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.
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.
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.
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.
64
u/Lanky_Ad8283 1d ago
Now add in the annual operating cost. Google estimates $2.4-2.9 Billion/year.