Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Vox)   A Canadian study gave homeless people $7,500. How'd that turn out?   (vox.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

7621 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 28 Oct 2020 at 8:30 AM (24 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



90 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-10-28 10:04:59 AM  
CSB:

There was an opinion piece (I guess you could call it) done by someone at no other than the CATO Institute that suggested something similar, but at around $100k, one-time payment, to replace all the other forms of welfare with the goal of drastically reducing the bureaucracy.  The only reason I knew about it was because we had a Fark thread about it.  This was *years* ago.

I wish I could find that study.  Probably got scrubbed off the website for being too liberal or something.  It is the CATO Institute, after all.
 
2020-10-28 10:17:28 AM  

xanadian: CSB:

There was an opinion piece (I guess you could call it) done by someone at no other than the CATO Institute that suggested something similar, but at around $100k, one-time payment, to replace all the other forms of welfare with the goal of drastically reducing the bureaucracy.  The only reason I knew about it was because we had a Fark thread about it.  This was *years* ago.

I wish I could find that study.  Probably got scrubbed off the website for being too liberal or something.  It is the CATO Institute, after all.


If there was a government policy where you could get $7500 for being homeless, there's a thin but very broad layer of our population who would go into homelessness just to get the money.  Some people would be kicking their kids out in the street so they could get more, and people would hold it as a point of honor to bring that $7500 back to their families.  What does that look like when you scale it up to $100K?
 
2020-10-28 10:18:08 AM  

hubiestubert: Well, obviously this could never work in the US


A friend of mine, Norwegian immigrant and now US citizen, and severe Trumper, said socialism will never work in the US. For exactly the reasons you throw out there. Which made me grasp the true definition of the word.

"Socialism" - anything that might raise my taxes.
 
2020-10-28 10:19:57 AM  

zang: What does that look like when you scale it up to $100K?


That looks like how big money people got rich, that's what it looks like. Game the system.
 
2020-10-28 10:28:26 AM  

Tyrosine: Por que tan serioso: As long as everyone agrees that 'landlords' are the real problem
[Fark user image 425x302]

I'm a landlord. My entire rental stock is Affordable or Social Housing. I'd love to hear your thoughts as to how I'm the problem.


Right. So you would be represented by that middle square on the bottom row of the pictorial.
 
2020-10-28 10:29:25 AM  
UBI has been pretty consistently successful over the centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_​f​or_Realists
 
2020-10-28 10:32:21 AM  

Tyrosine: Keep in  mind that this study only focused on homeless who were not experiencing addiction or other mental health issues. That doesn't devalue the study but we can't lose sight of the fact that a significant portion of the homeless population suffer from one or both is these issues.

Here's a better link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/b​ritish-columbia/new-leaf-project-resul​ts-1.5752714

Also, article is a repeat from October 7th or 8th.


Keep in mind also the entire study revolved around the people self-reporting to get the data points. Pretty sure if you gave someone money and then follow up and say "did you use it responsibly!?" you are going to have a sizeable portion that flat out lies or embellished the truth. Self-reporting and surveys are known to be notoriously untrustworthy.
 
2020-10-28 10:32:55 AM  
That's cool. Don't biatch about 7.5K CAD. In the US I've heard directly from police and EMT's how much homeless people cost. There was one guy in my small city who between booze and heroin probably racked up 60K in ambulance costs (city run FD ambulance not private) alone + thousands more in jail in just one year. You could put him in a small city owned apartment, food, drug rehab program, basic health etc for probably 20K.
I think some cities in the US have done similar test programs with good results. I'm good with it, if it does pay off in the end. I know there will be always some people homeless even if we had every solution possible in place, but at least help the people who want to be helped and get hundreds of thousands off the streets.

/also kick a few bucks back my way and tax corporations, as you and I are the ones paying for this.
 
2020-10-28 10:35:35 AM  
"They decreased spending on drugs, tobacco, and alcohol by 39 percent on average, and increased spending on food, clothes, and rent, according to self-reports."

That's like a parent asking a college freshmen if they spent more on beer and pot than in high school.
 
2020-10-28 10:38:36 AM  

Flappyhead: Repeat from a few weeks back, but still worth bringing up again.  Homeless people don't want to be homeless, what a shock.


As a matter of fact, a lot of homeless people do want to be homeless.
 
2020-10-28 10:54:20 AM  
Studies have consistently shown that cash transfers don't increase the consumption of "temptation goods"; they either decrease it or have no effect on it.

Not gonna lie, need beer.
 
2020-10-28 11:01:01 AM  

Tyrosine: Por que tan serioso: As long as everyone agrees that 'landlords' are the real problem
[Fark user image 425x302]

I'm a landlord. My entire rental stock is Affordable or Social Housing. I'd love to hear your thoughts as to how I'm the problem.


That's great.  But one persons actions don't mean that it isn't a huge problem.  you do get that right?  If what you say is true, you are a good person and should be congratulated, but it doesn't change much when you are talking larger economic trends.
 
2020-10-28 11:03:03 AM  

dragonchild: djloid2010: Well, this is obviously a lie, as it goes against our manufactured narrative that the hobos and rub-a-dubs will spend the money on booze and junk. /s
Many of them will!  Many of them will spend the money on booze and drugs and crap, so let's all stop freaking out about it FFS!  It's still vastly cheaper to just give them the handouts and rehabilitate the reachable ones than piss away all the money on police presence, legal costs, incarceration, etc.  Making people invisible is crazy expensive.  We're spending extra tax money just for the privilege of kicking people when they're down.  But point that out and then "conservatives" go "well then let's not spend any money at all" and then you get debacles like the Kansas experiment.

Conservatives are the stupidest farking psychopathic wastes of oxygen on this planet.


Spending money on booze and drugs still benefits the economy.  If they took the money and gave it to a corporation to do a stock buyback, that would be much worse for the economy.
 
2020-10-28 11:06:49 AM  
If we took 70% of the wealth from the richest 400 Americans we could
- basically wipe out malaria globally
- provide clean water for everyone. Globally
- give every American $10k on the spot
- forgive taxes on any American making under $80k for the next 4 years

And each of those 400 American would STILL be billionaires.

Is there ANY good reason we shouldn't do this? Any reason at all?


https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-​w​ealth/
 
2020-10-28 11:07:38 AM  
A big city like Vancouver and they gave 50 people cash.

That is a lot of extrapolation to say let's give everyone money.
 
2020-10-28 11:16:37 AM  

thehobbes: Tyrosine: Por que tan serioso: As long as everyone agrees that 'landlords' are the real problem
[Fark user image 425x302]

I'm a landlord. My entire rental stock is Affordable or Social Housing. I'd love to hear your thoughts as to how I'm the problem.

Quick question- what is your average rent versus your average mortgage payment including escrow?


That's a meaningless question since mortgage payments (both principle and interest) are only a fraction of the monthly expenses. You're forgetting maintenance, professional fees, property taxes, utilities, life safety, staffing, insurance, etc., etc. A better way is to look at annual net revenue. On the Affordable (affordable being defined as rent's being 80% or less than the local average marker rent) most of my clients make a small profit of less than $500/unit/year. This money gets placed in Restricted Reserves (because the escrow account is not sufficient to cover all capital expenses over the lifespan of the building) and/or pumped into new projects.

On the Social Housing (defined as a property where Rent Geared to Income subsidy is available) side we're lucky to break even. Some years you run a small surplus, other's a deficit.

Keep in mind all my clients are non-profits.
 
2020-10-28 11:23:52 AM  

Tyrosine: Por que tan serioso: As long as everyone agrees that 'landlords' are the real problem
[Fark user image 425x302]

I'm a landlord. My entire rental stock is Affordable or Social Housing. I'd love to hear your thoughts as to how I'm the problem.


Well, are you a straight white male?
 
Xai [TotalFark]
2020-10-28 11:29:06 AM  

ElecricalPast: If we took 70% of the wealth from the richest 400 Americans we could
- basically wipe out malaria globally
- provide clean water for everyone. Globally
- give every American $10k on the spot
- forgive taxes on any American making under $80k for the next 4 years

And each of those 400 American would STILL be billionaires.

Is there ANY good reason we shouldn't do this? Any reason at all?


https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-w​ealth/


Got to point out that the majority of the wealth of the richest isn't cash just sat about, it's mostly in stock etc that you would need to sell.

The thing is that the problem isn't actually that they have that much wealth, it's that their income is actually taxed at a lower rate than average people - just look at Trump paying just $750 despite his companies making hundreds of millions. Tax systems allow offsetting against losses, yet you or I couldn't offset the cost of our car breaking down, we couldn't offset the losses we have playing the lottery, yet if they gamble and lose, they still win.

This combined with the reduced cost of living as a percentage of income means the rich actually fare better during economic downturns (as we are seeing) and thus are encouraged not to support measures to avoid them.

Solutions - tax income of the wealthy including measures to prevent tax avoidance. We have the power and no if we did it right they couldn't simply flee the country since we could just tax cash flows going offshore/onshore to have the same effect.
- inheritance tax is one of the largest things that needs fixing, giving huge piles of wealth to children who haven't earned it is rewarding failure and discouraging competition.
Estates over $1m need heavily taxing rising to at least 90% for estates over $1bn and again, the same tax avoidance measures can be taken.
 
2020-10-28 11:35:28 AM  

d23: Xai: Considering this, that means anyone opposed to such schemes actually wants to spend more money to merely punish homeless people for being poor.

Yes this is true.  There is also that there is this concept of "deserving" that many Americans place on top of everything.  If the person is homeless because they were overtaken by a drug problem then he is not "deserving", for instance.  And sometimes the old protestant "if he/she got to this state then that must be an indication of a bad person" that people are taught growing up in the USA, that bad fortune is an indication of character flaws.

And on the purely economics side people can't think until next week a lot of the time.  The ability to see that if you spend money now that if prevents larger expenditure later is rare here these days.  Look at COVID: it will cost the economy 4x the cost of what the huge upfront expenditure could have been.


Prosperity Gospel.

If I'm successful/rich, it's because I've gained favor with god.

If I'm not successful/poor, it's because I've done something bad and lost god's favor.
 
2020-10-28 11:37:00 AM  
geranagelhout.files.wordpress.comView Full Size

Good book.
 
2020-10-28 11:38:05 AM  

Tyrosine: thehobbes: Tyrosine: Por que tan serioso: As long as everyone agrees that 'landlords' are the real problem
[Fark user image 425x302]

I'm a landlord. My entire rental stock is Affordable or Social Housing. I'd love to hear your thoughts as to how I'm the problem.

Quick question- what is your average rent versus your average mortgage payment including escrow?

That's a meaningless question since mortgage payments (both principle and interest) are only a fraction of the monthly expenses. You're forgetting maintenance, professional fees, property taxes, utilities, life safety, staffing, insurance, etc., etc. A better way is to look at annual net revenue. On the Affordable (affordable being defined as rent's being 80% or less than the local average marker rent) most of my clients make a small profit of less than $500/unit/year. This money gets placed in Restricted Reserves (because the escrow account is not sufficient to cover all capital expenses over the lifespan of the building) and/or pumped into new projects.

On the Social Housing (defined as a property where Rent Geared to Income subsidy is available) side we're lucky to break even. Some years you run a small surplus, other's a deficit.

Keep in mind all my clients are non-profits.


Appreciate you doing the nonproit thing- but still the question. On my mortgage, the taxes and insurance are part of the escrow money. 

Do your units include all utilities with the rent?

Also- what are life safety, professional fees, and staffing and how do they factor in?
 
2020-10-28 11:39:33 AM  

Xai: Got to point out that the majority of the wealth of the richest isn't cash just sat about, it's mostly in stock etc that you would need to sell.


I'm okay with that.

The thing is that the problem isn't actually that they have that much wealth, it's that their income is actually taxed at a lower rate than average people - just look at Trump paying just $750 despite his companies making hundreds of millions. Tax systems allow offsetting against losses, yet you or I couldn't offset the cost of our car breaking down, we couldn't offset the losses we have playing the lottery, yet if they gamble and lose, they still win.

This combined with the reduced cost of living as a percentage of income means the rich actually fare better during economic downturns (as we are seeing) and thus are encouraged not to support measures to avoid them.

Solutions - tax income of the wealthy including measures to prevent tax avoidance. We have the power and no if we did it right they couldn't simply flee the country since we could just tax cash flows going offshore/onshore to have the same effect.
- inheritance tax is one of the largest things that needs fixing, giving huge piles of wealth to children who haven't earned it is rewarding failure and discouraging competition.
Estates over $1m need heavily taxing rising to at least 90% for estates over $1bn and again, the same tax avoidance measures can be taken.


Couldn't agree more. We should not be taxing income higher than capital, and yes, we can increase rates on both high incomes and on estates. We've had much higher rates on both in the past and the wealthy still did extremely well. They didn't all flee the country or lose their motivation to succeed.
 
2020-10-28 12:11:15 PM  
Xai: ...that means anyone opposed to such schemes actually wants to spend more money to merely punish homeless people for being poor.

Well, that's part of it.  The other factors include the need to keep for-profit prisons filled to capacity, and having a half-dozen middlemen within the program so that each one can grift off a good percentage of the money being spent.  The cruelty is merely a bonus.
 
2020-10-28 12:11:44 PM  

djloid2010: Well, this is obviously a lie, as it goes against our manufactured narrative that the hobos and rub-a-dubs will spend the money on booze and junk.  /s


FTFA: "And people with severe mental health or substance use issues were screened out of the initiative. "
 
2020-10-28 12:22:18 PM  
Hookers n blow?
 
2020-10-28 12:29:07 PM  

thehobbes: Appreciate you doing the nonproit thing- but still the question. On my mortgage, the taxes and insurance are part of the escrow money.

Do your units include all utilities with the rent?

Also- what are life safety, professional fees, and staffing and how do they factor in?


The mortgages guaranteed by commercial banks have escrow accounts. It's a requirement of most commercial loans. It should be noted that escrows are based square footage, not on a BCA or other engineering study, so they are not adequate to cover the capital needs. In the cases of loans backed by government funding there is no escrow.

Taxes are an extra.

Life safety: Monthly elevator inspections, fire system testing and monitoring, annual inspections, roof anchor testing, chiller monitoring and testing (for Legionella), etc. On a 100 unit high rise with two elevators these costs run ~$50k/yr.

Professional Fees: Legal, accounting, and audit. Can vary from typically $20k+

Staffing: Building superintendent, someone to clean, do minor repairs, suite rentals, etc. In a low or high rise this will be ~$30K or more depending on the level of staffing needed. If security is needed there's an additional $18k/year and up depending on the level required.

Here's the budget breakdown for a typical 60 unit building:

Fark user imageView Full Size
I've had to condense parts to fit plus there's been some redaction to protect my client's identity.
 
2020-10-28 12:48:29 PM  

webron: Tyrosine: Por que tan serioso: As long as everyone agrees that 'landlords' are the real problem
[Fark user image 425x302]

I'm a landlord. My entire rental stock is Affordable or Social Housing. I'd love to hear your thoughts as to how I'm the problem.

That's great.  But one persons actions don't mean that it isn't a huge problem.  you do get that right?  If what you say is true, you are a good person and should be congratulated, but it doesn't change much when you are talking larger economic trends.


Ok. How exactly do you envision a equitable housing market? What exactly do you think needs to be done to make the market fairer to renters while still incentivizing people to build and operate rental units?
 
2020-10-28 1:39:09 PM  

Tyrosine: thehobbes: Appreciate you doing the nonproit thing- but still the question. On my mortgage, the taxes and insurance are part of the escrow money.

Do your units include all utilities with the rent?

Also- what are life safety, professional fees, and staffing and how do they factor in?

The mortgages guaranteed by commercial banks have escrow accounts. It's a requirement of most commercial loans. It should be noted that escrows are based square footage, not on a BCA or other engineering study, so they are not adequate to cover the capital needs. In the cases of loans backed by government funding there is no escrow.

Taxes are an extra.

Life safety: Monthly elevator inspections, fire system testing and monitoring, annual inspections, roof anchor testing, chiller monitoring and testing (for Legionella), etc. On a 100 unit high rise with two elevators these costs run ~$50k/yr.

Professional Fees: Legal, accounting, and audit. Can vary from typically $20k+

Staffing: Building superintendent, someone to clean, do minor repairs, suite rentals, etc. In a low or high rise this will be ~$30K or more depending on the level of staffing needed. If security is needed there's an additional $18k/year and up depending on the level required.

Here's the budget breakdown for a typical 60 unit building:

[Fark user image image 792x1024]I've had to condense parts to fit plus there's been some redaction to protect my client's identity.


I'm sure they are probably not "actually operating at a deficit" but that is reflected through careful itemization. Pretty much any company worth their salt is going to prepare a report like that for taxes.
 
2020-10-28 1:51:40 PM  

the money is in the banana stand: Tyrosine: thehobbes: Appreciate you doing the nonproit thing- but still the question. On my mortgage, the taxes and insurance are part of the escrow money.

Do your units include all utilities with the rent?

Also- what are life safety, professional fees, and staffing and how do they factor in?

The mortgages guaranteed by commercial banks have escrow accounts. It's a requirement of most commercial loans. It should be noted that escrows are based square footage, not on a BCA or other engineering study, so they are not adequate to cover the capital needs. In the cases of loans backed by government funding there is no escrow.

Taxes are an extra.

Life safety: Monthly elevator inspections, fire system testing and monitoring, annual inspections, roof anchor testing, chiller monitoring and testing (for Legionella), etc. On a 100 unit high rise with two elevators these costs run ~$50k/yr.

Professional Fees: Legal, accounting, and audit. Can vary from typically $20k+

Staffing: Building superintendent, someone to clean, do minor repairs, suite rentals, etc. In a low or high rise this will be ~$30K or more depending on the level of staffing needed. If security is needed there's an additional $18k/year and up depending on the level required.

Here's the budget breakdown for a typical 60 unit building:

[Fark user image image 792x1024]I've had to condense parts to fit plus there's been some redaction to protect my client's identity.

I'm sure they are probably not "actually operating at a deficit" but that is reflected through careful itemization. Pretty much any company worth their salt is going to prepare a report like that for taxes.


Firstly, that's budget, not a P&L statement. This property is currently has a deficit of $47,918. The losses reflect extra security costs and higher bad debts than anticipated.

Secondly, how else should these expenses be presented? You seem to imply that there is something underhanded going on. Could you possibly elaborate?
 
2020-10-28 2:13:56 PM  

patrick767: Xai: Got to point out that the majority of the wealth of the richest isn't cash just sat about, it's mostly in stock etc that you would need to sell.

I'm okay with that.

The thing is that the problem isn't actually that they have that much wealth, it's that their income is actually taxed at a lower rate than average people - just look at Trump paying just $750 despite his companies making hundreds of millions. Tax systems allow offsetting against losses, yet you or I couldn't offset the cost of our car breaking down, we couldn't offset the losses we have playing the lottery, yet if they gamble and lose, they still win.

This combined with the reduced cost of living as a percentage of income means the rich actually fare better during economic downturns (as we are seeing) and thus are encouraged not to support measures to avoid them.

Solutions - tax income of the wealthy including measures to prevent tax avoidance. We have the power and no if we did it right they couldn't simply flee the country since we could just tax cash flows going offshore/onshore to have the same effect.
- inheritance tax is one of the largest things that needs fixing, giving huge piles of wealth to children who haven't earned it is rewarding failure and discouraging competition.
Estates over $1m need heavily taxing rising to at least 90% for estates over $1bn and again, the same tax avoidance measures can be taken.

Couldn't agree more. We should not be taxing income higher than capital, and yes, we can increase rates on both high incomes and on estates. We've had much higher rates on both in the past and the wealthy still did extremely well. They didn't all flee the country or lose their motivation to succeed.


Who are you going to have them sell the stock to? You're better off just nationalizing it.
 
2020-10-28 2:42:13 PM  

hubiestubert: Well, obviously this could never work in the US because they gave that benefit to Canadians, and not Americans. American homeless would just spend the money on crank and bootleg cigarettes, or booze and porn magazines. Our poors are sooper special in how irresponsible and parasitic they are, while Canadian poors are just nicer.

/Hell
//One plz
///Just wanted to get the argument that some jackass would try out of the way early. Yes, I need a shower now.


Pr0n? Don't be silly, even the homeless here know pr0n is free on the 'Net, so get somewhere to live and a computer....
 
2020-10-28 2:46:05 PM  

Tyrosine: webron: Tyrosine: Por que tan serioso: As long as everyone agrees that 'landlords' are the real problem
[Fark user image 425x302]

I'm a landlord. My entire rental stock is Affordable or Social Housing. I'd love to hear your thoughts as to how I'm the problem.

That's great.  But one persons actions don't mean that it isn't a huge problem.  you do get that right?  If what you say is true, you are a good person and should be congratulated, but it doesn't change much when you are talking larger economic trends.

Ok. How exactly do you envision a equitable housing market? What exactly do you think needs to be done to make the market fairer to renters while still incentivizing people to build and operate rental units?


"Incentivizing people to build and operate rental units?" Let's see, we can sit here and play the stock market, while the construction workers I usually employ are on unemployment (the bums) or I can build low-cost housing and they can work and get paid, and I'll make money.

Or how about HIRING THE HOMELESS TO HELP BUILD, AND THEY GET A UNIT FOR X YEARS IF THEY HELP BUILD X UNITS?

Nahh.... you'd rather they didn't have bootstraps.
 
2020-10-28 3:06:01 PM  

dragonchild: djloid2010: Well, this is obviously a lie, as it goes against our manufactured narrative that the hobos and rub-a-dubs will spend the money on booze and junk. /s
Many of them will!  Many of them will spend the money on booze and drugs and crap, so let's all stop freaking out about it FFS!  It's still vastly cheaper to just give them the handouts and rehabilitate the reachable ones than piss away all the money on police presence, legal costs, incarceration, etc.  Making people invisible is crazy expensive.  We're spending extra tax money just for the privilege of kicking people when they're down.  But point that out and then "conservatives" go "well then let's not spend any money at all" and then you get debacles like the Kansas experiment.

Conservatives are the stupidest farking psychopathic wastes of oxygen on this planet.


You seem reasonable.
 
2020-10-28 3:13:45 PM  
Conservatives say we are Rational Actors Rationally acting our Rational Self-Interest and that we just need to give (rich) people money and they will do great things with it. That's their foundational belief. Conservatives also say that giving poor people money is bad because it they can't do rational things because they're lazy and stupid. So they need the Harsh Discipline of The Market. Especially, you know, members of Urban Thug Culture(tm).
 
2020-10-28 3:14:16 PM  

hubiestubert: Well, obviously this could never work in the US because they gave that benefit to Canadians, and not Americans. American homeless would just spend the money on crank and bootleg cigarettes, or booze and porn magazines. Our poors are sooper special in how irresponsible and parasitic they are, while Canadian poors are just nicer.

/Hell
//One plz
///Just wanted to get the argument that some jackass would try out of the way early. Yes, I need a shower now.


i.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
2020-10-28 3:26:13 PM  

whitroth: Tyrosine: webron: Tyrosine: Por que tan serioso: As long as everyone agrees that 'landlords' are the real problem
[Fark user image 425x302]

I'm a landlord. My entire rental stock is Affordable or Social Housing. I'd love to hear your thoughts as to how I'm the problem.

That's great.  But one persons actions don't mean that it isn't a huge problem.  you do get that right?  If what you say is true, you are a good person and should be congratulated, but it doesn't change much when you are talking larger economic trends.

Ok. How exactly do you envision a equitable housing market? What exactly do you think needs to be done to make the market fairer to renters while still incentivizing people to build and operate rental units?

"Incentivizing people to build and operate rental units?" Let's see, we can sit here and play the stock market, while the construction workers I usually employ are on unemployment (the bums) or I can build low-cost housing and they can work and get paid, and I'll make money.

Or how about HIRING THE HOMELESS TO HELP BUILD, AND THEY GET A UNIT FOR X YEARS IF THEY HELP BUILD X UNITS?

Nahh.... you'd rather they didn't have bootstraps.


Do you honestly believe that developers don't already strike the best bargain possible when tendering?

As for hiring the homeless, that's a laudable desire, but that in and of itself in no way answers my question. Regardless, your suggestion does come with problems. Firstly, you need to consider that a significant proportion of the homeless population come with mental health and addiction issues. Many, likely most in my experience, are not work ready and need to be housed first. There's also skillset issues and liability to consider.

That's not to say that construction of social and affordably housing projects can't involve and element of skills training. The Investment in Affordable Housing Program does have a labor component built in, requiring skilled trades to use a certain number of apprentice hours and offering incentives for employing workers who have come through certain training programs. Also, Habitat for Humanity works in a vaguely similar manner to what you're suggesting, so tis stuff is already happening, but I'm sorry to say it's highly unlikely that large numbers of the homeless are going to be able to participate in what you have described.
 
2020-10-28 4:01:05 PM  
Still not seeing this as the right plan.

These are not the same kind of "civilization/culture/societies to be part of:

1: Your society gave you some money and told you to figure it out

2: Your society won't cut you a check, but they do directly provide that everyone in the Civilization does explicitly have a right to housing , a right to food, and a right to water. Those do not cost you money personally, they are costing all of us whatever it costs to have it, while not padding out the cost of it, with privet profit margins trying to drive private stock values up.
Handing monye to people that need shelter and then telling them to go face the free market wolves for it is fooking bs.
 
2020-10-28 4:39:17 PM  
I had a look at the report. It's not peer reviewed but it has enough detail to see what's going on. https://static1.squarespace.com/s​tatic​/5f07a92f21d34b403c788e05/t/5f751297fc​fe7968a6a957a8/1601507995038/2020_09_3​0_FSC_Statement_of_Impact_w_Expansion.​pdf

Basically, the cash infusion allows people to get off the streets faster. by 6 months, there was no difference to controls.

The biggest change in spending patterns tended to be clothes. Total numbers differ because the cash group had more cash, but as a % of total spending, clothes was the one that jumped up. Spending on drugs and alcohol increased in total by a little bit but fell as a % of total spending. See figure:

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-28 4:54:50 PM  

Tyrosine: whitroth: Tyrosine: webron: Tyrosine: Por que tan serioso: As long as everyone agrees that 'landlords' are the real problem
[Fark user image 425x302]

I'm a landlord. My entire rental stock is Affordable or Social Housing. I'd love to hear your thoughts as to how I'm the problem.

That's great.  But one persons actions don't mean that it isn't a huge problem.  you do get that right?  If what you say is true, you are a good person and should be congratulated, but it doesn't change much when you are talking larger economic trends.

Ok. How exactly do you envision a equitable housing market? What exactly do you think needs to be done to make the market fairer to renters while still incentivizing people to build and operate rental units?

"Incentivizing people to build and operate rental units?" Let's see, we can sit here and play the stock market, while the construction workers I usually employ are on unemployment (the bums) or I can build low-cost housing and they can work and get paid, and I'll make money.

Or how about HIRING THE HOMELESS TO HELP BUILD, AND THEY GET A UNIT FOR X YEARS IF THEY HELP BUILD X UNITS?

Nahh.... you'd rather they didn't have bootstraps.

Do you honestly believe that developers don't already strike the best bargain possible when tendering?

As for hiring the homeless, that's a laudable desire, but that in and of itself in no way answers my question. Regardless, your suggestion does come with problems. Firstly, you need to consider that a significant proportion of the homeless population come with mental health and addiction issues. Many, likely most in my experience, are not work ready and need to be housed first. There's also skillset issues and liability to consider.

That's not to say that construction of social and affordably housing projects can't involve and element of skills training. The Investment in Affordable Housing Program does have a labor component built in, requiring skilled trades to use a certain number of apprentice hours ...


You should go for a job working for somewhere like the American Enterprise Inst. Koch would really appreciate the sleazy bs you upchuck.

For example, if I do a stupidly simple search, I see an estimate of 20%-25% of the homeless with mental health issues. But you'll say anything rather than actually giving them a job (which, mostly, they can't get, because they have no address, no phone #, and no email). That's like Iraq, where the US was importing American truck drivers, rather than hire folks there and pay them a decent wage.

And, of course, your "dear" construction companies are so in love with HOAs (aka keep out the 'ethics').
 
2020-10-28 9:15:29 PM  
"Both cash recipients and people in the control group got access to workshops and coaching focused on developing life skills and plans. "

Oh. Maybe that's worth something, too? How did the control group fare?
 
Displayed 40 of 90 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.