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

[tstorm823]

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

That is exactly why 80% of the homeless aren't homeless anymore every year. Yes.

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.

The funding already exists. It already exists. The government literally prints money, the funding exists.

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

No, it isn't. Even in a purely capitalist economy, capital does not decide what we should do. It's not a moral system, it's not a social organization, it does not replace all of society with one thing (the way that you want to). That being said, most of what people do happens independent of "where the money goes". Most of the time, when an individual needs personal help, they are helped by someone they know without money being involved. If someone is homeless, their personal support system either failed or doesn't exist, and you're all imagining that you can just buy an invaluable human interaction like that.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Even in a purely capitalist economy, capital does not decide what we should do.

You must realize how singularly desolate your response is here. How many houses are built "independent of where the money goes"? Even our "democratic" politics is expressed through budgets. Individuals and families caring for each other through extreme hardship at the small scale is quite beside the point, apart from signalling a burdensome abdication of social responsibility. And yes, private expenditure.

The government literally prints money, the funding exists.

In the same way that the Bezos and Musk fortunes exist: without having been directed to the relevant use. For all practical purposes that funding does not exist unless or until it has been so directed.

 

[tstorm823]

Individuals and families caring for each other through extreme hardship at the small scale is quite beside the point, apart from signalling a burdensome abdication of social responsibility.

That's not beside the point, that is the lion's share of human experience. It's not an abdication of social responsibility that people care for their family and neighbors, that is social responsibility.

 

[Silvanus]

The funding already exists. It already exists. The government literally prints money, the funding exists.

...and everybody with a high school understanding of inflation knows that the government "printing money" doesn't simply create funding.

 

[Thaluikhain]

...and everybody with a high school understanding of inflation knows that the government "printing money" doesn't simply create funding.

Or who is at least vaguely familiar with the history of the Weimar Republic/rise of Nazism in Germany.

 

[tstorm823]

...and everybody with a high school understanding of inflation knows that the government "printing money" doesn't simply create funding.

We're discussing the feasibility of literally solving homelessness with a fraction of the annual federal deficit. There are limits to things, but that one would both be easily worth it and likely pay for itself rather quickly.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

That is exactly why 80% of the homeless aren't homeless anymore every year. Yes.

...I'm sorry, where are you pulling out this statistic from?

 

[Avnger]

...I'm sorry, where are you pulling out this statistic from?

He's using the definition of "chronically homeless" as defined in federal law from a source like this. HOWEVER, the number he's claiming both isn't correct even according to those sources (it's actually 73%), but he's also misusing the definition of "chronically homeless." To be "chronically homeless" doesn't mean "someone who is still homeless each year", it requires both a continuous year of homelessness (or 4 instances of homelessness within 3 years) AND at least one disability*** for the head of household. This means anyone who is homeless for over a year without a disability (or with a disability but the "head of household" doesn't have one) doesn't count in that given number; a key factor he ignorantly/purposely skipped over.


*** disability as shorthand for "a diagnosable substance use disorder, serious mental illness, developmental disability (as defined in section 15002 of this title), post traumatic stress disorder, cognitive impairments resulting from a brain injury, or chronic physical illness or disability"

 

[tstorm823]

...I'm sorry, where are you pulling out this statistic from?

The Department of Housing and Urban Development does an annual report including estimates:
2020, 27% of homeless were chronically homeless.
2019, it was 17%.
2018, it was 16%.

The majority of the homeless experience only transitional homelessness. They stay in transitional housing (which already exists, because the funding already exists). They are typically suffering a catastrophic life event, and can get back on their feet after some short term support.

*** disability as shorthand for "a diagnosable substance use disorder, serious mental illness, developmental disability (as defined in section 15002 of this title), post traumatic stress disorder, cognitive impairments resulting from a brain injury, or chronic physical illness or disability"

Nobody living outside repeatedly or perpetually fails to meet this criteria.

 

[Seanchaidh]

That's not beside the point, that is the lion's share of human experience. It's not an abdication of social responsibility that people care for their family and neighbors, that is social responsibility.

You're talking about the piling of financial burdens upon a relatively small number of generous folk while everyone else, especially the idle rich, simply shrugs their shoulders. These generous folk, I might add, have every incentive in a capitalist system to simply close their doors as well.

 

[tstorm823]

You're talking about the piling of financial burdens upon a relatively small number of generous folk while everyone else, especially the idle rich, simply shrugs their shoulders. These generous folk, I might add, have every incentive in a capitalist system to simply close their doors as well.

It's painful how much you want to live in a world where money isn't guiding all the decisions while being oblivious to the fact that you already do.

 

[Seanchaidh]

It's painful how much you want to live in a world where money isn't guiding all the decisions while being oblivious to the fact that you already do.

it's painful how desperately you want to ignore that decisions made by a society and decisions made by individuals are not the same thing and so make a point that is both irrelevant and incorrect. even if what you were saying was true, it wouldn't change the fact that we live in an economic system in which everything relevant, including the planning and organization necessary to even figure out what should be done, can be bought. But isn't.

 

[tstorm823]

We live in an economic system in which everything relevant, including the planning and organization necessary to even figure out what should be done, can be bought. But isn't.

This just isn't true. I guarantee there are things you would not sell for anything, that should be enough evidence for you that not everything can be bought, and then you just need to recognize that you're not the single human in a see of robots to understand your whole view is nonsense.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I guarantee there are things you would not sell for anything

None of them are required to PROVIDE HOUSING

They're not even in the same general category! That category being commodities. We build houses using commodities. And architectural and urban planning, and so forth. None of these are priceless.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

None of them are required to PROVIDE HOUSING

They're not even in the same general category!

But bruh, how are you going to build houses when the lumber market is tied up in people's ancestral treated planks that were passed down through the generations and like hell are they gonna sell!

 

[Seanchaidh]

But bruh, how are you going to build houses when the lumber market is tied up in people's ancestral treated planks that were passed down through the generations and like hell are they gonna sell!

Antiques Roadshow goes to Dunn Lumber

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

This just isn't true. I guarantee there are things you would not sell for anything, that should be enough evidence for you that not everything can be bought, and then you just need to recognize that you're not the single human in a see of robots to understand your whole view is nonsense.

"Since you wouldn't sell your immortal soul for a cookie, we couldn't possibly provide housing for the homeless. Quod erat demonstratum."

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

This just isn't true. I guarantee there are things you would not sell for anything, that should be enough evidence for you that not everything can be bought, and then you just need to recognize that you're not the single human in a see of robots to understand your whole view is nonsense.

I wouldn't sell my ability to drink clean water, but there are definitely people who would sell my ability to drink clean water. Flint Michigan still doesn't have clean drinking water.

That's the thing about living in a society, a lot of the time you don't actually get to control what happens to you as we are all interdependent upon one another and upon various systems.

It doesn't matter if 100,000 people wouldn't sell their ability to have clean drinking water if there's one asshole who would and HE controls the drinking water.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Money can't be used to buy things, hey?

This discussion looks productive.

 

[Silvanus]

We're discussing the feasibility of literally solving homelessness with a fraction of the annual federal deficit. There are limits to things, but that one would both be easily worth it and likely pay for itself rather quickly.

This would appear to show a complete lack of understanding of how inflation works. You can't understand it and think this.