Under the proposed homeless people have two choices: 1) Live in the provided housing and work 20hrs a week for no pay. 2) Go to jail and possibly be forced to work anyway.
1) + 2)
edit: shkkmo and VBprogrammer are right. 1) = dormitories w/mandatory unpaid labor; 2) = illegal to be homeless; 3) = restrictions on migration.
What harm does homelessness cause the general public? Does it negatively impact their everyday life?
>>Guarantee all people access to cheap, government provided dormitory style living, with a kitchen and basic food staples, in return for 20 hours of very basic work (picking up trash, watching security cameras, etc.).
This is what slavery is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
They're not equal at all.
Now, there is another factor that perhaps you could have been clearer about that would help support your case. You could argue that there are dynamics in society that drive people into #1 without having any real choice. That's a different problem, but still not at the level of what slavery was.
e.g., the criminal system becomes easier and easier to fall into everyday and extremely hard to get out of.
You could argue that suggestions 2) and 3) are an intentional plan to restrict people to a single choice.
What? You are being spitefully obtuse. With slavery, the entire problem is you cannot leave your job, you are owned, and at the mercy of your owner. With my first bullet point, I am simply creating an option that does not currently exist.
#2 is the more controversial point. My gut and personal preferences say that the long-term utility gain to the general public plus the homeless person of moving them into dorm living exceeds the short-term utility loss to the homeless person of not being allowed to sleep on the street, and being forced to move into the dorm living (provided the dorm living is actually clean and maintained, and is not like awful shelter living).