighting your illness, avoiding bankruptcy and all the other problems that come with suddenly being without insurance and facing a major illness.
Maybe in a few years, if you (or your heirs) are stubborn enough and their lawyers and contracts weren't quite clever enough, you'll get a settlement.
Ever try to sue the government?
Ever heard the expression about the futility of fighting city hall?
Sure the insurance companies or corrupt...but why do you think it would be better if the government was given control...heck it would be a lot worst...ever try to get rid of a civil servant from their job due to incompetence?
No easy answers here, though building 100k shipping containers per person as a makeshift arcology isn't the answer.
I could be flippant and say they should get a job, or something - yet the truth is that a lot of them are seeking and hoping - and told no. Many have mental illness, some became homeless because of it while others became homeless first and suffered mental illness due to the stress of survival afterwards. Some are actually the working homeless, people with jobs yet still can't afford proper shelter (or live in their cars, etc.). Then there's the apathetic, the addicts, the rebels. 60,000 people have more than 60,000 stories. No one single solution solves it all in a humane fashion.
I'm also selfish, I don't want to see people dig through trash to eat or sleep on nearby sidewalks - so I support social programs. There's also the thought that someday, I might become homeless too. I could lose my job from outsourcing or economic problems. Not getting younger, I might just be cut due to age discrimination (some companies are actively weeding out older workers to keep insurance costs down). Long story short, I want a safety net out there in case things go bad for me. I don't think moving in to a storage container that cost more than a townhouse is the answer, especially if there is no job.
Then there's the problem of inefficiency. That's where all the money for social and government programs seems to go, everywhere except where it is supposed to go. Millions were spent by the government on programs to make homes energy efficient, earmarked to replace insulation for homes of low-income homeowners. Only a handful of homes had insulation replaced, you can't tell me that it cost 3.2 million to replace insulation in one home. That money went somewhere, and it wasn't where it was meant to go (not an exact statistic due to conflicting data, yet the spirit is there).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They could very well find themselves evicted from the city entirely.
-S
True Story: I have a friend who lives in Fort Myers and works on Sanibel Island who was having raccoon problems. he bought humane traps, caught half a dozen raccoons, put them in the back of his truck and drove them onto Sanibel to release them. He was thinking they wouldn't be able to get back across the causeway so problem solved. When he was halfway across, he saw a pickup going the opposite direction with a bunch of caged raccoons in the back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, Selgard is right. Why give $100000 when about $5000 would be everything they'd need to get their lives back on track?
https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/20 798745-cb9fbb39
I never get tired of hearing that. :)
On a serious note:
They basically took a few people, looked at their needs, determined that they needed money, gave it to them, and then watched it work.
Yay.
If they had taken 20 people with medium-to-severe mental illnesses and done the same thing they'd have 20 people still on the street with alot of wasted money. (at least potentially. Its not impossible that some would actually seek medical care for their issues and use the remainder of their stipend to get off the streets, assuming the medical care was able to be successful.)
It goes back to- identify the problem rather than licking a one-size-fits-all stamp and sticking it on everyone.
-S
Just wanted to bold that part, because that's what the experiment DIDN'T do, and it purposely didn't do it. The point of the experiment is to back off and stop deciding what is best for the person and rather give them the resources to gain access to what they think they need.
The point of the article isn't to say "this is how we end homelessness", the point of the article is to alter how people perceive solutions to the problem.
Related concept applied to a similar, but different problem.
Instead of telling people what they need, we should develop programs that ask them what they need. That's what the real take-away from the article should be. Responsive programs where social workers are empowered to help people with whatever they need.
One of the flaws in the American "consciousness" right now is our desire to develop a system that does the thinking for us. You see it all over the place, particularly in places like the criminal legal system, or with how government agencies are run (the VA can't make changes to itself unless Congress passes a law saying they can). Increasingly, our country is being run by dead people (or those no longer in power).
Instead of making a top down system, create a bottom up one. The important decisions are made at the bottom, where those decisions impact the people affected by them. Those at the top are responsible for creating a support structure that ensures the effectiveness of the organization.
Imagine a system where a homeless person is assigned a case-worker. That case-worker can provide the homeless person with whatever resource they need (money, counseling, treatment, education, etc). The case-worker isn't there to determine what they need, but rather to ensure that progress is being made.
Out of the dozens if not hundreds if not thousands of homeless they had access to they happened to stumble across the magic number 13 and select 13 people who money would be their panacea and solve their issues as well as be competent enough to manage their money in the long term.
They looked at the needs of the many and selected 13 who they thought would both find the money useful for their problems and be able to handle it and gave them money.
Otherwise, they hit the statistical jackpot in finding the perfect 13 folks for their perfect little article.
I'm not saying what they did is a bad thing- I am very glad those people were helped in a fashion that was actually helpful to them but to think the 13 perfect samples were actually any sort of random draw of the general homeless population is probably not an accurate assessment of what happened.
-S
|
|
Much as I'd hate to burst your neat picture, not everyone who winds up homeless does so because they're crazy, an alchoholic, or a drug addict. Many people who wind up homeless are also veterans who don't have a job or family waiting for them when they come back. Many also are put into the street because they've lost their jobs and their unemployment benefits in an economy which has simply declared them surplus. A good number of them are young people who've been turned out by their families. There are a lot of people living on the edge of homelessness dreading that one thing that can tip their situation over. And it adds to their stress when you realise that you are living in a country that absolutely HATES it's poor.The other issue, of course, is that you can't fix homelessness by giving people houses, any more than you can fix malnutrition by giving people Twinkies. There's almost always a root cause -- in the case of the adult homeless population, it's typically drugs, alcohol, or mental illness. That's typically why they're in shelters in the first place and it's also typically why they go back to shelters soon after someone's found a placement for them -- because they're not equipped to handle the actual demands of living.
Then there are those that choose it and nothing will make them change short of punishing them for being homeless