At some point you have to accept that the best is the enemy of the good. If housing the homeless makes shareholders money, then I say that's an acceptable tradeoff to give people homes. It's not a permanent solution, and it's not an ideal solution, but if it's putting roofs over peoples' heads, it's a move in the positive direction.

Except, this not a move in any direction. Leaving people living in the streets have been profitable so we left people living in the streets, now is more profitable to provide housing, if tomorrow is no longer profitable to leave them on the streets again, we will do so, because we maintained the same posture of just chasing profit.

And despite what GP might think, I welcome this as a nice way to ease people suffering, and I don't think "all corporations are evil". I just believe that people having a roof should not be tied to profit, and I disagree with the ideology pushed to our throats about how corporations chasing profit is good for everyone.

I mean even here it’s only profitable to provide housing for the most expensive people. They deliberately only Provide housing for people who cost >=2.5x mean because otherwise it’s not cost effective for them.

Even if long term it will get them off the streets, and potentially lower costs, the short term incentives don’t align.

Right... they found a way to economically optimize their product, which is to make/keep people healthy. The result is that the people mentioned are in better health, and that costs are lower.

Of course the company gets to keep some profit as a reward for figuring this out. That's how a market economy works!

If it helps the homeless and is cost effective, who cares what their motivations are?