hilzoy: "If the top 1 percent of income earners in America just paid all the federal income taxes they owed, we could raise an additional $175 billion a year. That’s 38 times what it would cost to provide a bed to every person experiencing unsheltered homelessness in America."

"If the top 1 percent of income earners in America just paid all the federal income taxes they owed, we could raise an additional $175 billion a year. That’s 38 times what it would cost to provide a bed to every person experiencing unsheltered homelessness in America."

Opinion | I Study Homelessness. I Wish More Places Looked Like This Shelter.www.nytimes.com Matthew Desmond takes you to a shelter designed with residents in mind.

Another way to look at it? Reducing military spending 5% would also be enough to end homelessness. We are *choosing* to not provide one of the basic necessities of life to the homeless.

Also, all the money the top 1% pays to not pay those taxes.

What the heck are they gonna do with 38 beds

have a fun new type of flooring

If they give them to me? Polycule Porn.

Here's a gift link: www.nytimes.com/2024/06/26/o...

Opinion | I Study Homelessness. I Wish More Places Looked Like This Shelter.www.nytimes.com Matthew Desmond takes you to a shelter designed with residents in mind.

or—and hear me out—we could just build housing

Poe que no Los dos and all but yeah, in Portland the $250 million fund for homeless services in the county that was sitting unspent became a minor scandal not too long ago & I don’t know it’s gotten better since. Money’s only helpful when it’s spent! And we’ve had multiple planned shelters or 1/2

housing projects fall apart because of local govt squabbling over what I see as minor side issues

Or because there are infinite veto points at local levels. But the government can build all the housing it wants!

Salt Lake City is a nice counterexample

Not familiar with what they’ve done, counter example in what way?

they organized a 10-plan to eliminate homelessness, which included providing housing for basically the whole homeless population. it worked quite well initially and was copied by other cities. lately, however, the problem is returning, but not because of a lack of housing.

What’s the new problem making it spike again?

I think this is a misleading notion when so many of the people need more than a roof over their head. And providing less than what they need would make the issue even more unpopular. Currently seeing the results of just someone stepping up and giving many mentally ill people a roof over their head.

Except giving them money will not fix why they were homeless in the first place

In many cases it will, actually. bsky.app/profile/hilz...

We should do this for everyone. Also, this (from the project's founder): "What is fundamentally different about our approach is the way that we start from a place of trust." -- Compare to the suspicion shown by people who make people jump through hoops to get any benefits at all.

fyi bsky.app/profile/cage...

the "more bubbles" trolls are at it again. Don't engage with these zero-follower assholes. They seem to exist simply to sealion people with nasty bad-faith replies. Report them for trolling, & block

It actually fixes exactly why they were homeless, this has been demonstrated empirically a number of times now. They’re homeless because they can’t afford a home

No! Check the studies! "Our screening criteria were: [...] homeless for less than 2 y [...] and nonsevere levels of substance use, alcohol use, and mental health symptoms. Screening criteria were used to reduce risks of harm (e.g. overdose) from the cash transfer." www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...

Unconditional cash transfers reduce homelessness | PNASwww.pnas.org Homelessness is an economic and social crisis. In a cluster-randomized controlled trial, we address a core cause of homelessness—lack of money—by p...

The same study that says "to reduce potential risks of harm (e.g. overdose)" also loves to waffle on about the need to "counter stereotypes". They are ***ing lying to our faces!

What's your point? For the people who met the screening criteria, giving them money helped them. For the ones who didn't, they didn't try it, so we don't know what it would do. I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate here.

1. Hilzoy made a claim about "every" homeless person. 2. Forgetmenott disagreed. 3. You claimed there was data to back up Hilzoy's assertion about EVERY homeless person. There is not! AFAICT, there's only data about a (small?) carefully-selected* subgroup. *dishonestly selected, to mislead people

📌

Post