I'm not saying it would end homelessness. But if you gave every homeless person in america a home for 1 year, no stress, you might be surprised at what they could accomplish. It's hard to get your life together when your nervous system is stressed to capacity 24/7.
They’ve done this, just give homeless people an income for a year, and the majority of the homeless in the program become self sufficient by the end. Like, a big majority.
Edit: I misremembered this. While the study found that few used the money for drugs etc, and 45% got shelter, it was not conclusive about what it would take to become self sufficient, though some did.
I know you really want this to be true, but homelessness (especially in the US) is rarely the "just lack of a home". It's also being unemployable, having health issues, having no documentation (literally us citizens with no ID and no way to get one), drugs, mental illness, lack of marketable skills, and so many more things. (that can happen alone or all at once).
To say that "most US homeless just need 12 months of rent" is just not true. Maybe 40 years ago.
Sure, but not doing anything to help until we can do something that completely help just lets the problem get worse. Don't let perfection be the enemy of good and all that.
Doesn't matter, by the time you only have the impossible cases, you have gathered enough people back into work life you have gained enough taxpayers that will contribute to society so much it will save money and create more wealth.
You would be surprised at how many people just need some economic relief. There’s a reason why homelessness is worse in the places with the highest housing costs
Goes without saying that homelesness is generally worse in poorer countries, but even in wealthy countries alone it's generally worse (and worse-addressed) in rural areas (per capita, of course, density is obviously lower).
Crazy right! It’s almost like the common person doesn’t benefit from other people’s suffering. I wonder why we let so much suffering occur?! I wonder if there is a class of people that benefit from said suffering?!? Couldn’t be the class of people saying that people deserve to suffer right?!?!?!
Hmmm, now who could be raking in all the benefits while the ones who suffer continue to get taken from and get nothing in return? Surely, there must be a culprit or multiple culprits behind this, right??
Those darn alphabet ppl that don't affect any part of my life or supposedly groom and mess with kids, unlike those ppl who constantly appear in the news for doing it. It's just a coincidence that the majority of them represent the same party and for some reason are religious leaders BUT ITS JUST A COINCIDENCE THATS ALL!
They were just tempted by the devil!!!! If only they were billionaires like Musk and Trump then they can hang around with people like Epstein and resist the Devil, see you need money to resist the devil!!! That’s why we need your donations every Sunday!!!
Amen! And one of the best ways to avoid the devil is to have your own plane! You see, you have to resists the temptations of being around heathens while you're up in the sky and closer to Heaven. That's why Epstein and Preacher Kenneth Copeland did it
I mean the largest barrier to "solving" homelessness has always been logistics not money.
Its where do you build the homes/apts/projects, who will manage the properties for the underserved, how do you get services/food to the buildings, and where do you find the politicians willing to make all of the success/failure of this their problem.
People don't want homeless living next to them and will lobby tooth and nail to keep that from happening. Upkeep on buildings is a tough task, where do you find people to work on the buildings/ what do you pay them especially to work around people "Trying to get their life together". Then why would a politician ever choose to involve himself in this endeavor that will make lots of negative headlines about conditions, cost overrun, and violence.
If someone could figure out these hurdles then I am sure the plan would be implemented. But even just for the maintenance aspect I lived near Detroit before I moved to Chicago go to the Detroit sub and you will see how you cant get skilled plumbers, electricians, or roofers to go into the city and Detroit is fine for the most part. Imagine trying to get them to go to this establishment.
If you wanted to give every chronically homeless person a home for 1 year, first you'd have to kick out the person who already lives there, because we don't have a hundreds of thousands of extra homes lying around, especially in CA where homelessness is the worst. And then you'd probably have to bulldoze half of those homes after a year because they would be ruined for lack of maintenance, as most chronically homeless are either hopelessly mentally ill, or addicted to hard drugs, or both.
first you'd have to kick out the person who already lives there, because we don't have a hundreds of thousands of extra homes lying around, especially in CA where homelessness is the worst.
Los Angeles and San Francisco have 5 and 13 empty homes per homeless person, respectively, so not only is this completely factually incorrect, you're also going to need to back up your statement "most chronically homeless are either hopelessly mentally ill, or addicted to hard drugs, or both" with a source other than "your ass."
"Vacant" doesn't mean "available for homeless people to crash in." Half of the vacant homes in LA are ones that are on the market at any given time. Another significant percentage are vacation homes.
You can't just force people who own homes they don't use 100% of the time to let homeless people live in them. You'd have to buy those homes.
The average home price in LA is almost a million dollars. There are 75,000 homeless in LA. Even if you bought thousands of of "vacant" homes and crammed an average of 4 homeless people in each one (which I'm sure would be met with cries of inhumanity), it would still cost close to $20 billion. Just for LA. And that's not including the cost of upkeep, property taxes, etc. for those properties.
The (factual) point that u/NO_TOUCHING__lol was making is that it’s not a problem of supply.
It’s a problem of distribution.
Your response moves the goalposts and clouds the waters with new issues. (Why?) You originally said “we don’t have hundreds of thousands of extra homes lying around.” In fact we do.
Also, what’s the source of your claim that "most chronically homeless are either hopelessly mentally ill, or addicted to hard drugs, or both” ?
First, “Chronically” homeless is not most homeless. Most homeless in the US have an experience, (lost a job, medical emergency, family illness, you know: Life) and sooner or later work something out. It’s expensive to live in America, by the way, without help here and there, including “Generational Wealth."
Who are “Most Homeless?"
Reliable sources indicate most homeless were abused as kids, and most were foster kids, and most have suffered traumatic brain injury in one form or another.
Reliable estimates are that about 30% are on drugs (self reports put that at about 20%), mostly started AFTER BECOMING HOMELESS. Granted DRUGS is what your see on the street; because Most (about 2/3) of America's homeless are not on the streets all day, Most are at work, working at least one job.
You could contribute to the conversation if you were more sincere, empathetic or educated. All three, or any combo, would be Great! Almost Anything would be better than what you’ve demonstrated so far.
Thanks for taking the time to type this out fam. After he moved the goalposts I figured he wasn't gonna argue in good faith, so I just said screw it and didn't bother replying lol
64
u/Wesly-Titan 3d ago
I'm not saying it would end homelessness. But if you gave every homeless person in america a home for 1 year, no stress, you might be surprised at what they could accomplish. It's hard to get your life together when your nervous system is stressed to capacity 24/7.