Fax

It's cute that you think they're trying to save money 😂
- Here in California we're saving the most money, by not jailing the homeless AND not housing the homeless.
  
  Leaving them on the streets is also more expensive than housing them.
  When they're on the streets, it means the government must pay for emergency services, extra sanitation work, police are called more frequently, etc.
  
  San Diego has entered the chat. I'm still fuming over that ban.
- They're making money on people being in jail of course.
  
  And get slave labor!

That's adorable. I assure you, it's actually quite profitable.
- It's insane to think that the U.S. has private prisons. You have people interested in the incarceration of people.
- It's a 10 billion dollar industry iirc.
- It's all that profit that makes prison more expensive than just putting them in housing.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that some homeless people would commit crimes so that they would be arrested and get free food and shelter.
- Honestly, as a non-homeless person the prison situation is getting more appealing in certain ways.
  Food, shelter, less expectations... Life is a fucking grind these days and it didn't really used to be this way.
  
  Always has been. You're just getting older and getting more responsibilities
- Not in my area. They make so much money standing on busy corners that they prefer to be homeless. I watched one for 15 minutes get 8 donations. It was all cash, so a minimum $8 for 15 min, $32/hour, tax free. They are making more money outside Walmart than working inside Walmart.
  Edit: It seams like a lot of people are mad that homeless people in my area are not committing crime so they can have a better life in jail.
  I don't know what to tell you. I never said they don't need help or that they have a great life or that they earn enough to get by. I said they make more money than the people who work in the Walmart that they stand in front of. There are woods behind, and they all camp out back there. I have been back there, it is quite a set-up.
  
  Good for them!
  
  Moral of the story: fuck Walmart!
  
  Yeah those greasy fat-cats standing on the same corner from sunrise to sunset, in the same clothes, unwashed, sleeping on a piece of cardboard, THEY are the real gangsters!
  Makes me wonder, if they're making that much money, why don't you do the same?
  
  But they aren't making that at a consistent rate. Highly doubt it's actually that in terms of average wage.
  
  What's the point of this comment? Are your homeless people not poor enough for you?
  
  They are making more money outside Walmart than working inside Walmart.
  That says more about wal-mart than it does about panhandlers.

Although at least in prison, they'll at least get a chance to get some medical care. Housing them won't help there. This is why we need universal healthcare.
- You are way more likely to acquire an infection in prison (bacterial or viral) and have your health conditions ignored or downplayed than you are to get any real access to medical care.
  
  I gave blood recently. One of the questions they ask you is have you been in jail or juvi recently. I assume for the reason you stated above. I.E. having been in jail makes your blood less desireable. Not sure if they'll actually reject you, but they sure ask.
- Absolutely, the US needs universal healthcare. But not everyone on the internet is American. Tons of us live in places that already offer health care, but still have a long ways to go for helping the homeless.
- Yeah indeed that explains the hilighted /fact/.
  housing → just housing
  prison → housing + clothing + medical + dential + psychological aid? + food + legal costs getting them into prison + legal aid + security + education + /basic/ recreation/entertainment (in some prisons)..
  The meme tries to imply one cost prevents the other. Perhaps, but I guess I’m not instantly convinced. That’s not to say people shouldn’t be provided housing anyway just on humanitarian grounds. Housing is a human right (article 25).
- A large part of the problem is that many don't want help. Taking antipsychotics sucks in a huge way, as well as quitting most hard drugs. (these demographics account for ~80% of the chronically homeless)
  Universal Healthcare won't change much since you currently can't force someone to take their meds or quit drugs.
  Chronic homelessness is a problem that won't be solved by throwing more housing or money at it. It's a super nuanced problem that requires changes at a societal level to address (which won't happen)
  A lot of people seem to think the majority of homeless are those who are just down on their luck, but that's just not true.
  
  Having a stable home would already make it so much easier to quit drugs and improve their mental health. In addition, saying otherwise is the same as saying they don't deserve a place to live because they have mental health issues/are addicted/whatever. That sucks. Everyone should have a home.
  And this is assuming that people get addicted first and then become homeless, and not the other way around.
  
  You have already been proved wrong on these lies.
  Stop spreading disinformation.

assuming this is talking about the US
Putting homeless people in labour camps and treating them like slaves is unethical,
But if you throw them in prison first...

Yes, but why would we dismantle our free slavery system? /S (but not really)
- Didn't we ban prison labor we ant even using the free slave labor
  
  It's state dependent how much it's Actually Slavery™ vs. Basically Slavery©, but prison labor is still very much a thing, sadly

Yeah, but it’s where that money goes that matters.

Facts not every unhoused person wants to be housed. We need to address those issues as well if we want to confront the issue.
- But just letting people have housing if they want would already massively help so many people.
  The argument that because not all of them want a house so we shouldn't do it, is literally just the perfect being the enemy of good.
  
  it's not that simple, the biggest argument is that the core of the problem that made someone homeless is still there.
  if you made someone obese fit with swish-and-flick of a magic wand, they would end up fat again in a couple of years, because being fit is much more than just having muscles instead of fat.
  I'm not saying that every homeless is in the same situation of course, but you have to fix the problem that let them spiral down before trying to fix the problem by just throwing money at it.
  
  I never said we shouldn't do it. I said that some unhoused don't want to be housed so the solution isn't that simple.
- Many of them "don't want to be housed" because of all the strings attached to having housing. When you simply give people their own warm bed with a roof they'll almost always use it.
  
  Many don't want to be housed because of extreme mental illness or PTSD.
- Houses are only a small piece of the puzzle.
  People are homeless for many different reasons. Mental health and drug addiction are two big ones. Then there are the handicapped, those that can't hold down a job. Those that lost everything they had. And even those that just want to be homeless.
  People look at the homeless population though their own biases. Their framing is that people want a house.
  We could try and give a house to every one of these people and they wouldn't all take it. Some would destroy it and return to being homeless, either maliciously or as.a byproduct of their mental illness.
  We should house the ones we can, feed the ones we can, and treat the health of the ones we can. Those that want rehab should get it, but I don't think every drug addict out there wants to be cured. We should provide showers and clean clothes.
  We need to remove the stigma from the homeless.
  We need to make it easier for businesses to hire the homeless.
  And we could do all that, and more. And we'd still have homeless. We will always have homeless. There is no holistic solution that will magically house everyone.
  
  It's really easy for businesses to hire the homeless. They just don't want to. What we need to do is give them incentives to hire them.
  Also, if we're going to house people we need to just do it. Just give them shelter period. No strings attached. At least for a while until other programs can get them on their feet. I've watched people try to navigate the system to get a real roof over their heads the "right way" and it feels like it's just set up for them to inevitably fail. They have to jump through hoops, sometimes in really dehumanizing ways, and can lose it all again far too easily. The half assed nonsense we've mostly got going now is just fodder for small minded people to point at and say "see, they don't even want help!"
  
  The people who don't want houses aren't the issue. They can choose not to have one, fine. That's on them. Housing first has been very successful in certain European countries and cities. A safe place to live is the FIRST step to solving all of those issues, not the pot at the end of the life improvement rainbow.
  Just getting people who DO want to offer the street dramatically improves mental health issues, substance abuse issues, lessens their strain on healthcare systems, lowers crime rate... it's the obvious first step.
  
  Shelter is the biggest part of the problem. Everything else is just a smokescreen or a social service that would indeed be needed after they are housed.
- I wouldn't want to be housed either, if it came with a laundry list of stipulations, requirements, and more or less complete destruction of autonomy. I doubt anyone would turn down a free, no-questions-asked place to call a home. Somewhere safe to rest and begin working on the issues naturally.
  Housing first tends to more or less solve, or drastically reduce, homelessness and all the associated negative things - crime, substance abuse, medical issues, etc. Turns out it's easier to get all the other things sorted and get back to society when you have the bare minimum left.
  Sure there will probably be a very small percentage of people who just... don't want to. They're actually happy doing their thing, and that's not really a problem. But I'd strongly doubt it's less than a tenth of a percent of the current homeless population.
  
  Im not sure how large the number is only that in the decades I have volunteered with shelters that some exist.
  
  But I’d strongly doubt it’s less than a tenth of a percent of the current homeless population.
  Also by definition it's 0% of the current homeless population who is unhappy being homeless.
- Because... getting housing often means losing the community support they get from other homeless. If you get a house, but lose your friends and support system and the people who (eg) go shopping for you, then how is that a win?
  These people would happily be housed if it didn't mean yanking them away from their community.
  So the solution is to house entire homeless communities together and at the same time.
  
  Single room apartments with communal cooking, recreation and bathing areas seem like the most cost effective and amicable solution. You could even convert old prisons so they aren't dehumanizing.
  
  Why would they lose their community? All their homeless friends also get free housing, probably in the same building or nearby. Their friends who did shopping and shit for them, there's probably more reason than they're homeless that they're helping out. And if you're referring to state or private institutions, there's no reason not to keep those resources available.
  Further, the former homeless now has more opportunities to form even better communities, and start standing on their own. It's wins all the way around. Hell, it even ends up being CHEAPER for the average person, because crime tends to go down, medical expenses go down, etc.
- Facts not every unhoused person wants to be housed
  Is that really true? Answer that first.
  Then, if so, answer this: why? That's an important question.
  Do they just enjoy sleeping outside and being pissed on? Somehow I doubt it.
  
  In addition to what the other guy said:
  not wanting to give up drugs
  not wanting to give up pets
  not wanting to give up the support structure (services, charities, other homeless) that they've spent a long time building up
  straight up mental incapacity to live by themselves (schizophrenia, etc)
  
  Yes it is absolutely the case as I have seen in the thirty years I have volunteered with homeless shelters.
  Typically it is PTSD that sometimes leads to violent responses that makes these people want to be unhoused. We have a lot of vets in my country, The USA, who aren't getting the mental health care they need. Some of these people are on the streets because they do not trust themselves around loved ones.

But does it make more profit for the shareholders?
Yeah, nah, didn't think so. Try again, bleeding heart liberal communist America hater!

Its hard to find housing for non homeless at the moment... When is the government going to start incentivizing starter homes?
- lol never. Not enough profit in it and it lowers neighborhood average prices, ruining investment returns and reducing the potential profitability of mortgage-backed securities.
  Too much money is now in housing for the prices to fall - they can’t afford it.

Without the homeless who would the poor look down on. Raise them up and then you've got a large population at the bottom who might get a little squirrelly being at the bottom.

prison labor

Yes but then we don't get to punish and control them for being a nuisance. Do you really think we actually want to resolve the issue and improve people's lives? Get your head out of your ass.
- We're here to make MOTHERFUCKING MONEY!
  Nothing else matters- human lives, democracy, freedom, the continued survival of the planet...

The types of homeless people who are best helped by "housing first" type aid are not the same ones getting arrested/going to prison. Homeless people aren't some big monolithic group you can throw one solution at and have it work...
Even if you're going to overly simplify things you'd at the very least have two groups; the "entrenched" group (more visible and what people think of when talking about homelessness), and "invisible" group (the ones where the factors causing their homelessness are mostly financial).
- Yes, actually, they are. Most of the people getting arrested or causing problems are the ones who need housing the most. There is a near 0 chance to get any of that under control without safe and secure housing. First step is a home, and then they can start rebuilding. Ideally, we'll implement some other social structures, like transportation, medical, counseling, and job aid off the top of my head, but that's all downstream from housing.
  Most problems with the homeless come from those who have something going on, either a mental or emotional episode, or a need they have that they cannot meet realistically, legally. Just having a safe space to have your episode, without judgement from every asshole coming down the street will drastically decrease the odds of a negative event occurring.
  This also all applies to your invisible homeless group, why wouldn't it? They're homeless too, come get a home and get back on your feet.
  
  This also all applies to your invisible homeless group, why wouldn't it? They're homeless too, come get a home and get back on your feet.
  Absolutely it does! That's why those are the people you specifically target with things like a housing-first approach or just straight up money because that's all they need and can take it from there. I'm pretty sure they make up the majority of homeless as well so it can do a lot of good so the sooner we get on it the better. Check out this trial that was done in Vancouver for example that deliberately excludes the more entrenched people for that reason.
  article

- Only for the government. It costs a lot for property owners.

If we house them do they suddenly become not mentally ill? That's a huge problem in the homeless community alongside drug addiction. We need to house them in mental institutions and rehab centers.
- Not every homeless person is mentally ill. Even those that are weren’t necessarily that way before; being homeless is not great for your mental health. So giving them a place to live would be an unequivocal good for all of them where as what you’re suggesting only really helps a fraction of them.
  Reopen asylums if you want, but they aren’t going to stop being homeless once they finish their treatment. Unless what you really want is just a pseudo prison to lock them all up in so you don’t have to look at them.
  
  80% of the chronically homeless have life long mental health issues, and 60% of the chronically homeless have drug addictions.
- It all leads back to Reagan. Fucking monster.
- Finland already solved this. A regular ol house upfront and then aid in accessing social services and job placement helps way more than anything else. Here's an article if you're interested
  
  In Finland if you don't find housing you die
- Hey now, it's a grippy sock vacation! Get it right!
- There was a time that people with mental health problems and substance use issues could still afford a place to live. All that cheap housing seems to have gone away.
- Absolutely, some people need in patient medical care or rehab. But not everyone. And those often aren't permanent things. Usually in patient care is only temporarily needed and a group home is a better and more scalable long term solution.
  But the key is some people. Not everyone needs medical help. For one thing, there's a huge number of homeless people who aren't the stereotypical on the streets type, but rather living in shelters, friends' sofas, or their cars. Some homeless people do just need a little help and way to support themselves or a safety net.
  Some people are probably also using drugs to cope with being homeless. It certainly won't be the case for every person, but I'm sure some number can absolutely turn things around after they're no longer homeless (but not before). I mean, things are pretty bleak if you don't have a safe place to live and sustain yourself. Can you really fault people for not wanting to give up drugs that make that shitty situation slightly less shitty?
- Having the a stability of a home does improve mental health and addiction. Also, paying for access to these services along with housing will still be cheaper than for profit prison.
- If you house them they have a foundation upon which to build such things as working on their mental illnesses. Or getting over drugs. Or getting a job. Housing is the first step, not the last. People need a private, safe space they call their own FIRST, and the rest at least has a chance to follow.
- 100% agree. This would also filter out the people who are homeless by choice, who IMO don't deserve free housing.
  
  People that are dedicated to not living in a home aren't going to seek out programs and aid for housing. This is a thinly veiled excuse to continue dehumanizing homeless people. Housing is a human right and everyone should have access to one. If they don't want it they don't have to take it but that's no reason to exclude everybody else

The cruelty is the point, they should be punished for their lowlyness.

Only because prison is privatized. Gulags are cheap as hell!

Just do what my town does. Pay to put them in a hotel where it's $100 a night for tax payers, they don't get a kitchen or space, but at least it doesn't look like we're giving free homes to them!

It's not always the case of a bed existing, in NYC a lot of people would rather sleep on the street because the shelters are often unsafe or unsanitary. That's excluding people who have psychological issues who don't want to enter into the shelter system for different reasons.

But we won't get our free slaves that way, would we? /s

Yes yes, but then they would have freedome! And worse, I would have to see them!
/s

There are many more problems homeless have than not owning a home. Just providing shelter they can call home doesn't solve the rest.
- So let's not try to solve any of their problems, because there would still be other problems to solve?
  
  That's not what I said. However other issues might negate the solution of the first. Our government tried to solve issues in similar way and provided fully equipped container apartments with water, electricity and furniture. You'd think problem solved but in reality people just ripped everything out they could, sold it for cash and bolted. I suspect similar thing might happen, especially with those who have some sort of addiction.
  Solving their situation is a difficult challenge which is more complex than just not having home. Problem needs to be solved systematically and elsewhere. Homelessness is just a final state of long chain of issues.

It costs even less to do nothing...
- Even if you were right, do you want to live in a society that completely turns it's back on people who are on hard times?
  Kinda cringe
  
  Also. They're not even right. Having homeless people in an area is more expensive than just helping them.
  People seem to think homeless people deserve to be homeless without actually knowing a thing about them.
  
  No, it sucks.
- crime is a cost of doing nothing.
  "but not all crim-" we know.

What happens to money when you pay for that cost? Where does it go? Think harder
- Honey you need to take your own advice because that's extremely short sighted and you're prioritizing money over humans. Prisons are a constant drain on tax dollars that go towards a system designed to utilize as much as they can to profit off of prisoners. And when they leave they have an even harder time finding work or an apartment because now they have a record.
  Money spent in our communities goes back into the communities by hiring local labor and companies. And it makes the streets safer, cleaner, and these people safer and hopefully cleaner with access to one of the biggest hurdles for homeless individuals who do want to live in a different situation, an address, a place to store clean clothes, a place to shower. That is all a big hurdle in finding employment.
  
  I was making a point about why prison is more expensive, its because of who is getting paid