Even if you want to analyze it from a psychopathic economics perspective, it still makes sense to provide socialized housing and free mental health support to people who are homeless, because there is no other way they'll become "productive" again without that base.

Or you can view it as us paying for the negative externality of rising housing prices forcing people onto the streets from so many of us software engineers moving to the area.

Or you can view people experiencing homelessness as humans inherently worthy of dignity. No matter which way you view it though, your approach of letting them die in the streets is the wrong one.

> the negative externality of rising housing prices forcing people onto the streets

The vast bulk of the Seattle homeless are homeless due to drug and alcohol addiction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw

Even "60 Minutes" did a segment on it in the last year, and they kept finding drug and alcohol addiction underlying the problems of the Seattle homeless they profiled.

Yes, drug & alcohol addiction is widespread in the general non-homeless population and makes it difficult to ensure steady income. When the cost of rent rises dramatically, this means people with those issues are likely to find themselves homeless. Addictions are difficult to kick in the best of times (who among us doesn't know of some rich kid who's been in and out of rehab into their 30s?) and basically impossible when homeless. Not sure what your point is here.

Drug and alcohol addiction leads to homelessness because nobody wants to hire an addict and addicts prioritize spending on their addiction. Cheaper housing will not fix it, because the cost of housing is not the problem.

My point is that solutions will fail if they do not recognize and treat the actual cause. Otherwise you're treating lung cancer with antibiotics. It won't work. And it hasn't worked.

Yes, all effective socialized housing programs which serve the homeless have integrated mental health services. It's impossible for such treatment to be effective if people don't have a home. To restate: without housing & mental health support, many homeless people will never regain capacity. Again, I don't know what your point is. You might be interested to learn this media focus on the prevalence of addiction in homeless populations is commonly used along with an outdated model of addiction-as-moral-failure to portray people experiencing homelessness as unworthy of support, fit only to die.

I infer you do understand that addiction is a proximate cause of homelessness, not rising house prices. So I've made my point.

Only 35% of people experiencing homelessness struggle with addiction[0], so no I don't think you have. But sure, grant your premise - it's the combination! If house prices go up then people who were struggling to make rent at the lower level won't make it at the higher level, thus becoming homeless. There are many, many people with addictions who are financially functional to a point, but rising rents can finally kick them on to the streets where things get much worse. Boiling things down to a single cause like "oh it's addiction" isn't useful.

[0] https://sunrisehouse.com/addiction-demographics/homeless-pop...

In Seattle it's much higher.

Keep in mind that if you just ask people if they're on drugs, many will deny it. Many will cite other reasons for being homeless. You have to dig a little deeper to find that those "other reasons" are often a consequence of drug abuse.

35%, while very likely an undercount, is still a huge number.

> it still makes sense to provide socialized housing and free mental health support to people who are homeless, because there is no other way they'll become "productive" again without that base.

People that agree with this statement should organize and do just that. Leave everyone else out of it.

> Or you can view it as us paying for the negative externality of rising housing prices forcing people onto the streets from so many of us software engineers moving to the area.

No one "deserves" a house. Move somewhere cheaper if you can't afford to live in Seattle.

> Or you can view people experiencing homelessness as humans inherently worthy of dignity. No matter which way you view it though, your approach of letting them die in the streets is the wrong one.

Your stated alternative is worse.

1. Tax a productive person.

2. Make a big fuss about new government social program.

3. Drug users still die in street.

You'll be happy to know we are indeed organizing! https://www.taxamazon.net/sign

Perhaps one day you'll appreciate the psychopathy of telling people they should just move away from their lifelong home. Not everyone is a detached knowledge worker hopping around sampling cities like they're a plate of hors d'oeuvres. Moving is also quite expensive.

> You'll be happy to know we are indeed organizing! https://www.taxamazon.net/sign

You believe the low income housing market is underserved.

1. Raise money (your "Tax Amazon" friends are a good start).

2. Build housing.

3. Sell to underserved segment.

> Perhaps one day you'll appreciate the psychopathy of telling people they should just move away from their lifelong home. Not everyone is a detached knowledge worker hopping around sampling cities like they're a plate of hors d'oeuvres.

You flirt!