2个月前

Landlords are scum...

210 评论

Even if we build cheap apartments for the homeless and fully fund it with tax payer money it actually saves tax payer money and gets the homeless out of the already over stressed healthcare system.
Most homeless are in and out of the hospital for easily preventable diagnosis that is a direct result of living on the street. This would free up a bed in the ED, free up a bed in acute care if admitted, and free up urgent care and other EMT resources.
This has been studied for YEARS. We know the answer to directly solving this without even trying to fix the other systemic issues at play here.
However, having a homeless population is good for capitalism. It's an area where an employer can point to and say, "If you don't work for pennies on the dollar, you'll end up there."
- Seriously. I think the solution to the homeless crisis is to build what amounts to government-funded dorms for adults. 2-3 people to a room; literally just like a college dorm. Basic shelter for anyone who needs it, but a degree of privacy you don't get with homeless shelters. You have roommates, but only one or two, and you get a place to safely store things. And the price would be affordable enough that the state can provide this shelter for anyone who needs it.
  And a final benefit of this kind of spartan housing arrangements is that you can ensure only those who need it will take advantage of it. You don't need to go to elaborate lengths to verify eligibility. You don't need to have harsh income-based cutoffs. Most people do not want to live in a dorm room their whole life. That alone will ensure that only those who really need it will seek it out.
  
  You have roommates, but only one or two, and you get a place to safely store things.
  These clauses are mutually exclusive. Has to be accessible only by one tenant for actual privacy and security, that's one of the complaints against existing shelters. Also, "make the housing just shitty enough that it might be better than sleeping outside" as a replacement for means-testing and incentive not to rely on it is diarespectful. Just provide standard studio apartments, tiny homes, or literally whatever vacant property is available and stop trying to find the minimum acceptable dehumanizing conditions.
  
  I don't think asking homeless people to live in the same conditions college students all across the country live in is unacceptable or dehumanizing. And yes, you can have some degree of privacy. Having one or two long term roommates is a world apart from sleeping in a big room with dozens of strangers. It is disrespectful to every person who has ever lived in a college dorm to say that such housing is unacceptable or subpar.
  You're letting perfect be the enemy of the good, and you're ignoring the actual politics of getting this kind of broad program passed. This is the kind of program that could actually gain political traction in an American political context. Giving anyone who wants one a tiny home or condo is not going to be viable. You can't offer people free accommodations that are superior to those that a substantial portion of the electorate enjoys, not if you want to win office.
  And resources fundamentally are limited. Yes, it would be great to buy everyone a three bedroom single family house. But that's just not viable financially. Offering people a shelter of last resort, so no on ever has to sleep on the street again? That's something that can be done, but only if you actually control the costs. And dorm-type housing can be built for a fraction of the cost of apartment-type housing, simply because the space is shared.
  
  Most college students are, functionally if not legally, still children. And dormitories are an efficient way to provide housing for a large group in a concentrated area. Neither case can or should apply broadly to the unhoused.
  Sharing space with a stranger is a great way to get robbed or just made uncomfortable with no recourse. Students have RAs and can apply to live alone, off-campus, or swap dorms. Your theoretical slumblock going to have that flexibility? Nevermind that a single-purpose housing complex is just an instant ghetto. Best outcomes come from integration, not segregation.
  The current American political climate is fucking hostile and watering down any movement to try and fit in is the wrong call. It's like haggling by starting with concessions. And why couldn't it be viable? It isn't luxury housing I support. Most people have some amount of personal pride and don't want to subsist on welfare if they have another option, and I'm perfectly happy to let some people permanently use those properties if it lessens the strain on public resources for everyone else.
  Letting people suffer just to get (re)elected is intolerable.
  Reources are artificially limited. There are more vacant houses in this country than homeless people. We don't need to build new complexes to sweep the problem into one neat pile, just start seizing vacant lots held by absent investors. It wouod be cheaper than the police and medical costs we're currently paying. Ideally pair this radical housing initiative with job training programs, optional rehab/drug counseling, mental healthcare, and other slightly-left-of-global-center communist ideas.
- One little problem you aren't accounting for.
  Give houses to newcomers for not being self sufficient, then you'll be attracting even more newcomers. The cycle continues.
  Now, with 2nd generation immigrants, this is a good investment. Especially in aging countries such as mine.
  But yeah you're not taking in future expenses into account with your idea there.
  The current amount of homeless, are there to scarecrow the potential amount of homeless away.
  It's more sane, as a society, to reduce this to refugees only.
  Giving economic immigrants a free house.. that's just insane
  
  Nobody was talking about immigrants before you did. Not sure what your point is.
  
  Idk how it's in your country but in my country the homeless are illegal immigrants
  
  Sad that people want to go to your country, even if they will be homeless. Sad they find no compassion there.
  In my country, the immigrants are very slightly less likely to be homeless. Little compassion here either.
  
  The rules are simple. If you want to be in Belgium, be self sufficient until you have nationality. Unless refugee, then you get social housing.
  Most of our immigrants come through family reunification. Their family member can only get them here if he or she has enough income and housing.
  They sign a paper to say that the government can deduct money from the family member's account if the immigrant requires help from our social services for income.
  Then when the immigrant requests income from the state, the residence card is lost.
  If that person does not leave the country, will become an illegal immigrant. Then will likely become homeless.
  The rules are there to diminish the burden on the state.
  Switzerland has 30% immigrants, Singapore is all about immigrants, Dubai as well. I don't think these places have any compassion. High cost of living. If not self sufficient, then they prefer the spot to be taken by an immigrant that will be self sufficient.
  It's selfish, but important in order to keep our country from going into a crisis.
  Legal immigration is easy. My wife went to Jakarta. Got EU tourist visa. We went to city hall. I presented proof of housing, payslips of past few months, national health insurance.
  We got married. She got orange card, could start working. Can't find a job.
  Then because I still have my job, my wife gets F card after 6 months.
  She did 2 classes to learn Dutch. Some social integration class. Found a job that is 2/3rd subsidised by government.
  All legal. It's easy. To become an illegal immigrant, you need to do some heavy lifting.
  
  Is it? Immigrants get jobs and pay taxes. Economic immigration can be a great economic boon if managed properly. It might be possible to generate consistent returns on investment by providing shelter, food, education and training.
  
  A lot of economic immigrants don't have jobs.
  It's quite difficult to get a job when everything is in a language you are at most new to.
  I went to 30 headhunter firms with my wife, they all showed us the door when they realised she doesn't speak Dutch.
  Her job is cleaning. Subsidised 66% by the government (taxes). Client pays 10 euros, my wife gets 15 euros. The company gets 30 euros per hour.
  She has a fucking law degree from a top 5% university in her country.
  Immigration depends a lot on language, or the lingual infrastructure of the country.
  2 ways. Either Belgium decides to turn English into an official language and creates an environment where English is the only language needed, or the immigrant learns Dutch.
  Learning Dutch takes years.
  My coworker her mom lives here for 30 years and doesn't speak Dutch. Her aunt speaks our language fluently.
  It depends on the person, but in general it's not to be underestimated.
  My wife is just going to be half time worker. Better that I work full time and that she takes care of our kid a bit more while I work full time.
  My wife doesn't pay any taxes.
  As I said priorly. The real deal here is the 2nd generation. Those can be educated in belgium for the Belgian economy. Big gains for the economy.
  If I go to Indonesia, what am I gonna do lol. Idk anything about indonesian stuff. There my wife would have to be the breadwinner while I just look for a job in Singapore or an English company in Batam.
  I'm bit lucky that accountancy is more globalised. Law is very specific. You're supposed to specialise and then make that your career.
  
  A lot of natives also don't have jobs. Shall we kick those out too?
  And if not, why do they get preferential treatment? They cost the country a lot more money than immigrants.
  
  First of all, there wasn't anything said about kicking people out. Just not giving them houses, in order to make the place less attractive for future immigrants that aren't self sufficient.
  Second of all. I wouldn't give a shit if the people taking advantage of our country's massive welfare would be kicked out.
  I know plenty of people who prefer to have no money just so that they can keep enjoying social discounts and sick money/unemployment money/living wages.
  These people are abled. They just don't give A FUCK that their kids have 0 inheritance.
  In a country with median net wealth of 250k euros per adult. Fucking embarrassing. Gigantic social mobility here.
  
  That’s crazy: there are cleaners who speak the language? I thought this was a stereotypical job for immigrants because you don’t need special skills or credentials nor have to know the language. The skills are basic; you just need to work hard, be reliable and figure out how to get fast at it
  
  The cleaners that know the language.. idk mate, higher education costs 1 month's minimum wage to fund a whole bachelor's.
  Achieving the bachelor takes effort though. The job that you get with the bachelor also is more difficult to do. More stressful.
  Doesn't really pay much more. Maybe 200 euros?
  Minimum wage pays barely any taxes. While the "discount on tax" is lost as you climb the ladder.
  At 3250 euros gross wage I get 2250 euros net.
  At minimum wage, 2050 euros. They get 2000 euros net.
  It's not a big deal. Of course my wage will keep growing, while theirs will stagnate.
  But complacency is quite the drug.
  
  Oh no, learning the language of the country you immigrate to, the horror
  Make it a requirement of continuing occupancy. Must be taking classes or working. Classes are free.
  
  Still takes years to learn the language with those classes and these classes are social transfers to the immigrants, but a good investment with return.
  The requirement is neither of those things. The requirement is self sufficiency.
  If you're rich enough, then I don't care if you don't learn the language and that you don't work.
  You're spending into our economy with likely passive income coming from your global investments.
  Or you have family members that take care of your cost of living. All fine.
  If you want to have a job, then as I priorly stated. Either in Dutch or English.
  Both would work. If the infrastructure is in English, then the ability to make immigrants self sufficient becomes a lot easier. Good for our economy.
  If we don't want to do these investments, then the immigrant needs to learn Dutch.
  Those are the only options.
  My wife speaks English at her job. Did 2 Dutch classes. Most of the people in flanders speak English so communication goes well.
  Ego of natives to be spoken to by their preferred language is economically irrelevant so I ignore that.
  
  The premise of this discussion was economic refugees, so I assumed we were only talking about those who are not self-sufficient.
  
  These people can't legally enter the country as far as I'm aware. So yeah, they become homeless.
  Giving money to economic refugees that aren't self sufficient is just.. at best, turning them into baby factories for next generation worker bees.
  My country has an aging population, perhaps it's beneficial? Not sure.
  Actually it's easy to see if it's beneficial. Look at social refugees. Their kids get higher education.
  There's enough war in the world though. We don't need economic refugees on top of the social refugees.
  But then again, need to question how easy those economic refugees are to integrate.
  They aren't traumatised by war, so it should be easier.
  A lot of angles to look from
  
  Giving money to economic refugees that aren’t self sufficient is just… at best, turning them into baby factories for next generation worker bees.
  I don't see why that's the case. Surely within a few years at most, they will have acquired the skills and security to get a job or start a business and become a productive taxpayer. Unless they're permanently disabled, but that's a small minority of people.
  
  The problem usually is lack of education within their home countries. That's the difference between EU migrants and non EU migrants. I suppose.
  Someone that went to school until age 14 won't have it as easy to integrate. Mostly they'll get minimum wage jobs. Which don't pay taxes.
  That's why they do bad on statistics I guess.
  But nowadays, places around the world have been booming education wise. Now it's pure brain drain to get young abled people to come here.
  The statistics are more based on older generations, which globally, were less educated.
  
  I'm pretty confident that even a person with no formal education can gain the training to do a skilled trade job.
  
  I am accounting for newcomers and not being self sufficient.
  In the studies and actual use cases where places have done this the homeless person is getting a 300-500sqft apartment. It's enough to get off the street have a clean bed and running water. They can then get a job and work their way out.
  The reason this works is because once you have a decent income and want to start enjoying life you can't do that in a 300-500sqft apartment.
  This isn't just shit I'm making up, there have been cities that have done this and it fucking works.
  
  Can you link the source then, thanks
  https://www.nbb.be/nl/artikels/de-economische-impact-van-immigratie-belgie-0#%3A%7E%3Atext=De+analyse+wijst+erop+dat%2Cde+netto-bijdrage+van+autochtonen.
  
  I can provide a few, but honestly so many cities have done this, tried to do part of it and failed/succeeded, or are working on plans to do this. Portland Oregon for example had success with a homeless program that puts people in little 15x15ft sheds. It's not much, but it's a start and some have moved on to their own apartment. Years ago a city in Utah (I think), built a small apartment and did a study to determine it was more cost effective to provide housing than let them clog up the Healthcare and EMS resources.
  One study found an average cost savings on emergency services of $31,545 per person housed in a Housing First program over the course of two years. Another study showed that a Housing First program could cost up to $23,000 less per consumer per year than a shelter program.
  Housing First
  Coalition for the Homeless
  PBS article comparing two cities
  National Alliance to End Homelessness
  Here is a list of studies from the last link. Each pebble is a study with links and sources
  Again, this is not something I'm just saying or making up. This has hard data backed evidence to support it.
  
  Those 31,5k USD saved is because you don't let them die.
  My source is comparing first generation non EU immigrants their taxes to the social transfers they receive. It's a net loss.
  As I stated, it's the 2nd generation where it's at.
  Those are the worker bees.
  If these people were self sufficient then they wouldn't have been homeless. It takes massive investments. And guess what? It pays off in the 2nd generation.
  
  Okay, so don't read any of the sources and stay ignorant. Homelessness can be a result of a multitude of factors and not all of them are only illegal immigrants who can't be self-sufficient.
  No where in any of the sources does it say the cost saved was because "they didn't die". It's clear this goes far beyond your ability to understand and comprehend complex systems of cost analysis. You ask for sources then ignore them. Get bent.
  
  The 31,5k USD was because of emergency services lol. What do you think emergency services are? Goes to hospital. By law cannot be refused treatment. It's expensive.
  Being housed prevents needing those medical services that cannot be refused. Hence it's cheaper to house someone.
  The cheapest option is to let them die.
  Social housing isn't about getting people to be self sufficient. It's just about giving them a comfortable life.
  The return on investment comes from their children. Not the parents.
  if you want to show a source that it's good for the economy. Then show one where the person's taxes outweigh their social transfers.
  Which is difficult to do for older people. They need investments, then they do low paying jobs. The difference between their low paying jobs and doing nothing is basically the same amount of income.
  So they don't have much motivation. Their income during their work life is low, then they get a pension. Net loss for government.
  Their kids however. They went to school at a young age, get higher education. They get a well paying job. Very profitable.
  We have social housing here in Belgium, you get it after waiting 2 years. Which means.. only the chronic low income people get it. They usually die in it. Cheap rent.
  Here you don't become homeless easily. You have unemployment benefits. You don't get medical bankruptcy. You get living wage. Blablabla
  Temporary income shocks are completely taken by social security. These people don't get social housing because they can just continue paying their mortgage or rent.
  So you already need to take these people out of your studies. Because yeah, giving housing to short term homeless people will be very beneficial. They just are in-between jobs.
  Now, the ones that have social housing, there's something wrong there. They aren't self sufficient because of chronic reasons. These people will worsen the results of your studies.
  It's like looking at immigration studies and including the EU immigrants with the non EU immigrants. While one part obviously scores better than the other.

210 评论