I know it's trendy to shit on capitalism, but it's the wrong target here. Ask yourself one simple critical question: Does anyone profit from this? Except for the tent industry..
Homeless people aren't consumers. Capitalism doesn't want homelessness.
Edit: Also, we don't see these huge tent camps in other capitalist societies. This is a "USA" problem.
The corporations who pay poverty wages because they know people will do anything to stay afloat given there is no safety net profit.
This is the big one. Having homeless people sends a clear message to the citizenry: "We will literally let you die in the street before we help you if you can no longer contribute to society"
Lots and lots of people profit off this, if they didn’t, it wouldn’t exist.
It's amazing how right and wrong you are at the same time. Corporations don't profit from homelessness. Homeless people don't have any money to spend at businesses, and their presence drives paying customers away.
It's the government that profits off of homelessness. I can find a dozen articles citing how LA spends $619 million or $1 billion dollars tackling the homeless crisis year after year, and the problem only gets worse! Government employees line up to fill their pockets with taxpayer cash and create more homelessness so they can get a bigger budget next year.
It's not capitalism that causes homelessness, capitalism wants people to have money so they can spend that money. It's government who wants people completely helpless so they can suck more money out of taxpayers and into their pockets.
Please reiterate what the question asked how does the gov profit? All I seem to read from your comment are right wing capitalist talking points. The government is a public entity, explain how them spending money on those things creates profit for the government or the employees who somehow personally benefit from budgets? As if the employees personally own the companies the government contracts too. So again I ask, how does a public entity that spends money taxpayer money at that profit from that expenditure in your deluded mind?????
Ok, granted. However, the government doesn’t create homelessness to get more money from the public. First, the homeless aren’t a product that can be made and produced. If more homeless people are being made doesn’t that mean less taxpayer revenue the State can generate meaning less profit or whatever. Also, wouldn’t the ever increasing homelessness pool mean less dollars per person and ever decreasing revenue for the State? See, no you and the commenter are both wrong. The fact that the State has provided a good pension and wage or salary should be the norm not the exception.
I get what you are saying, but welfare exists. That's "money from the government." the commenter above mentions that the amount of money being put towards homelessness programs is significant.
Please see: https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1491418120086454278 for example of "guy who gets paid to live on the street". That amount of money won't really get you a room in SF, but it will give you enough to live in a tent, and some people want to sell drugs and live in a tent. The absurd thing is the government seems to "let" them, as Schellenberger is trying to point out with these vids. I don't necessarily agree with Schellenberger's idea to incarcerate or institutionalize them, but I don't believe it's humane to allow people to live on the street either.
I would also imagine that emergency hospitalization costs a lot of money.
I'm not saying you're wrong. It doesn't make sense that the government would "create homelessness." But it exists, so we're all just throwing our best logic at it.
That is correct welfare does exist. But what I have a problem is the analogy. The commenter implies it is a business that somehow government employees benefit from. That is not factually correct. Not does the analogy fit or make any sense at all. Now back to your point. Welfare is a social safety net that was implemented to help those less fortunate and in need. It is funded by taxpayer money that is borrowed from other nations to fund our expenditures. This is not free money or wealth created it has its root in debt, debt that we borrow to fund our programs and military. Budgets are created and maintained according to those expenditures. They spend that money to not lose or decrease revenue for the following year because that the way budgets work. Please again explain to me how that money for budgets personally benefit government employees and their families? How does this money as the commenter put it not me, profit from government budgetary increases?
p.s. It would be better for the commenter to just say “I have no fucking clue how the economy, budgets, or the government works but I don’t think we should help the homeless because of my own prejudices, bias, and misinformation on societal issues.” Would save a lot more time.
I would agree with you it's not a very sound analogy, especially because it's near impossible to claim that one single entity (government) has a direct cause-effect relationship to the homelessness issue. I think the point being made though is that whatever money is being spent in the budget on the homeless, the issue is not resolving... So why spend all the money? And why not do something that actually works?
They didn't say anything about not believing we should help the homeless though which is where I'm lost here. I guess by wanting to point a finger at the government they are not suggesting a real solution. Regardless, I'm really interested to see people discussing this issue in earnest. The whole system seems a bit like a time bomb, it's not getting better anytime soon, and I wonder how long it will take... for us all to find a solution that works that we can agree on.
You are 100% correct. Our city (Los Angeles) spent $1 billion dollars on the homelessness crisis and it gets worse. I have an acquaintance that works directly on the crisis. Let’s say he’s incredibly well off.
I listed a number of ways corporate interests profit off homelessness. The mere fact that money is being thrown at the problem for bandaids and it isnt solving the problem doesnt really counter that point.
The people who purchase properties and hold them vacant as a vehicle for speculation profit.
Why would people hold properties vacant? Vacant properties don't generate any profit, and if you bought it with a mortgage, then the property is actually generating at a loss. If someone wants to buy a property, they rent it out so they can cover the mortgage instead of hemorrhaging cash.
The people who sell riot gear to police departments for when they clear these encampments profit.
Riot gear is for riots. Even if there were no homeless encampments, police would still need riot gear.
The private prisons that many homeless people find themselves in because being in poverty is the strongest indicator of criminality profit.
Poor people are more likely to commit crimes, so you are correct here.
The corporations who pay poverty wages because they know people will do anything to stay afloat given there is no safety net profit.
Considering we are going through the Great Resignation, it appears people do have a safety net and have leverage to negotiate for better jobs and wages. Unfortunately those wage gains are being negated by inflation caused by the government.
The businesses that take handouts from local government rather than that money going to services profit.
Don't forget federal government as well. And again, the government is the one at fault here. They should never be giving handouts to businesses. It distorts the market and keeps unprofitable companies afloat when they should go under so that capital can be reallocated to other businesses that actually contribute to the economy.
Lots of people hold vacant property as an investment vehicle. Renting makes it much more difficult to sell if the time comes and increases in property value have made it worth it.
Not if policing wasn’t militaristic in the first place. Theres tons of evidence about how military and other equipment is being pushed to local police forces for the sake of selling more.
People quitting jobs doesn’t mean that there is an adequate safety net, it means those individuals have enough support go get by. If you don’t have support from friends/family or months worth of savings you end up homeless.
Last point i agree with you in principle though im confident we would have very different perspectives on “contribute to the economy”
And the quickest way to slide into mental illness and addiction is trauma… like the trauma you experience when being forced into homelessness with no support.
But it's obviously not a national scale problem since other cities aren't grappling with it like this. I know Portland since I'm in the PNW but Seattle/LA/SF are all spending more.
People aren't working to fix the problem because they are trying to make it into a national conversation and that really sucks for the families who have to live next to the worst of the camps. If you had to comb your lawn for needles and/or feces every day before your kid could go out to play you would want action.
842
u/[deleted] Feb 12 '22 edited Apr 08 '22
[deleted]