I find it strange that you're just shrugging off the objections as "outrage", rather than trying to engage/address them in any serious way. I think the concept of fairness, and the fact that people might be incentivized to freeload are legitimate concerns. You might not think they're valid, but if you want their tax dollars to fund the social programs you want, it seems entirely reasonable that their concerns be addressed.
You too can have this "free" housing; all it will cost is your choice of living location and proving that you're incredibly poor.
If that sounds like a good deal, then this taxpayer is all for you mooching off the same system. But as with "I'm moving to Canada" I doubt we'll see significant movement.
So this outrage is emotional bluster, like a child who never learned to share.
>So this outrage is emotional bluster, like a child who never learned to share.
You're repeating the same mistake as the parent, by refusing to seriously engage with the opposition, instead arguing against a strawman version the opposition's argument, and then concluding that they must be insincere. If I had to steelman the opposition's positions, I would go with the following:
1. They think it's fundamentally not their responsibility to help society's downtrodden
2. They think think we have a responsibility to help society's downtrodden, but only the ones who physically can't support themselves. "free housing for everyone who's incredibly poor" wouldn't be compatible with this view, because it's possible for you to be be poor through laziness or whatever.
"It's fair because you too can get free housing if you're poor" doesn't address either of these concerns.
>like a child who never learned to share.
Okay, and what if they actually don't want to share? This isn't kindergarten where you can appeal to the teacher to forcibly get them to share. This is the real world, which means you need to amass a coalition of supporters to back you. Name-calling your opponents isn't going to help do that.
> 1. Not society's responsibility to help the downtrodden
Sadly, this fits the evidence. Thankfully most religions and ethical systems don't agree with it. This worldview is most common when a weakened population is under stress (e.g. scarcity, attack, change).
> 2. Only help those who physically can't support themselves.
Putting aside how many mental disabilities this rules out, I don't buy it because if it were true, there'd be agreement about this category of homeless people, which there isn't.
Further, all a lazy freeloader would have to do is cripple himself to get free housing. Same scenario to giving up your house and income for a "free" home.
> what if they don't want to share… can't appeal to a teacher
A government does exactly that, for example making us all pay taxes (that no individual wants to) for the benefit of all, like collective defense.
"physical" was probably the wrong choice of words, but the general sense is basically people who couldn't support themselves, according to some arbitrary definition. People with mental illnesses might be included, but of course that's subject to debate. There's a spectrum between "you get free housing if you're even a little depressed" and "depression isn't real and people should just choose not to be sad".
>I don't buy it because if it were true, there'd be agreement about this category of homeless people, which there isn't.
I don't think this is true. There might not be universal support for giving quadriplegics some sort of financial assistance, but there should be enough support to comfortably get a ballot measure/bill passed. The problem comes down to politics. The side pushing for assistance doesn't want to be seen as weak and "settling" for only quadriplegics, and the side that doesn't want assistance doesn't want to start a slipper slope. In the end the question of "should we give assistance to quadriplegics" turns into a referendum on whether we should help people in general.
>Further, all a lazy freeloader would have to do is cripple himself to get free housing. Same scenario to giving up your house and income for a "free" home.
Right, you're not going to be prevent all the freeloaders, but at least with a physical disability requirement it would be unpleasant enough that nobody would seriously go through with it. The same applies for committing a crime just so you can get free housing + food + healthcare. Despite the scattered stories you hear about it in the media, it's just not really a common thing poor people do.
>A government does exactly that, for example making us all pay taxes (that no individual wants to) for the benefit of all, like collective defense.
Right, but getting government to do something requires popular support, which clearly isn't present hence why people are on hacker news complaining about "outrage" is preventing their preferred policy from being implemented. The whole point of the kindergarten example is that the teacher can unilaterally do the "right" thing, without the need for popular support.
Compare it to prison with free healthcare, food and many more additional costs plus costs to society associated with whatever made somebody go to prison in the first place.
I mean, if you think about country income (or lack thereof) and spending, even ignoring military, corruption, church etc. There are still way bigger things to worry about regarding your tax dollars. There is tons of freeloading, exploitation and injustice, but if somebody is willing to accept living in slums to just have some roof over his head, he probably needs it, for whatever reason.
And even giving absolutely zero empathy, assuming no mental problems, childhood traumas etc., counting these specific irrelevant cents, it still may simply be the most economic solution from the society perspective.
How crappy/nice would it be? On one end of the spectrum is something like the camps set up at the border to house asylum seekers, and on the other is basically section 8 housing. You'd probably have to pay me a significant sum of money to stay in the former, but I would seriously consider the latter if it meant not having to pay thousands in rent in an expensive metro. The problem is that the nicer you make it, the more people would be attracted to using it for freeloading purposes, but if you make it too crappy, then people would rather sleep on the streets than use it. We see this for homeless shelters in some cities, for instance.
>Compare it to prison with free healthcare, food and many more additional costs plus costs to society associated with whatever made somebody go to prison in the first place.
Right, but the reason for prison isn't just keeping someone housed, there's also the additional concern that they're presumably a danger to society and therefore must be contained. Therefore the argument of "you don't want people to get free housing but are okay with prisoners getting free housing" isn't the type of gotcha you think it is.
>I mean, if you think about country income (or lack thereof) and spending, even ignoring military, corruption, church etc. There are still way bigger things to worry about regarding your tax dollars. There is tons of freeloading, exploitation and injustice, but if somebody is willing to accept living in slums to just have some roof over his head, he probably needs it, for whatever reason.
This is an entirely unpersuasive argument. Think about it from the flip side. Suppose the Other Side wants to increase funding for the police, and you object because you think that the police have shown a history of wasting the money on armored trucks and tacticool gear. They then reply with, "who cares? there are way bigger wastes of money you should worry about!" would you be convinced?
>And even giving absolutely zero empathy, assuming no mental problems, childhood traumas etc., counting these specific irrelevant cents, it still may simply be the most economic solution from the society perspective.
Has there been a serious attempt at estimating the costs? Taking (cost of a studio apartment) x (number of homeless in america) doesn't really get to the true costs, because:
1. it doesn't factor in the induced demand from people freeloading
2. that a studio apartment completely solves the homeless problem. for instance, for people with mental health/drug addiction issues, they might trash the place and cost more than a studio apartment, or might choose to live on the streets altogether.
Your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense without that sense of outrage. Especially if you make the ridiculous economic argument you're making.
Firstly, there are serious housing shortages in many places in the US, driving up prices and making housing unaffordable[0] for many.
What's more, it's really hard to hold a job when you have no place to shower or store your stuff (I know this from personal experience), so homeless folks could be contributing to society (BTW, the data says that less than 10% of homeless folks have drug abuse/serious mental illness issues).
As such, providing most homeless folks with real housing (as compared with "shelters" which are dangerous and often unsanitary) can boost the economy by giving more folks the opportunity to work, make a living and contribute to the community/society.
It's really very simple. As James Ridgeway[0] pointed out back in 1988 or so (I've searched and searched for the Village Voice article over the years, but haven't been able to find it online) when he asked (then answered his own question):
"What do homeless people want?"
The answer being, "homes, mostly."
This is not a new issue, nor is it a particularly complicated.
The vast majority of homeless people are willing and able to support themselves, but circumstance (medical bills, lawsuits, layoffs death of a partner/fellow breadwinner) has taken away their ability to afford rent. And given that a majority of Americans[0] (~60%) can't come up with $1,000 for an emergency expense should give you some pause.
Spending some money to get folks to a place where they can once again support themselves and their children (yes, I'm going with the "think of the children" trope, although in this case it seems useful/relevant), so they can earn a living in excess of that expenditure helps the homeless people, the economy where that person resides and the community in which they live.
And since "housing" people in shelters is more expensive[0] than putting these unfortunate folks in apartments[0], that's another strong reason to find permanent housing for homeless folks.
tl;dr: Since the economics of homelessness and our response to it broadly calls out for paying (at least until folks are able to pay themselves) rent on permanent housing rather than the half-assed measures that cost more, your argument about "fairness" falls really flat.
[0] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/homeless-shelters-more-ex_n_5...
Or maybe perhaps you're not fully understanding their position? It's super tempting to write them off as "they're just being illogical/evil/bigoted, how can they possibly disagree with my position when my position so obviously right!?", but that's not going to help you change minds, or figure out which part of your policy needs to be changed to get widespread support.
That's basically what the parent post is stuck at. The guy has a policy proposal that he thinks is good and wants to get passed, but clearly he doesn't have enough supporters to do so. Instead of figuring out why people oppose his proposal, he rounds off all the opposition to "offense" and "outrage", then sulks about how "nothing will change".
> Especially if you make the ridiculous economic argument you're making.
What "economic argument" did I make? I literally made zero arguments in support or in opposition to the proposed policy itself last comment. I was only pointing out how the parent was rounding off all opposition as "outrage", and how that was wrong way to approach this.
Moreover, the whole "economic argument" that comprises the bulk of your comment also misses the point, because people care more than just dollars and cents. As you might be able to infer, the "Why should some one/freeloader/whatever get a free place to live when I have to pay" argument isn't really an economic one at all. It doesn't try to analyze the costs of the program vs its benefits, or even point out how unaffordable it would be. Instead, it tries to invoke the concept of fairness, or what is right, which makes it moral argument rather than an economic one. Suppose, you move into a neighborhood and the local mob demands $100/month from you as "protection". You're a highly paid software engineer, so you can totally afford it. Hell, it's probably not even worth your time to report it to the police, given how much you make per hour. Given this, would you feel right about paying the protection money? Sure, you can invoke a bunch of economic theory about how the mob is basically extracting rents from your community, and activities like that are a drag on the economy and is therefore bad, but most people have a more straightforward argument, that it's wrong for people to demand money from you for no reason. Needless to say, this isn't to say that giving people free housing is like a mob extracting protection, it's to point out that the "economic argument" isn't the be all end all of policy debates.
>Or maybe perhaps you're not fully understanding their position? It's super tempting to write them off as "they're just being illogical/evil/bigoted, how can they possibly disagree with my position when my position so obviously right!?", but that's not going to help you change minds, or figure out which part of your policy needs to be changed to get widespread support.
>That's basically what the parent post is stuck at. The guy has a policy proposal that he thinks is good and wants to get passed, but clearly he doesn't have enough supporters to do so. Instead of figuring out why people oppose his proposal, he rounds off all the opposition to "offense" and "outrage", then sulks about how "nothing will change".
No. I understand just fine. "Why should I pay rent when someone else doesn't have to. That's not fair!" sounds like outrage to me.
GP may well be attempting to persuade, but I'm not GP. And my goal here isn't to convince or convert. I gave that up years ago.
Because you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. And "someone is getting something I'm not! That's so unfair!" is a poster boy for unreasoned belief.
All that said, I agree that GP might catch more flies with honey than with vinegar (but not balsamic vinegar).
>What "economic argument" did I make? I literally made zero arguments in support or in opposition to the proposed policy itself last comment. I was only pointing out how the parent was rounding off all opposition as "outrage", and how that was wrong way to approach this.
You said:
"I think the concept of fairness, and the fact that people might be incentivized to freeload are legitimate concerns. You might not think they're valid, but if you want their tax dollars to fund the social programs you want, it seems entirely reasonable that their concerns be addressed."
First, moral and economic arguments aren't mutually exclusive. Second, policies concerning the disbursement of public funds are definitely economic arguments, even if there are other arguments that might be relevant. And finally, one can certainly make the moral argument that helping those in need in your community makes that community stronger and is a moral good.
>Moreover, the whole "economic argument" that comprises the bulk of your comment also misses the point, because people care more than just dollars and cents. As you might be able to infer, the "Why should some one/freeloader/whatever get a free place to live when I have to pay" argument isn't really an economic one at all."
That falls flat because the homeless already get free housing: at homeless shelters.
I've yet to hear anyone say "why should some one/freeloader/whatever get a free cot and a plastic box for their belongings at a homeless shelter when I have to pay?"
And since outcomes for folks who are put in actual apartments are better than for those in shelters and it costs less to do so, the entire argument falls apart.
Yes, I get that folks making an argument based on feelings don't focus on boring things like cost analyses, but that doesn't make such arguments any more valid, nor does it excuse local legislators/executives from doing those "boring" things -- after all, it's what we've elected them to do.
And one successful program for treating homelessness handed out keys to apartments. The "moral hazard" involved offends lots of people: "I pay my rent! Why should some one/freeloader/whatever get a free place to live when I have to pay?" Outrage seems to be the driving force in media these days. Which is why nothing will change.
0 - https://housingmatterssc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Mill...
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law