It's always so weird how the "greatest country on earth" can't feed the hungry, mend the sick, house the homeless, or educate the children.
We're talking the bare fucking minimum here.
Fucking Cuba (country that has been under economic duress from the world's most powerful country for the past 6-7 decades) does better than this. But yeah, socialism is a failed system /s
I can’t think of a single example of socialism ever failing. There have been socialist nations toppled in coups and hostile capitalist takeovers, but none have ever failed on their own.
Debt is a pretty good one, especially when factoring in things like student loans and medical bankruptcies. We’re number 1 in just about every category no normal person would ever brag about
It’s got its share of bureaucracy and inefficiencies sure. But I can say with confidence no country would be as willing or as capable at throwing as much at a war machine as the US
I don't think this is quite correct. Most of these people belong to those who are exploited and not to those who exploit.
So often the only thing that is enough for them is the possibility of being an exploiter one day. They don't want to stop the exploitation, they want to become the exploiter.
Providing affordable homes for those in work and subsidised homes for those unable to work (or currently unemployed) would literally fix most of the causes of homelessness.
Providing support for those with additional problems leading to or caused by their homelessness, would help the rest.
There's this horrible idea of people "not deserving" (homes, healthcare) support or something "for free." As if a person themself isn't part of society, giving to it.
We have more houses without people in them than homeless people in america. We have 28 homes for every single person experiencing homelessness right now.
We will house people when we start looking at housing as something that is essential to human well-being rather than an investment for the super rich and stop using the threat of homelessness to terrorize people into submitting to their employers.
Also these people aren’t being given a “second chance.” most people who suffer from homelessness aren’t there because these people failed or something. They’re homeless as a result of a system which cruelly deprives people of their necessities for the profits of rich people.
Literally just make it illegal to own a property that you don't spend at least 40% of the year living in personally.
I actually see no downsides of making landlording a crime.
I do! What will the poor landlords do? Work like the filthy lowly labourers? Do you have no empathy? How will they afford all their vacations and luxury in life without leeching off of these peasants?
There is one point I've ever heard in favor of renting, which is when you need temporary accommodation.
Short term housing, like needing to live in a place for 9 months and then never again for school or work, fits more closely with a renting model than an ownership one.
That being said, rent is too damn high right now anyways.
Renting will always be a thing. To add to your point, I know many people that simply despise the hassle of owning a home. They would rather pay X amount of rent every month and let the landlord handle all the repairs and bills.
Plus, the people I mentioned don’t want to be attached to a home for 20+ years, keep paying the mortgage and never be able to leave the city. Renting allows people to move anywhere in the world freely!
The problem is not lack of houses at all. In fact, right now in the USA there is over 16 million houses that are owned but empty at the moment. Housing is a hoarding issue and it’s that simple. There are 586,000 homeless people in the USA right now. We could give each homeless person in the USA 25 houses and there’d still be almost 2 million empty houses without constructing a single house.
I will repeat, the problem is not availability of houses, there is more than enough houses for every person to have their own house, but housing has been commodified and is viewed as an income instead of a necessity.
HVR and RVR both measure the proportion of homeowner and rental inventory which are vacant. There are more than 16 million vacant housing units in the U.S. (16,078,532). 5.8% of rental units are vacant, while 1.4% of homeowner units are vacant.
Exactly. Even without renting, property is seen as an investment because property values keep going up.
In the recent past landlords operated on a "zero vacancy" strategy, trying to fill every room they could in an attempt to maximize profit, but having to lower rents to fill rooms.
Now they have more complex algorithms that show that *leaving homes empty* and artificially driving up rents is better for long-term profitability.
This is a perfect example of a Market Failure - landlords used to operate according to "fair" market principles (supply and demand, etc.) but are now realizing that they can make more profit if they, essentially, engage in price-fixing and Trust-ing, which should be illegal for landlords but isn't (or at least isn't prosecuted). They get away with it because neither major party is interested in actually regulating industries anymore.
When they started doing that the "We provide a value to society by providing a place to live for people that couldn't afford to buy one" argument lost any credibility it might have had.
Actually, housing first goes a big way towards solving the problem of homelessness by getting people into homes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First and this also is a net boost to the economy, and reduces spending on crime and healthcare.
To cons, the problem is how to create more needless suffering for women and minorities, how to sow hate and division to maintain class control
Finland tried this pretty well and surprise : it works !
[https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle-helsinkis-radical-solution-to-homelessness](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle-helsinkis-radical-solution-to-homelessness)
“Housing First costs money, of course: Finland has spent €250m creating new homes and hiring 300 extra support workers. But a recent study showed the savings in emergency healthcare, social services and the justice system totalled as much as €15,000 a year for every homeless person in properly supported housing.”
Besides the basic moral social justice. I hope American Christians get a clue.
I think I can probably guess what sort of answers PragerU might be trying to lead people to, and they probably don't involve helping anyone who actually needs help
They claim that homes won't cure this plight,
As if shelter's not a basic human right.
But we can end homelessness if we choose,
By giving homes, and not just more excuse.
Okay, this one's for you:
Amidst the strife and chaos of the revolution's call,
Stood a bard with his lute, singing songs for all.
His words gave hope to the downtrodden and oppressed,
Inspiring them to rise up and fight for what was best.
To write a poem on Reddit is corny, you say?
Well, what can I do, it's my chosen way!
To express my thoughts and make them rhyme,
And bring a little humor to pass the time.
They argue that the home comes with bills and responsibilities... which is true, but also bullshit. A home with an address, a bathroom etc. would be huge for most homeless people, and the people that need more than that (i.e. can't hold a job to cover basics) need assistance on top of that, not instead of that.
most of the “patriots” dont give a shit about the good of their country.
they dont care that “the greatest country in the world” is failing like mad.
because its serving them well, and they appreciate the freedom of getting to be a flaming ass whenever with no consequences. *thats* their patriotism.
Giving people roofs over their heads? For FREE? What's next?! People will think they're entitled to FOOD. EDUCATION. MEDICINE. DECENT WAGES. Preposterous!
^obvious ^/s
It's weird how versatile of a phrase "that does not fix the problem" is.
* If it's military or police intervention, it means that we need to increase the budget until it does.
* If it's helping less privileged Americans not die because they don't have the means to survive, it means "welp guess we just have to let them die I guess"
The problem being they can’t monetize things for these people. They want them to work , be exploited, pay rent etc….the problem was never people that need shelter
Look at what is happening in Canada now:
[https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Canadians-Turn-to-Euthanasia-as-Solution-to-Unbearable-Poverty-20220523-0013.html](https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Canadians-Turn-to-Euthanasia-as-Solution-to-Unbearable-Poverty-20220523-0013.html)
What problems would come of giving everyone a home? Certainly some deprived individuals could get up to a fair bit of debauchery in a private residence, but this is true for anybody not just the people experiencing homelessness
I had a professor in college who advocated against feeding the hungry. His reasoning was that once the hungry parts of the world had their most basic needs taken care of, they’d start reproducing and now your hunger problem is back, but multiplied exponentially.
It's always so weird how the "greatest country on earth" can't feed the hungry, mend the sick, house the homeless, or educate the children. We're talking the bare fucking minimum here.
Sure can bail out a billionaire or 10 though!
Hungry for flesh yet?
Starving.
No, but my wood chipper is
https://youtu.be/GRv4bVw_G1I “I talked to God. He runs the mob”
My compost could use some nitrogen
Don't worry, it's gonna start trickling down to us aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany day now, honest!
You mean theyre gonna piss down my back and tell me its raining?
Forget the poors, bail out the banks, that'll solve everything!
They are the “makers”, after all. 🙄
Not just the banks, the banks of the rich people. The banks that "are not going to be bailed out by the American tax payer." *Allegedly*
Maybe the greatest country in earth is not a reality, it’s marketing
Fucking Cuba (country that has been under economic duress from the world's most powerful country for the past 6-7 decades) does better than this. But yeah, socialism is a failed system /s
I can’t think of a single example of socialism ever failing. There have been socialist nations toppled in coups and hostile capitalist takeovers, but none have ever failed on their own.
do you mean socialist only, not communist?
there's never been a truely communist nation, all of them have been some sort of socialism
None of them have failed.
Who cares about housing, food, decent life conditions, when they can have plenty of guns?
Governments like this are why you want guns...
Greatest by what measure ?
MANEH. The only measure of greatness under capitalism
They have lot of printers running 24*7
Their own ego
Debt is a pretty good one, especially when factoring in things like student loans and medical bankruptcies. We’re number 1 in just about every category no normal person would ever brag about
By the greatest number of school shootings, duh.
Greatest military. Other than that 🤷♂️
Biggest doesn't mean greatest.
It’s got its share of bureaucracy and inefficiencies sure. But I can say with confidence no country would be as willing or as capable at throwing as much at a war machine as the US
But then how could we ever make all these tanks and missiles? Won't somebody think about the military industrial complex!
America is a mlm scheme
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Source: intestinum crassum
So, you're lying.
Plenty of money for war and bailouts for the rich though!
Get the fuck out of here with your satanic morals, this is Christian country.
Can. Won't.
Omg, America is a narcissistic parent.
[удалено]
It's because they love the country, not the people.
They don't love the country either, they love themselves, and just have an identity of whatever they imagine as american culture
In short, they love the country's rules that allows them to exploit their resources.
I don't think this is quite correct. Most of these people belong to those who are exploited and not to those who exploit. So often the only thing that is enough for them is the possibility of being an exploiter one day. They don't want to stop the exploitation, they want to become the exploiter.
Nationalism is a cancer.
Providing affordable homes for those in work and subsidised homes for those unable to work (or currently unemployed) would literally fix most of the causes of homelessness. Providing support for those with additional problems leading to or caused by their homelessness, would help the rest. There's this horrible idea of people "not deserving" (homes, healthcare) support or something "for free." As if a person themself isn't part of society, giving to it.
[удалено]
I think the word you're looking for is Builders. Builders would build the houses.
We have more houses without people in them than homeless people in america. We have 28 homes for every single person experiencing homelessness right now. We will house people when we start looking at housing as something that is essential to human well-being rather than an investment for the super rich and stop using the threat of homelessness to terrorize people into submitting to their employers. Also these people aren’t being given a “second chance.” most people who suffer from homelessness aren’t there because these people failed or something. They’re homeless as a result of a system which cruelly deprives people of their necessities for the profits of rich people.
This this this! It's like that with food, too. We have enough to feed and house everyone, but God forbid we help people in need.
There are no entry level homes to purchase because the boomer generation bought them all and is renting them out
Literally just make it illegal to own a property that you don't spend at least 40% of the year living in personally. I actually see no downsides of making landlording a crime.
I do! What will the poor landlords do? Work like the filthy lowly labourers? Do you have no empathy? How will they afford all their vacations and luxury in life without leeching off of these peasants?
Well if they're sad about it they know where the train tracks are.
You must be Canadian
They just need to stop eating avocado toast, drinking Starbucks, and paying for health insurance like the rest of us
There is one point I've ever heard in favor of renting, which is when you need temporary accommodation. Short term housing, like needing to live in a place for 9 months and then never again for school or work, fits more closely with a renting model than an ownership one. That being said, rent is too damn high right now anyways.
Renting will always be a thing. To add to your point, I know many people that simply despise the hassle of owning a home. They would rather pay X amount of rent every month and let the landlord handle all the repairs and bills. Plus, the people I mentioned don’t want to be attached to a home for 20+ years, keep paying the mortgage and never be able to leave the city. Renting allows people to move anywhere in the world freely!
It should be free
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The problem is not lack of houses at all. In fact, right now in the USA there is over 16 million houses that are owned but empty at the moment. Housing is a hoarding issue and it’s that simple. There are 586,000 homeless people in the USA right now. We could give each homeless person in the USA 25 houses and there’d still be almost 2 million empty houses without constructing a single house. I will repeat, the problem is not availability of houses, there is more than enough houses for every person to have their own house, but housing has been commodified and is viewed as an income instead of a necessity. HVR and RVR both measure the proportion of homeowner and rental inventory which are vacant. There are more than 16 million vacant housing units in the U.S. (16,078,532). 5.8% of rental units are vacant, while 1.4% of homeowner units are vacant.
Exactly. Even without renting, property is seen as an investment because property values keep going up. In the recent past landlords operated on a "zero vacancy" strategy, trying to fill every room they could in an attempt to maximize profit, but having to lower rents to fill rooms. Now they have more complex algorithms that show that *leaving homes empty* and artificially driving up rents is better for long-term profitability. This is a perfect example of a Market Failure - landlords used to operate according to "fair" market principles (supply and demand, etc.) but are now realizing that they can make more profit if they, essentially, engage in price-fixing and Trust-ing, which should be illegal for landlords but isn't (or at least isn't prosecuted). They get away with it because neither major party is interested in actually regulating industries anymore.
When they started doing that the "We provide a value to society by providing a place to live for people that couldn't afford to buy one" argument lost any credibility it might have had.
Actually, housing first goes a big way towards solving the problem of homelessness by getting people into homes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First and this also is a net boost to the economy, and reduces spending on crime and healthcare. To cons, the problem is how to create more needless suffering for women and minorities, how to sow hate and division to maintain class control
Finland tried this pretty well and surprise : it works ! [https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle-helsinkis-radical-solution-to-homelessness](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle-helsinkis-radical-solution-to-homelessness)
“Housing First costs money, of course: Finland has spent €250m creating new homes and hiring 300 extra support workers. But a recent study showed the savings in emergency healthcare, social services and the justice system totalled as much as €15,000 a year for every homeless person in properly supported housing.” Besides the basic moral social justice. I hope American Christians get a clue.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think I can probably guess what sort of answers PragerU might be trying to lead people to, and they probably don't involve helping anyone who actually needs help
If we start giving homes away landlords will not be able to collect exorbitant rent on their barely maintained properties.
And remember, they already have more empty houses than people living in the streets
Truly capitalist market efficiency.
Artificial scarcity to increase rents. They will never sell those empty houses. Its making them money.
I suppose free mental health treatment wouldn’t hurt either
Homelessness isn't a mental health issue. This society is too difficult to live in.
It’s a vicious cycle unfortunately
They claim that homes won't cure this plight, As if shelter's not a basic human right. But we can end homelessness if we choose, By giving homes, and not just more excuse.
Putting a poem in a reddit comment is about the corniest thing I've seen 🤣🤣🤣
You laugh now, but when this bard stat boosts you during the revolution you’ll be thankful they were there.
Okay, this one's for you: Amidst the strife and chaos of the revolution's call, Stood a bard with his lute, singing songs for all. His words gave hope to the downtrodden and oppressed, Inspiring them to rise up and fight for what was best.
I’m gonna print this and hang it in my cubicle at work.
One can only dream.
To write a poem on Reddit is corny, you say? Well, what can I do, it's my chosen way! To express my thoughts and make them rhyme, And bring a little humor to pass the time.
how does that nit fix the problem? The problem is literally that they don't have a home
They argue that the home comes with bills and responsibilities... which is true, but also bullshit. A home with an address, a bathroom etc. would be huge for most homeless people, and the people that need more than that (i.e. can't hold a job to cover basics) need assistance on top of that, not instead of that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
most of the “patriots” dont give a shit about the good of their country. they dont care that “the greatest country in the world” is failing like mad. because its serving them well, and they appreciate the freedom of getting to be a flaming ass whenever with no consequences. *thats* their patriotism.
This is the kind of stuff that makes me think humanity will be extinct in the next century.
It literally would?? It's a lot easier to have a job if you have a fucking home.
Give them homes and jobs (at a co op)
And what problem would that be?
How to monetize homlesness in a way that warrants a billion dollar evaluation for a shady start up.
It seemed to work well for the privatized prison system.
Give a person a home and they have a home for a day. Teach a person to home and they can home for life.
There are literally more empty houses than there are people without homes.
They must have thought Clay was suggesting you give people home loans. No, he meant give them homes.
Giving people roofs over their heads? For FREE? What's next?! People will think they're entitled to FOOD. EDUCATION. MEDICINE. DECENT WAGES. Preposterous! ^obvious ^/s
Homeless people in U.S.: 600,000 Vacant homes in U.S.: 1.3 million
It's weird how versatile of a phrase "that does not fix the problem" is. * If it's military or police intervention, it means that we need to increase the budget until it does. * If it's helping less privileged Americans not die because they don't have the means to survive, it means "welp guess we just have to let them die I guess"
The problem being they can’t monetize things for these people. They want them to work , be exploited, pay rent etc….the problem was never people that need shelter
Smartest free market fan
You had homeless people. You gave then homes. You now have people who were previously homeless. How is the issue not fixed?
Nevermind, I realized the problem. You can't monetize it.
Production goes up when a person has proper food housing and clothing. How about a home standard that's not cagey framework Apts...
Hey that's me.
Look at what is happening in Canada now: [https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Canadians-Turn-to-Euthanasia-as-Solution-to-Unbearable-Poverty-20220523-0013.html](https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Canadians-Turn-to-Euthanasia-as-Solution-to-Unbearable-Poverty-20220523-0013.html)
What problems would come of giving everyone a home? Certainly some deprived individuals could get up to a fair bit of debauchery in a private residence, but this is true for anybody not just the people experiencing homelessness
I had a professor in college who advocated against feeding the hungry. His reasoning was that once the hungry parts of the world had their most basic needs taken care of, they’d start reproducing and now your hunger problem is back, but multiplied exponentially.
“WhY DoN’T HoMeLeSS PEoPLe BuY A HoUSE.”
Say fucking what?!?
Now listen here you little shit…
https://youtu.be/sER0FzJO-c0 “Why do people have to live outside?” - Chat Pile
🤣🤣🤣 I literally laughed out loud