It’s not about solving homelessness. It’s about class warfare. The haves and have nots. It was never about a better society. It never will be.
Can you please explain?
If you’re serious, sure. For there to be a top class, a rich class, some winners, there must necessarily be a bottom class, a poor class, some losers. Some people feel like enriching these people will be default destroy their position.
They don’t seem to realize or care that their level of have can fix so many people’s have-not, and it can be done quickly and efficiently and without actually significantly altering their own lifestyle. They’re worried that if the have-nots suddenly have something, they will become part of the haves, the winners, and well… If there are no losers, what’s the point of being a WINNER right?
Okay I see what you mean, I misunderstood your original comment and thought that you were saying that providing housing was somehow orchestrated my the upper class.
Not OP, was just hoping to clear up their point. It’s all good!
Channel 5 has been making great documentaries on YouTube about this. No preconditions isn’t true. No drugs, need Id. Housing programs exist aswell as shelters (no Id required) but you can’t be on drugs. They exist in canada heavily. It’s not the full solution.
It’s not just a no drugs rule. Addicts get free addiction treatments and the money they receive is unable to be spent on alcohol or nicotine products.
Vancouver, and I imagine most of Canada’s major cities are experiencing a massive homelessness crisis, I dont know of these housing programs you speak of. There certainly isnt enough provided housing to go around
Here in the UK we just pretend it’s not a problem by calling it a lifestyle choice.
I read an interview with Bezos once a while ago, and he was asked why he didn’t use his wealth to help end homelessness. I’m paraphrasing here, but he said they did a study and they concluded poverty and homelessness was a moral issue and couldn’t be solved. Not that I believe for a second he actually did a study, and that a valid, science backed study would conclude that. What a total and complete piece of shit.
I see that more and more in the US, people saying things like “what can we do to help them, most homeless people want to live that way” like wtf?
Because of the way media seems to work these days.
There is no denying that a small percentage of homeless people are too far gone to help and would rather live that way for whatever reason.
Any person with some critical thought should be able to remove them from the discussion and focus on the vast majority of homeless people that can be helped, where the media will just show this one person and be like see there isn’t any point.
The same can be seen for peaceful protests. We have 10,000 people protesting peacefully and one lunatic being violent. We all know what the news will show the next day.
That’s the problem. They find one or two of the people who are homeless by choice and use them as an example as if that’s normal.
We need proportionality in the news.
They should at least include some basic quantitative analysis.
“Solved homelessness”
Hardworking people got more shitty neigbours… Thats not a solution, its just moving the problem inside.
We have this shit in sweden and I have observed it up close. Fucker didn’t want to work nor get clean. He was comfortable with his daycare for adults… They have this thing called work training - building products that no one buys to practice working…
Had a contact that could get him a job, he just said thats for idiots and I’m not and an idiot. Rather do his work training than get a real job and a real salary…
He’s dead now, killed him self with an overdoze from the anxiety medicine they prescribed to him.
So these things looks good on paper, but in real life not so much. Hope he’s and exception and not the rule.
I personally dont believe in it, I was on the same path once. Some hard truths got me on the right path again, worked hard, took alot of shit and today cant recognize my old self.
I’d rather have any one of these people as my neighbor than one of those “hard working” nepobabies.
And his life would have been even worse if he was on the street. I honestly don’t see the problem in this story. Someone with mental health issues had a place to live? Ended up dying to suicide? It’s a sad story but also the housing doesn’t seem at fault at all?
Just saying its a waste of time and money. And he took someone elses spot in a crowded housing market.
-
ideally like everyone has access to housing so there’s no “taking up space”?
-
how do you know it was a waste of time? maybe he has loved ones who he supported and brightened the loved ones, maybe if his mental health were better supported he would have thrived? not everything is about working. his life was not a waste of time, and even if he died, I’m sure it was better to die having housing than to die on the street, forgotten and discarded.
- Dont agree, in a big city with demand bigger than the supply. So many people had to stand aside for people like him to not pay rent on time, get evicted for drinking. Its not fair.
- We all tried our best, but he was just selfish and didnt want to change nor be a grownup. His daughter just wasted 10 years waiting for the call or the ring on the door until it came.
If there’s a program that is supposed to provide housing for everyone, and there aren’t enough houses … it’s the government’s fault for the wait list, not the individual.
-
Avoiding having shitty neighbors is definitely a good reason to have people piss, shit and die in the streets. Good point there.
They point is that you cant call it as a solution when your actually not solving it. They’ ll just do that but inside. What Im after is something sustainable than just putting a sticker over the check engine-light.
What your selling is giving them homes next to people that figuered out thier lives already and repaying them with listening to “Olen soumalainen!” 3 in the morning on a tuesday because they dont have shit to do and you have to go to work in 4 hours.
That is socialism for ya.
And their only escape is to move and when everyone does that - you have ghettos.
They’ ll just do that but inside.
That sounds like a good thing? Shitting inside instead of on the street?
Do you like stepping in human shit or something?
What a condescending comment. Typical Lemmy-tier response. Is that all you’ve got to say, dip shit?
More like do that inside but outside of the bathroom because they cant behave - the reason their homeless from the beginning.
So am I understanding you correctly, that you say homeless are homeless because they shat not in bathroom? Shitting in outhouse is not a preferable living condition, but it cannot be reason why they are homeless.
And that’s not preferable to stepping in the shit they took on the sidewalk?
Not when im paying for it, the streets are full of trash and dog shit anyway.
Sounds like you don’t pay for street cleanup though.
I’m glad I don’t live where you do. The streets are nice and clean here.
Ah. So you love shit. And apparently you love trash too.
I would say “Avoiding having shitty neighbors is definitely a good reason to keep people shitty and in shitty conditions resulting in shitty deaths”.
True, but it sounds like their real problem is “socialism.”
They solved his immediate problem of being homeless. I’d rather have a few shitty neighbors than to have people living and dying because they lack shelter.
You seem like a temporarily embarrassed millionaire.
I can see how a single case you experienced delegitimize the whole system.
To be fair, we have the same system and I never had someone like that as a neighbor. So it is a flawless system.
i’m genuinely happy you were able to get yourself together.
just know that there are any number of reasons someone else might not have your strength or capacity for change, or might not yet have reached a readiness for change like you did.
edit grammar
UBH!
(Universal Basic Housing)
All these Universal Basic * programs seem to work, and the only things holding them back are rich people not wanting to be taxed, and the people they have brainwashed into supporting them.
But people might be lazy without the constant looming threat of exposure and humiliation.
It might be interesting to see. Let’s try giving people the basic necessities for once, and see how things work out!
idk, America seems to push Universal Basic Gun Owning pretty hard. Can’t say that it’s helping anyone tho.
Hah! I almost wish that were true, just so more poor leftists would arm themselves. Guns (and ammo) are fucking expensive and there are no subsidies.
As a European, how much does it actually cost to buy a gun in US?
Remember, the US is huge. It costs different things in different areas. In Silicon Valley, the cost seems to be around two hundred ipads.
that was for 4 concealed carry permits, so 50 ipads per permit. i’m pretty sure that the guns themselves are a hell of a lot cheaper lol
Depends on what you want. Handgun: reliable semiauto Glocks/SIGs/etc. can be had new around $500. Cheaper revolvers and semis can be had for around $200-250, but you can also go nuts and spend thousands on rarer or more pointless compensatory things like a Desert Eagle or a Smith and Wesson 500.
Shotguns: entry-level single shot break action at Walmart for around $125; the classic Remington 870 pump has Express models as low as $350 and Wingmaster models $900; popular Mossberg 500 is around $400-$500. For Benelli or something else fancy you can expect to pay much more.
Rifles: basic .22-cal Ruger with cheap scope for $125; decent .270-.308 bolt-action hunting rifles start around $300-600 with cheap scopes; entry-level AR-15 /AR-10 are in that same range with just iron sights; higher quality or more exotic round sizes start around $600 and quickly jump into the thousands. For good rifle scopes you can often expect to pay more than the rifle itself.
I think you have to have an FFL (dealer) license or pay some hefty additional fees if you want to own a fully-automatic gun. Having shot many of them, it seems like a lot more hassle and cost than they’re worth. The first couple times you shoot one are really fun, but the initial excitement quickly wears off and they just become something overly heavy you don’t want to have to carry or clean/maintain.
Used doesn’t necessarily mean less expensive, as the first thing a lot of people do is add fancypants aftermarket stuff. Models that are no longer manufactured demand a premium, as do models that are seen as historically reliable.
My numbers may be off, as I havent hunted for years and haven’t really looked at prices for 5-10 years. Truth be told, ammunition is where the real money sink lies.
Damn, didn’t expect guns to be that cheap, but I guess it’s probably the printer ink situation with ammo. Thanks for the reply. (⌐■_■)
Damn. 0.215 USD per round. (9mm)
A 9mm handgun can be as cheap as $100, however that is for a quite poor quality gun (hipoint). For something that is more standard, higher quality handgun like the Glock 19 is around $500.
There are some additional fees, if you buy online you have to have it shipped to an FFA which may charge you, in my state, you either need a conceal carry permit, or a ‘pistol purchase permit’ the conceal carry is like a lifetime pass to buy guns, with the idea being you proved you can be safe by doing the CCW courses and exams. The pistol purchase permit is like $15 and involves a background check.
Private sales require no ancillary permits or anything, so a used hi point 9mm could probably realistically be as low as $50-$75 if it were quite beat up.
A box of ammo for a 9mm may cost around $20 for 20 bullets depending on where you live and such.
That seems cheap and it is. But for regular use at a shooting range for example, a single box would only last a couple a minutes. If you wanted to go for an ‘all day’ thing at the range, it would cost $100-$200 (about 200 rounds) plus the fees for the range, $20 - $100 depending on the place, unless you have safe private property. Though with a hi point, it will probably fall apart before you get 200 rounds through it 😅.
Things do get real expensive though for people like shooting as a hobby, as more exotic ammo can get very expensive ($10-$15 a bullet or even higher)
Yeah but the rich have to pay taxes!
Do they? I believe such solutions are surprisingly cost effective
When Milwaukee implemented a housing-first homeless policy, they actually saved money.
Turns out that, by almost completely eliminating homelessness, you can save a lot of money on the legal system, policing, healthcare, and other costs associated with homelessness.
Housing-first homeless policy is the obvious solution: it’s humane, it’s effective, and it saves us money.
Not if you’re exploiting them for cheap labor.
Is the hommeles man providing them with cheap labor?
No. Their existence scares shit out of everyone else to work hard for piss money.
So the solution is cost effective like my initial statement said and youre just arguing for arguments sake? Idgi
You mean “cost” as in the cost of the collective people. Such is not given a fuck about by anyone with enough to not be a communist. That and such wealth would give zero fucks if it weren’t for the fact that this level of wealth can, instead of forcing people, simply buy anything to be done that is delirious, disgusting and more that even I don’t want to talk about here.
At the end of the day it become the choice of every individual who doesn’t want to die to sell their kid to Bill Gates who will do you know what.
I just meant that in terms of tax payer money offering homeless people cheap free housing is not more expensive than not doing that and having all these other costs go up to combat the symptoms nothing more.
I don’t get what you did with all the time you saved by typing “Idgi” instead of “I don’t get it”.
Homelessness is a tactic in social marketing. America needs homelessness to stay America.
Where profits?
The problem with making an addict choose between a roof an heroin, is they already know they can live without the roof.
Don’t know how Finland does it exactly. But here in Germany the rent would be paid directly by the city to the landlord. The addict would not have any real way to get to the money, because he is not involved in this process. But there aren’t enough appartments, so despite that we also have homlesness here (not at a USA level though).
That’s the thing, in Finland they can’t, they’d freeze to death otherwise.
Please slap Canada too Finland.
I live next to Hastings and Main, the fuck are you talking about saying Canada has dealt with homelessness? We have a ho… Oh, wait, I misread your statement, its the US being slapped, which means you’re acknowledging Canada has a homelessness crisis as well…
But how will such a classist society survive if the privileged cannot judge,extort and feel better for it?
Won’t someone think of the capitalists!
Correct! If someone cannot profit from it, it can’t be done in the US.
That’s why wars have been so lucrative for the US. Imagine the return of investment of the US military.
We have a similar program in my city, but unfortunately the scale of the problem is just too big at this point, and too wrapped up in a parallel mental health crisis to be solved by housing alone. A lot of these people basically need something closer to assisted living or a halfway to get back into any kind of normal routine. The US needed these programs 40 years ago.
People need to get comfortable with the knowledge that large problems take decades to actually solve and won’t be fixed in a single election cycle.
Yes I’ll never understand this weird mentality that thinks the moment whomever they vote in all their promises will be fulfilled immediately like a fast meal though a McDonald’s drive through.
Thats because they wanted to solve the problem.
America doesnt want to solve problems.
It just wants cruelty. Cruelty isnt a byproduct. Its the end product.
It’s those preconditions that hurt the most. Gotta get clean to get help. Gotta get help to get clean.
