Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

How could the United States end homelessness? It is a mix of federal government, state governments, and local/county/municipal governments. The level of government best suited to do the actual work is hamstrung... if any one city fixes homelessness (somehow), more homeless will show up. If they do that again for the new arrivals, more homeless show up.

The first to solve it is punished with tens of thousands of newly arriving homeless who, as you might imagine, will find a way to get there if it means not being homeless anymore. But budgets are finite and the cost per homeless must he higher than zero, but in a practical sense the number of homeless aren't entirely finite.

If you start from the other end, with the feds, then you might as well hold your breath. Homelessness is so far down the list of priorities, that even if it somehow did bubble to the top, the polarization in Congress will sabotage any effort, and we'll end up with boondoggles that both sides can criticize and that won't really help any homeless at all.

This isn't a choice being made, it's just the complexity of the real world that some are still blind to even after graduating college and (theoretically) turning into grownups.

There's actually a technical solution too, but since it's dry and boring, most leftists (and quite a few of the rightists) find it too boring to ever want to try. Obviously the solution is either love and compassion (from the left) or maybe "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps" (from the right).




This argument is so lame. "Actually the overall structure of the USA is designed so that its basicalyl impossible to solve the crisis".

You're not wrong in the fact that America is a shit country designed to intentionally to use homelessness as an implicit threat against the working class. You are wrong in the sense that all the things you listed aren't reasons, just excuses to cover up the intentionality of homelessness, and that homelessness could be solved if there was the political will to do so. Which there will never be in the USA because again, the homelessness crisis is intentional.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...


Yeah if you really want to end homelessness you will find a way, if not, you will find excuses.


70-80% of homeless people are local. Fixing homelessness in your community does not attract large numbers of additional people.


Not in California. The fact that 80% + of the local homeless come from other states is the one thing that makes the problem unsolvable.


90% of the homeless people in California lived in Californa for over a year before becoming homeless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_California


That can mean any number of things. A lot of people move to LA to "make it" with no plan B, they didn't have a plan B where they came from either.

California has 30% of the US homeless population, but 11% of it's total population. It is dramatically disproportional, period.

https://shou.senate.ca.gov/sites/shou.senate.ca.gov/files/Ho...


California has the most expensive housing in America. That is the primary reason for its larger homeless population.


That doesn't explain how 11% of the population could supply 30% of the homeless. That's impossible if it was a self-contained statistic.

I think housing prices does make the homeless problem worse, but it didn't create it. Good climate and numerous public services did.


(0.9 x 30%) / 11% means that California has a homeless rate 2.5X the rest of America. That's not impossible, in fact it seems surprisingly low. California is the land of $3000/month rent. A very significant proportion of the population can't pay that.


I'm sorry where does your math come from? 1 state having 1/3 of the nation's homeless doesn't represent 2.5x the normal rate. That's 10-15x territory.


> impossible

Finland got to 0 by giving everybody a place to live, not by kicking the homeless out of their country.


Finland isn't responsible for all the homeless from Sweden and Denmark. It had a number that makes sense based on it's population and resources, therefore it was able to solve it.


Create a federal jobs program to build apartments in large quantities, not just in cities but in rural, suburban and exurban areas as well. Anybody who's an American citizen and able bodied (including ex-convicts and felons) can apply and get a good paying job with health insurance. Use the federal government's power of eminent domain to override zoning laws and seize land that's being sat on, and finally pay for it by heavily taxing the tech giants, cutting military spending and legalizing (and taxing) cannabis.

Will politicians ever do it? No, they're in the pocket of the military and the 1%. Will voters ever vote for it? No, they're fed a steady stream of propaganda that tells them that this would be "socialism". But that's how the problem would be solved.


I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought of this, pour government money into taking anyone unemployed and give them solid jobs building/improving/managing infrastructure like housing, any public good, parks, roads, train tracks, whatever it is as long as it's a net positive.


> The first to solve it is punished with tens of thousands of newly arriving homeless

I've seen nothing to support this claim. It does fit the right-wing disinformation pattern of demonizing people, encouraging division and hate between people, undermine social programs, and making baseless claims to put others in the defensive position of having to disprove them.

Can you support that claim?

Here's some evidence to the contrary, from another comment: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30739834/


you should carefully reread what he wrote and reread what you linked




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: