Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

just-a-dreamer- t1_j8ov3jm wrote

AI cannot fix that, it is part of capitalism, thus a human flawd. Among many others. In health care, Insulin prices is another example.

In practical terms, the housing problem was solved 60 years ago with prefab manufacturing. Anything from concrete building blocks to baracks is dirt cheap to assamble on the spot.

Land is also plentifull. In the capitalist system, for there to be income from assets, there must be artificial scarcity in goods though.

Thus there are homeless people camping next to 1 million Dollar houses. If zoning laws get eradicated and governments start construction, property values would be cut in half fast as an example.

2

Sol_Hando t1_j8owo4r wrote

In NYC, there’s affordable housing available to the homeless for as little as $100 a month. There are requirements though, such as not having an active drug addiction and being willing to work a government job if you’re physically able. The NYC homeless population is mostly people who don’t fall into this category, either drug addicts or the severely mentally ill.

Building a ton of pre-fab housing in middle of nowhere land is not the solution to homelessness, as proper maintenance and care would need to be applied for the housing and neighborhood as a whole to continue existing. People who end up homeless are usually those least able to maintain their own homes and function in an affordable housing community.

3

just-a-dreamer- t1_j8oyr8q wrote

Why would there be any requirements? If people want to do drugs, that is their business. Their (short) life, their choices. Same is true for work or rejection thereof.

A 20 store assembled concrete building full of small appartments will suffice. The most functional inhabitans can be employed part time for basic maintance operations.

It's weird that people accept homeless lying on the streets causing all sorts problems, yet are outraged at the mere thought of free housing and no work requirements. Why would you care? The homeless guy is not working anyway.

Housing is dirt cheap on a basic level. As is food and clothing. It does not take much in resources to house, feed and cloth human beings.

As AI approaches the "outrage" about bums not working will probably fade, for the majority will be out of a job too in short order.

0

Sol_Hando t1_j8ozrdd wrote

I’ve volunteered for these exact affordable housing projects in NYC, and the requirements aren’t there out of any sense of people making their own choices.

Drug addicts endanger the apartment block as a whole, and are exceedingly more likely to cause serious damage to the housing. You shouldn’t only consider those who are currently homeless, but those people who are legitimately working to improve their situation or those who face too low wages.

The idea of a requirement-free homeless shelter has been tried many times. It almost always fails spectacularly, with the housing being destroyed ruining the lives of those who “behave”. If you had ANY experience with this you would know that.

4

FLORI_DUH t1_j8p2ceo wrote

How naive can you be? It sounds like youve never met a homeless person in your life.

2

just-a-dreamer- t1_j8p46u5 wrote

The point is that I don't want to meet one ever. It shall not exist.

I don't care if people do drugs or overdose, don't work, do nothin all day. It is cheap to provide housing, food, clothing. Relative to productivity levels it costs next no nothing.

Let people live their lifes as long or short as they see fit.

−1

FLORI_DUH t1_j8p4jt3 wrote

You should try volunteering at a shelter or soup kitchen sometime. Even one day would probably be enough to learn that funding someone's drug addiction is actually quite cruel. It's not about what it costs us, it's about what it costs them.

1

just-a-dreamer- t1_j8p6jw3 wrote

Cost them? They die anyway on the streets. I would rather die under a roof, we give dogs and cats such comfort, but not our fellow men.

It's none of my business if somebody wishes to be high all day, at one point I would even make sure drugs of choice are clean and safe to use.

We already have reached the level of productivity to see all our basic needs met at low costs in terms of required manpower/working hours.

0

FLORI_DUH t1_j8p76sl wrote

I'm glad you don't have any deadbeat drug addicts in your life. Keep on dreaming.

1

Heap_Good_Firewater t1_j8ox5zd wrote

>it is part of capitalism

If it were, then all capitalist countries would have this problem. Homelessness barely exists in places like Sweden and Denmark.

−1

odetothefireman t1_j8oziti wrote

Ah, white utopia

0

Heap_Good_Firewater t1_j8p1wap wrote

So only white people can have good social policies? Bold statement.

Japan has the lowest homeless rate in the world, BTW.

1

odetothefireman t1_j8p68lj wrote

Everyone loves to mention the white utopia in their dream scenario

1

[deleted] t1_j8p84c5 wrote

[deleted]

1

odetothefireman t1_j8pfnmy wrote

You may want to go look at your comments. You mentioned Japan. I retorted with high suicide rate. I mentioned that everyone points to those 2 countries, and yet, it’s 99% white. I find it ironic.

1

Heap_Good_Firewater t1_j8pj1w8 wrote

Why should race make any difference?

1

odetothefireman t1_j8pm9x9 wrote

Because. These are the 2 countries propagated by socialists that argue these are the top tier of our goal. And yet, they can’t pint to any other place that it works.

What is the unique qualifier or difference. Homogeneity and small population. Race is simply an afterthought

Ironic, no?

1

Heap_Good_Firewater t1_j8poj4l wrote

Now you're making a little sense. Smaller, homogeneous population does help, "whiteness" has nothing to do with it. I would argue that high levels of social trust is the key, and this is helped by homogeneity. People are more willing to pay into a welfare system if they think it will help people like them, but this is not an insurmountable problem.

Importantly, Neither Sweden or Denmark are "socialist". They are "social democratic". Sweden outranks the US for business friendliness, competitiveness and entrepreneurship.

"Socialist" means that the workers (or the state) owns the means of production. No private ownership of any companies is allowed (East Germany, North Korea, Cuba until recently, etc.).

Sweden and Denmark derive 70-80% of their GDP from privately owned (AKA "capitalist") businesses.

The Nordic model is mostly capitalist but with a sizeable (but shrinking) state-owned sector (mostly utilities and old-school heavy industry). There are also very high marginal tax rates and a strong social safety net.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E0dWHCnic8

​

>And yet, they can’t pint to any other place that it works.

Germany has most of the same policies, and they are a large, successful, diverse country.

Where else has the Nordic Model been adopted and failed?

Edit:

Note: Japan succeeded in part because of high levels of social trust and extreme homogeneity, but they stalled out because of terminal demographics. The Nordic countries did a better job of keeping birth rates up.

1

crankshaft123 t1_j8ovx8n wrote

Head on over to r/quityourbullshit with that nonsense.

−2

just-a-dreamer- t1_j8owim8 wrote

A military grade camp facility is assembled within 2-4 weeks with basic ammenities. It is really dirt cheap and not rocket science.

Homelesness has nothing to do with the material inability to meet demand for housing.

4

Knotter87 t1_j8oyimb wrote

You are just a dreamer

4

just-a-dreamer- t1_j8ozq9f wrote

Yeah, imagine the army corps of engineers building housing facilities.

The trained federal professionals that run much of the infastructure of the USA and do ongoing constructiom for millions of military employees.

What a crazy thought. Upgrading a tent to a barrack facility at a bare minimum.

0

crankshaft123 t1_j8pv3os wrote

Are you a student? You speak as if you are.

Have you ever actually interacted with homeless people?

1

Mierdo01 t1_j8owmth wrote

Land is plentiful? Where? Maybe romote places with little access to necessities. Loud of bullshit

−3