The Myth of Scarcity

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Umm... You lot realize there are places in the US outside of New York and San Francisco, right? Nice places, even? Heck, even in NYC (where I am originally from), you can find decent places to live if you're willing to leave Manhattan or Park Slope. There's nothing in SF that can't be fixed by a few dozen high-rises.

I'm not even talking about way the heck out in Montana, either. Philadelphia and Chicago (where I live) are affordable by comparison (to say nothing of their respective metro areas), while I'd say Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix are outright cheap. And you have even more options if you're willing to 'slum' it in little burgs like Indanapolis (pop 860k), Charlotte (860k), Las Vegas (640k), Nashville (670k), or Oklahoma City (640k).

Yes, housing looks unaffordable if you're restricting yourself to only a dozen or so of the most exclusive zip codes in the country. Meanwhile, life goes on elsewhere.

I'm living in Philadelphia. I live in one room of a row house with 2-3 other people, 1 bathroom, and 1 fridge. I can't afford better than that, and I have five years of work experience in a competitive field, the networking resources of my upper-middle-class white upbringing, and a bachelors degree.

There are lots of homeless people, and there are lots of empty homes.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

The problem is American have a twisted belief that you don't deserve to eat if you don't work.

America is a truly despicably wicked vile and evil nation.

I think it comes down to the belief that "There's no such thing as a free lunch". Namely, someone had to grow that plant or slaughter that animal to provide the lunch, someone had to transport it, had to package it, prepare it, what have you. The lunch costs something. If it's free to you, that means someone else paid for it. So if you go around giving food to everyone it's being paid for by the productive through their taxes or charity or the giving of time (someone transporting food for free for instance).

And the people who slaughter the animal, harvest the lettuce, etc. are mostly illegal immigrants paid barely-liveable wages who we deport when they get injured, but the people who write checks and polish a chair with their ass for hundreds of dollars an hour manage to convince people who make $15 an hour that people making $8 an hour make too much money.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

So why do we still allow people to go homeless and starve?

Interesting word to use.

I use it because we have enough food to feed everyone and enough houses for the homeless. We, as a society, have decided it's okay for people to starve and die of exposure.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Should some of the effort I expend ultimately help people not in a position to help themselves? Yes. Should some of it go to people who are happy to not bother because other people will do the hard work for them? No chance. If you're not prepared to be responsible for yourself don't expect anyone else to.

You're making an assumption that people starve and go homeless because they are lazy. An assumption that mainly exists to defend a position of moral apathy.

[Beastro]

So why do we still allow people to go homeless and starve?

Interesting word to use.

I use it because we have enough food to feed everyone and enough houses for the homeless. We, as a society, have decided it's okay for people to starve and die of exposure.

There's another side to it, the one about society allowing some to do what they want that you disagree with that boils down to being big brother and "won't someone think of the children!" thinking.

A lot of homeless do not want what you offer, they do not want to be a part of society and so long as they have their place to sleep and enough to eat the world should leave them the hell alone. They aren't all homeless, but they are a portion of it and mostly the older ones, oppose to the younger who are mostly drug addicts for one reason or another.

[Robovski]

Should we jail the homeless? Oh sorry, put them in a poor house/farm or workhouse which is essentially minimum security prison but a concept we ended that had previously existed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poorhouse

We also do not allow a sanitarium to keep people against their will nor do we compel them to take their medication (whether they can or cannot afford said medication is the sad fact that the US still can't get its act together over healthcare), medication which might keep them capable of holding down a job or keeping a home.

Society has decided we will not keep these people locked away.

[Riedquat]

Should some of the effort I expend ultimately help people not in a position to help themselves? Yes. Should some of it go to people who are happy to not bother because other people will do the hard work for them? No chance. If you're not prepared to be responsible for yourself don't expect anyone else to.

You're making an assumption that people starve and go homeless because they are lazy. An assumption that mainly exists to defend a position of moral apathy.

No I'm not. I explicitly said I'm not - "Should some of the effort I expend ultimately help people not in a position to help themselves? Yes."

What I said shows that I've no interest in helping the lazy, not that I generalise that all people who starve and go homeless do so because they are lazy.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Should some of the effort I expend ultimately help people not in a position to help themselves? Yes. Should some of it go to people who are happy to not bother because other people will do the hard work for them? No chance. If you're not prepared to be responsible for yourself don't expect anyone else to.

You're making an assumption that people starve and go homeless because they are lazy. An assumption that mainly exists to defend a position of moral apathy.

No I'm not. I explicitly said I'm not - "Should some of the effort I expend ultimately help people not in a position to help themselves? Yes."

What I said shows that I've no interest in helping the lazy, not that I generalise that all people who starve and go homeless do so because they are lazy.

Well the question is starvation and homelessness, so you seem to be at least inferring that some people starve to death or die of exposure because they just aren't trying hard enough.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Should we jail the homeless? Oh sorry, put them in a poor house/farm or workhouse which is essentially minimum security prison but a concept we ended that had previously existed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poorhouse

We also do not allow a sanitarium to keep people against their will nor do we compel them to take their medication (whether they can or cannot afford said medication is the sad fact that the US still can't get its act together over healthcare), medication which might keep them capable of holding down a job or keeping a home.

Society has decided we will not keep these people locked away.

No actually, we already have Poorhouses. They're called jails.

You get fined for sleeping on sidewalks or camping in public part or malicious lingering. Then you can't pay the fine so you're charged with something else. Then you get imprisoned and you have no money for bail.

Homelessness is already treated as a crime.

[Beastro]

Should we jail the homeless? Oh sorry, put them in a poor house/farm or workhouse which is essentially minimum security prison but a concept we ended that had previously existed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poorhouse

Poorhouses need to be brought back, but not as a form of punishment, but to give people a chance to sort themselves out and get a chance of reentering society if they want to.

Those that are vagabonds who want nothing to do with society can refuse to go on their way, those with addiction issues can be offered help for work so long as they follow societal rules and don't do things like steal given chances on a case by case basis while the only sticky wicket remains are those that are those dealing with homelessness and addiction do to chronic health issues that may not have any cure, let alone treatment.

What we ignore in Western society is the need to work and the sense of fulfillment and meaning it brings to our lives. If they can do menial things then it's up to them to accept it and get over any sense of entitlement they may feel, which is what A LOT are feeling here where I live expecting the city to build them apartments and give them free wifi..... because they're here, demand it and thus it's their right.

The ones pushing that angle are the young addicts too. They've been protesting with hammer and sickle flags outside city hall and passing out leaflets to the other homeless demanding they politicize the issue to get their way.

No actually, we already have Poorhouses. They're called jails.

You get fined for sleeping on sidewalks or camping in public part or malicious lingering. Then you can't pay the fine so you're charged with something else. Then you get imprisoned and you have no money for bail.

Homelessness is already treated as a crime.

There is no work angle with a jail, which for once would be an aspect of reformative prison policy I'd support.

What I said shows that I've no interest in helping the lazy, not that I generalise that all people who starve and go homeless do so because they are lazy.

You're mistaken that he wants to treat the problem of homelessness. The real issue here is wants to cure it.

It is not a disease, it is an aspect of the human condition and will exist no matter how hard society aims to eliminate it. That does NOT mean give up and not care, but recognize that many do not want help, don't want to be apart of society even if you disagree and others are too far gone or their demons cannot be treated to make it efficient for government on a local and national level to go to the extent required to even have a chance of possibly helping them.

For those that can be helped, they need to realize it's up to them to get better, to offer a hand and for us to not act as if we're allowing homelessness to exist as if we can live in a world free from it.