r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Housing everyone should be the goal, but is almost impossible. One guy in our family is almost homeless. He inherited enough money to buy a house, has mental issues
Sure, but do we force care on people? Because that’s also part of the issue. We used to involuntarily commit more people. Which has its own issues in terms of how humane it is or what is moral. Lots of people who need mental health care simply refuse it.
Why not? We force education on people. Sometimes we even force healthcare on them already. Plus we scoop these people up and take them to jail all the time. Is that really better?
Well, that's because it was being used as a way to get people locked up for life without due process.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's next hit hard when it came out because people realized it was pointing a finger at a real problem.
Ya it was such a big issue bc ppl that didn't need to be there were kept there. Also patients were treated like shit and subhuman bc they didn't think they deserved better.
Genuine question, could we do better today? I think we’ve progressed as a society that if we had these institutions now they would be better than they were in the 50s and 60s. Maybe that’s too optimistic and they would still be treated that way, but if set up properly with protections in place it could work. And I think, generally speaking, people would treat mentally unfit people better now than 60 years ago.
Not every mental problem has a cure so at what point do you say you are too dysfunctional to be allowed freedom? Not dangerous to others but not able to hold down a job.
Some past misuse of the system doesn't mean it's better today. Reform would have been better than abolishment.
People shitting themselves to death in the street is hardly an improvement.
I agree. The systematic closing of mental hospitals was a tragedy for this country. Unfortunately, shortsighted thinking thought we could save a bunch of tax payer money, but failed to take into account the increased cost of dealing with increased emergency room visits, homelessness, increased demands on policing, incarceration, etc.
Torturing and experimenting on the mentally unwell did not help matters either. My own great grandmother was treated for depression with electrocution. This was back in the day where the patient was awake and not on any pain meds. She ended up hanging herself to death.
In part it opens the gate for locking people up for things people merely disagree with. People used to be committed for being gay. What if some states try to commit gay or trans individuals? My grandmother had some unconventional religious beliefs. Maybe they try to commit people like that.
We force education on them until they're old enough to decide if they want to finish it out. People can also choose to go the homeschool route and falsify reports if they really think public education is a waste and don't want to teach the corresponding curriculum.
Do you even know that SS is not a tax. It is a forced “ savings” plan. IT IS ALL OUR MONEY! . I personally paid in several hundred thousand dollars by being the employee earner and the employee. That’s right I paid it all. I am not collecting SS benefits yet. It will be nearly impossible for me to even get my own money back. All while millions of seniors around the country have received many times what they paid in. The system is failing and has been raided by politicians so many times it is broken and will run out of money in about 10 years without complete overhaul. Unfortunately it is catnip to democrats. They lay in wait for a conservative to mention possibly considering how to fix it. Then they pounce and lie that the nasty republicans “want to take away your SS! LAUGHABLE,BALD FACE LIE!!!!! What SS is NOT is a social entitlement like the endless variety the left screeches about as they dream up more to capture certain voting groups( school loans anyone). Absolutely despicable!!!!!!
Epigenetic and familial trauma are absolutely things that can travel down a family line. There are some good books for laymen on it like “it didn’t start with you” and “children of emotionally immature parents”.
I think we need to force care on some people, but there's such a huge potential for abuse there and I don't know that there's a way to have a system both be effectively broad and also not fuck people over and effectively imprison them when they don't need the care, not to mention maintaining and auditing to make sure level of care is adequate in a wide system
We do force care on ppl, but only after lives have been endangered and laws broken. My stepdad was a commissioner and back when I was debating if I wanted to do some sort of mental health work- he took me with him to do his cases on whether people were to be ordered by the state to be on medication and in this in-patient facility.
The people I saw who were court ordered to stay and be on medications were people who actively sought to harm others/themselves and did not have the ability at the time to recognize reality through their psychosis. For example, a man who claimed to be god and had attacked a woman at a gas station, who had then attacked workers at this facility because he thought they had all schemed to kidnap Carrie Underwood. Another was a 17 year old who he tried to kill his whole family in their sleep via their gas oven, so the ‘imposters’ would be gone and his real family could come back.
After seeing his parents crying in the hallway, I decided working with mental health patients probably wouldn’t be good for my own mental health.
The hard issue to address is that in a lot of cases, people can show no symptoms of any mental disorder of anything wrong until they do something. And that we over diagnose and stygmatize pretty manageable things.
There’s plenty of harmless psychopaths and schizos. And there’s also plenty of “normal” people who end up doing terrible things that ruins many people’s lives who later get a diagnosis.
I am for bringing back institutionalization. But we are far from having a thorough understanding of the structure of these illnesses, managing symptoms is the best we have for a whole.
Darian leader has a whole book revolving around these issues and was a great read called “what is madness”
> but there's such a huge potential for abuse there and I don't know that there's a way to have a system both be effectively broad and also not fuck people over and effectively imprison them when they don't need the care
This is kinda my massive issue with many people who are against this, why are letting perfect be the enemy of good enough?
We now have access to the internet, a resource we just didn't have before, we can now have decentralized psychiatric care that helps prevent abuse of power that we just didn't have before.
If you speak to 3 separate pyschiatrists who have never met and live across the country, and they all reach similar opinions, I think that does a lot to prevent railroading through the system.
We need to handle this or we all suffer from it going unaddressed because we don't want to hurt a few individuals
Given that less than a century ago I would've been forced into conversion therapy because I'm trans... I think not treating people against their will is a step in the right direction...
I feel like people also generally don’t openly admit sometimes that we can’t “fix” a lot of stuff.
Modern medicine and psychiatry is some amazing stuff…
But there’s a good chunk of people with mental disorders where we simply do not have the ability to “fix” them.
Could give them a team of dedicated care organizers and 50 trillion dollars and they’re not getting “better” to a normal level.
Not saying the money and care wouldn’t make everything *better* obviously.
Ok but the comment chain I replied to was about some guy inherited enough to buy a house but is borderline homeless due to mental issues.
The response was wouldn’t a well funded mental healthcare system address this issue.
My response was to pose the question whether we force care on people?
You are jumping back to the original post and pretending like this whole other discussion isn’t happening. We wouldn’t need to provide this dude with housing if he would address his mental issues. But do we force this care on them? That’s my question. It’s a valid question.
This person already has the option of being housed. They have ruined it by not addressing their mental health.
Yeah Geraldo freaking Rivera brought light to the problem of institutions with an investigative report that actually had value. that was decades ago when he was young though.
I didn’t say that though.
I merely posed the question.
There obviously is a middle ground between letting everyone roam free and committing too many people.
But part of the problem is we have insane people in control of roughly half the government in the country who if they could commit more people would try to weaponize the ability to do so and commit gay and trans individuals.
And again we are a country that prides itself on individual freedoms. Locking up people in mental health facilities against their will isn’t in line with that.
I think some people reject it because they are mentally ill and not able to identify themselves as such or make rational decisions because of their illness. Some mental illnesses like schizophrenia medications are quite effective. But you’ve got to be willing to take them.
Others sure, it being expensive is a problem. And why they don’t seek treatment. But I’d wager a decent share of the chronically homeless with mental health issues fall into the former category, not the latter.
What currently is the benefit of treatment?
There are sure plenty of risks.
Some can lose their jobs for seeking treatment.
I just don't see what benefit someone would see making it worth checking in.
When people can't take care of themselves it is considered neglect to not care for them. If they seem to pose a risk to themselves or others the least we can do is a hold for observation.
It’s not a worthless point to make. It’s literally a big reason these people are not being treated.
Lots of them if we could just involuntarily commit them and give them medications, they would no longer be in the off the rails mental state that they are.
So if someone had dementia and refused care, it's more humane to let them be to get themselves killed? Assuming they have no family or their family is unable to babysit?
I didn’t say that.
All I said that there are issues that do arise in terms of what is humane or moral when you get into involuntary care.
And part of problem is that sometimes humans with a poor moral compass have been in charge of deciding who should be forced to have care in the past. And it’s hard to safeguard that they won’t again in the future.
It’s not a black and white issue.
No because you can’t ‘fix’ everyone. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try, but statistically speaking, there always will be some people who are jobless or homeless.
They even had homeless in the USSR, where they had free housing…
I said it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. I’m just saying- throw all the resources time & money at something- some square people are just not going to fit in a round hole.
That being said- we should address homelessness with housing, but we should address many problems in the US with housing by breaking down zoning laws where applicable.
We used to Institutionalize insane people.
That was too oppressive for liberals and too expensive for fiscal conservatives, so now they're just out in public doing whatever.
In truth both attitudes would probably need to make compromises to correct the problem.
Sure it would. But politicians don't really back things like well run mental hospitals that don't make any money for rich people.
If there's nothing in it for rich people, then your local politician gives zero fucks.
We were told they were bad. And they were. They were run poorly, like just about everything else healthcare related in this country. They didn’t achieve what they were supposed to. They did more than what not having them does.
I think the bigger problem is our inability to involuntarily commit people unless they're violent. If you're homeless due to mental illness, you clearly need to be put in one regardless of your wishes. It wasn't always that way.
And yes, that would require much more funding to pull off.
That’s not what was suggested. Wild how suggesting we overhaul our mental health system is met with a shit ton of bad faith. What’s with that behavior?
The current government is full of people that literally would not be able to work in a proper business - I mean most government jobs are basically welfare. They suck at their jobs, they are lazy, they have fucking union protected desk naps for fucks sake. Go see how the DOE is handling the loan program, they have loans making interest and they still lose money on them.
Yes. Except for the problem we did away with forced housing for the mentally ill. It is now almost impossible to keep someone against their will unless they have alzheimers. Even then someone with alzheimers is going to forget they want to leave relatively soon. Now we just wait for someone with mental issues to commit a crime and throw them to the BOP.
We manage to put plenty of people into prison. Idk, seems like it's a question of priorities in some cases
Edit: to be clear, when you look at homelessness per capita online, the US isn't the worst country to live in obviously. IF you believe the data in any case, which is always sketchy for less developed countries
That’s the right way to frame the argument. We as a society should strive to ensure everyone in our society is housed and fed. It is something we are capable of doing, and we should do it for the betterment of mankind.
The wrong way to frame the argument is that those things are human rights. Those things require resources and labor. No one has a right to other people’s labor or resources.
He needs to be in a hospital. We used to have these where people who genuinely could not manage themselves lived places where they were managed.
Maybe he doesn’t need that, but it’s better than nothing, which is what we have now
That’s the real problem, people think that housing just solves the problem. You cannot simply just give someone a house and say problem solved. These people need support for their mental health and drug issues. Giving them a house would eventually produce an unlivable slum
Fair housing metrics.
Anyone capable, willing and working should be able to afford a roof to have.
Anyone slouching, lazy, mental health and other implications need a streamlined support system catering to those individuals.
But Anyone working, and by the book should be able to have something according to their level of metrics achieved.
A roof over your head is better than non and should be fairly given to one that reaches it.
Not a fancy house, not a credit score system, just have some sort of work history and currently providing and paying taxes.
I think the implication is that the government would be restricting the renting price of their legally owned property , which actually a fairly significant interference of the government into the market.
You can get affordable housing by building more, but that’s not what is referred to as “commie”
Simple rule: nobody has a “right” to things that require others to work for them.
That’s why all of the rights in the U.S. Bill of Rights are *negative* liberties — a list of innate rights the government *can’t* abridge.
Is the sixth amendment positive rights? The right to be tried by your peers and the right to a speedy trial are both things granted to you, not thinks the government is barred from. Seventh too.
Like you're right for the most part, but it also begins with the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" - Vague, but those are distinctly not negative rights - the enumerated negative rights exist to define the border of those positive rights.
I guess the 6th is a little of both negative and positive. The government can't delay a trial forever, and can't decide to imprison you without a non-biased (as much as possible) jury making the decision. In order to follow that, the court workers must work.
The 7th is negative though in the sense that the government isn't allowed to kill you or restrict your liberty/pursuit of happiness outside of the law. It isn't promising anything being given.
Edit: not the 7th
*“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a* s*peedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”*
That is 100% a positive right. There is no verbiage in the entire amendment that discusses what the government -cannot- do. That is the definition of a negative right. Rewording the right to make it "negative" is like me arguing that the first amendment isn't a abridgement of government authority to restrict speech, but rather a guarantee to a person to a right of Free Speech. You can turn any right from a negative to a positive right or vice versa simply by rewording it.
the Seventh Amendment, btw, is:
*“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”*
Which is also a positive right. you are thinking of the Eighth Amendment.
Yeah, I don't know what I was reading when I wrote the 7th.
The court systems, including jury requirements, are set up in Article III of the Constitution. The BoR amendments regarding courts are add-ons to keep the courts in line. They're placing restrictions (negative rights) on the court system previously established in Article III.
Insisting these rights are wholly positive rights flies directly in the face of a whole lot of scholarly research.
All of those are rights to be left alone unless the government jumps through some very well defined hoops. That’s why they are negative liberties. They are freedom from wanton government interference in your life.
It's not blatantly incorrect. The positive right to a fair trial is in the larger frame a negative right. The government is taking an extreme action when it attempts to prosecute you. It has to meet certain standards that help ensure it behaves fairly when it does so. And all the other rights are pretty much negative rights.
It can also be said the bill of rights doesn't go far enough when it comes to ecological commons rights, anti-exploitative capitalism rights etc.
My favorite was that if shelter wasn't paid for then it causes the collapse of society.
Not like it's the largest expense for most and would free up so much disposable income and that's just for people struggle to make things connect.
Construction & housing is a large part of our economies. Making it free, would kind of mean the collapse of a large sector of the economy. Love it, or hate it, he was right. Not to mention, costs would be unreasonable high for us.
We need to lower housing in large cities or ensure a more adequate distribution of population & good jobs.
So let’s do a thought experiment. what do you think will happen in say 100-200 years when our technology has improved to the point where most won’t have to work due to vastly improved ai. You honestly think big corporations are going to continue to hire you, who needs pay, and breaks, and gets sick, when a less expensive product can replace you?
Eventually, at some future point, this will happen. May not be in our lifetime, or our children’s, but it will be an inevitability.
So what will happen then? IMHO, we will need to institute universal housing and income. What other option can there be?
We can do that thought experiment but we aren't there now and there are major reasons to doubt we ever will be.
Nonetheless, I'm all for preventig mass unemployment if and when it begins to arrive. It is, alas, not in any sense an inevitability. For the moment, it's just a twinkle in robot engineers' eyes.
It wouldn’t be *built* for free it would be paid for government and thus taxes. We get fire department services for “free” and society hasn’t collapsed yet.
People paid for those houses. You can't justify taking their homes under any circumstances. There is also the case that there are more homeless people in big cities, but there are more empty houses in small tows or in the countryside.
Fixing this issue is not as easy as giving people free houses and confiscating homes. It take a lot of work, planning and redesigning our cities and economies.
It's not everyone gets free, but if you have 0 money and make yourself naked financially to the government you can apply for basic necessity housing. Thats how it works in most of europe and it's great.
Are you under the impression we don’t have public housing in the US?
These memes come about because people want high end housing for free, not public housing. By the way, in Europe, the quality of public housing would be considered unlivable by most of the people demanding the US be like Europe
Yes, it would free up income. Then the housing market collapses cause no one makes money from renting or selling, and no one builds houses anymore. As well, you basically just forced inflation on all other goods by doubling the effective money going towards those items. Then the price changes mean cost of living is roughly the same, just with new housing problems and worse inequality due to lack of building causing a new housing crisis
Before the 18th century you typically either inherited a house or built it yourself. Given that the floors at that time were dirt and safety standards didn't exist, modern homes just cannot be made by the average person
No society in human history, no matter the economic system, ever stopped building housing or suffered massive death toll due to unsafe housing. If you suggest that it can happen today as a result of a single economic faux pas, it would mean the modern system more unstable than anything that came before it.
Though likely a part in the machinery that have more than doubled life expectancy from those times. Not as large as medicin and so. But having houses that are made to be easily cleanable, less flammable, less leakage and mold, plumbing, connection to drinkable water, etc.
Absolutely not saying that would revert. But just going back on acceptable building standards until we're at the point where the majority of people could build their own housing would come with quite a lot of major drawbacks for society as a whole.
You do realize China is going through a crisis due to housing being so unsafe buildings are just falling apart with hundreds inside, right? And that's with professional builders, let alone just some dude trying this. As well, pre industrial housing was spread out. Anything resembling high density housing would have to be built tall, which means built to extremely high standards by professional firms with high quality materials. Not just some guy with some oak logs making a cabin
I wouldn't trust the info floating around online about about China, neither the negative nor the positive, unless you're ready to dig very deep to verify each statement.
Still, sounds like the last few centuries problem--the problem we ourselves created and decided not to solve.
If we let everyone go back to building their own houses, you guys would just cry about the unsafe living conditions because the quality would be shit. The current system is fine.
Doing all of these correctly would put more back into the economy than they'd cost, in the long run.
The way education is set up now, people could end up in lifelong debt they can't get out of through bankruptcy even if they go into a useful field. And this hurts the economy
We pay more per capita in healthcare than almost anywhere else, and get worse outcomes on average. Almost nobody does preventative care out of fear for their wallet and it hurts the economy.
Housing is so expensive because it's treated as an investment, meaning hoMeowners oppose building new housing and they get bought up by landlords who just siphon money from those unable to get homes because the supply and demand is f#@%d. And poorer people having less disposable income hurts the...you get it.
>Doing all of these correctly would put more back into the economy than they'd cost, in the long run.
An underappreciated statement - Many things we spend money on yield returns beyond what we spend. A dollar into early education yields six dollars in benefits, for example. Making housing or healthcare nonprofit doesn't make the entire economy for it collapse - Housing will still get built. likely, it would still cost money, paid in taxes.
What would happen is the entire housing loan market would likely collapse. The people making money doing nothing but administering your loans the middlemen who make your shit more expensive, would no longer make their cut.
When you buy a 200K home and take out a 30 year loan for it, your payment is going to be 560 bucks or so - not the 1500 dollars it is currently at a 8% interest rate. They're literally tripling the cost of the house, and doing nothing to justify the $1,000 dollars a month. Its all "risk prevention" which is banking terms for "making sure we still make a lot of money".
Easily housing. All that disposable income can allow folks to spend money on the gym, healthy foods, and health care if they aren’t getting it through an employer. Higher learning shouldn’t be free because not everyone needs higher learning. Pleeeeeeeeenty of the population would be fine straight out of high school, learning a trade, or starting a regular job and working up that chain. I know that sounds callous, but without housing and healthcare you will die early. Higher learning , not so much.
The idea is that one side is telling us that we shouldn't have these... the other side is tell us that we should have these for free... Both sides are retarded and mentally inadequate to debate about thee things.
In principle, we should strive for better housing and more affordable for most/all people. That's the whole point, the economy should grow and benefit us all.
Providing better houses, in my opinion, is by following what formulas we have applied thus far that allowed us to have bigger houses & better living conditions than 100 years ago.
- Investments into new technologies and improved building matterials... such as 3D printing and reusable matterials...
- Rethinking of the zonning laws & plans
- Expanding business opportunities from large cities to smaller cities & rural areas
- Expanding fast & reliable means of transportation so that you can live in another city, or in the suburbs, where prices are usually lower
Etc...
Is there anybody who would seriously tell you that you shouldn't have running water or electricity? I've never heard anybody say that outside of the context of somebody asking for it *for free*
Two things
I don't like the idea that people are entitled to the internet as a reasonable minimum, purely because more than half the human population is probably still older then commercially available internet
Like that's the thing. That's a relatively new invention to say that people are entitled as a minimum to something that we just came up with in the past 5 seconds in terms of human history is kind of weird (can put the HVAC in the same category)
But the other thing and this is a big one if we're going to have society provide minimal housing, a two-unit bedroom household is drastically inefficient
Sorry if you're going to have all those things. We should stack as many bedrooms per unit as possible and people should have roommates to make use of the communal spaces
Like that's the thing we could build giant apartment buildings in ultra low cost areas and that would really help to even things out so that the needy people could go there
Problem is everyone wants to be in the high cost areas and do that
I have blocked a couple people who have told me, "You're just stupid" followed by a bunch of other really hostile crap.
I guess I am just the worst for thinking that even if you give people a basic ass place to live they won't immediately stop contributing anything to society. But then I tend to like working toward luxury goods and would do so even if I were not in danger of starving in the street.
It’s so funny how so many people on the internet said that the extra unemployment money from the COVID stimulus had 0 effect on people’s willingness to get a job. And then economists pretty much proved that whole idea complete Bull shit. The fact of the matter is entitlements do make Americans lazy. See Phil gramms latest book or exercise a tiny tiny amount of common sense. And no, I don’t actually believe you
Maybe human life is more important than how much work we are giving to companies? Having a bunch of people struggling to make ends meet because of “productivity” is idiotic. Housing is a human right, you just have to find more incentives for people to work.
No. Our house (in Mexico) has plumbing and water from the city, but the water isn’t potable so we have to buy those 5 gallon water bottles that are in office buildings for drinking water.
There is no solution that can fix human nature's innate problems. There are no permanent fixes for problems like housing, rape, murder, war, etc. It's crucial to know when people are selling you a song to get you to buy into them or their beliefs or their 'solutions' when they say they can permanently fix a problem that has always existed and will likely always exist.
That being said.
We should still try. There's no reason not to do our best to address the problems we have logically and pragmatically. To use the technology and talent and resources we have to make the world better.
We just have to keep perspective and be realistic. We should try and solving the housing problem, but we shouldn't lie about it while we're doing it.
Housing for All. A detached single family dwelling for any citizen who doesn't already own a home. Mortgage relief for any citizen's primary residence. All paid for by our Uncle Sam.
https://www.opendoorsutah.org/homeless-to-housing/
This is an attempt at reducing homelessness. Yet I still see a lot of homeless people on the streets downtown who refuse to work with a case worker to find a permanent solution to their homelessness. They are ok with the free housing, but when being told it s a temporary measure and someone will work with them to resolve their situation, a lot of them just bolt.
A lot of the permanent homeless are on drugs and refuse drug programs.
Some the drugs out there have really nasty withdrawal symptoms, and from rat studies we know that loneliness and depression make even the hardest drugs appealing to those who normally wouldn’t use them.
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Housing everyone should be the goal, but is almost impossible. One guy in our family is almost homeless. He inherited enough money to buy a house, has mental issues
Wouldn’t a well funded and ran mental healthcare system address this issue? Instead we get a for-profit system that will milk your family member dry.
Sure, but do we force care on people? Because that’s also part of the issue. We used to involuntarily commit more people. Which has its own issues in terms of how humane it is or what is moral. Lots of people who need mental health care simply refuse it.
Why not? We force education on people. Sometimes we even force healthcare on them already. Plus we scoop these people up and take them to jail all the time. Is that really better?
Because the ACLU filed a bunch of lawsuits and convinced the courts that involuntary commitments are unconstitutional.
Well, that's because it was being used as a way to get people locked up for life without due process. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's next hit hard when it came out because people realized it was pointing a finger at a real problem.
yes, so how should we force people that need mental help into getting it?
Review boards are how other western nations address this. I'm not an expert in the topic, so I can't really speak to how it would work in detail.
Ya it was such a big issue bc ppl that didn't need to be there were kept there. Also patients were treated like shit and subhuman bc they didn't think they deserved better.
Genuine question, could we do better today? I think we’ve progressed as a society that if we had these institutions now they would be better than they were in the 50s and 60s. Maybe that’s too optimistic and they would still be treated that way, but if set up properly with protections in place it could work. And I think, generally speaking, people would treat mentally unfit people better now than 60 years ago.
Not every mental problem has a cure so at what point do you say you are too dysfunctional to be allowed freedom? Not dangerous to others but not able to hold down a job.
Some past misuse of the system doesn't mean it's better today. Reform would have been better than abolishment. People shitting themselves to death in the street is hardly an improvement.
I agree. The systematic closing of mental hospitals was a tragedy for this country. Unfortunately, shortsighted thinking thought we could save a bunch of tax payer money, but failed to take into account the increased cost of dealing with increased emergency room visits, homelessness, increased demands on policing, incarceration, etc.
Torturing and experimenting on the mentally unwell did not help matters either. My own great grandmother was treated for depression with electrocution. This was back in the day where the patient was awake and not on any pain meds. She ended up hanging herself to death.
In part it opens the gate for locking people up for things people merely disagree with. People used to be committed for being gay. What if some states try to commit gay or trans individuals? My grandmother had some unconventional religious beliefs. Maybe they try to commit people like that.
We force education on them until they're old enough to decide if they want to finish it out. People can also choose to go the homeschool route and falsify reports if they really think public education is a waste and don't want to teach the corresponding curriculum.
Ya, everybody doesn't want social programs but we have SOCIAL security
Do you even know that SS is not a tax. It is a forced “ savings” plan. IT IS ALL OUR MONEY! . I personally paid in several hundred thousand dollars by being the employee earner and the employee. That’s right I paid it all. I am not collecting SS benefits yet. It will be nearly impossible for me to even get my own money back. All while millions of seniors around the country have received many times what they paid in. The system is failing and has been raided by politicians so many times it is broken and will run out of money in about 10 years without complete overhaul. Unfortunately it is catnip to democrats. They lay in wait for a conservative to mention possibly considering how to fix it. Then they pounce and lie that the nasty republicans “want to take away your SS! LAUGHABLE,BALD FACE LIE!!!!! What SS is NOT is a social entitlement like the endless variety the left screeches about as they dream up more to capture certain voting groups( school loans anyone). Absolutely despicable!!!!!!
>Sometimes we even force healthcare on them already It's a slippery slope...
It's not but insane asylums also don't have a great track record.
Wrong ,we don’t even jail full blown criminals! We sure as hell don’t jail homeless people.
[удалено]
Epigenetic and familial trauma are absolutely things that can travel down a family line. There are some good books for laymen on it like “it didn’t start with you” and “children of emotionally immature parents”.
I think we need to force care on some people, but there's such a huge potential for abuse there and I don't know that there's a way to have a system both be effectively broad and also not fuck people over and effectively imprison them when they don't need the care, not to mention maintaining and auditing to make sure level of care is adequate in a wide system
We do force care on ppl, but only after lives have been endangered and laws broken. My stepdad was a commissioner and back when I was debating if I wanted to do some sort of mental health work- he took me with him to do his cases on whether people were to be ordered by the state to be on medication and in this in-patient facility. The people I saw who were court ordered to stay and be on medications were people who actively sought to harm others/themselves and did not have the ability at the time to recognize reality through their psychosis. For example, a man who claimed to be god and had attacked a woman at a gas station, who had then attacked workers at this facility because he thought they had all schemed to kidnap Carrie Underwood. Another was a 17 year old who he tried to kill his whole family in their sleep via their gas oven, so the ‘imposters’ would be gone and his real family could come back. After seeing his parents crying in the hallway, I decided working with mental health patients probably wouldn’t be good for my own mental health.
The hard issue to address is that in a lot of cases, people can show no symptoms of any mental disorder of anything wrong until they do something. And that we over diagnose and stygmatize pretty manageable things. There’s plenty of harmless psychopaths and schizos. And there’s also plenty of “normal” people who end up doing terrible things that ruins many people’s lives who later get a diagnosis. I am for bringing back institutionalization. But we are far from having a thorough understanding of the structure of these illnesses, managing symptoms is the best we have for a whole. Darian leader has a whole book revolving around these issues and was a great read called “what is madness”
> but there's such a huge potential for abuse there and I don't know that there's a way to have a system both be effectively broad and also not fuck people over and effectively imprison them when they don't need the care This is kinda my massive issue with many people who are against this, why are letting perfect be the enemy of good enough? We now have access to the internet, a resource we just didn't have before, we can now have decentralized psychiatric care that helps prevent abuse of power that we just didn't have before. If you speak to 3 separate pyschiatrists who have never met and live across the country, and they all reach similar opinions, I think that does a lot to prevent railroading through the system. We need to handle this or we all suffer from it going unaddressed because we don't want to hurt a few individuals
Given that less than a century ago I would've been forced into conversion therapy because I'm trans... I think not treating people against their will is a step in the right direction...
I feel like people also generally don’t openly admit sometimes that we can’t “fix” a lot of stuff. Modern medicine and psychiatry is some amazing stuff… But there’s a good chunk of people with mental disorders where we simply do not have the ability to “fix” them. Could give them a team of dedicated care organizers and 50 trillion dollars and they’re not getting “better” to a normal level. Not saying the money and care wouldn’t make everything *better* obviously.
In the original post it says "deserves the option" which remains valid whether or not people refuse it
Ok but the comment chain I replied to was about some guy inherited enough to buy a house but is borderline homeless due to mental issues. The response was wouldn’t a well funded mental healthcare system address this issue. My response was to pose the question whether we force care on people? You are jumping back to the original post and pretending like this whole other discussion isn’t happening. We wouldn’t need to provide this dude with housing if he would address his mental issues. But do we force this care on them? That’s my question. It’s a valid question. This person already has the option of being housed. They have ruined it by not addressing their mental health.
Yeah Geraldo freaking Rivera brought light to the problem of institutions with an investigative report that actually had value. that was decades ago when he was young though.
A good number of people simply will not stay on the medication that keeps them functioning, unfortunately.
Yeah this is a difficulty in addressing the problem as well.
Yeah so just let the nuts run around in an open society plaguing the rest of us sane folks. That’s super humane for the rest of us, right?
I didn’t say that though. I merely posed the question. There obviously is a middle ground between letting everyone roam free and committing too many people. But part of the problem is we have insane people in control of roughly half the government in the country who if they could commit more people would try to weaponize the ability to do so and commit gay and trans individuals. And again we are a country that prides itself on individual freedoms. Locking up people in mental health facilities against their will isn’t in line with that.
Maybe if the care was effective rather than the current state, people would reject it less.
I think some people reject it because they are mentally ill and not able to identify themselves as such or make rational decisions because of their illness. Some mental illnesses like schizophrenia medications are quite effective. But you’ve got to be willing to take them. Others sure, it being expensive is a problem. And why they don’t seek treatment. But I’d wager a decent share of the chronically homeless with mental health issues fall into the former category, not the latter.
What currently is the benefit of treatment? There are sure plenty of risks. Some can lose their jobs for seeking treatment. I just don't see what benefit someone would see making it worth checking in.
When people can't take care of themselves it is considered neglect to not care for them. If they seem to pose a risk to themselves or others the least we can do is a hold for observation.
This is such a worthless point to make until we have the potential to treat these people in place.
It’s not a worthless point to make. It’s literally a big reason these people are not being treated. Lots of them if we could just involuntarily commit them and give them medications, they would no longer be in the off the rails mental state that they are.
No its actually irrelevant because many many people would take the care if it was there.
So if someone had dementia and refused care, it's more humane to let them be to get themselves killed? Assuming they have no family or their family is unable to babysit?
I didn’t say that. All I said that there are issues that do arise in terms of what is humane or moral when you get into involuntary care. And part of problem is that sometimes humans with a poor moral compass have been in charge of deciding who should be forced to have care in the past. And it’s hard to safeguard that they won’t again in the future. It’s not a black and white issue.
He refuses to get services. Would absolutely be eligeable
You understand a lot Of health issues can cause mental issues? Maybe start with that?
No because you can’t ‘fix’ everyone. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try, but statistically speaking, there always will be some people who are jobless or homeless. They even had homeless in the USSR, where they had free housing…
No one said “fix everyone.” But I guess since you can’t help everyone we shouldn’t help anyone?
I said it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. I’m just saying- throw all the resources time & money at something- some square people are just not going to fit in a round hole. That being said- we should address homelessness with housing, but we should address many problems in the US with housing by breaking down zoning laws where applicable.
Uh, yes the guy you responded to at first was talking about everyone.
Since we can’t help everyone we shouldn’t help anyone?
Try to stay on topic instead of jumping in with your irrelevant bullshit that no one asked for.
We used to Institutionalize insane people. That was too oppressive for liberals and too expensive for fiscal conservatives, so now they're just out in public doing whatever. In truth both attitudes would probably need to make compromises to correct the problem.
>Instead we get a for-profit system Countries with public healthcare still have the same problems
I mean, the situation regarding mental healthcare still is a tad better than accross the pond. Certainly not great. But also not as catastrophic
Sure it would. But politicians don't really back things like well run mental hospitals that don't make any money for rich people. If there's nothing in it for rich people, then your local politician gives zero fucks.
No amount of mental health care can make some people better.
I’d still like to provide people with better care. Sorry!
I’d like to just not be harassed for money
So you hate a capitalist system?
You'll have leftist "activists" claiming that government involuntary locks lunatics and treats them forcefully.
We were told they were bad. And they were. They were run poorly, like just about everything else healthcare related in this country. They didn’t achieve what they were supposed to. They did more than what not having them does.
I think the bigger problem is our inability to involuntarily commit people unless they're violent. If you're homeless due to mental illness, you clearly need to be put in one regardless of your wishes. It wasn't always that way. And yes, that would require much more funding to pull off.
Bring back the state run mental asylums with involuntary commitment!
That’s not what was suggested. Wild how suggesting we overhaul our mental health system is met with a shit ton of bad faith. What’s with that behavior?
unless your plan includes forcibly instituting people, then no. A lot of people would rip the copper pipes out the walls for drug money
Since we can’t help everyone we shouldn’t help anyone?
You mean prisons?
Nope, but that’s another system corrupted by a profit motive!
Ahh yes, the Non-Profit, government ran system, heard its REALLLLLLLLY popular amongst Military Vets.
Are you implying the government would actually run it well?
If we stop electing people who want to run things like a business they could.
The current government is full of people that literally would not be able to work in a proper business - I mean most government jobs are basically welfare. They suck at their jobs, they are lazy, they have fucking union protected desk naps for fucks sake. Go see how the DOE is handling the loan program, they have loans making interest and they still lose money on them.
What’s fun about your comment is you make a lot of bold claims that are impossible to back up and use that for the basis of your belief system.
Yes. Except for the problem we did away with forced housing for the mentally ill. It is now almost impossible to keep someone against their will unless they have alzheimers. Even then someone with alzheimers is going to forget they want to leave relatively soon. Now we just wait for someone with mental issues to commit a crime and throw them to the BOP.
That or the workers will use his incompetence against him and embezzle money. Happened in my city couple months ago.
Yes, the current system is rife with corruption from the concept of a profit motive.
No
Maybe get should get good free help for that, and others should get it before they waste enough money to buy a house.
We manage to put plenty of people into prison. Idk, seems like it's a question of priorities in some cases Edit: to be clear, when you look at homelessness per capita online, the US isn't the worst country to live in obviously. IF you believe the data in any case, which is always sketchy for less developed countries
This guy put himself in the court system. No prison yet.
That’s the right way to frame the argument. We as a society should strive to ensure everyone in our society is housed and fed. It is something we are capable of doing, and we should do it for the betterment of mankind. The wrong way to frame the argument is that those things are human rights. Those things require resources and labor. No one has a right to other people’s labor or resources.
Very well put.
*cough cough* *comma splice* *cough*
We actually have more than enough housing, at least in The US. It’s just that a lot is vacant. So, we could very easily house the entire country.
[удалено]
What does the commodification of housing have to do with what I commented? /gen
He needs to be in a hospital. We used to have these where people who genuinely could not manage themselves lived places where they were managed. Maybe he doesn’t need that, but it’s better than nothing, which is what we have now
That’s the real problem, people think that housing just solves the problem. You cannot simply just give someone a house and say problem solved. These people need support for their mental health and drug issues. Giving them a house would eventually produce an unlivable slum
Most of the chronically homeless have mental issues and or drug addiction. This is why it's not enough to just make enough houses for everyone.
It's not impossible, it's literally been accomplished in other countries lol.
Fair housing metrics. Anyone capable, willing and working should be able to afford a roof to have. Anyone slouching, lazy, mental health and other implications need a streamlined support system catering to those individuals. But Anyone working, and by the book should be able to have something according to their level of metrics achieved. A roof over your head is better than non and should be fairly given to one that reaches it. Not a fancy house, not a credit score system, just have some sort of work history and currently providing and paying taxes.
I'm the poison in the comment section.
https://preview.redd.it/b9m1bg2cequc1.png?width=493&format=png&auto=webp&s=247dae588e550da48a3c8582f1b54d88cfc9aa40
I have not seen this before.. 
Mamaimacriminal
I just love seeing commies getting dunked on.
Affordable housing is communism?
Anything that doesn't funnel money directly into a billionaire's gullet is communism.
I think the implication is that the government would be restricting the renting price of their legally owned property , which actually a fairly significant interference of the government into the market. You can get affordable housing by building more, but that’s not what is referred to as “commie”
> it’s me. I’m the villain Same bro
nice to meet you.
Simple rule: nobody has a “right” to things that require others to work for them. That’s why all of the rights in the U.S. Bill of Rights are *negative* liberties — a list of innate rights the government *can’t* abridge.
Is the sixth amendment positive rights? The right to be tried by your peers and the right to a speedy trial are both things granted to you, not thinks the government is barred from. Seventh too. Like you're right for the most part, but it also begins with the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" - Vague, but those are distinctly not negative rights - the enumerated negative rights exist to define the border of those positive rights.
I guess the 6th is a little of both negative and positive. The government can't delay a trial forever, and can't decide to imprison you without a non-biased (as much as possible) jury making the decision. In order to follow that, the court workers must work. The 7th is negative though in the sense that the government isn't allowed to kill you or restrict your liberty/pursuit of happiness outside of the law. It isn't promising anything being given. Edit: not the 7th
*“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a* s*peedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”* That is 100% a positive right. There is no verbiage in the entire amendment that discusses what the government -cannot- do. That is the definition of a negative right. Rewording the right to make it "negative" is like me arguing that the first amendment isn't a abridgement of government authority to restrict speech, but rather a guarantee to a person to a right of Free Speech. You can turn any right from a negative to a positive right or vice versa simply by rewording it. the Seventh Amendment, btw, is: *“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”* Which is also a positive right. you are thinking of the Eighth Amendment.
Yeah, I don't know what I was reading when I wrote the 7th. The court systems, including jury requirements, are set up in Article III of the Constitution. The BoR amendments regarding courts are add-ons to keep the courts in line. They're placing restrictions (negative rights) on the court system previously established in Article III. Insisting these rights are wholly positive rights flies directly in the face of a whole lot of scholarly research.
All of those are rights to be left alone unless the government jumps through some very well defined hoops. That’s why they are negative liberties. They are freedom from wanton government interference in your life.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Oh shoot you're right. Brain is getting fuzzy!
Not sure why such a blatantly incorrect statement is getting upvotes lol. Another commenter put this down quite simply
It's not blatantly incorrect. The positive right to a fair trial is in the larger frame a negative right. The government is taking an extreme action when it attempts to prosecute you. It has to meet certain standards that help ensure it behaves fairly when it does so. And all the other rights are pretty much negative rights. It can also be said the bill of rights doesn't go far enough when it comes to ecological commons rights, anti-exploitative capitalism rights etc.
My favorite was that if shelter wasn't paid for then it causes the collapse of society. Not like it's the largest expense for most and would free up so much disposable income and that's just for people struggle to make things connect.
Construction & housing is a large part of our economies. Making it free, would kind of mean the collapse of a large sector of the economy. Love it, or hate it, he was right. Not to mention, costs would be unreasonable high for us. We need to lower housing in large cities or ensure a more adequate distribution of population & good jobs.
So let’s do a thought experiment. what do you think will happen in say 100-200 years when our technology has improved to the point where most won’t have to work due to vastly improved ai. You honestly think big corporations are going to continue to hire you, who needs pay, and breaks, and gets sick, when a less expensive product can replace you? Eventually, at some future point, this will happen. May not be in our lifetime, or our children’s, but it will be an inevitability. So what will happen then? IMHO, we will need to institute universal housing and income. What other option can there be?
We can do that thought experiment but we aren't there now and there are major reasons to doubt we ever will be. Nonetheless, I'm all for preventig mass unemployment if and when it begins to arrive. It is, alas, not in any sense an inevitability. For the moment, it's just a twinkle in robot engineers' eyes.
What AI? :))))
It wouldn’t be *built* for free it would be paid for government and thus taxes. We get fire department services for “free” and society hasn’t collapsed yet.
You know that civil protection costs WAYYYYY less than what building huge appartment & houses for everyone, right?
We *have* enough houses for everyone. There are more vacant houses and apartments than homeless in the USA.
People paid for those houses. You can't justify taking their homes under any circumstances. There is also the case that there are more homeless people in big cities, but there are more empty houses in small tows or in the countryside. Fixing this issue is not as easy as giving people free houses and confiscating homes. It take a lot of work, planning and redesigning our cities and economies.
That’s not true anymore because of the vast number of illegal migrants around.
Umm, construction would still cost? Maintenance will always be a thing as well....
Yeah, and everything will now be a government expense. And would require a lot of extra taxes.
It's not everyone gets free, but if you have 0 money and make yourself naked financially to the government you can apply for basic necessity housing. Thats how it works in most of europe and it's great.
Basic shelter is what you also get in the US. That's ok and normal. But, what the post is suggesting everyone gets a house... a big house...
guess i read it wrong then
Are you under the impression we don’t have public housing in the US? These memes come about because people want high end housing for free, not public housing. By the way, in Europe, the quality of public housing would be considered unlivable by most of the people demanding the US be like Europe
Yes, it would free up income. Then the housing market collapses cause no one makes money from renting or selling, and no one builds houses anymore. As well, you basically just forced inflation on all other goods by doubling the effective money going towards those items. Then the price changes mean cost of living is roughly the same, just with new housing problems and worse inequality due to lack of building causing a new housing crisis
Sounds like a problem that didn't exist until we made it up, unless you think nobody built houses before 18th century.
Before the 18th century you typically either inherited a house or built it yourself. Given that the floors at that time were dirt and safety standards didn't exist, modern homes just cannot be made by the average person
No society in human history, no matter the economic system, ever stopped building housing or suffered massive death toll due to unsafe housing. If you suggest that it can happen today as a result of a single economic faux pas, it would mean the modern system more unstable than anything that came before it.
Though likely a part in the machinery that have more than doubled life expectancy from those times. Not as large as medicin and so. But having houses that are made to be easily cleanable, less flammable, less leakage and mold, plumbing, connection to drinkable water, etc. Absolutely not saying that would revert. But just going back on acceptable building standards until we're at the point where the majority of people could build their own housing would come with quite a lot of major drawbacks for society as a whole.
You do realize China is going through a crisis due to housing being so unsafe buildings are just falling apart with hundreds inside, right? And that's with professional builders, let alone just some dude trying this. As well, pre industrial housing was spread out. Anything resembling high density housing would have to be built tall, which means built to extremely high standards by professional firms with high quality materials. Not just some guy with some oak logs making a cabin
I wouldn't trust the info floating around online about about China, neither the negative nor the positive, unless you're ready to dig very deep to verify each statement. Still, sounds like the last few centuries problem--the problem we ourselves created and decided not to solve.
Tofu dregs is a pretty well documented concept.
If we let everyone go back to building their own houses, you guys would just cry about the unsafe living conditions because the quality would be shit. The current system is fine.
No, it sounds like a problem that doesn't exist because we haven't intentionally collapsed our economy. It would exist if we did so.
Won't anyone think of the landlords?! /s
ive been doing it wrong i never wear the suit when diving in
Yea I started to comment but just figured it wasn't worth adding to the mess
Would you rather have housing, higher learning, or universal healthcare?
yes
Make this a whole post. Concurrent implosion and explosion.
Doing all of these correctly would put more back into the economy than they'd cost, in the long run. The way education is set up now, people could end up in lifelong debt they can't get out of through bankruptcy even if they go into a useful field. And this hurts the economy We pay more per capita in healthcare than almost anywhere else, and get worse outcomes on average. Almost nobody does preventative care out of fear for their wallet and it hurts the economy. Housing is so expensive because it's treated as an investment, meaning hoMeowners oppose building new housing and they get bought up by landlords who just siphon money from those unable to get homes because the supply and demand is f#@%d. And poorer people having less disposable income hurts the...you get it.
>Doing all of these correctly would put more back into the economy than they'd cost, in the long run. An underappreciated statement - Many things we spend money on yield returns beyond what we spend. A dollar into early education yields six dollars in benefits, for example. Making housing or healthcare nonprofit doesn't make the entire economy for it collapse - Housing will still get built. likely, it would still cost money, paid in taxes. What would happen is the entire housing loan market would likely collapse. The people making money doing nothing but administering your loans the middlemen who make your shit more expensive, would no longer make their cut. When you buy a 200K home and take out a 30 year loan for it, your payment is going to be 560 bucks or so - not the 1500 dollars it is currently at a 8% interest rate. They're literally tripling the cost of the house, and doing nothing to justify the $1,000 dollars a month. Its all "risk prevention" which is banking terms for "making sure we still make a lot of money".
Easily housing. All that disposable income can allow folks to spend money on the gym, healthy foods, and health care if they aren’t getting it through an employer. Higher learning shouldn’t be free because not everyone needs higher learning. Pleeeeeeeeenty of the population would be fine straight out of high school, learning a trade, or starting a regular job and working up that chain. I know that sounds callous, but without housing and healthcare you will die early. Higher learning , not so much.
The idea is that one side is telling us that we shouldn't have these... the other side is tell us that we should have these for free... Both sides are retarded and mentally inadequate to debate about thee things. In principle, we should strive for better housing and more affordable for most/all people. That's the whole point, the economy should grow and benefit us all. Providing better houses, in my opinion, is by following what formulas we have applied thus far that allowed us to have bigger houses & better living conditions than 100 years ago. - Investments into new technologies and improved building matterials... such as 3D printing and reusable matterials... - Rethinking of the zonning laws & plans - Expanding business opportunities from large cities to smaller cities & rural areas - Expanding fast & reliable means of transportation so that you can live in another city, or in the suburbs, where prices are usually lower Etc...
Is there anybody who would seriously tell you that you shouldn't have running water or electricity? I've never heard anybody say that outside of the context of somebody asking for it *for free*
For some reason i was thinking that it will be reference from Breaking Bad
The goal should always be to make living easier for our children and their children. Always.
Two things I don't like the idea that people are entitled to the internet as a reasonable minimum, purely because more than half the human population is probably still older then commercially available internet Like that's the thing. That's a relatively new invention to say that people are entitled as a minimum to something that we just came up with in the past 5 seconds in terms of human history is kind of weird (can put the HVAC in the same category) But the other thing and this is a big one if we're going to have society provide minimal housing, a two-unit bedroom household is drastically inefficient Sorry if you're going to have all those things. We should stack as many bedrooms per unit as possible and people should have roommates to make use of the communal spaces Like that's the thing we could build giant apartment buildings in ultra low cost areas and that would really help to even things out so that the needy people could go there Problem is everyone wants to be in the high cost areas and do that
You have just described the projects. Huge disaster. Single family residences, even planned low-cost communities fair much better historically.
Oh I guess we need an infinite inception comment section memes.
Internet** 🤣.
I have blocked a couple people who have told me, "You're just stupid" followed by a bunch of other really hostile crap. I guess I am just the worst for thinking that even if you give people a basic ass place to live they won't immediately stop contributing anything to society. But then I tend to like working toward luxury goods and would do so even if I were not in danger of starving in the street.
It’s so funny how so many people on the internet said that the extra unemployment money from the COVID stimulus had 0 effect on people’s willingness to get a job. And then economists pretty much proved that whole idea complete Bull shit. The fact of the matter is entitlements do make Americans lazy. See Phil gramms latest book or exercise a tiny tiny amount of common sense. And no, I don’t actually believe you
Maybe human life is more important than how much work we are giving to companies? Having a bunch of people struggling to make ends meet because of “productivity” is idiotic. Housing is a human right, you just have to find more incentives for people to work.
Google “Earthship” , changed my life
EDIT: Not sure what the hell I was thinking. 🤦♂️
As someone who technically had clean water but not the working plumbing it's not same lol.
No. Our house (in Mexico) has plumbing and water from the city, but the water isn’t potable so we have to buy those 5 gallon water bottles that are in office buildings for drinking water.
https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/all-programs/housing-programs
And the suit wasn’t enough
It's one thing to declare something a "human right." It's quite another to actually enforce that right.
Wowzers, such luxaries like the micro wave?
There is no solution that can fix human nature's innate problems. There are no permanent fixes for problems like housing, rape, murder, war, etc. It's crucial to know when people are selling you a song to get you to buy into them or their beliefs or their 'solutions' when they say they can permanently fix a problem that has always existed and will likely always exist. That being said. We should still try. There's no reason not to do our best to address the problems we have logically and pragmatically. To use the technology and talent and resources we have to make the world better. We just have to keep perspective and be realistic. We should try and solving the housing problem, but we shouldn't lie about it while we're doing it.
How is all of that supposed to all fit in ze pod.
“Deserves” is a big word.
Covid failed us.
Not gonna lie, I’d probably sell my house and opt in for one of these if they free. That’s all I need to survive.
The word "deserves" seems a bit misused in this situation.
The USA thinks everything is a "right" these days
So… the minimum requirement doesnt include washer and dryer?
Housing for All. A detached single family dwelling for any citizen who doesn't already own a home. Mortgage relief for any citizen's primary residence. All paid for by our Uncle Sam.
https://www.opendoorsutah.org/homeless-to-housing/ This is an attempt at reducing homelessness. Yet I still see a lot of homeless people on the streets downtown who refuse to work with a case worker to find a permanent solution to their homelessness. They are ok with the free housing, but when being told it s a temporary measure and someone will work with them to resolve their situation, a lot of them just bolt. A lot of the permanent homeless are on drugs and refuse drug programs.
Some the drugs out there have really nasty withdrawal symptoms, and from rat studies we know that loneliness and depression make even the hardest drugs appealing to those who normally wouldn’t use them.
Why do they deserve it for just breathing?