Someone(s) have sent out pro-worker messages to unsecured receipt printers connected to the internet

[tstorm823]

If there are no limits to wealth, then why aren't all 8 billion people on earth mega-billionaires with personal chauffeurs, luxury yachts and penthouse apartments?

Because those things are specific, scarce resources. Not all things of value are limited by physical resources.

And why should they have to endure any significant time without a home? I appreciate there's a bureaucratic delay likely between signing up and getting a pad, but this should be in the order of days.

You're back at that "should" word again. Talk about what is, or what you intend to do about it, believing all the best things should happen isn't worth anything.

We have shelters that help the homeless. He have housing assistance programs. For the most part, they succeed at getting people off the streets. 60-70% of the homeless have shelter through some sort of support program, and that doesn't count anyone living in their car. People aren't stuck outside even in the order of days, most people find shelter immediately. Those actually living on the streets and there longterm are exceptions with bigger issues than lack of housing.

The chronically homeless accounts for an estimated 110,000. That strongly implies the other 500,000 or so would like somewhere to live.

It states directly that they find permanent residence within a year of losing their previous residence. Which means the housing for them exists. Which means the problem isn't solved by using Elon Musk's money to build projects. Get it?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

On a side note concerning anti-worker bullshit, you may remember that Floridians recently voted to raise their minimum wage to $15 an hour. Well electoral politics strikes again, a state senator introduced a bill to offer sub-minimum wage wages to new hires.

Florida state senator files bill to allow employers to offer sub-minimum ‘training wage’

State Senator Jeff Brandes is looking to make a change to Florida's minimum wage laws that would allow employers to offer a "training wage" which would be below the state's current minimum wage.

www.clickorlando.com

Some estimates peg it around the $4 an hour range.

 

[tippy2k2]

On a side note concerning anti-worker bullshit, you may remember that Floridians recently voted to raise their minimum wage to $15 an hour. Well electoral politics strikes again, a state senator introduced a bill to offer sub-minimum wage wages to new hires.

Florida state senator files bill to allow employers to offer sub-minimum ‘training wage’

State Senator Jeff Brandes is looking to make a change to Florida's minimum wage laws that would allow employers to offer a "training wage" which would be below the state's current minimum wage.

www.clickorlando.com

Some estimates peg it around the $4 an hour range.

The silver lining is that Pandora's Box may already be open. They can try to slam it shut with this kind of shit but (hopefully) people have learned that they don't have to put up with this kind of bullshit any longer.

People have damn short memories though so we'll see if the lesson sticks.

 

[Seanchaidh]

You're back at that "should" word again. Talk about what is, or what you intend to do about it, believing all the best things should happen isn't worth anything.

You're conflating the predictive sense of the word 'should' with its normative sense and pretending you've made a point.

 

[Agema]

Because those things are specific, scarce resources. Not all things of value are limited by physical resources.

Okay, you're beginning to get this. Yes, resources are scarce. So wealth is therefore limited by resources. This also means that abstract things are limited, because of course someone has to decide what they use their money and time for, and resource-free things are in competition with resource-dependent things, which necessarily passes the resource-free things values that relate to resource-dependent things. Thus, everything (even indirectly) is dependent on resources, which tend to have scarcity.

You're back at that "should" word again. Talk about what is, or what you intend to do about it, believing all the best things should happen isn't worth anything.

I have no idea why you've decided to adopt this weirdly obstructive line about "should". You do have to realise it is insignificantly different from a child repeatedly asking "Why?" every time an adult explains something to them: it doesn't really mean anything, it's just a game. Not least because underlying your own position of opposition are a series of "should" arguments, because the status quo is no less based on them than anything else.

It states directly that they find permanent residence within a year of losing their previous residence. Which means the housing for them exists. Which means the problem isn't solved by using Elon Musk's money to build projects. Get it?

I fear it's you that doesn't get it.

I didn't suggest appropriating $60 billion of Elon Musk's wealth to build homes for 600,000 people as a concrete policy, it was a hypothetical to point out the obvious error you made when you say the wealth of billionaires can't vastly reduce homelessness. The government could have a (bigger) stock of social housing by buying existing buildings rather than new builds. It could simply rent from the private sector more aggressively. It doesn't need to exclusively tax billionaires. Whatever works, really. The point is that it can do this, and it would be a tiny burden to society. It simply chooses not to, because it would rather cut taxes than house the homeless.

 

[tstorm823]

You're conflating the predictive sense of the word 'should' with its normative sense and pretending you've made a point.

I have no idea why you've decided to adopt this weirdly obstructive line about "should". You do have to realise it is insignificantly different from a child repeatedly asking "Why?" every time an adult explains something to them: it doesn't really mean anything, it's just a game. Not least because underlying your own position of opposition are a series of "should" arguments, because the status quo is no less based on them than anything else.

There's a radio ad I hear a bunch where they say repeatedly that "breast cancer is unacceptable" and "nobody should have to go through that", and it just annoys the hell out of me, cause it's acting like the issue with breast cancer is people accepting it. It pretty much stems from that. "Nobody should have breast cancer" is possibly the most useless statement in the history of mankind. Nobody wants people to have breast cancer, there's nobody to convince.

When you say "nobody should have to be homeless" (or whatever), it's like, who is the pro-homelessness person you're arguing with? We're debating what solutions are effective for helping or mitigating the problem of homelessness, nobody is taking the stance "people should be homeless more". So why say that?

Okay, you're beginning to get this. Yes, resources are scarce. So wealth is therefore limited by resources.

Limited resources can be configured into things of infinite value. A pile of paint and canvas could be $50, a Van Gogh painting made of the same stuff is decidedly more. The difference in value is generated by the human imagination. People are constantly creating and destroying wealth. That's my point. And if somebody buy's a painting for a million dollars, the collective value of currency hasn't changed, it has only changed hands. So the buyer has something they feel was worth the money and is no less wealthy, the seller turned $50 in supplies into $1,000,000, the amount of currency in circulation hasn't changed. Are you going to say that subjectively valued painting has reduced the buying power of everyone else simply by existing?

I didn't suggest appropriating $60 billion of Elon Musk's wealth to build homes for 600,000 people as a concrete policy, it was a hypothetical to point out the obvious error you made when you say the wealth of billionaires can't vastly reduce homelessness.

"I wasn't suggesting a concrete policy, I was stating a hypothetical way to use Musk's money that wouldn't solve the problem so that you would see how obvious it is that Musk's money can solve the problem."

 

[Agema]

There's a radio ad I hear a bunch where they say repeatedly that "breast cancer is unacceptable" and "nobody should have to go through that", and it just annoys the hell out of me, cause it's acting like the issue with breast cancer is people accepting it. It pretty much stems from that. "Nobody should have breast cancer" is possibly the most useless statement in the history of mankind. Nobody wants people to have breast cancer, there's nobody to convince.

Yes, but surely you understand that the sentiment "Nobody should go through breast cancer" or "we should do something about breast cancer" or any of the many permutations are all expressions of motivation to do something about preventing or treating breast cancer, motivation without which nobody would bother. Getting het up over a common rhetorical device is fairly pointless. Or at least, trying to make an argument out of it is.

When you say "nobody should have to be homeless" (or whatever), it's like, who is the pro-homelessness person you're arguing with? We're debating what solutions are effective for helping or mitigating the problem of homelessness, nobody is taking the stance "people should be homeless more". So why say that?

Almost nobody is for homelessness per se, but when it's lower on their priorities than buying themselves a new kitchen blender, it's not far off being pro-homelessness.

Limited resources can be configured into things of infinite value. A pile of paint and canvas could be $50, a Van Gogh painting made of the same stuff is decidedly more. The difference in value is generated by the human imagination. People are constantly creating and destroying wealth. That's my point. And if somebody buy's a painting for a million dollars, the collective value of currency hasn't changed, it has only changed hands. So the buyer has something they feel was worth the money and is no less wealthy, the seller turned $50 in supplies into $1,000,000, the amount of currency in circulation hasn't changed. Are you going to say that subjectively valued painting has reduced the buying power of everyone else simply by existing?

I'm saying that you are assessing wealth by criteria that are borderline meaningless in terms of how the economy works, because behind a lot of subjective value is a form of objective value (where objective in this sense means a sort of aggregate value of the actions of many people).

"I wasn't suggesting a concrete policy, I was stating a hypothetical way to use Musk's money that wouldn't solve the problem so that you would see how obvious it is that Musk's money can solve the problem."

Oh god, please be more constructive.

We can build an extra 600,000 people's worth of homes for the homeless... and they will have homes, so it is a solution. Your criticism amounted to it being a wasteful solution because the housing stock already exists to give them homes. That's fine. So we have even cheaper options than stripping Elon Musk of $60 billion to consider that would greatly reduce homelessness. That's both a) great news and b) even more disappointing no-one seriously tries to do it.

 

[tstorm823]

We can build an extra 600,000 people's worth of homes for the homeless... and they will have homes, so it is a solution.

It isn't a solution.

I live in relatively rural places, so my personal experience is limited, but I can offer two anecdotes from people I've known. One was a man named Mark who was schizophrenic. He had a wife and family earlier in life, but stopped taking his medications, and would just wander. He stayed in a room offered by someone in my hometown in the winter, and the rest of the year would he would just walk away. Many people tried to help him and get him back on track, and just couldn't.

Another is a woman who before I met her had been the victim of domestic abuse. She fled her home and stayed in shelters for a couple months. She just needed somewhere safe to be for a ti.e to get things together, she didn't need a permanent address immediately.

Neither of these people would be helped by building 600,000 apartments. It's not as simple as "build more housing then."

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I live in relatively rural places, so my personal experience is limited, but I can offer two anecdotes from people I've known. One was a man named Mark who was schizophrenic. He had a wife and family earlier in life, but stopped taking his medications, and would just wander. He stayed in a room offered by someone in my hometown in the winter, and the rest of the year would he would just walk away. Many people tried to help him and get him back on track, and just couldn't.

Another is a woman who before I met her had been the victim of domestic abuse. She fled her home and stayed in shelters for a couple months. She just needed somewhere safe to be for a ti.e to get things together, she didn't need a permanent address immediately.

So your first example is "it wouldn't work for this one person so there's no point in doing it at all", and your second example is someone who wouldn't be looking for a permanent home in any case.

Neither of these people would be helped by building 600,000 apartments. It's not as simple as "build more housing then."

And so let's just disregard the hundreds of thousands of people who would be helped.

 

[Avnger]

So your first example is "it wouldn't work for this one person so there's no point in doing it at all", and your second example is someone who wouldn't be looking for a permanent home in any case.


And so let's just disregard the hundreds of thousands of people who would be helped.

"If the solution isn't perfect, it's better to do nothing at all. Who cares if others suffer in the meantime?"

 

[Seanchaidh]

Neither of these people would be helped by building 600,000 apartments. It's not as simple as "build more housing then."

There are some people who maybe don't really want to live inside all the time or who have an abuser to go back to, so really, why bother providing housing to people?

 

[Agema]

It isn't a solution.

Getting everyone who wants a home a home is a solution. If some people don't want a home, it's not our place to force them into one.

For people with mental health issues, there are also care solutions to mitigate those problems.

 

[McElroy]

Getting everyone who wants a home a home is a solution.

Unless they live in a 4D space, because they want the same homes people already live in.

 

[Silvanus]

It isn't a solution.

I live in relatively rural places, so my personal experience is limited, but I can offer two anecdotes from people I've known.

This is statistically insignificant.

You appear to be ultimately concluding that people are only homeless because of 1) short term personal circumstances which already get sorted, or 2) severe personal circumstances such as mental health issues for which providing a house does not address the root cause.

This is, frankly, bollocks. Firstly, those "short term" homeless still tend to sleep rough for months, whereas if it was purely a logistical issue, only a matter of days-- If that!-- would be required.

And those with severe mental health issues directly causing their homelessness do not account for all the rest. Not even close. Putting aside the fact that long-term homelessness also causes mental health issues (obviously), so you're just putting the cart before the horse if you only intend to address one and not the other.

The fact is that home ownership or renting is expensive, and affordable/social housing projects are not sufficient to address the needs of the homeless. And yes, funding would obviously ameliorate that. More supply, easier access, outreach programs, and staff to provide support services.

You want an anecdote: I live in London, and I will see multiple homeless people every single day, sometimes in the tens. I know for a fact they're not short-term homeless, because I've recognised some of them for over a year or two. If you want to try to convince me they're all acutely mentally ill and would have homes otherwise... you can fucking pull the other one. No, that's not the case.

You want to believe what you believe about the homeless because it absolves you of having to give a shit.

 

[tstorm823]

You want to believe what you believe about the homeless because it absolves you of having to give a shit.

You really think the person suggesting ending homelessness is difficult is absolving themself of caring? You don't think it's the people who think "yeah, if it weren't for those darn, hoarding billionaires, there wouldn't be homelessness" who are absolving themselves from caring? All of you who think "it just takes a lot of money, and I don't have money, so it isn't my problem" are guilty of what you accuse me of.

And so let's just disregard the hundreds of thousands of people who would be helped.

Those people are already helped. There are many, many programs that help the people who want homes find housing. You trying to solve the easier problem a second time instead of looking at the harder problems the first time.

 

[Silvanus]

You really think the person suggesting ending homelessness is difficult is absolving themself of caring?

Absolutely. You think it's difficult, but you've also mentally shifted 90% of the responsibility onto the homeless themselves.

You don't think it's the people who think "yeah, if it weren't for those darn, hoarding billionaires, there wouldn't be homelessness" who are absolving themselves from caring? All of you who think "it just takes a lot of money, and I don't have money, so it isn't my problem" are guilty of what you accuse me of.

Uhrm... how does the requirement for funds absolve me or anyone else of caring? These solutions actually require input. The responsibility rests with the rest of society, which includes myself.

Note that homelessness charities and outreach programs, the ones composed entirely of people who have taken it upon themselves to ameliorate homelessness and clearly see it as their own responsibility, are also pointing out that funds are obviously needed.

This weak attempt at a turnaround makes absolutely zero sense.

 

[tstorm823]

This weak attempt at a turnaround makes absolutely zero sense.

You being obtuse doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

Uhrm... how does the requirement for funds absolve me or anyone else of caring? These solutions actually require input. The responsibility rests with the rest of society, which includes myself.

I recommend rereading the comments where this tangent stemmed from. Lists of things that could just be done if only we had Elon Musk's money. I'd you to consider how often people say "well, this bad thing will continue as long as the 1% want them to." What are these things if not naïve suggestions that the problems of the world are just wealth distribution?

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Those people are already helped. There are many, many programs that help the people who want homes find housing. You trying to solve the easier problem a second time instead of looking at the harder problems the first time.

And that's why the homeless aren't homeless anymore!

 

[Silvanus]

I recommend rereading the comments where this tangent stemmed from. Lists of things that could just be done if only we had Elon Musk's money. I'd you to consider how often people say "well, this bad thing will continue as long as the 1% want them to." What are these things if not naïve suggestions that the problems of the world are just wealth distribution?

Now here's some prime obtuseness.

The idea that solutions require funding is hardly "naive". It doesn't involve a denial that other aspects are also involved (psychological, logistical, etc). It simply means that solutions do exist, are within society's reach, and are not being enacted.

The idea that solutions require funding is simply basic recognition of reality, and is attested by literally every body on the planet engaged in working to end homelessness and poverty.

 

[Seanchaidh]

What are these things if not naïve suggestions that the problems of the world are just wealth distribution?

You live in an economic system in which:

1)The capacity for human effort is bought and sold (whether per hour or otherwise), and human effort results from those transactions.
2)Organization, planning, investigation, etc. is a result of human effort.
3)All other relevant resources can be bought and sold
so
4)Every part of literally any problem, if it can be addressed at all, can be addressed by funding.

Where money goes (or doesn't go) is LITERALLY HOW WE DECIDE WHAT TASKS AS A SOCIETY WE SHOULD AND WILL DO.