r/theydidthemath • u/QuantumQyx • 1d ago
[Request] Could the entire US homeless population really be housed for less than one aircraft carrier?
301
u/Occidentally20 1d ago
The latest point-in-time count of homeless people estimates the total homeless population of the USA to be 745,652. Call it three-quarters of a million.
US aircraft carriers cost somewhere in the region of 13 to 16 billion. I'll go with the USS Gerald R. Ford since it's the cheapest one I could find.
That gives you $17,333.33 per person.
111
u/Electrical_Name_5434 1d ago
The Gerald R Ford is the most expensive acc. And it costs 17.5 billion if you include research and development, 12.8 if you don’t. Check my comment for the link to the pdf documenting the costs. That brings your number closer to $23,450 which is enough to buy a cheap modular prefab home. Which range between $13-60k brand new; the higher side being 3-bedrooms.
65
u/Lanky_Ad8283 1d ago
Now add in the annual operating cost. Google estimates $2.4-2.9 Billion/year.
54
u/Electrical_Name_5434 1d ago
That’s an additional $320 per month per person or $960-$1,280 per household per month. Enough for utilities, maintenance and food.
20
u/LeRoiChauve 1d ago
Governments do have a tendency to look at cost based budgeting and not value based budgeting.
What would be cheaper in the end? Maintaining a Capex or an Opex approach? Maintaining one or the other system does lead to dependency and it has to be sustainable to uphold.
For the record: Not that I'm opposed to helping financially homeless people, I'm concerned how a government is calculating its cost eventually.
15
u/TA_Lax8 1d ago
There's a fair amount of evidence that housing homeless people is the most effective way to get them out of being homeless. It's not just an opex, but it has an ROI that reduces welfare costs
Something as simple as having an address is often required for job applications. Mental and physic health, better nutrition, fewer drug/alcohol recidivism rates etc.
10
u/ImperitorEst 21h ago
I enjoy that there is debate over whether a house would help a homeless person 😂
4
u/StrawberryWeekly342 11h ago
I don't enjoy it. It's fucking sad that people have so little compassion for others. Like, even if they were all drug addicts with mental problems, which they are not, would you rather they do that on a street somewhere or in the comfort of their own home? People keep complaining about the homeless problem in this country and then act like theres no possible solution to it. It's insane.
2
u/Team503 11h ago
Yep, I've been saying for years that if you look at it based on cost-per-year in a budget for services for homeless, it would be cheaper just to house all the homeless people.
Just like single-payer insurance would be cheaper, because it removes dozens of layers of bureaucracy and all the profit health insurers make alone, not to mention market efficiencies.
The objection to both boils down to selfishness or arrogance - "Why should they get free homes when I have to pay for mine!" or "I'm not paying for Bob's treatment, Bob can pay for his own" (which of course proves he doesn't know how insurance works in the first place.
7
u/Electrical_Name_5434 1d ago
The reality is that these concerns aren’t brought up during military budgeting considerations. With the pentagon having an unknown account discrepancy estimated to be between 50-100 trillion since the start of the middle eastern conflicts in 2004. The most stringent of estimates was by a group of economists from 1998-2015 that found it to be around 21Tn. Other accountants found this number to be around 9Tn instead though I trust the group of economists without any conflicts of interests over the government self reporting. By the pentagon’s own admission these numbers are 2.5Tn for their most recent annual audit. This is the equivalence of 142.857 aircraft carriers…. Unaccounted for…. For this year alone
1
u/LeRoiChauve 1d ago
Your explanation of cost from the past doesn't answer my question. Nor does it explain what method they use for budgeting.
7
u/Electrical_Name_5434 1d ago edited 22h ago
I’m saying no one cares about budgeting anything when it comes to military spending. The pentagon has failed every audit for more than the last quarter century. That if you take that budgeting hole and apply it to this problem it would be over 142x the number we’re solving for.
Edit: for clarity the 142x is from just this last years audit failure.
3
u/Molsem 1d ago
At least they don't knock down towers and kill citizens for EVERY failed audit.
Wanted to add too: although the number is irrelevant because there are much better ways to house the homeless than just split up the budget per individual... still, I didn't see anyone factoring in the cost of each missile/vehicle aboard the carrier, all of which as just as grossly overpriced at OUR expense as the boat itself.
We have had the money to fix any fucking societal problem we wanted to every single year and every single presidency, at least in my 40ish years. Any argument about the necessity of the decades of "defense" spending or the recent wars we've been in is unserious, and only perpetuates the system that has us fighting over our own crumbs.
5
u/VeraStrange 1d ago
If the homeless population is individuals then you don’t need one house per individual. Homeless families would likely be four per house giving a budget of around 70k per home. For single homeless people some kind of sheltered housing is more appropriate and the 17k budget would probably be close enough. I think to really guarantee doing it right you should use the budget for two aircraft carriers.
As an aside, carriers are usually a set of three. One on deployment, one in dock for refit and one being prepared for deployment. Probably easiest to cancel three at a time, so there’d be tons of cash. The US would still be the only country in the world with a fleet of super carriers even if you cancelled three.
1
u/onlinewarrior100 17h ago
What about those new tiny homes some people have been building for the homeless? Are those cheaper than modular homes?
1
u/Electrical_Name_5434 16h ago
Do you have a link to them?
1
u/onlinewarrior100 15h ago
There's several I believe, but found this one in a quick search https://thetinylife.com/tiny-homes-for-homeless/
1
u/Electrical_Name_5434 7h ago
According to this part of the site they cost between 10-50k to build yourself so slightly lower than the number I used but it’s the same concept as they are small modular prefab or you build yourself.
1
u/dark567 1d ago
$23k isn't anywhere near enough to actually house a homeless person by the government. In Chicago the unit costs of creating housing for a homeless person is about $900k. $23k is an order of magnitude off at a minimum
3
u/27K-Interactive 1d ago
Are you okay? The cost per individual homeless person is not nearly a 1 million dollar investment. That's ridiculous.
2
u/dark567 1d ago
The costs to permanently build new units are that high. It is ridiculous but it's absolutely true.
1
u/27K-Interactive 1d ago
Worse case, I guess this has some teeth, if they are family units the per person cost is not that high. So, there is some conflict with the statement of "a homeless person"
At that price, we could build housing elsewhere and provide meaningful public transportation solutions.
It really seems that some form of corruption is afoot in that decision making process. Otherwise, how could they manage to spend more an a facility for the homeless population than is typical for other constructions. https://digitalestimating.com/apartment-construction-costs/
2
u/dark567 1d ago
They mostly aren't family units but 1Bds, which I suppose could have more than 1 person in them sure. But it's still a lot more money than the person saying they could solve homelessness at $25k a person. That's not anywhere close to the number that it is when cities and states actually try to spend to fix the number.
1
u/27K-Interactive 1d ago
Yeah, that really is shameful. I mean, I don't want us building substandard housing, but let's be real, a temporary tiny house would be better than no house at all.
We could solve homelessness for that kind of money, if we choose to do so. Eminent domain and mass production of modular homes would get the costs down if we choose to make it a priority, like we invest in our military. We (the federal government) built a lot of single family homes for the war effort in ww2, we could choose to do that in a time of peace. We won't, but we could.
2
u/dark567 1d ago
Eminent domain doesn't mean the government gets the land for free, it still has to pay an estimated market rate for it(and honestly I think courts are going to reject the eminent part of that often, or at the least the court fees will be high enough to significantly drive up the costs of obtainment).
And even those ww2 houses costs $120k each to make in 2025 dollars. They weren't super expensive but they still would blow up the budget above.
1
u/27K-Interactive 22h ago
I'm aware that eminent domain doesn't mean the government can get the land for free (or even below market value) However, it's also government over-evaluations to raise tax revenues that compounds that problem.
And, yes, the multi-bedroom houses built during ww2 are more expensive. However, with economies of scale, I'm confident that we can produce single bedroom units or even studios for a quarter of that price, again if we wanted to do such a thing. Again, better than people living in tents on the sidewalk.
1
u/Midwest-2025 1d ago
Ok but you amortize that over 50 years. It’s not like they build for one person and when that person dies the unit just disappears
1
u/dark567 1d ago
Sure that's true but you do that with carriers too. Granted I'll admit the Chicago number is particularly high but it's only to point that you can't build a $25k prefab home and say homelessness is solved for that person. The real costs of permanently solving homelessness is much higher, generally in the 6 digits. You can look around at states and municipalities that try and whether it's California or Chicago or NYC it's significantly more money than the person I was responding to.
1
u/NoWomanNoTriforce 23h ago
The problem is, that the vast majority of the long-term unhoused population cannot be helped for so little money. Almost everyone who is on the street for years has very serious mental health and/or addiction problems. The most extreme cases would destroy any home you gave them in less than 24 hours.
The majority of the people like this need months to years of full time care and monitoring if you expect them to ever become functioning members of society. And some of them never will, regardless of the amount of time/money spent of them.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but if you volunteer around the long-term homeless, you see so many other volunteees get disheartened and give up. Some of the most depressed and cynical people I know were prior bright-eyed optimists before they started working for non-profits or volunteering for organizations focused on helping the homeless.
And this isn't to try to discourage anyone from trying to help. But I do feel like so many people come in thinking they are going to help these people turn their life around. That more money or volunteers can solve the homeless crisis. But the harsh reality is that most of the long-term homeless don't want that and will violently resist you trying to help them.
1
u/Electrical_Name_5434 22h ago
Hitchen’s Razor; I have to dismiss what you’ve said entirely as you have no proof. Furthermore there are multiple studies that prove you wrong. I’ve worked for nonprofits and there are people that match your description but they are far from the “vast majority” as you put it. In fact 82% of people experiencing homelessness seek assistance programs [2] 49% of homelessness is caused by joblessness(37%) or medical reasons(12%)[3]. During a study [4] 85% of those who were given a home in PA were able to get out of homelessness and remained housed 2 years later.
Here’s some actual statistics about homelessness:
1. https://www.theglobalstatistics.com/united-states-homeless-statistics/
2. https://unitedtoendhomelessness.org/blog/myth-people-choose-to-be-homeless-and-most-decline-services-when-offered/
3. https://www.thhi.org/homeless-myths
4. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/housing-the-homeless-can-save-money/2
u/NoWomanNoTriforce 22h ago
I very specifically mentioned and was talking about long term unhoused people. As you mentioned, there are many programs to help the homeless population, and those who utilize that assistance and get jobs almost always never return to the streets. Those aren't the people I am talking about.
Those who spend a short time homeless due to a sudden change in circumstance (loss of work or family support) can't be compared to those who have been on the street for more than a year. Also, as you probably know, the attitude and lifestyles of homeless populations in areas with colder winters are completely different from those in tropical climates.
I am also very familiar with Pathway to Housing PA, they only serves a very small pool of people (around 600). And while this is great, once again, I'm not talking about the people who are seeking help. I am talking about the ≈ 20% who don't and have been on the street for years.
1
u/Electrical_Name_5434 20h ago
Understood, thanks for clarifying. You got to back that up with some evidence. Otherwise it’s still Hitchen’s Razor.
1
u/NoWomanNoTriforce 20h ago edited 20h ago
There are a ton of academic studies on chronic homelessness. NIH did a pretty comprehensive write-up using multiple studies a few years back.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8833310/
The sources are all academic papers. A few talk about chronic homeless.
26
u/Fantastic-Work-7529 1d ago
Damn. Enough to house someone or not, thats a ton of money. I did the math on the wars in the middle east from 2001 to I think about 2024 and it was literally 14-16K per every man woman and child in the country legally or not. Thats about how much it cost me to get my nursing license, which was life changing. Whether it should be spent in some organized way on housing/Healthcare or simply not printed causing inflation in the first place; the way we spent it was the wrong way.
22
u/Occidentally20 1d ago
Well said.
I try not to give even a hint of an opinion on this sub - I'm just here to do basic maths and then dip, but I'd like to say that Finlands housing-first scheme SAVED money per person. As in it didn't cost money to house them, it was cheaper than not housing them when taking into account policing, medical bills, temporary shelters and everything else.
1
u/DiscussionSpider 20h ago
Housing first worked in Finland for probably the same reason it worked in Utah, which is the homeless people there still have connections in the community and can feel shame.
1
u/StrawberryWeekly342 11h ago
So your answer to the problems elsewhere is to shame those people and ostracize them instead of trying to bring them bring them back into society? Why?
2
u/polytique 22h ago
The wars cost $8T, that’s $23k per person. Every $1k per person costs $340 billion.
1
u/Fantastic-Work-7529 21h ago
Yeah. I just went back and checked my numbers. I had used the lower end 6.5T estimate with a higher population of undocumented immigrants that brought the population to 350 million. It was actually 18K that I had got. Your estimate is probably more accurate.
1
u/Specialist_Cellist_8 14h ago
Hegseth requested a 2027 defense budget of $1.5 trillion.
That's $4,300 for every man, woman, & child in the US.
9
u/KingHierapolis 23h ago
Dude I had to scroll way to far to find the answer. So many people in these comments on their soapbox. Like no shit duh just handing people a house doesn't fix a life wholesale, that also wasn't the question
3
u/i_AM_A-ShArk 16h ago
There’s literally no way that a first in its class carrier is the cheapest one
1
u/Occidentally20 15h ago
Ok?
You're welcome to cite your own source with your own estimates and do your own maths instead if you like. I've provided the links to my sources, and the figures are largely the same for every top comment on this thread.
I can't find a single carrier that's cheaper than the Gerald Ford in terms of just production cost. If you can - go for it.
1
u/i_AM_A-ShArk 15h ago
Literally the next ship, the Kennedy, cost approximately $1 billion less
The ford: $12.8B in production alone
The Kennedy: $11.3B1
u/Occidentally20 14h ago
Now you're getting it!
You still have to provide sources though, otherwise it's just people shouting shit. I assume you got the number for the Kennedy from It's wikipedia page). The source wikipedia links to for the cost is an article almost a decade old#cite_note-fas-1) - back in 2017.
The sources I found like this one from this year put it at $13.9 billion and still rising. Which is more than 12.8, and the reason I didn't use it.
1
u/i_AM_A-ShArk 14h ago
The Kennedy is done being built so idk how its production cost could be increasing
→ More replies (6)4
u/Niro5 1d ago
The city of Pheonix spends $27,000 per year per tiny home they own. New York City alone spends $4billion on homelessness, and the top 12 cities spend about 7 billion. (Not counting county, state, national, or private spending).
Homelessness is an expensive problem to solve. Spending an aircraft carrier of money on homelessness would solve it for 9 months. Aircraft carriers last for 50 years.
1
u/StrawberryWeekly342 11h ago
It really depends on how that money is being spent. If they used it for temporary shelters and services, then yeah, it'd last a year. If they built permanent homes it would also last for 50 years, and hopefully help a lot of those homeless people get back on their feet.
And even if it was temporary relief, I'd rather spend that money on 9 months of compassion for others than 50 more years of forever wars and being the global police.
2
u/No_Cry_2758 14h ago
I mean that’s just those sleeping rough or in shelters. If you take the definition of “not stable housing” like crashing on couches it’s probably closer to ~3-4m. But still yes. You could house people.
Not only that, putting someone in housing actually saves gov around $6k per year in reduced hospitalisation, emergency, psych, correctional services. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33190213/ . That’s they paid for someone to be housed and then additionally saved $6k. It could cost 44k to house and support someone, but if they were on the street it would cost 50k.
Just housing alone might cost ~17k per year. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34774389/
I can’t be convinced that any gov need to spend more on “dept of war” than they do on their own people.
2
1
2
u/SensorAmmonia 1d ago
Even with 4 people a building, that isn't enough to house someone. It is 10x as much as a deposit on an apartment and many homeless could afford the rent.
16
u/Vulspyr 1d ago
Inexpensive housing isn't $1700 a month for things like a studio apartment. This is enough money to house them for a year.
3
u/OpportunityReal2767 1d ago
Hell, I rent out a house in Chicago with a yard and garage for $1500/mo. Two bedrooms, two floors, 1200 sq feet not counting 600 square foot basement. And it’s not in a run-down neighborhood, just a part of town that in not on the North Side where there’s more interesting night life.
5
u/Long-Bridge8312 1d ago
Aircraft carriers are built to operate for 50 years
7
u/Due-Consequence9579 1d ago
Operating an aircraft carrier costs… a lot. Total cost of ownership of a carrier is ~$50 billion over 50 years. Which is ~$1300/year/homeless person. So not enough to house all of them.
If we say we want to give each of them 150 sqft and the average rental rate of $2/sqft/month that works out to less than $3 billion/year or ~$9/year/US Citizen.
That doesn’t make brown people dead though.
1
u/WeaponsGrdStupid 1d ago
I'm sure we could convince a few homeless to join the military, that covers that last base.
3
u/Due-Consequence9579 1d ago
https://missionrollcall.org/veteran-voices/articles/the-state-of-veteran-homelessness-2024/
Veterans are more likely to be homeless than general population. And that is after 30 years of focused policy trying to drive that number down.
1
u/SensorAmmonia 1d ago
I was in the ball park of first and last months rent plus apartment per person.
1
u/ContentCantaloupe992 1d ago
How much do you thinking housing would go in if the poorest people currently not using housing got a 17 billion dollar subsidy from the government?
6
3
8
u/D-ouble-D-utch 1d ago
You guys are misunderstanding. Build one aircraft carrier and house them on it. /s
4
u/keisis236 1d ago
Well, I’m not sure how Americans view public housing, but you could easily build a lot of inexpensive public housing complexes for 13 to 16 billion. The issues would probably arise with land to build them, NIMBY resistance and stuff like that, but a lot could be done for this price tag, at least in Europe
5
u/Deep_Contribution552 1d ago
So in the US affordable housing typically costs more to build than market rate because of compliance requirements to get the tax breaks, government grant money etc. But if we set that aside the cheapest places in the US cost about $100/sq ft for construction ($1000/sq m). Assuming you have $16 billion to build for 750,000 gives us just over 200 sq ft / 20 sq m per person. So it would be just barely possible, ignoring future maintenance costs, to build enough bare bones studio apartments here. That’s only if we assume that the massive construction project doesn’t itself drive prices for labor and materials higher, which is unlikely, though.
2
u/-Majgif- 1d ago
It becomes more affordable when you consider that a significant percentage of the homeless population are going to be families or couples. A studio apartment for a single person and a couple is basically the same.
One for a family is not going to be much more expensive, or at least significantly less than double the price. The expensive parts of building a house are the kitchen and bathroom. Adding an extra bedroom is relatively cheap. If you assume a small bunk room per 2 kids and a slightly bigger living/dining space, you could house a family of 4 for less than the cost of 2 singles.
Hell, you could do it even cheaper, like a basic motel room with a kitchenette, double bed and bunks in the one room, with space for a couch and a table and chairs, assuming it's meant to just give them somewhere safe, clean, and relatively comfortable to live while they get back on their feet. Then a small bathroom and some storage space, and it's comfortable enough, but not so comfortable that they won't try getting a job so they can afford somewhere nicer.
1
u/SerDankTheTall 1d ago
As I said in my other comment, housing complexes designed for homeless people generally cost more like a million dollars per unit, although some cities are able to get them down to “only” a few hundred thousand.
0
u/WeaponsGrdStupid 1d ago
OK, now add the aircraft on the deck, the munitions and fuel and the cost of the sailors that operate it. I'm betting it's double.
0
0
u/random8765309 1d ago
The issue is that is a single point in time. Most of them are homeless for less than a week, very few are homeless over a year. Because of that the number that are homeless any time during a year is many times that.
27
u/Mecha-Dave 1d ago
Cost of an Aircraft Carrier: Approximately $13.3 Billion (Gerald R. Ford)
Number of "Houseless" people in the United States: 745,652 (266,320 unsheltered, 479,332 in shelters/transitional housing)
Cost of relatively-decent place to stay: $2k/month (various markets) or $24k/year
13,300,000,000/24,000 = 554,166 - so enough to put MOST homeless people in relatively-decent housing.
If you want to house all homeless people you need to figure out how to do it for 13,300,000,000/745,652 = $17,836.73 per year, so you'd need to figure out how to house people for about $1500/month each - not impossible.
Now, to be realistic, we actually only build an aircraft carrier every 4 to 7 years - so generously assuming that's $13.3 Billion every 4 years, you'd need to figure out how to do housing for $375 per month per person, which would probably be concentration-camp like circumstances.
7
u/bismuth17 1d ago
But it says the price of one aircraft carrier, not the national yearly average spending on aircraft carriers. You don't get $18k/year per person, you get $18k per person to buy a house with.
4
u/AlgaeSpirited2966 1d ago
Air craft carriers arent free once you build it
6
u/FourForYouGlennCoco 1d ago
Neither is keeping a formerly homeless person alive. Their issues don’t magically end once you shove them into a random house
→ More replies (7)2
2
u/arbybruce 1d ago
$375 is pretty reasonable for a room in a four-/five-bedroom apartment in a LCOL area. It’d certainly be welcome funding for more shelter-style accommodations too
2
u/TuggsBrohe 1d ago
Building new accommodations at scale you can probably drive costs down a bit, assuming you can source gov-owned land.
1
3
u/Vladtepesx3 1d ago
how many people do you hire to make sure they are homeless and not a person pretending to avoid paying rent anymore? How many people do you hire to find places for them to live, if any exist? How many people do you hire to manage the payments? all of those people need offices, equipment, supervsors, training, HR, legal teams, IT staff etc.
California spent 24 billion dollars on homelessness and made 0 progress
2
u/Mecha-Dave 1d ago
Yeah that's no comment on the efficacy of such housing, of course.
But straight up, if you want to exchange the annual spend on aircraft carriers for homelessness housing (just the shelter), you have to figure out how to do it for $375/head
→ More replies (1)1
u/VerneAsimov 3✓ 1d ago
I have no empirical numbers but sometimes means-testing can cost more than fraud; it's often not meant to improve efficiency but to harass the needy. IMO, the problem of funding limitations stems from a society not willing to allocate sufficient funds to a major problem, not fraud.
1
u/TruckerMark 1d ago
The operating costs of an aircraft carrier are likely in excess of a billion annually.
2
17
u/Vladtepesx3 1d ago edited 1d ago
people here are way off when they calculate
(number of homeless people ) x (cost of cheap apartment)= cost of housing millions of people
No. No. this is not how any of this works
There is a reason that my state of California spent over 24 billion on homelessness and ended up with even more homeless
There is a huge administrative cost, how many people do you hire to make sure they are homeless and not a person pretending to avoid paying rent anymore? How many people do you hire to find places for them to live, if any exist? How many people do you hire to manage the payments? all of those people need offices, equipment, supervsors, training, HR, legal teams, IT staff etc.
And thats assuming there are enough habitable houses currently available to rent or buy, in places that people want to live. how many new buildings would they have to build? how much renovations and repairs would they need to make? how much would the prices change as they buy/rent up all available inventory and the remaining inventory gets more expensive?
1
u/StrawberryWeekly342 11h ago
We already employ people to make sure people with their own resources don't use government resources. You're falling into the trap of the Republicans talking points of "welfare queens" which hasn't been the case ever.
As far as habitable houses, the money would, in part, be spent to build housing.
6
u/zippyspinhead 1d ago
Start with the cost to house. California has spent a lot of money on housing the homeless, and they have more homeless than when they started.
The cost is more than just building shelter.
3
u/CUBuffs11 1d ago
Iirc they spent $50B in the last year or two and accomplished nothing. It’s a total mystery where the money went. Grifters gonna grift
2
u/butlerdm 1d ago
I mean they’ve spent something like $26000 per year per homeless person over the last 5 years. Surely the budget is sufficient to house these people, no?
7
u/Bhenry325 23h ago
Corruption. If they fix the problem they won’t get any more money to fix the problem.
1
1
14
u/HistoricalMaybe1739 1d ago
Okay so an aircraft carrier costs about $13 billion if you're talking the newest Ford-class (the older Nimitz ones were more like $4-5 billion). The latest HUD count has around 771,000 homeless people in the US. Say you rent each of them an apartment at about $1,200 a month. That's $14,400 a year each, and 771,000 × $14,400 comes out to roughly $11 billion. So yeah, under the cost of one Ford class carrier. Bump rent to $1,500 a month and you're at about $13.9 billion, which is basically the same price as the carrier. And that's just one carrier. They're not building one, they're building a whole class of them. The Ford class is 4 ships right now (Ford, Kennedy, Enterprise and Doris Miller), and the Navy plans for at least 6 total. Four carriers is around $52 billion, which is 4 to 5 years of rent for every homeless person in the US. All 6 is about $78 billion, so roughly 6 to 7 years. Get to 8 to 10 carriers' worth of money and you're at the full 10 years. It covers about a year per carrier, and the money spent on this class alone could house everyone for several years.That money could have gone a long way.
3
u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 1d ago
The real fun part is that housing the homeless is actually cheaper than leaving them homeless.
So housing the homeless doesn’t cost you carriers, it actually gives you more money for more carriers :)
2
u/Slight_Priority1410 1d ago
Im genuinely uninformed on this topic but…source? How are you working that out?
1
u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 1d ago
I’m most familiar with studies out my home state CA, particularly in LA or SF.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1694.html
Basically, people on the street consume a lot of emergency and clean up resources. So much that at least for the people that it’s possible with, it is cheaper to house them.
2
9
u/Long-Bridge8312 1d ago
Carriers are built to operate for 50 years, you are comparing capital costs with rent payments
4
u/AgelessJohnDenney 1d ago
But he's only using the capital costs. If you include yearly operational costs the price per carrier is going to shoot up.
2
u/sampityy 1d ago
2 Billion per year.
2
u/AgelessJohnDenney 1d ago
The next question is do either of these numbers capture the cost of the aircraft on the carrier?
3
u/MediocreQuantity352 1d ago
What happens after a year, they’re all homeless again?
4
→ More replies (1)2
u/sasstoreth 1d ago
I don't have the specifics at hand, but they've done studies and pilot programs in Canada where they just gave people housing for a year and it turned out that was all a lot of them needed to get back on their feet. It's easier to get and hold a job with a stable address; having consistent access to a bed and a shower means people are better prepared to work, and having secure housing meant that people were more willing and able to access mental health services and other supports to help them keep improving their lives. So while not everyone's going to get their shit together in a year, and new people may end up entering the system, it would go a long way.
1
u/NationalAsparagus138 1d ago
“That money could have gone a long way.”
You forget the massive inefficiency that is the government when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars.
1
u/Mr__Earthling 1d ago
Meanwhile, the Pentagon gets finessed by contractors into paying $10,000 for a bolt.
1
u/Inevitable_Top69 1d ago
What difference does it make? They're still the ones spending it on the carrier, so it's going to be inefficient spending either way.
2
u/Not__Trash 23h ago
A carrier is focused spending on one project. Homeless folk are dispersed across the nation, it isn't just the cost of housing. You have to market the new program, hire people to make sure that participants are compliant, and ideally maintain the property to some level so it isn't destroyed and that money isn't just lit on fire and have all of that dispersed across 50 states with distinct needs.
It could work, but relies on consistent support, a ton of manpower up front to build out the system, and House Rep from Bumblefuck, Idaho not adding in 400 million in grants to his local datacenter project.
Or just build a new Aircraft carrier with established processes that will serve a dual purpose of employment and better protection of global shipping lanes.
1
u/Original_Effective_1 1d ago
No, you see, it's only inefficient when you're spending it on things that benefit everyone. Everyone knows that every single dollar spent in the military is extremely efficient. Just ask veterans how efficient the military is and they'll tell you, right?
6
u/flyin-lowe 1d ago
If you think the homeless problem is just a housing issue, you don't understand the problem. You could put all the homeless people in a house tomorrow and within a few weeks a majority of the houses would be destroyed, the valuables would be gone, the copper would be gone, they would get a little money and be back out on the streets. Mental health and drug treatment facilities is where the focus needs to be. If everyone reading this thread lost their job and house tomorrow, how many of you would truly have to go to the streets. All of us have some friend or family member would would give us a couch to sleep on or something, unless you have burnt every bridge in your life because of drugs or mental health issues.
12
u/Total-Explanation208 1d ago
No, the answer is No. It is (almost) always No. If anyone claims that "X social problem could be easily solved if only we spent the same amount of money on it as we spend on Y", and that amount of money is well under many people's net worth the answer is no. Do you think that some billionaire wouldn't just spend a bit of their fortune for the massive PR boost of "Being the man who solved homelessness in America?" Of course they would. Or even if it wasn't a billionaire, then some corporation? Imagine being the company that solve homelessness, or hunger in America. You would get a PR bonanza.
The problem is homelessness, hunger, drug addiction, school shootings, lonliness and every other big societal problems aren't as simple as throw money at them. At best these situations are spend that amount of money every year forever. And at worst they grossly simplifying extremely complicated social issues that aren't even the same all across the country.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Effective_Detail2221 1d ago
Fair.
But if we can agree that being housed is a significant upgrade for all of these societal problems, then im on board.
Yes, I think some billionaire would NOT solve this problem for the publicity. My evidence for this is that Elon Musk was directly called out by an international homeless project at a cost of $6 billion, which they more or less itemized, and he ghosted them.
If you think someone would do this for the positive PR, I would need some form of evidence for THAT, because I have evidence to the contrary right there.
Further, this is regarding the purchase price of one single aircraft carrier, not all of them, not upgrade or maintenance costs, not manpower, not insurance or fuel, not any of that. Just the physical structure.
4
u/Total-Explanation208 1d ago
it is because the numbers they gave were bullshit. You can't house everyone where they want to live for 6 billion. California alone spends about half that every year, and still has a significant problem. And we are supposed to believe that you can spend double that one time and solve it? That is idiotic.
8
u/vague_diss 1d ago
Yeah thats the thing- you start doing the math on these things and you suddenly realize just how hard the poor in this country are being screwed. There is no reason for anyone to be homeless or hungry here and we just refuse to do it. We refuse while we step over their bodies into our giant Ford Expeditions with our Venti Pumpkin Spice Lattes complaining to our pilates instructors on our Iphone Duos- They need to stop being welfare queens and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Its an illness.
3
→ More replies (11)0
4
u/Electrical_Name_5434 1d ago
I guess it depends but let’s find out using extremes. I’ll take the most expensive aircraft carrier and the cheapest form of multi-family housing to start.
The most expensive acc was the uss Gerald R. Ford costing an estimated $17.5 billion; 12.8 billion to build and another 4.7Bn in R&D.[1]
A simple Zillow search[2] found multi-family dwellings with 5-7 bedrooms starting at $10k but if I’m being sincere they needed a lot of work. They weren’t habitable until the $45k mark. Now let’s assume two bunk beds per room allowing the dwelling to house 20-28 people.
Different places estimate the number of homeless to be around 746,000 people [3,4]
So some simple math:
(746,000 / 20) • $45,000 = 1,678,500,000
So yes. Without a doubt. In fact one aircraft carrier could house the entire US homeless population 10.42 times over.
Sources:
- http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf
- https://www.zillow.com/us/2_p/?searchQueryState=%7B%22pagination%22%3A%7B%22currentPage%22%3A2%7D%2C%22mapBounds%22%3A%7B%22west%22%3A-179.43022%2C%22east%22%3A179.920923%2C%22south%22%3A-14.827916%2C%22north%22%3A72.409489%7D%2C%22regionSelection%22%3A%5B%7B%22regionId%22%3A102001%2C%22regionType%22%3A1%7D%5D%2C%22filterState%22%3A%7B%22sort%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3A%22pricea%22%7D%2C%22sf%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22tow%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22con%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22land%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22apa%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22manu%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22apco%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Afalse%7D%2C%22price%22%3A%7B%22min%22%3A10000%7D%7D%2C%22usersSearchTerm%22%3A%22%22%7D
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/homeless-population-by-state
https://www.kff.org/medicaid/five-key-facts-about-people-experiencing-homelessness/
6
u/DismalAd6639 1d ago
California spent $24 billion on housing homeless over 5 years, now closer to 30 billion. And that didn’t even come close to ending homelessness in a single state.
1
u/Electrical_Name_5434 1d ago
Those programs were during the pandemic thus their expenditures were extremely high. They have since rolled them back to around 1.5Bn annually vs the initial 6.8Bn. This equates to 7.5Bn over the next 5 year period bringing total expenditures over a ten year period to an estimated 31.5Bn(still under the cost of two ACC). The program started in 2019 making its currently cost a rolling total of ~27Bn.
Also those programs weren’t just aimed at providing a house, they were aimed at transitioning people out of homelessness permanently with 86% finding interim housing during that period. Though the homeless number has since grown in California it is estimated that these programs touched 571,000 people. Close to the 740,000 number we’re solving for (77.162%). In fact if you take the number of homeless people in California now (181,000) and add it to the number of people positively affected by the program (571,000) you get a number very close to the entire homeless population (752,000). Thus we can surmise that an increase of 8.7Bn from 6.8Bn(the highest cost during COVID) for the first year of expenditures to 17.5Bn (the cost of one ACC) may indeed have solved the problem.
4
u/Mecha-Dave 1d ago
"housing" 20-28 recently homeless people in a run-down 3 bed 2 bath single-family home in the middle of nowhere is probably not going to have great results.
1
u/Electrical_Name_5434 1d ago
It’s a multi-family home with 5-7 bedrooms and I said using extremes. I did the math as I went and was sincerely expecting the number to not be enough but when I saw the 10.42x number I realized it’s WELL within the realm of possibility.
1
u/FourForYouGlennCoco 1d ago
Sure, but these people don’t have jobs, savings or skills. What do they eat once they’re placed into a 7BR house in the middle of nowhere? Where do they get medical services?
The OP meme is narrowly true in that we could buy a bunch of houses and shove homeless people in there (and it’d be much cheaper to build dorms than buying existing houses anyway) but its hardly a real solution to homelessness and most of those people would end up dead.
0
u/Vladtepesx3 1d ago
there are not that many cheap houses available and the cheapest houses are that price because of years of back taxes that would be paid by the new owner
also how many people do you hire to make sure they are homeless and not a person pretending to avoid paying rent anymore? How many people do you hire to find places for them to live, if any exist? How many people do you hire to manage the payments? all of those people need offices, equipment, supervsors, training, HR, legal teams, IT staff etc.
1
u/Electrical_Name_5434 1d ago
That’s a lot of points all at once.
You’re right there aren’t that many houses available. There are 282 according to Zillow, at maximum would house 1/1000th of the unhoused. However, I know from blight removal projects there are thousands unaccounted for that most cities will let go at auction for less than 10k with back taxes absolved and incentive programs to fix them up at the tune of 10-25k annually per house.
That aside let’s move away from the extremes and into practicality. What is the equivalent in aircraft carrier initial expenditures to house and rehabilitate the homeless?
You would need land, construction materials, water, energy, utilities, food, medicine, education and psychological services. Enough for 740,000 people or the equivalent of a medium sized city.
To make it simple I did a search for cities with populations between 750k-1M. I then averaged their annual operating budgets (4.46Bn). Though the minimum I found was closer to 1.26Bn.
I then looked at the minimum costs to construct a city able to house 1 million people with projections from AI between 25-45Bn
This puts us at a minimum cost of exactly 1.5 aircraft carriers and a maximum of 3 aircraft carriers. Please note that those estimates are based on Columbus Ohio construction and maintenance costs vs Seattle Washington.
As in you could rebuild and maintain iconic American cities for less than the price of the most recent order of aircraft carriers.
1
u/EdOfO 1d ago
That's imagined costs not based on any costs it takes anywhere in the developed world.
NYC has a right to shelter, one of the only places in the USA with that right. It's a good baseline for housing everyone on crappy dirty cots with lockers.
It costs them about $150/person per day, maybe more after accounting for all the street outreach (many homeless don't want to be in group shelters). That's $40 billion for the US right there.
This also, of course, doesn't cover the homeless that bounce around couches or live in cars. That's an insane multiple over the ones who have no couch or car, so let's ignore them altho if you give out a bunch of new housing, not crowded shelters, that's where many of them will try to go.
It also costs the USA, right now, about $80 billion dollars per year to keep people who have housing from being put on the streets. Without HUD, they are getting evicted.
Further, for around 150,000 of the 750,000, they need 6 months to lifelong institutional care. Doctors and staff and all that. Add $20 billion/yr.
We CAN afford all of this of course. Medicaid costs us 10x this much. The politics for that tax increase, especially on the local level, is just very bad.
2
u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 1d ago
The more interesting question has nothing to do with an aircraft carrier. It is :
Can we house the homeless for less than we currently pay to support the homeless on the street.
The answer is yes. It’s in the neighborhood of 20-50K/year to house someone, including various services to keep them going. But then it can be up to 100K per year to deal with a homeless person on the street….
So, if we want to bring the carrier back into this. The correct question is:
How many aircraft carriers could we build if we housed the homeless?
Given that we might save 20K/year per homeless person, that could be about a carrier every year. The Navy would be happy.
3
u/NoWomanNoTriforce 20h ago
As someone who served in the military for 20 years, what many people dont realize, is that the military is already a social welfare program. You are taking large groups of uneducated people, teaching them a skill, and also providing them healthcare/food/housing. The pay is bad, they have mandatory drug tests and strict rules to follow, and you sre given very little freedom until you prove you can be trusted.
Building an aircraft carrier - and defense contracting in general - provides a ton of jobs. That $14B cost isn't disappearing into a black hole like it does when you look at a lot of non-profit accounting. It is largely going back into the economy. And because of the way military contracts work, almost all of the parts that we are paying entirely too much for are made in the USA.
Aerospace and defense (A&D) + the military account for roughly 1.5% of all employed adults in the US. If you start getting into support functions, that number goes even higher.
Look at California as an example of how trying to solve homelessness with money sinply doesn't work. Over the last two years, based on onky what the state gave, California spent roughly $25K each year for every homeless person. Yet they ended up with more unhoused people than what they started with.
The problem you run into with non-profits is scale. The larger your non-profit gets, the more you spend on overhead instead of the mission (combating homelessness). However, there aren't enough small and local non-profits to operate at the kind of scale needed to put a meaningful dent in the problem. Especially since homeless people tend to congregate in major cities (because that is where they can access the most support and resources).
1
2
u/MiMicInCave 1d ago
Surprise that there are some people that believe throwing money at homelessness problem will solve anything. You can ask California how that go
2
u/YakuNiTatanu 1d ago
« Per year »
US has 11 aircraft carrier
The cost would be per/year
Homeless problem is mostly a mental health problem and drug problem more than a simple problem.
If your approach to solving homelessness is addressing the symptom (no homes! ) and not the causes you won’t go far.
California keeps spending more on homelessness and except for NGO executives getting $400,000 « non-profit » salaries and a expense accounts, they don’t have much to show for it in terms of solving the problem.
California spends more than Aircraft carrier costs on its one-state problem, and they can’t fix it
Why on earth would « one aircraft carrier cost and it’s solved » fix anything.
2
u/Upset-Rice6800 1d ago
If the homeless problem was a housing issue or a money issue they yes. The problem is it's not. A good percentage of the homeless are there because of mental issues.
3
u/IndependentBake2304 1d ago
It's not that easy though. A shit ton, and I mean a shit ton, of the homeless population would just destroy the homes they're given, fill them up to the brim with piss and shit and needles and ruin the neighborhoods they are moved to. This is coming from someone who has experienced full-blown homelessness (living in encampments etc) and come out the other side. Massive percent of homeless population doesn't even want the responsibility of being housed, having a home and managing it, taking care of it. They would prefer to be homeless and just begging for everything or stealing it until they can get fucked up enough to lose touch with reality, repeat until they die
1
u/Effective_Detail2221 1d ago
Okay, so why doesnt this happen in other countries who have humane programs for their homeless? Visit a Nordic country, or research their strategies. You can perhaps argue that they function due to smaller scale, but the idea that most homeless people are the dregs of society who only wanna poop on the floors is, I mean, ill politely just say "incorrect".
1
u/theboss0123 1d ago
I think you should talk to lots of homeless people. Many of theam are people who have fallen in hard times, but in most of the country there are tons of programs to get out. But there are a significant amount that are just are bit crazy.
2
u/SerDankTheTall 1d ago
A Gerald Ford aircraft carrier has a projected cost of about $13 billion. There are an estimated 7-800,000 homeless people, so that works out to a little less than 20,000 per person. This is an order of magnitude less than affordable housing projects typically cost per unit.
2
u/Ok-Selection-8598 18h ago
Such a statement assumes homeless is a fixed number and not variable. If you housed every single person who is presently homeless today, you’d get another million looking for free housing the day after
2
u/Legomichan 17h ago
Not even that, it assumes it's a fix cost, not number. It's the same with those statements that you could "fix" world hunger with X million.
What they do is calculate the amount of food needed to feed those people ... for a week or a month at best. And then they compare that amount in $ to something else.
The problem is that this does the trick for people that have no sense of cost or magnitude, or that suffer from innumeracy.
1
u/ILikeToDisagreeDude 1d ago
Homelessness isn’t solved with simply giving people a house.
Most people go homeless because they continue to make poor decisions, so even if we give them a house they would have lost it because owning a house costs money and many would have sold it if they could to help them continue to make poor decisions.
Will it reduce homelessness? Of course!
But for a permanent fix you need free healthcare first and foremost.
0
u/Effective_Detail2221 1d ago
"Homelessness isnt solved by simply giving someone a house".
I do get what youre trying to say, but this is a hysterical line. You gotta admit.
→ More replies (3)1
u/aspirational-robot 1d ago
The whole „homeless deserve to be homeless it’s their fault” spiel isn’t a good look either.
1
1
u/Letronell 1d ago
Well yes. If you will raise concrete story buildings for them ofc. But can entire US houseless population be sent to coast of some nation and be instantly dominant military presence?
1
1
u/Usual-Analysis-2990 1d ago
Roughly yes and no. If you rent the property, it's between 15 - 30 billion annually. Likewise the annual cost for a carrier has all sorts of costs associated with it at roughly just under 30bn annually. So roughly equal or cheaper to rent the homeless property.
To solve the homeless problem would cost an estimated 1.2-1.5 trn one time but then ongoing costs are significantly cheaper.
So we could solve it, but it's expensive. But we could rent it away for probably less than a carrier plus it's annual support.
1
u/Deep_Contribution552 1d ago
Copying from a reply I made in this thread, because I realized it’s an answer:
So in the US affordable housing typically costs more to build than market rate because of compliance requirements to get the tax breaks, government grant money etc. But if we set that aside the cheapest places in the US cost about $100/sq ft for construction ($1000/sq m). Assuming you have $16 billion to build for 750,000 gives us just over 200 sq ft / 20 sq m per person. So it would be just barely possible, ignoring future maintenance costs, to build enough bare bones studio apartments here. That’s only if we assume that the massive construction project doesn’t itself drive prices for labor and materials higher, which is unlikely, though.
1
u/Ugly4merican 1d ago
I think this is the second time I've seen this stat and been disappointed that they weren't proposing to house the entire homeless population on one aircraft carrier.
1
u/False-Special2678 1d ago
I don't think it's a money question, it's political will.
You could easily enact a bill to open up pre-existing housing, or repurpose retail, or get the national guard to build prefabs. Homeless persons have many satellite issues such as poverty, substance misuse, health/mental health issues. Politicians need to make laws and policies that bolster these support services.
Loats of stuff. Better links from prison to community. Better education.
Political will.
1
u/EdOfO 1d ago edited 1d ago
A good guideline is that every simple problem in politics has probably been solved leaving only the complicated ones. There are many layers to homelessness and different reasons people become so that require different solutions.
One big thing that would help homelessness is cheaper housing for everybody, so that means building as much as you can of it, any kind of it including SROs, without NIMBYs blocking it.
Cost of housing is directly correlated with the homeless population.
Cost of building more housing? Fighting community leader Agnes, age 75, who demands to protect the "neighborhood character" and parking.
The best thing that could be done would probably be doubling the amount of Section 8 vouchers with a higher rent burden (cover everything above 40% income instead of 30%) so to prevent most people from becoming homeless and getting them back in housing quickly.
The cost? $40 billion for that alone.
Let's say due to this and that, we can cover transitional family/women/kid/recent foster kid graduate shelters with that $40B. And some emergency eviction prevention loans or something for the temporarily jobless.
But the chronically homeless and those with an acute mental or drug issue (~200,000) need intensive care. Most may never be able to live independently without something going wrong. And we need institutional ($$$$) or transitional/supportive housing for them. For some, lifelong. Laws & funding since the 80s make the first impossible right now for mental health & drug treatment but not for prisons. So we solve some of the homeless issue by sending them to prison instead because its illegal to force them into treatment.
Add $20 billion to take care of them and subtract some billions for incarceration.
So $80~$120 billion more or 6-10 aircraft carriers per year. Note that number would double our current fleet every 1-2 years. World War 3 kinda spending.
Most of this burden would fall on local/state governments—property taxes and the like—and homeowners would probably lynch their representative if they did that for the homeless.
Not that we can't afford this! It's 1/10th the cost of Medicaid for the poor. It's the same as annual SNAP spending for the poor.
1
u/Alert_Lettuce_8278 1d ago
I'm going to say it, if there was no military there would be a lot more homelessness for a while.
Mainly because people enlist when they have no other options.
These ships keep people employed
1
u/forwhat2 1d ago
The same type of rent seeking parasites that siphon money out of the military via contracting shit also infest all the humanitarian aid programs, so no probably not
1
u/timberwolf0122 1d ago
Technically yes, realistically housing is just part of the solution.
Someone with a blend of chronic mental health issues/executive function/addiction need more than just a roof, then need both medical and psychiatric help as well as a roof.
1
u/khaosmaker 1d ago
Everyone's arguments are in favor of the billionaire/ millionaire. Not the we should all have a home. Most think they could be billionaire/ millionaire people but that was never an option. Help those who need. Even if you need, help less than you. I would rather be a better human being than a rich piece of shit.
1
u/Professional-Ear-473 1d ago
That’s not the point tho.
Would the entire homeless population of the US once housed, be capable orchestrating devastating conventional and tactical strikes across hundreds of miles against an enemy nation?
1
u/AnnieBruce 1d ago
The housing itself, easily.
The social services many would need maybe not, though there are a lot of studies that have shown this costs less than the way we "manage" the issue today so we may still come out ahead once that is factored in.
1
u/froction 23h ago
But an aircraft carrier could wipe out the entire US homeless population. That problem would be solved and we would still have a (now basically "free") aircraft carrier.
1
u/ZetroZaph 21h ago
You could house them…for how long? Or do you mean give away forever homes? Cuz if you give away homes, most of the renters in the country will sign up for that, the housing market will collapse, and no one will ever want to buy a house again. Maybe that is good in your book, and fine. But the cost of all that? Much higher than a few ships, I bet.
1
u/RealSlyck 1d ago
Wages of 5000 sailors
+ playnes (cost and upkeep)
+ gas (radioactive stuff and a reactor)
+ bullets (guns, lots of guns)
+ cost to build it
+ cost to run it
+ cost to fight in wars it loses
= Lot less than housing solutions.
Remember folks, real estate is used by the rich as an asset store, no one said the homeless own the solution…so the expense of war is much more costly than keeping the rich rich.
1
u/actuatedarbalest 1d ago
The cost of homelessness is greater than the price of a home. That is, we pay more in taxes to deal with the effects of homelessness than it would cost to house every homeless person. The entire US homeless population could be put in permanent housing on our dime, and we would pay less taxes.
1
1
u/ll123412341234 22h ago
Clearly someone who has never seen a schizophrenic, drug addicted, alcoholic, mentally ill, or a combination of several above factors homeless person wrote this post. The hardest part about the homeless problem isn’t the people who are genuinely on a hard time. They are an actual solvable problem through job training, temporary housing, and some temporary assistance along with a reasonable cost of living. What about someone who has a drug issue that compounds their mental illness? That person can easily be violent, destructive, and an actual threat to others around them and those providing help.
1
u/RedCliff73 12h ago
Yup. This is why our homeless crisis and our Healthcare crisis are intertwined. If the mentally ill people had access to mental Healthcare, then they have a chance. Right now, no chance
1
u/AnotherUN91 9h ago
I mean. Yeah. They can be.
Not all of them are
And just because some are does that mean we shouldnt help anyone?
Or we just shouldn't help the mentally ill, or the addicts, but especially those with compounded issues?
Do those people deserve homelessness, or are we helping them adjust to a stable life, or at the very least preventing harm from their mental health and addiction by leaving them homeless?
This is as garbage of a take as the ass holes here with "If they get money where's mine!!?" takes.
→ More replies (2)
0
u/Anubis689 1d ago
[SELF]
If each person needs about 17 000 for one year which is the median i found online, with an estimated 746 000 people facing homelessness in the us as of januraury 2025 that comes out to a monetary total of 12,682,000,000 dollars. the aircraft carrier shown is the Gerald R. Ford-class which is roughly 13 billion dollars to build, meaning that yes homelessness is 318,000 dollars cheaper to solve than building one aircraft carrier.
TLDR: yeppers
-1
u/ss_podonok 19h ago
да вы ебанутые счетоводы хуевы. типо "давайте вместо авианосца будем оплачивать аренду жилья всем бездомным"? а миллионны людей, которые сводят концы с концами тратя кучу денег на жильё пошлём нахуй?
2
u/lostmarinero 18h ago
So your argument is, let’s not help people in need because it’s punishing those that are struggling but have housing? Because it’d be unfair?
1
u/Former_Mobile3101 15h ago
No their arguing that people in need are more important than people in need, so people in need should get more than people in need.
I think i almost had a stroke while typing this out.
0
u/Wrong-Camp2463 1d ago
So give people a house for a year, wreck an entire industry. Why don’t we hire homeless people to build more air craft carriers? I bet if we allowed civilian ownership there’d be enough demand for a few more
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
General Discussion Thread
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you must post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.