> shelters are not homes
> Solution to homelessness is not mental health services
> Solution to homelessness is homes. Period. The fact is if we gave home to the homeless...
I do not understand this, and how this is even practical. Ok so we should stop spend on shelters, mental health services and should focus on giving homes.
How does that work in reality? Does the city/state buy property and give it to people without homes? We obviously do not have unlimited resources so the state buys x homes and comes up with a criteria of which homeless people get the free home. What duration dow e provide the free home for? Who pays for maintainence of the home/appliances etc. Now, if I am working hard and making minimum wage and struggling to make rent, would that not set wrong incentives to just set myself up to the criteria to get a free home? What about the people who do not qualify, Wil they still be homeless? If I get a free home, what's my incentive to work towards a life where I work harder to earn more to disqualify myself from free housing? Also where should these homes be? Should they all be in urban areas like SF or perhaps in smaller cities/towns where the homes are cheaper? Which neighborhoods should these homes be in?
I don't know what the solution to homelessness is, but this doesn't seem like a viable solution.
> I do not understand this, and how this is even practical. Ok so we should stop spend on shelters, mental health services and should focus on giving homes.
I didn't say we should stop spending on those things, I said that spending money on those things does not solve homelessness.
> We obviously do not have unlimited resources so the state buys x homes and comes up with a criteria of which homeless people get the free home.
Notably, in places where this has been tried, the effectiveness of giving people homes is such that it's cheaper to give them homes than to do what we're doing.
> What duration dow e provide the free home for? Who pays for maintainence of the home/appliances etc.
If your criticism is that I didn't draft a detailed legislation in a Hacker News post: that's the normal way that people write Hacker News posts. These are obviously not unanswerable questions as you are presenting them to be, but there would need to be some work to figure out what good answers are. Obviously.
> Now, if I am working hard and making minimum wage and struggling to make rent, would that not set wrong incentives to just set myself up to the criteria to get a free home?
Surely you could come up with a solution to this problem if you were trying to solve it instead of argue against helping homeless people.
A higher minimum wage, perhaps? Better aid for people in lower income brackets?
> What about the people who do not qualify, Wil they still be homeless?
Bro, your moral compass is broken. This isn't difficult--you're just making up absurd problems. If a person is homeless and they don't qualify, the qualifications are wrong. That's obvious, and the only reason it's not obvious to you is that your goals are about maintaining a fundamentally broken system rather than creating a society that actually cares for its citizens.
> If I get a free home, what's my incentive to work towards a life where I work harder to earn more to disqualify myself from free housing?
Given we demonstrably have billionaires "working" for money far beyond the ability to spend the money they make, I'm not sure why you suddenly think that greed stops at "I have a place to live" when it's convenient for your argument.
> How does that work in reality?
How does what we're doing work in reality? (It doesn't).
I do not understand this, and how this is even practical. Ok so we should stop spend on shelters, mental health services and should focus on giving homes.
How does that work in reality? Does the city/state buy property and give it to people without homes? We obviously do not have unlimited resources so the state buys x homes and comes up with a criteria of which homeless people get the free home. What duration dow e provide the free home for? Who pays for maintainence of the home/appliances etc. Now, if I am working hard and making minimum wage and struggling to make rent, would that not set wrong incentives to just set myself up to the criteria to get a free home? What about the people who do not qualify, Wil they still be homeless? If I get a free home, what's my incentive to work towards a life where I work harder to earn more to disqualify myself from free housing? Also where should these homes be? Should they all be in urban areas like SF or perhaps in smaller cities/towns where the homes are cheaper? Which neighborhoods should these homes be in?
I don't know what the solution to homelessness is, but this doesn't seem like a viable solution.