Someone(s) have sent out pro-worker messages to unsecured receipt printers connected to the internet
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
I think you're misunderstanding the argument. I have been saying that money is available to solve problems but just the money is insufficient to solve them. Throwing money at problems fails not because money is unneeded, but because it's often not the limiting factor.
1)No.
2)What is it about homelessness that you think can be addressed but not by funding?
Nobody hear said that just building houses was all that needed to be done. It was you who decided to phrase it that way, so that you could give a simplistic answer of "it won't help" and then pat yourself on the back as a winner.
I mean, what he actually said was "Every part of literally any problem, if it can be addressed at all, can be addressed by funding." I don't think anyone else here has quite grasped how silly it is that Seanchaidh attempted to convince me that money is the solution to all solvable problems. I think the ridiculousness might be why you're all missing what I'm saying.
Like, the world would make more sense to you if I, the Republican, was trying to say something stupid like "money doesn't solve problems", and the left side of the argument was saying something reasonable like "money certainly helps solve problems", but that's not what is happening here. I'm the one saying it takes a combination of things you can buy and things that you can't to solve social problems, and the left side of the argument took the stance "nope, all you need is money." Seriously, "Every part of literally any problem, if it can be addressed at all, can be addressed by funding."
No, that isn't the question, and I'm not entertaining even a second of you trying to flip it around. This all started with people listing things you could do with Elon Musk's money, I made the reasonable point that you can't just fix problems like that by throwing money at them, and you explicitly argued the case that you can. Again, "Every part of literally any problem, if it can be addressed at all, can be addressed by funding."
So what part of literally any problem, that can be addressed, cannot be addressed by funding, do you think? I only need you to be detailed enough in your objection to explain why you're wrong. That's not "flipping it around", it's simply asking you to be clear. Currently you're hiding behind obscurity-- intentionally or not.
Much of homelessness is similar to the tragedy of orphans. They need not only a building to live in, they need people to live with and care about them. Things that most people have naturally but some do not. You cannot purchase a supportive family for someone. It is a Catch 22 to try to buy compassion, as if it is incentivized purely by money, it isn't compassion.
We've already hit this point, where you acknowledged that some things are priceless, and then you immediately retreated to "commodities". How do you intend to explain why I'm wrong this time?
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,595
- 3,110
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
You can't buy compassion, but you can pay for competent social workers, and the more you're willing to spend on social work the more qualified people will actually want to work for you. The US actually has a huge lack of social workers because the wages for that work are so terrible, so the social workers that are there get over-worked and aren't able to effectively deal with their case load. You know what solves that? Funding. Money.
If group homes and orphanages had better funding, more workers, and more qualified workers they wouldn't be such shitty places to live and that would greatly benefit orphans.
You know why the homeless oftentimes prefer to be on the street rather than in a shelter? Because those shelters are terrible, dirty, understaffed and unsafe. You know what would fix that? Funding. Being able to hire more staff and more competent staff, more security, more rooms with more beds so that people aren't just crammed on top of each other with no privacy. These are all things that would make homeless shelters more enticing and get people off the street who are just looking for a safe place to be.
You don't have to specifically build houses for the homeless in order to fix the homelessness problem with additional funding. You need more social workers, better facilities. You want homeless people to actually want to go to shelters to seek help rather than to be scared because they feel unsafe there.
But then you also keep saying that the homeless should rely on the social structure of their communities for support. I've got news for you, the homeless are mostly poor people, and the social network of poor people are usually more poor people. You can't expect people without money to take care of other people who with no money. Most of those people don't have $500 to deal with an emergency bill, what makes you think they can afford to have another mouth to feed and house, regardless of how "compassionate" they are?
That's nice, but you're describing several different problems as if they are just one problem and then saying the one problem can't be solved because it doesn't solve some other problems. While it is possible that homelessness is a result of various conditions which include for example lack of a supportive family, the lack of a supportive family is not a singular cause of being without a house; it's not the kind of thing that can be a singular cause of that. It would be the lack of a supportive family AND the surrounding social context, specifically the part of that social context that requires people to have bought or to rent part or all of some real estate in order to have their own place to sleep.
You cannot buy compassion directly, but you can facilitate the connection of people such that they may be able better to find it. With money. Also without money, but certainly with it too.
Addressing homelessness-- the condition of being without a house-- only requires replicating the straightforward market interactions that allow others to be housed. It requires nothing that needs any sort of detailed explanation, nothing that should be at all controversial. Nothing priceless need be involved in the construction of a house.
I did not concede that problems that require the acquisition of something priceless cannot be addressed with funding, only asserted that housing people does not require any of those things-- you brought up something irrelevant. But as you insist...
Since you cannot simply buy something priceless, money must be employed in a different manner in order to gain it. For example, by hiring someone (or several someones) to steal that which is not for sale. There are countless examples of that in Canada and the United States with respect to the lands of indigenous people. Indeed, it is unlikely that much of that could have been done-- or indeed could continue-- without the use of money.
Or for another and rather different example, to connect people together such that they can find love and support and all that jazz; dating apps, adoption programs, etc. The problem of wanting priceless objects and even priceless abstract concepts, can be addressed by the expenditure of money.
You want a population to agree with some set of ideas? Buy a news station. Fund the construction of a university. You'll be pitting your money against that of many others, though, so hopefully you want something similar or just have a lot more.
You want something really ambitious like your dead family member back? To the extent this can be addressed, it can be addressed with money-- if you have it-- though it won't come cheap, and you might not see a result in your lifetime.
You want a law changed? Money. Whether directly to legislators in a manner that is easily recognized as corrupt or via some probably more expensive method of public relations.
There is always:
1)Hire someone(s) to figure it out
2)Hire someone(s) to steal it
and these together account for pretty much everything that isn't "just buy it, it's for sale". Unless I'm forgetting something, but that can be addressed by funding as well.
Let's wrap this up with a bow real quick. I want you to consider everything we've been over in this discussion, and look back at the premise: if you had the equivalent of Elon Musk's wealth in cash, how much of an impact would you actually be able to make on homelessness in the US by just spending that money?
I could make sure everyone has a house or whatever other accommodation they'd prefer. I could hire people to figure out the details. Simple as.
Incidentally, this is very similar to the formula Elon Musk used to make his fortune. Just "make me money" instead of house people.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,595
- 3,110
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
A great little article on why shit's fucked son.
www.theguardian.com
The people who run the world literally have no idea what anything costs, what kind of money anyone makes, or what the problems are. None of them pay attention to any statistics and just make decisions based on what they think and feel instead of reality.
The super-rich live on a different planet. Their thoughts on US salaries prove it | Arwa Mahdawi
A tweet from a professor at Wharton School reveals students in one class believed the average American makes over six figures
www.theguardian.com
The people who run the world literally have no idea what anything costs, what kind of money anyone makes, or what the problems are. None of them pay attention to any statistics and just make decisions based on what they think and feel instead of reality.
If I was homeless, I wouldn't care, and what's more dangerous is the shelter or the streets. And while I agree with more funding to fix this issue, I don't agree with the way the homeless act. Aggressive panhandling, harassing whites and Asians, doing drugs in public, public defecation, and so fore. There's a reason people would rather live in the suburbs vs the city. I am safer in a car vs on a dangerous street alley at a college or city when I can't legally carry weapons.
Someone did a study a few years ago asking City of London (i.e. finance industry) workers the same sort of thing, what's the average wage in the UK. They came out with IIRC ~£50,000, which was about twice reality.
And another useful article on the realities of inflation for many people:
We’re pricing the poor out of food in the UK – that’s why I’m launching my own price index | Jack Monroe
A whole section of society is being cut adrift by the rising cost of supermarket shopping
www.theguardian.com
To be fair to said workers, it looks like the average salary in London actually is 40k-50k. The median is lower though, and as soon as you expand beyond just London, both average and median drop to that ~27k number.Someone did a study a few years ago asking City of London (i.e. finance industry) workers the same sort of thing, what's the average wage in the UK. They came out with IIRC ~£50,000, which was about twice reality.
And another useful article on the realities of inflation for many people:
We’re pricing the poor out of food in the UK – that’s why I’m launching my own price index | Jack Monroe
A whole section of society is being cut adrift by the rising cost of supermarket shopping
Do you earn more or less than the average City of London worker?
If you don't live in London (and realistically, even if you do), this makes for miserable reading.
metro.co.uk
Just going to point out that the "City of London" (with caps) technically is a tiny place that, combined with Greater London, forms London, which is the main part of the London Metropolitan Area. Or something, and those terms for London get used interchangeably even though they shouldn't be.To be fair to said workers, it looks like the average salary in London actually is 40k-50k. The median is lower though, and as soon as you expand beyond just London, both average and median drop to that ~27k number.
Do you earn more or less than the average City of London worker?
If you don't live in London (and realistically, even if you do), this makes for miserable reading.
Relevant because (the City of) London has a lot of money concentrated there, which is not so much the case for London, London or London.
This might be the most tone-deaf, compassionless, abominable post I've ever seen.
Huh, looks like facts do care about your feelings after all. If you have enough money to bribe 'em.A great little article on why shit's fucked son.
The super-rich live on a different planet. Their thoughts on US salaries prove it | Arwa Mahdawi
A tweet from a professor at Wharton School reveals students in one class believed the average American makes over six figures
The people who run the world literally have no idea what anything costs, what kind of money anyone makes, or what the problems are. None of them pay attention to any statistics and just make decisions based on what they think and feel instead of reality.
Saw this earlier today. Jack Monroe is one of the few public figures in Britain at the moment who seems to be genuinely motivated primarily to help people.Someone did a study a few years ago asking City of London (i.e. finance industry) workers the same sort of thing, what's the average wage in the UK. They came out with IIRC ~£50,000, which was about twice reality.
And another useful article on the realities of inflation for many people:
We’re pricing the poor out of food in the UK – that’s why I’m launching my own price index | Jack Monroe
A whole section of society is being cut adrift by the rising cost of supermarket shopping
You know what's even more confusing? I live and work in London (not even in the outskirts!), and people who live nearby will occasionally say "heading into London" to refer to going into Central London/ Tube Zone 1.
You're already in London you silly knob!