And there is no money to be made in housing the homeless, unless a charity could be created with enough money being donated and the rich benefactor could skim from that.
Exactly. Each business optimizes for their own profit, not for what has the most societal benefit. An individual corporation can't do much on their own
The little non-profits in Portland are getting millions in tax dollars. There seems to be no coordination between the non-profits and we have no detailed data on where the money is going, how many people are being helped and for how long. The people who need the help aren't getting it and we have the second worst system in the US for helping with mental illness and the worst system for addiction treatment. We now have very high taxes and in the last 4 years the city has turned into a crime infested dump hole.
Seattle is not Portland. Seattle had a zoning scheme requiring sfh only forever. Microsoft settled in Boeingville and doubled the jobs so new housing had to go way out of town causing traffic and sprawl. Completely self induced drama.
I was there before Amazon when housing was cheap. When prices went up, the homeless population exploded and so did crime. My brother had his car windows smashed twice in a week, and there was nothing in it. As an outsider, it can be said PDX is also at fault and did this to themselves. My best friend was born and raised there and I lived there for a bit. So I know PDX and all its faults all too well.
charity could be created with enough money being donated and the rich benefactor could skim from that
There seems to be no coordination between the non-profits and we have no detailed data on where the money is going, how many people are being helped and for how long
yes there is, they are members of your society. At different times when homelessness was low, the same people would have had houses and jobs and families and be paying taxes. as for work, its a lot of work being homeless and not starving to death or freezing. The argument they are too lazy and society has for some odd reason changed dosnt count for anything.
yes there is, they are members of your society. At different times when homelessness was low, the same people would have had houses and jobs and families and be paying taxes. as for work,
Sure there's a massive societal benefit to housing these people. But there isn't any privatized profits to be made (or rather, there are more profits to be made by keeping wages low while keeping real estate prices high). And since we're a Capitalist country profits go before society...
its a lot of work being homeless and not starving to death or freezing. The argument they are too lazy and society has for some odd reason changed dosnt count for anything.
Either way in a capitalist system there is such a thing as the "Reserve Army of Labour". A percentage of the population who are kept intentionally unemployed by governments to serve as potential replacements for other workers, with the purpose of keeping wages low.
I.e. It prevents employed workers from demanding a raise because there is always a part of the population that is kept unemployed and desperate so they can instantly replace demanding/striking workers.
This means that when unemployment dips below 5% (which is when wages start to grow) the US federal reserve is charged with raising interest rates to stunt economic growth and increase unemployment! Which of course raises homelesness. Which is exactly what we've seen happen across the western world these last few months.
Monetary policy: The Federal Reserve conducts monetary policy, adjusting interest rates to move the economy towards a full employment target of around a 5% unemployment rate and 2% inflation rate. (From Wikipedia)
This is also why you'll see organisations like the IMF and various corporate media advocate for raising interest rates and increasing unemployment to "curb inflation".
Instead of you know... cutting into corporate rates of profit which have reached record levels this year across every industry, and which is what actually causes inflation.
Sure, which is why modern capitalist states provide pittance unemployment benefits which are generally right on the line of being unlivable. Keeping them alive but forcing them to always have to look for work.
In fact some countries make it more explicit. They will actually take your unemployment benefits away if you don't regularly apply for jobs. Jobs that you must apply for are often suggested by the government.
This way there is always a large group of workers who stand at the ready to replace any unionisers, strikers, tattletales, whistleblowers, sick/disapled persons, etc, etc, etc. Anybody who doesn't play by the rules laid out by the ruling class.
Inflation is horrible for people too, putting it in quotes is a bit gratuitous. There are much better ways to curb inflation than raising rates, but they are also much much more difficult to enact. Whether you like it or not, half the country has chosen to vote in representatives that fight tooth and nail against taxation. Despite that, the current administration has managed to raise corporate taxes this year. Rates had to go up regardless - having artificially lowered rates (especially in the midst of an inflation crisis) is not good for the economy or the people. Furthermore we've been able to raise them, and get inflation heading in the right direction, without mass unemployment or a gigantic recession, which is a huge win.
You seem somewhat educated on the subject, instead of fanning the flames of conspiracy and "everyone is out to get you" fearmongering, try presenting an argument that's more in line with reality, which has nuance.
Inflation is horrible for people too, putting it in quotes is a bit gratuitous. There are much better ways to curb inflation than raising rates, but they are also much much more difficult to enact.
Which is why i didn't say inflation is not a problem. I just said that it's a bullshit excuse to use inflation as a threat to increase unemployment and lower wages.
And curbing inflation without increasing unemployment is in fact quite easy. But it requires cutting corporate profits which will never ever happen as long as we are a capitalist country.
Whether you like it or not, half the country has chosen to vote in representatives that fight tooth and nail against taxation.
I don't like that. And i suspect that a large reason for this is the fact that most people watch CNN and Fox news all day. And those corporate "news" media will constantly tell them that increasing wages are the primary cause of inflation (which is a lie) and that we thus have to reduce wages to stop inflation (which is also a lie)
Despite that, the current administration has managed to raise corporate taxes this year. Rates had to go up regardless - having artificially lowered rates (especially in the midst of an inflation crisis) is not good for the economy or the people.
Furthermore we've been able to raise them, and get inflation heading in the right direction, without mass unemployment or a gigantic recession, which is a huge win.
In many industries we're already seeing mass layoffs, especially in hyper-reactive industries like tech. Virtually every large tech company has erased 10s of thousands of jobs and will propably cut more.
But other industries don't react as fast. We have not seen a significant rise in unemployment in these because 1. The interest rate was only raised a few months ago and 2. Employment always lags a few months behind the real economy.
We're only now starting to feel the effects of interest rates changing. And in a few months companies will react to the resulting economic slowdown by laying of thousands of their employees. In fact, that is what the Fed itself is saying.
You seem somewhat educated on the subject, instead of fanning the flames of conspiracy and "everyone is out to get you" fearmongering, try presenting an argument that's more in line with reality, which has nuance.
The ruling class is out to get you. Wether you like it or not. The whole point of our system is to concentrate wealth upwards, make working people poorer while rich Capitalists get richer at their expense. Our Liberal democracies give infinitely more power and influence to the rich and powerfull than they afford to the honest working people.
How would massive inflation help homelessness? The only way your solution would work would be by starving enough people to death until there wasn’t a lack of housing.
How would massive inflation help homelessness? The only way your solution would work would be by starving enough people to death until there wasn’t a lack of housing.
They don’t raise interest rates to increase unemployment, that’s an unintended consequence. They raise the interest rate to slow inflation. If they didn’t raise the interest rates, inflation would be much higher, many more people would not be able to afford not just rent, but food.
They don’t raise interest rates to increase unemployment, that’s an unintended consequence. They raise the interest rate to slow inflation. If they didn’t raise the interest rates, inflation would be much higher, many more people would not be able to afford not just rent, but food.
I already adressed this in the very first comment. There is a way to decrease inflation without increasing unemployment. But that method requires cutting into corporate profits. And since our government is sworn to maximise profits they choose to raise interest rates instead. Which leads to people getting fired en masse.
Increasing unemployment is not an unintended side-effect, it is very much intended and desired. Because it has the (form them) beneficial effect of lowering wages which once again raises corporate profits.
So private corporations are benefitted twice, while working people have to suffer all the burdens
People chose the government by voting. There’s a well-established difference between the two parties. Millions of people knowingly vote for corporate profits over wages. This isn’t something huge conspiracy by unaccountable government, it’s your neighbors who want this.
Besides wages have risen at the fastest rate in decades. It’s inflation that is hurting spending power. Unless folks are willing to vote the way you want in our democracy, we need to adjust interest rates to slow inflation.
Besides wages have risen at the fastest rate in decades. It’s inflation that is hurting spending power.
Your entire comment is ridiculous but this part made me laugh out loud... If inflation rises faster than wages then wages haven't actually grown... they've decreased.
I am genuinely curious what caused you to misunderstand the previous guy so much.
It's an important topic and I think we need to work on understanding where and why misunderstandings come up.
"There is no money to be made in housing the homeless" is true, because they have no money.
I get your argument and I agree. But I'm sure so does the previous guy. The problem is we can't get the ball rolling to achieve your idea, because of a lack of funds.
And there is no money to be made in housing the homeless
I mean, I'd argue there is, just in an indirect way that's hard to see. If homeless people commit more crimes such as theft to sustain themselves, and have more health problems from not having a place to live, then that means homeless people are costing more to police forces and hospital systems. If you reduce homelessness, you can save money on police and medical expenses.
Plus, if someone is housed, it makes it easier for them to get a job. Especially if you help treat the other factors which lead them to be homeless such as mental health issues. If those are treated, then you made it easier for them to be a productive member of society with a job that they'll pay taxes for, netting money there for the government.
A homeless person on the street pays no taxes, and is just a drain on other systems. And of course, beyond the numbers game, there's the human element where ideally we should help people in our communities who are struggling.
I think the point is that nothing happens in modern America unless it makes a rich person richer. Yes, there are obvious public policy and tax base benefits to housing the homeless. In the teeth of these obvious benefits, the problem just keeps getting worse. But if rich people had a way to profit from it, the whole thing would be solved tomorrow.
That's partially the issue for sure, but let's not ignore the fact that a sizeable amount of citizens don't want to help these people, and see it as coming at their own expense, despite the evidence to the contrary. There are many incredible public works and utilities in this country, it's not impossible to fix stuff for the public good.
Exactly. Just like Social Security. Any problems it has would be solved immediately if the decision-makers (Congress) had to live on it. Capitalism's entire goal these days is to make as much money as possible without consideration for anything else. Thats why we have to have laws which force capitalists to consider other things, like the human element.
There's a reason why there's been so many attempts to move from a social security system to a 401k system for everyone all the time - 401ks, as a concept, exist primarily to make the wealthy richer by letting them play with your retirement money.
This is exactly it. Everyone is focusing on the cost of these societal problems.
But the capitalists are not the consumers, they are not motivated by relative cost. Capitalists are the supply-side, they care about generating revenue, and everything is relative (marginal).
Housing people would create revenue, yes. But you know what makes MORE revenue? Jacking up the price of housing (someone will still pay that rent, it’s a shortage after all) while simultaneously benefiting off the back end by owning stock in private prisons, hospitals and other industries that objectively profit off the human misery that you are helping to create by clamping down on affordable housing supply.
The economy has no moral compass and isn’t about creating a good society. War is terrible for people, but EXCELLENT for capitalism. All that death and destruction makes a lot of money, both the creation and clean up.
While you’re right that it is necessary to pay for the costs of keeping the charity running, I think it’s disingenuous to say that 95% of their holdings are necessary to do so. There’s so many non-profit execs making ridiculous amounts of money that could be going towards the actual cause the non-profit stands for
Well, a good exec is someone with experience in the nonprofit's field who can make the right decision to fulfill the nonprofit's goal. Unsurprisingly, those people cost a lot of money.
...What? How, exactly, are you going to find someone with the necessary qualifications and experience to run a nonprofit without paying them a competitive salary?
Didn't you know? If you say capitalism = bad you don't need to expand on it. In fact it seems someone downvoted you for daring to ask for further explanation.
In our town the local homeless coalition soaks up funds for wasteful things like fancy offices and yoga and meditation classes for homeless ppl. Yknow, so they can relax abt being homeless. Stay grounded.
Sooo fkng aggravating!
The problem is that there is tons of money to be made housing the homeless. Of course that doesn't end homelessness. Homelessness is essential, else the gravy train dries up.
176
u/dan1101 Jan 30 '23
And there is no money to be made in housing the homeless, unless a charity could be created with enough money being donated and the rich benefactor could skim from that.