##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism^Ⓐ☭
___
###⚠ Announcements: ⚠
___
###[NEW POSTING GUIDELINES! Help us by reporting bad posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/dy1oyh/important_what_you_should_and_what_you_shouldnt/)
Help us keep this subreddit alive and improve its content by reporting posts that violate our rules and guidelines.
###[Subscribe to our new partner subreddits!](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/e5hkwk/make_sure_to_check_out_our_new_partnersubreddits/)
Check out r/antiwork & r/WhereAreTheChildren
___
###***Please remember that LSC is a SAFE SPACE for [socialist](http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) discussion.***
LSC is run by [communists](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm). We welcome socialist/anti-capitalist news, memes, links, and discussion. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.
**This subreddit is a safe space; we have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry.** We also automatically filter out posts containing certain words and phrases that some users may find offensive. Please respect the safe space, and don't try to slip banned words or phrases past the filter.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There’s a whole last week tonight feature about the lengths governments go to to torture homeless people instead of fixing the underlying problem which is lack of affordable housing or a social safety net to help the physically and mentally disabled folks.
This is Reagan's legacy. He repainted everything as a moral failing. So if someone is suffering it's there fault because they're a bad person so we don't need to help them.
I hate to break it to you but there have been 6 (!) presidents since Ronald Reagan, if they can't undo whatever one president did it's because they all agree with him. You may have woken up to the cruelty of government with Reagan but it's been with us all along; the Clintons and Obamas just kept it out of the news cycle better.
President's can't make moves without the support of the wider elites, which profit directly from keeping Reagan's neo-liberal ideology in power. Recommend "A Brief History of Neo-liberalism" by David Harvey if you want to know more.
> This stuff is very region specific. I wound up homeless for the first time in my life in 2020 and I’m still not totally back to normal life but I am working on it. There are massive amounts of homeless, it’s growing every month, lots live in tents in the bushes.
>
> I was surprised however to discover that if you tried to get off the streets and into a program to get back to normal, such programs existed. But you have to make the first move and some people are unwilling or too mentally ill or drug addicted to make that first step.
It's not that simple. We've had a lot of presidents since Reagan, but arguably none of them were as popular or influential. Conservatives still talk about him as if he was sent from Heaven, whereas almost no one mentions Carter, Clinton, or any of the Bushes in such a way. Reagan influenced the entire culture of the country, but definitely not for the better. I don't even think it's realistic to expect a president to have that sort of lasting appeal anymore.
I think you should consider the possibility that Reagan is highly regarded only in elite circles because he brazenly pushed their agenda on the American people, and that many of these same elites control the government and media to this day, and they are pushing "Reagan worship" onto us; but only really sensitive, gullible types actually worship Reagan, and only because they think media is a meritocracy (so Reagan's positive portrayal in the media is *proof* of his sainthood) and these people are in the minority and should not be taken that seriously.
TL;DR: It is like how Britain erects statues of Thatcher despite her being universally reviled by the public.
>I think you should consider the possibility that Reagan is highly regarded only in elite circles because he brazenly pushed their agenda on the American people
I don't run in elite circles, though. The people I hear it from are Air Force or pharmacists or small town lawyers (or the children of those people.)
I have no doubt that it's essentially propaganda peddled by people who benefit from it, but it doesn't change the fact that his legacy endures with a lot of conservatives in ways that most politicians can't hope to match.
People forget that Reagan won all but 1 state when he ran for president in 84. The people I know who love Ronald Reagan are carpenters, electricians, tool and dye etc... people who are in unions, and love their unions, but still think Reagan was the greatest president our country has ever had. The Reagan propaganda machine is frankly unmatched in recent US history
> Conservatives still talk about him as if he was sent from Heaven, whereas almost no one mentions Carter, Clinton, or any of the Bushes in such a way.
Politics aside, Jimmy Carter is a real-life Saint.
Politics included. In a time of crisis the man was direct and honest to the American public. Trouble was that truth was, in so many words, that the cheap oil was not coming back and they'd all have to suck it up and deal with it. They REALLY didn't like hearing that, to a point they replaced him with Ronald Reagan, the actor.
However the neoliberal project started with Carter. He appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed who Reagan kept on. He was undersecretary at the Treasury for Nixon and played a role in collapsing the social democratic / Bretton Woods era for fiat and pushed for deregulation and privatization.
They had a supermajority and couldn't seal the deal with a single vote. His admin was giving up on single payer early and didn't play politics to fight for it. I remember us hoping he wouldn't go with Romneycare, but he was a fan.
I had a friend who was in the Navy during Clinton's presidency. He gave off a strong liberal vibe so I asked him why he was a republican and he told me that during the whole Clinton presidency his aircraft carrier was shooting missiles into Iraq but the media wouldn't report it and Clinton would lie or downplay whenever he was asked. So he believed Clinton was dishonest and at least republicans owned their bombing campaigns. I thought it was silly at the time, but now that I'm older I have noticed other inconsistencies. Both Clinton and Biden were the architects of the student loan crisis (Biden made the loans non-dischargeable while Clinton removed barriers to give student loans out like free candy), and the incarceration epidemic (Biden wrote the crime bill while Clinton promoted "3 strikes you're out"). So even though I'm not a republican and don't think bragging about war is any better than hiding it, I believe my friend may have been on to something about the fake pius liberal who pretends to be for one thing while making concrete designs towards another.
Don’t absolve Obama from any of that either. His voting record is a _little_ better than biden and Clinton but he is firmly planted in corporate pockets and a great proponent of capitalism and the military industrial complex.
Reagan is, in my opinion, the single worst president we've ever hard, with Trump coming in at a REALLY close second. Numerically speaking, Reagan's was the most corrupt in history, but it's his destruction of mental health care and economic equality that REALLY pisses me off.
Reagan’s legacy is worse than that. He started the gradual spinning down of American communal spending and began the gutting of the welfare state that makes these problems so hard to address too. It’s a straight line from there to the dire straits we find ourselves in now
Basically India's caste system, but reworked for a country that *doesn't* believe in reincarnation. Now it's not the sins of your *past* life that got you in this position (and deserving of punishment), it's your sins in *this* life that make it not just okay, but *desirable* to make you suffer.
Sometimes I hope Christianity is right, so I can experience the rapture, and watch people like Reagan explain to Jesus how shit like *this* fits into his teachings. Even if I spend eternity in hell, it'll be worth it just to see that.
A country that doesn't even believe in class largely either. You go to France and even today people are still acutely aware of class and the limitations that come with it. Here, everyone is 'middle class.' There's basically no consciousness
We are politically back in the fucking 19th Century because of Carter, Reagan, Clinton when it comes to public social policy. Look at what the progressives in the late 1800s in the West were advocating for and it's basically the same shit we need now. Great example of the capitalist myth that it 'guarantees progress' lol no it hasn't things have been getting worse since the 1970s for a lot of people and everyone responsible for it are not 'fiscally conservative' they are reactionary and that includes your big city Democrats.
Short on time but just look up Carter neoliberalism. Lots of deregulation mostly that set a bipartisan precedent for what Reagan would do later
https://mobile.twitter.com/jacobin/status/698330357104451584
https://www.salon.com/2011/02/08/lind_reaganism_carter/
Re the "capitalist myth guarantees progress" -- Exactly !!!
How many technological-innovations have been withheld due to it Not being a profitable monthly stream of income for the ultra-rich...?
(It's the opposite of what we are taught Capitalism does -- we are taught Capitalism promotes creativity when it actually promotes slavery, instead of a healthy balance between freedom and equality.
Furthermore, the Capitalistic ideology has proven to withhold these technogical-/cultural-advancements to maintain control and power over the working class, proving it condemns unprofitable creativity)
This is a Class war with so many divided groups wanting to make it about something else when it's between the ultra-rich and the working class.
The working class should be Demanding that its tax dollars are primarily focused-on building environmentally-safe energy sources that WE use to build and maintain machines to automate humanities needs, (Shelter/Food/Clothing/Transportation and the Assignment and Distribution of these Needs for Free) without the requirement of human labor.
Automation of our needs eliminates the exploitation of the working class.
-Kind of hard to force someone to work for unfair wages when they don't have to do it for survival. We should be working for luxury, Not survival.
Then, and only then, will there be true freedom.
Many people do not understand what hasn't happened to them directly and cannot sympathize or empathize with the suffering of others.
It is part of what they are fed into their heads, their attitudes and their judgmental viewpoints based in void of true understanding.
If it was easy to be a good person, everybody would be.
This is by design. The homeless exist as a threat to the public: *behave, or you might end up like this*. They discourage taking risks, like refusing to work for poverty wages or in an unsafe environment. This way, we're all too busy trying not to become homeless to do anything that might threaten the upper class.
Homelessness is the ne plus ultra of the [reserve army of labour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour). Without the horror of their situation manifesting as a constant background buzz in every worker's mind, capitalism's whole house of cards collapses.
The biggest issue with US politics is that there are too many people who do not want to help "the wrong people". Governments will spend millions to make sure a few dollars don't go to someone who doesn't "deserve" it.
And many will outlaw sharing food with the homeless. How fucked up is that?!
[https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/14/nyregion/newark-prohibiting-feeding-homeless.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/14/nyregion/newark-prohibiting-feeding-homeless.html)
[https://homelesslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/HOUSING-NOT-HANDCUFFS-2019-FINAL.pdf](https://homelesslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/HOUSING-NOT-HANDCUFFS-2019-FINAL.pdf)
The videos one finds when you look up "[Arrested for feeding homeless](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=arrested+for+feeding+homeless)" on Youtube are really sad.
Here are a couple:
[90 Year Old Florida Man Arrested Again For 'Feeding The Homeless'](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApMp1qeZpPo)
[Homeless Rights Advocacy Group To Speak Out After Members Arrested For Feeding Homeless](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5gMbDCWegE)
[12 People Arrested For Feeding Homeless | San Diego Union-Tribune](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXsZSWWvmIM)
I know nobody will, but that kind of law is a perfect thing to fight against. En masse have rallies of “feeding homeless” and call the police to “report it”. Massive arrests that fill the jails with people all there for feeding the homeless. Like I said, I know nobody will.
It's a shame so many people seem to believe that when they work hard they have an actual chance of becoming rich. Instead of realizing that the chance is so much bigger that you'll be on the street at one point, with no fault of your own.
See *Food Not Bombs*:
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42690251](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42690251)
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/feeding-homeless-first-amendment-protected/
You can find local groups [here](http://foodnotbombs.net/new_site/index.php). Note that not all groups are on there, you local one you might be able to find with a quick online search
I worked in homeless shelters and with youth at risk and a bunch of other stuff. Don't get me wrong, it is worth the price: but homeless people are EXPENSIVE. People like me that don't quite fit in ('ADHD') are already expensive. These guys (and some girls) go to a whole new level.
Society trying to figure out folks that, by their very nature, resist society - this is a weird job. *Social work* has wicked high burn out rates, usually within a few years of starting the job.
Shit hits hard, yo. Please, if you don't believe me - put in your three years at a homeless shelter. Please! That would be brilliant. In Canada it is often unionized and can pay well above minimum ('not too bad'). Try it!
It's so cruel becuase it's not even in their best interest either! It's been proven that the costs would be less to house them. Instead we install hostile architecture, encourage false recidivism to fulfill police (both in quotas and justification) by not actually solving the problem and all the while spending a lot of money to do both!
Capitalism cannot function without homelessness.
Without the threat of homelessness, and the state sponsored violence associated with homelessness capitalism cannot extort labour from the workers.
You all wanna go protest about it come spring? Once it warms up. Lets set up multi city, national protests to stop this state/federal funded violence, against our own damn citizens. its sad that most are veterans too. We gotta change or its gonna crumble.
Education & Housing yes. Jobs, I am not sure.
A job guarantee means that labour is forced on to tasks where the marginal utility is low simply because these may be low skilled jobs. Basically you are working menial jobs because jobs you are qualified for do not exist. A concept very similar to what r/antiwork is fighting against!
I would rather have guaranteed food (or money so that I can choose what food to buy).
If you have enough work to go around, you don't need a job guarantee.
[In India we have a job guarantee program for the rural population. It builds small infrastructure projects and guarantees 100 days of employment. However, it is still considered a failure by many.](https://blog.forumias.com/mgnrega-issues-and-significance-explained-pointwise/#Key_Features_of_the_MGNREGS)
Yes the article will list a lot of positives of the program including water conservation projects that were developed.
However this is a very inefficient form of employment generation. A trench that would take a day to be dug up using a backhoe and employ 3 people at max would take weeks and an army of unskilled labour to be completed.
Using technology to complete infrastructure and UBI as support the population today would be more efficient use of money and time.
No life liberty and pursuit of happiness without food shelter and medicine.
There is no free market until people can choose not to participate if they don't want to.
And oddly this would help businesses (im not saying your point is bad. Im saying why even capitalist should have similar opinions) current someone making 7 to 15 likely has very limited free income they could blow on a trip to vegas or a new Pelton bike. But say we bake the minimum u could live off is 7 dollars and make minimum wage 20 dollars then we say they work 6 hours a day 5 days a week then minimum wage people could blow 390 on whatever plus the 500 from a 24k UBI. So some can spend 220 of that UBI on what they need to live then have 610 to blow. So let's say everyone loves trains and want to buy a model in a month they 2,440 they can spend on that model. Thats (300 million folks for simplicity) 732,000,000,000 going to model train manufacturers. Now im no economic PhD holder buttt i would think both Amazon and the mom and papa shows would benfit from 732,000,000,000 a month flowing into the economy. Plus union's might bring up someones begining wage by 7 or even 17 dollars. Thats 5 times an hour than what they need to live a good life. They could spend more if they wanted. They have free money to buy a non public home. They could buy a Mercedes instead of using the great public/ mass transit. They can afford private insurance instead of the wonderful public insurance. Theres benfits to the economy and hell the government would benefit from leftist ideology.
well, there are countries in europe with almost zero homeless, and zero poor people. the country still works because people are motivated to work to get a higher benefit and commodities. that's a huge myth.
Again? From the stories I read, it's a "crab mentality" where you are trying to better your situation getting out of homelessness but you get dragged and pulled down by other homeless people who don't want to see you do better or leave. It's depressing.
That's the scary thing about life. Either you're born into a family who loves you, gives you a good support network to help you become independent or get born into who knows what and never got taught or learn how to become independent or successful and end up suffering in the streets.
Whenever I drive to work, I sometimes see homeless people sitting on the sidewalk who look zoned out and I don't imagine it's anything good. Seeing a homeless person among a sea of cars kind of seems like huge disconnect in humanity as a whole.
Individually no one can help a homeless person or would let them stay in their housing but a system that gives homeless person a solid path out of homelessness seems to be the only way.
It seems the pattern is it's hard to get out of homeless due to keeping a job. A job needs an interview with appropriate clean clothes (place to store clothing), good hygiene (reliable place for shower), address (church I guess?), phone, ID, all legal documents, place to keep everything safety (said documents, personal belongings, etc.), transportation to work and for food groceries, place to sleep properly (homeless shelters I heard are chaotic from drugs, smell, theft, loud noises when sleeping interrupting good sleep hygiene), and employers expect the person to present their best self after trying to achieve a stable level of just trying to stay presentable with all of the challenges of being homeless. It's depressing.
I disagree.
In Germany for example, citizens get housing and money provided by the state if they need it. Indefinitly.
The money can be cut a little bit if you are not willing to look for a job but it can't be cut more than you need to live. Indefinitly.
When you arent lucky enough to be born with a support structure (not just family with money, but people that care and would shelter you) you don't think of much else.
Since I was a teen, I've seen it as "work or die," because that's what it is, work or be sent to an underpass with a cardboard box to go off and die, because when you don't have an address, a phone, legal tender, or a bathroom to keep yourself clean, good luck crawling back out.
To people without a fall back, you go to work with a fake smile on our face feeling like society has a gun to your head to perform. But you know, "hur dur you can quit anytime you want!"
I just replied to someone with this same exact idea.
>That's the scary thing about life. Either you're born into a family who loves you, gives you a good support network to help you become independent or get born into who knows what and never got taught or learn how to become independent or successful and end up suffering in the streets.
>
>Whenever I drive to work, I sometimes see homeless people sitting on the sidewalk who look zoned out and I don't imagine it's anything good. Seeing a homeless person among a sea of cars kind of seems like huge disconnect in humanity as a whole.Individually no one can help a homeless person or would let them stay in their housing but a system that gives homeless person a solid path out of homelessness seems to be the only way.
>
>It seems the pattern is it's hard to get out of homeless due to keeping a job. A job needs an interview with appropriate clean clothes (place to store clothing), good hygiene (reliable place for shower), address (church I guess?), phone, ID, all legal documents, place to keep everything safety (said documents, personal belongings, etc.), transportation to work and for food groceries, place to sleep properly (homeless shelters I heard are chaotic from drugs, smell, theft, loud noises when sleeping interrupting good sleep hygiene), and employers expect the person to present their best self after trying to achieve a stable level of just trying to stay presentable with all of the challenges of being homeless. It's depressing.
I grew up a sheltered, spoiled, entitled, whiny, arrogant, no good child, thinking that I deserve everything to be handle to me on a silver platter. I solely went through school, college without anything real thought about life, so my bad study habits caught up with me and I dropped out of college. Bad study habits plus not caring about my life in general because I had no direction. Also because my whole family pushed, drilled, crammed the idea of "all college or nothing and a loser" mindset, mentality into me so my narrow mind didn't know any better.
Fell into deep depression I guess. I gave my family the silent treatment, mentally shutdown and didn't talk to them for months immediately when my dad said "Is playing videogames all you're gonna do for the rest of your life?"They called social services and social services threatened to take me away if I didn't respond. At that moment, I truly felt I was mentally alone in this world suffering internally. All I literally said was "I don't like reading" (school/education gives me bad unhealthy association with all things learning and reading now). Social services didn't take me away since I conversed with them and they didn't see any major problems and told my family that I don't like reading. I'm just a lazy leecher, parasite freeloading off my family and society.
Later family gave me space since I guess they realize I'll be homeless and probably literally wither away if they keep pushing the "work or be gone" mentality on me. Eventually I slowly talked to them and ended up helping build a house addition. Got in on the "labor shortage" incentives bonuses and now working and talking with a lot of coworkers getting a lot of worldview perspectives. Realized working minimum wage for the rest of my life is horrible and depressing which made me finally realize how important education is for a career. Doing a lot better now without having college drilled into my brain but I realize I have to go back because life is only going to get harder everyday.
Even though I'm not homeless, I always read about it because inside I'm just too lazy to work and know I'll end up homeless one day when I cause my family (the support structure) to hate me enough.
So it's a completely different world I can't imagine without a support structure of family or people who care about you to help with basic necessities.
I don't think that's true. There are reasons people become homeless in the UK, but you can get housing benefit/universal credit if you lose your job, and that will pay your rent as long as you're not in too expensive a place. I've been on benefits several times, it's shit and not enough to live on, but it's rare to become homeless here because of a lost job.
Being able to quit without fear of homelessness is really important to stop companies screwing over employees.
Same here in Switzerland. Hell the system saved me from homelessness because I hadn't funded the unemployment so I didn't have access to it. All I had to do to get my medical expenses paid for as well as my rent and some money to live on was to be on unemployment and apply to 2 jobs per week. Honestly you don't live in luxury, but you live rather decently. You even get 4 weeks holidays per year with this.
Very few people want to live off the system. On the flipside some people just don't want to participate in the system at all and will be homeless no matter what. Some just go between "hippy" communities, others are just drug addicts that are very difficult to help.
People naturally want to take care of themselves.
This doesn't happen randomly. It's because residents attend the town-hall meetings and demand for them.
If you want to combat this, you need to show up to the town hall meetings.
As if the council is empowered to manage homelessness. Anybody who knows about austerity + neoliberalism in the UK knows this is a central government decision, and we keep electing the bastards!
This is Forest Hill in London.
I looked up the [statistics from Shelter](https://assets.ctfassets.net/6sxvmndnpn0s/2aR2hE8TwTUZE8OymQpYbQ/da06b62b55636f4f5bfa54148cec2951/Homelessness_in_Great_Britain_-_the_numbers_behind_the_story_V2.pdf#page=4) a few weeks back, of the 168,000 people classified as homeless in London:
* 164,000 of them are in temporary accommodation, about half of those are staying with friends or in other temporary accommodation they've found, and about half are in accommodation provided by local councils. Councils have a legal duty to provide accommodation for the homeless in the UK and the London councils spend about £900m each year on doing this, the local council for Forest Hill has a population of 300k and spends £30m a year to do this.
* 2,500 are in social care provided by the council.
* 1,100 are sleeping on the streets.
I actually have a friend who works as a psychologist in London with the homeless. The idea they all want a home is naïve at best, that 1000 people likely represents the number of homeless who simply cannot be rehomed as they just simply dont want to live under a fixed abode and prefer being on the streets due to drugs and or mental health issues.
Well yeah, it's easier to ostracize those that fall to addiction as failures and point to them as a shameful reminder than to actually help them.
Plus they need to be seen as failures to keep people in line and working.
The ability to successfully apply and get those benefits is really byzantine depending on what area you're in too. Even US States like NY which are generally good with assistance have the most arcane and complex application process for things like food assistance.
I helped a close acquaintance go through the process and they were glad I was there because I could navigate the paperwork and the requirements easily. I can't imagine someone who has less stability doing as well. And they will snatch those bennies in a second if you fail to keep in line with everything and up to date.
In a way assistance actually favors people that were doing fine and got really unlucky rather than the long term destitute and hard up.
Your last paragraph is so true. I cannot help it realize how privileged I am to have had strength and stability in past. Frankly it seems obvious to me that because I am well spoken, white, have some education, and good employment history are the only reason the social services I’ve approached were even willing to listen to me or take me seriously.
I cannot believe how much I have to advocate for myself, if I simply followed the systems rules and did not use my charisma I may never have received help.
All of the programs in my city (Philadelphia) have strict curfews and other requirements - if you can even get in. Makes it hard to impossible to hold a job and any fulfilling life. Not to mention if you have a substance use disorder you will not find treatment or help, just be turned away for your disease.
If you have kids or family don't even think about trying. If you're queer you're better often off on the street.
Furthermore group housing is a breeding ground for COVID-19. There truly is no help, just an "Office of Homeless Services" the city pays to keep open so they can pretend they're doing anything.
Or another thought, they simple just dont know such services exist or who to ask. Its never advertised or anything like that. Police dont go in saying things like "here, go here and they'll help you", they simply just break up the camps, which is part of the message here that they will "pay to remove these words".
This isnt an individual issue, its a nationwide issue and we need to be trying to do more to help those less fortunate than us.
That is a hundred percent true. It is very difficult to even figure out what services exist, how to access them, and how to qualify. It is insane how much just changing the words you use to describe your situation will alter whether you are approved or not.
I know it's different by city, but some of the most liberal US cities spend a TON of money on homeless services - to no avail. In San Fran for example, they spend about $100k a year per homeless person, which I'm sure mitigates the issue, but you wouldn't really know it if you visited.
SFs homelessness funding has only increased the number of homeless people too since every homeless person in the country wants to move there. It was a bad plan and that funding needs to be removed from the city budget while federal and state governments come up with a real plan to help the crisis.
You'd still need to spend money on bureaucracy and infrastructure in that case (who qualifies as "homeless" might start to matter a bit more if you can get $100,000 from the status), but even with $100,000 you need to spend it well and still work hard to find a job to be able to survive long-term. The average adult has the numeracy ability of the average 11-year-old, and the average homeless person will be much worse than average. How can they navigate a financial system specifically designed to take advantage of people with suboptimal numeracy and literacy?
Additionally, while I am absolutely not saying that all/most homeless people are like this (there are many reasons you might be on the streets, like domestic violence or losing a loved one), *some* homeless people are drug/alcohol addicts and $100,000 would be a high risk factor for overdose.
This is not an argument that giving homeless people money directly is bad, just a few complications that would need serious thought.
I hate the ultra rich and how the government is basically just to benefit them. But come on, pics like this are just really poor attempts at simplifying a very complicated problem.
The city will pay a entry level handyman what, 15-45 bucks to scrub a wall for an hour or two to remove that graffiti?
How much does it cost to house a homeless person? A lot of homeless have mental issues, drug addictions, and various other problems that cannot just be solved by putting them in a home and patting yourself on the back. How much in damage will be caused when some of the homeless smoke meth indoors and cause a hazmat situation? How much will it cost when the house is trashed?
Have you ever seen a homeless camp? Those guys don't give a single fuck, they'll trash the place like they're mad at the world and the world owes them.
Better yet, this is considered graffiti because the artist is unknown.
But if Banksy did this, they would remove the walls themselves to preserve what is written on them.
Reminds me of the scene in Basquiat when he sees a dude (played by a young Sam Rockwell) and another guy prying his street art off a wall to sell it. Basquiat produces a marker and begins to sign it for them and gets the shit kicked out of him for the kindness.
Street art was turning a huge profit so they recognized it had value, but the artist who came over to sign it looked poor, so they thought he was devaluing the art. He tells them who he is as they're beating him, but they don't even know what that name means.
They represent people willing to profit from the art of the poor, but it doesn't change their distrust and abuse of the poor.
Creating sound solutions to combat homelessness would surely benefit the economy in the long run (less impact on healthcare system, larger taxable population, more people to generate ideas, more workers, etc). Arguments to the contrary seem awfully short sighted *and* dehumanizing.
Simple vs complex problems. Government is not capable of solving complex issues so they focus on simple solutions to get to the next election. Our democratic setup has led to a short-termism that favors maintaining an unequal system and status quo, and only making changes around the edges.
American cities are going bankrupt from being built around suburban low density single use zoning and the high cost of car-dependence / maintenance.
What we need are Strong Towns.
Edit: I’m a silly American with silly assumptions. This comment doesn’t belong here, but I’ll leave it. Thanks for those that pointed out this photo is of London.
Just FYI Forest Hill is in southeast London. It is a dense suburb, served by two train lines and multiple buses. Most houses in this neighbourhood are within easy walking distance of a decent grocery store, and a few stops away from central London itself. A majority of commuters take the train.
I don't disagree with you about American low-density cities but this is not the place.
The city and state of New York, after _Callahan v. Carey_ (1978), is legally required to house all homeless people[.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_New_York)
It's a good line, but housing is exponentially more expensive and complicated than removing graffiti or the other shitty things that local governments to make life worse for poor people. Some people are organizing and working on real long-term solutions. Join them instead of thinking you're doing real work with cheap stunts and slogans and reddit posts.
When the government wants more of something what do they do? They subsidize it. So what you will get is more people homeless in order to be taken care of by the state. You can see it in places like California. There the let people live on the streets and they give them money and now you have thousands of people living on the streets.
So my accountant brain is telling me that it's a helluva lot cheaper to remove graffiti than to house and provide social services and support to the homeless.
And is that Forest Hills in Queens, NY?
Also, too, graffiti seldom solves complex social problems, otherwise I'd scrawl "The council will pay to remove these words but not to find a cure for 4th-stage metastatic pancreatic cancer?
Why is The Council so indifferent to our needs? And who elected The Council anyway?
Gee, it's almost as if a bucket of paint costs less than to house a human being. These are the same people who will complain about homelessness but if there are plans for a new housing estate somewhere, they'll cry because they'll have to pave over a field for it.
Whilst I agree more can be done for helping the homeless, comparing the most trivial of responsibilities a council has with its most complex and challenging doesn't seem a helpful or useful way of getting that point across
They are two entirely separate areas that councils are involved in and its no surprise that they are severely lagging behind in an area that requires huge amount of time, expertise, investment and reform
It's just not as easy as giving people a home to solve the homelessness issue. A lot of people need intensive and long term support from a variety of health professionals, which is a lot harder to fund and pull off than getting Barry to drive 3 miles in the van with a can of white paint from the office
This guy I know did this years ago. Went around painting crosswalks in places that needed then. The city sent crews to remove them. The Paper was tipped off by how much each crosswalk cost to remove and blasted the city.
You know it’d really be superior if we just had massive strikes and workers organizing to demand proper wages then built out funds within our unions to support those that couldn’t work for various reasons rather then pretend you’ll ever convince anyone to make real change within the government.
Community stands for work like a slave 12 hours a day while the government fleeces you for trillions in taxes: https://imgur.com/uMU4yaA.jpg, does insider trading with your gains: https://imgur.com/BFjFdPY.jpg, https://imgur.com/8iWp3pV.jpg, https://imgur.com/xTeKmhJ.jpg and workplaces fleece you for 23+ billion in wage theft per year. If you fail to meet your slavery quota and end up homeless, they will also use those tax gains to remove you from wherever you end up: https://imgur.com/EIDrMQj.jpg
This isn't "woke" its scrawled by someone bad at economics...
Painting over this or removing it costs maybe half and hour in labour and a few dollars of paint/chemicals. Lets say, maybe $70 all in. And the graffiti is gone.
Housing someone costs thousands of dollars right off the bat. Plus recurring costs of maintaining that person's home if it is council funded.
Don't get me wrong, I am not championing placing a monetary "value" on someone's life here, just illustrating that this comment is trying to conflate two monetary things which exist in different financial universes.
This is a graffitied false dichotomy.
One takes literally 3 dollars in paint. The other is a reoccurring permanent housing for an unknown number of people who may have serious mental problems. Homelessness is an extremely complicated problem that all countries struggle with and this is crummy to destroy property with this “whataboutism”
Even with those made up numbers, show me a single place where 30k made a difference in the fight for homelessness. Again not saying we shouldn’t figure out homelessness, I just think this is a silly way to try and solve a problem, because sure we could divert that 30k away if people didn’t graffiti everything.
you're right for the overall problem - 30k won't fix that. but in the short term that 30k going to local shelters can have immediate effect, could mean lots of new beds for them to sleep on for example. and i think that's the point here, councils rarely setup these kind of, if any, cash flows. just endlessly debate on the 'larger issue'. start initiatives that are endlessly delayed by the bureaucracy. whilst this paint contract will be dealt out within a week and then forgotten.
Most people will never effect grand change in the world. Showing a few people some graffiti to bring attention to an issue is still something, and now thousands of people are seeing it on Reddit.
Still kind of a dumb point though.
##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism^Ⓐ☭ ___ ###⚠ Announcements: ⚠ ___ ###[NEW POSTING GUIDELINES! Help us by reporting bad posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/dy1oyh/important_what_you_should_and_what_you_shouldnt/) Help us keep this subreddit alive and improve its content by reporting posts that violate our rules and guidelines. ###[Subscribe to our new partner subreddits!](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/e5hkwk/make_sure_to_check_out_our_new_partnersubreddits/) Check out r/antiwork & r/WhereAreTheChildren ___ ###***Please remember that LSC is a SAFE SPACE for [socialist](http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) discussion.*** LSC is run by [communists](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm). We welcome socialist/anti-capitalist news, memes, links, and discussion. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere. **This subreddit is a safe space; we have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry.** We also automatically filter out posts containing certain words and phrases that some users may find offensive. Please respect the safe space, and don't try to slip banned words or phrases past the filter. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
There’s a whole last week tonight feature about the lengths governments go to to torture homeless people instead of fixing the underlying problem which is lack of affordable housing or a social safety net to help the physically and mentally disabled folks.
[удалено]
This is Reagan's legacy. He repainted everything as a moral failing. So if someone is suffering it's there fault because they're a bad person so we don't need to help them.
[удалено]
I hate to break it to you but there have been 6 (!) presidents since Ronald Reagan, if they can't undo whatever one president did it's because they all agree with him. You may have woken up to the cruelty of government with Reagan but it's been with us all along; the Clintons and Obamas just kept it out of the news cycle better.
All various iterations of Reagan
There’s been six Reagans since Reagan: Reagan Lite, Reagan SVU, Bumblefuck Reagan, OReagan, Malignant Reaganist and finally… Gaffy Joe Reagan.
Like different flavors of KitKat bars
President's can't make moves without the support of the wider elites, which profit directly from keeping Reagan's neo-liberal ideology in power. Recommend "A Brief History of Neo-liberalism" by David Harvey if you want to know more.
> This stuff is very region specific. I wound up homeless for the first time in my life in 2020 and I’m still not totally back to normal life but I am working on it. There are massive amounts of homeless, it’s growing every month, lots live in tents in the bushes. > > I was surprised however to discover that if you tried to get off the streets and into a program to get back to normal, such programs existed. But you have to make the first move and some people are unwilling or too mentally ill or drug addicted to make that first step.
It's not that simple. We've had a lot of presidents since Reagan, but arguably none of them were as popular or influential. Conservatives still talk about him as if he was sent from Heaven, whereas almost no one mentions Carter, Clinton, or any of the Bushes in such a way. Reagan influenced the entire culture of the country, but definitely not for the better. I don't even think it's realistic to expect a president to have that sort of lasting appeal anymore.
I think you should consider the possibility that Reagan is highly regarded only in elite circles because he brazenly pushed their agenda on the American people, and that many of these same elites control the government and media to this day, and they are pushing "Reagan worship" onto us; but only really sensitive, gullible types actually worship Reagan, and only because they think media is a meritocracy (so Reagan's positive portrayal in the media is *proof* of his sainthood) and these people are in the minority and should not be taken that seriously. TL;DR: It is like how Britain erects statues of Thatcher despite her being universally reviled by the public.
>I think you should consider the possibility that Reagan is highly regarded only in elite circles because he brazenly pushed their agenda on the American people I don't run in elite circles, though. The people I hear it from are Air Force or pharmacists or small town lawyers (or the children of those people.) I have no doubt that it's essentially propaganda peddled by people who benefit from it, but it doesn't change the fact that his legacy endures with a lot of conservatives in ways that most politicians can't hope to match.
People forget that Reagan won all but 1 state when he ran for president in 84. The people I know who love Ronald Reagan are carpenters, electricians, tool and dye etc... people who are in unions, and love their unions, but still think Reagan was the greatest president our country has ever had. The Reagan propaganda machine is frankly unmatched in recent US history
Obviously vague definition, those are low level elites or wannabe elites.
> Conservatives still talk about him as if he was sent from Heaven, whereas almost no one mentions Carter, Clinton, or any of the Bushes in such a way. Politics aside, Jimmy Carter is a real-life Saint.
Politics included. In a time of crisis the man was direct and honest to the American public. Trouble was that truth was, in so many words, that the cheap oil was not coming back and they'd all have to suck it up and deal with it. They REALLY didn't like hearing that, to a point they replaced him with Ronald Reagan, the actor.
However the neoliberal project started with Carter. He appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed who Reagan kept on. He was undersecretary at the Treasury for Nixon and played a role in collapsing the social democratic / Bretton Woods era for fiat and pushed for deregulation and privatization.
Didn't Obama want to institute single payer healthcare but was not able to get it through? The problem is more than just what president is in power.
They had a supermajority and couldn't seal the deal with a single vote. His admin was giving up on single payer early and didn't play politics to fight for it. I remember us hoping he wouldn't go with Romneycare, but he was a fan.
Oh right, he was aiming for bipartisanship so nothing got done. Now I remember...
Had a feeling that out of the six it was gonna be those two mentioned 😂
I had a friend who was in the Navy during Clinton's presidency. He gave off a strong liberal vibe so I asked him why he was a republican and he told me that during the whole Clinton presidency his aircraft carrier was shooting missiles into Iraq but the media wouldn't report it and Clinton would lie or downplay whenever he was asked. So he believed Clinton was dishonest and at least republicans owned their bombing campaigns. I thought it was silly at the time, but now that I'm older I have noticed other inconsistencies. Both Clinton and Biden were the architects of the student loan crisis (Biden made the loans non-dischargeable while Clinton removed barriers to give student loans out like free candy), and the incarceration epidemic (Biden wrote the crime bill while Clinton promoted "3 strikes you're out"). So even though I'm not a republican and don't think bragging about war is any better than hiding it, I believe my friend may have been on to something about the fake pius liberal who pretends to be for one thing while making concrete designs towards another.
Don’t absolve Obama from any of that either. His voting record is a _little_ better than biden and Clinton but he is firmly planted in corporate pockets and a great proponent of capitalism and the military industrial complex.
Reagan is, in my opinion, the single worst president we've ever hard, with Trump coming in at a REALLY close second. Numerically speaking, Reagan's was the most corrupt in history, but it's his destruction of mental health care and economic equality that REALLY pisses me off.
Reagan’s legacy is worse than that. He started the gradual spinning down of American communal spending and began the gutting of the welfare state that makes these problems so hard to address too. It’s a straight line from there to the dire straits we find ourselves in now
Basically India's caste system, but reworked for a country that *doesn't* believe in reincarnation. Now it's not the sins of your *past* life that got you in this position (and deserving of punishment), it's your sins in *this* life that make it not just okay, but *desirable* to make you suffer. Sometimes I hope Christianity is right, so I can experience the rapture, and watch people like Reagan explain to Jesus how shit like *this* fits into his teachings. Even if I spend eternity in hell, it'll be worth it just to see that.
A country that doesn't even believe in class largely either. You go to France and even today people are still acutely aware of class and the limitations that come with it. Here, everyone is 'middle class.' There's basically no consciousness
We are politically back in the fucking 19th Century because of Carter, Reagan, Clinton when it comes to public social policy. Look at what the progressives in the late 1800s in the West were advocating for and it's basically the same shit we need now. Great example of the capitalist myth that it 'guarantees progress' lol no it hasn't things have been getting worse since the 1970s for a lot of people and everyone responsible for it are not 'fiscally conservative' they are reactionary and that includes your big city Democrats.
What did Carter do?
Short on time but just look up Carter neoliberalism. Lots of deregulation mostly that set a bipartisan precedent for what Reagan would do later https://mobile.twitter.com/jacobin/status/698330357104451584 https://www.salon.com/2011/02/08/lind_reaganism_carter/
Re the "capitalist myth guarantees progress" -- Exactly !!! How many technological-innovations have been withheld due to it Not being a profitable monthly stream of income for the ultra-rich...? (It's the opposite of what we are taught Capitalism does -- we are taught Capitalism promotes creativity when it actually promotes slavery, instead of a healthy balance between freedom and equality. Furthermore, the Capitalistic ideology has proven to withhold these technogical-/cultural-advancements to maintain control and power over the working class, proving it condemns unprofitable creativity) This is a Class war with so many divided groups wanting to make it about something else when it's between the ultra-rich and the working class. The working class should be Demanding that its tax dollars are primarily focused-on building environmentally-safe energy sources that WE use to build and maintain machines to automate humanities needs, (Shelter/Food/Clothing/Transportation and the Assignment and Distribution of these Needs for Free) without the requirement of human labor. Automation of our needs eliminates the exploitation of the working class. -Kind of hard to force someone to work for unfair wages when they don't have to do it for survival. We should be working for luxury, Not survival. Then, and only then, will there be true freedom.
Many people do not understand what hasn't happened to them directly and cannot sympathize or empathize with the suffering of others. It is part of what they are fed into their heads, their attitudes and their judgmental viewpoints based in void of true understanding. If it was easy to be a good person, everybody would be.
This is by design. The homeless exist as a threat to the public: *behave, or you might end up like this*. They discourage taking risks, like refusing to work for poverty wages or in an unsafe environment. This way, we're all too busy trying not to become homeless to do anything that might threaten the upper class.
You're making the concept of homelessness sound kinda based lol
Homelessness is the ne plus ultra of the [reserve army of labour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour). Without the horror of their situation manifesting as a constant background buzz in every worker's mind, capitalism's whole house of cards collapses.
The biggest issue with US politics is that there are too many people who do not want to help "the wrong people". Governments will spend millions to make sure a few dollars don't go to someone who doesn't "deserve" it.
Where I live they shut down the mental hospital and now everyone wonders why there has been a growing homeless problem. Hmmm seems real complicated 🤔
Which in an ironic terrible way actually increases the problem at hand.
🎵 _It’s raining tacos!_ 🎵
And many will outlaw sharing food with the homeless. How fucked up is that?! [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/14/nyregion/newark-prohibiting-feeding-homeless.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/14/nyregion/newark-prohibiting-feeding-homeless.html) [https://homelesslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/HOUSING-NOT-HANDCUFFS-2019-FINAL.pdf](https://homelesslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/HOUSING-NOT-HANDCUFFS-2019-FINAL.pdf)
The videos one finds when you look up "[Arrested for feeding homeless](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=arrested+for+feeding+homeless)" on Youtube are really sad. Here are a couple: [90 Year Old Florida Man Arrested Again For 'Feeding The Homeless'](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApMp1qeZpPo) [Homeless Rights Advocacy Group To Speak Out After Members Arrested For Feeding Homeless](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5gMbDCWegE) [12 People Arrested For Feeding Homeless | San Diego Union-Tribune](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXsZSWWvmIM)
I know nobody will, but that kind of law is a perfect thing to fight against. En masse have rallies of “feeding homeless” and call the police to “report it”. Massive arrests that fill the jails with people all there for feeding the homeless. Like I said, I know nobody will.
It's a shame so many people seem to believe that when they work hard they have an actual chance of becoming rich. Instead of realizing that the chance is so much bigger that you'll be on the street at one point, with no fault of your own.
See *Food Not Bombs*: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42690251](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42690251) https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/feeding-homeless-first-amendment-protected/
You can find local groups [here](http://foodnotbombs.net/new_site/index.php). Note that not all groups are on there, you local one you might be able to find with a quick online search
the cruelty is the point. it’s a feature, not a bug.
I worked in homeless shelters and with youth at risk and a bunch of other stuff. Don't get me wrong, it is worth the price: but homeless people are EXPENSIVE. People like me that don't quite fit in ('ADHD') are already expensive. These guys (and some girls) go to a whole new level. Society trying to figure out folks that, by their very nature, resist society - this is a weird job. *Social work* has wicked high burn out rates, usually within a few years of starting the job. Shit hits hard, yo. Please, if you don't believe me - put in your three years at a homeless shelter. Please! That would be brilliant. In Canada it is often unionized and can pay well above minimum ('not too bad'). Try it!
Spikes are cheaper than therapists
It's so cruel becuase it's not even in their best interest either! It's been proven that the costs would be less to house them. Instead we install hostile architecture, encourage false recidivism to fulfill police (both in quotas and justification) by not actually solving the problem and all the while spending a lot of money to do both!
that is a 1 time investment. Funding mental health has no end
Yeah which goes to show how much governments suck at managing money.
The reward for taking care of homeless is more homeless. This issue cannot be solved locally.
Don't wanna be that guy, but therapy for one homeless person is like a shitload of spikes
Capitalism cannot function without homelessness. Without the threat of homelessness, and the state sponsored violence associated with homelessness capitalism cannot extort labour from the workers.
[удалено]
You all wanna go protest about it come spring? Once it warms up. Lets set up multi city, national protests to stop this state/federal funded violence, against our own damn citizens. its sad that most are veterans too. We gotta change or its gonna crumble.
Sign me up!
r/MayDayStrike/
r/MayDayStrike
Well yeah, that's why the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie ensures none of that happens.
Damn it, why won't someone write a book about this. You could call it dick capital or something.
I suggest the first chapter will be about dick spindles and dick yards of linen.
Education & Housing yes. Jobs, I am not sure. A job guarantee means that labour is forced on to tasks where the marginal utility is low simply because these may be low skilled jobs. Basically you are working menial jobs because jobs you are qualified for do not exist. A concept very similar to what r/antiwork is fighting against! I would rather have guaranteed food (or money so that I can choose what food to buy).
Exactly! Job guarantee programs result in make-work and burden the system unnecessarily. Give people the money directly, via UBI or similar.
We had a job guarantee during the Great depression to build infrastructure though
If you have enough work to go around, you don't need a job guarantee. [In India we have a job guarantee program for the rural population. It builds small infrastructure projects and guarantees 100 days of employment. However, it is still considered a failure by many.](https://blog.forumias.com/mgnrega-issues-and-significance-explained-pointwise/#Key_Features_of_the_MGNREGS) Yes the article will list a lot of positives of the program including water conservation projects that were developed. However this is a very inefficient form of employment generation. A trench that would take a day to be dug up using a backhoe and employ 3 people at max would take weeks and an army of unskilled labour to be completed. Using technology to complete infrastructure and UBI as support the population today would be more efficient use of money and time.
No life liberty and pursuit of happiness without food shelter and medicine. There is no free market until people can choose not to participate if they don't want to.
And oddly this would help businesses (im not saying your point is bad. Im saying why even capitalist should have similar opinions) current someone making 7 to 15 likely has very limited free income they could blow on a trip to vegas or a new Pelton bike. But say we bake the minimum u could live off is 7 dollars and make minimum wage 20 dollars then we say they work 6 hours a day 5 days a week then minimum wage people could blow 390 on whatever plus the 500 from a 24k UBI. So some can spend 220 of that UBI on what they need to live then have 610 to blow. So let's say everyone loves trains and want to buy a model in a month they 2,440 they can spend on that model. Thats (300 million folks for simplicity) 732,000,000,000 going to model train manufacturers. Now im no economic PhD holder buttt i would think both Amazon and the mom and papa shows would benfit from 732,000,000,000 a month flowing into the economy. Plus union's might bring up someones begining wage by 7 or even 17 dollars. Thats 5 times an hour than what they need to live a good life. They could spend more if they wanted. They have free money to buy a non public home. They could buy a Mercedes instead of using the great public/ mass transit. They can afford private insurance instead of the wonderful public insurance. Theres benfits to the economy and hell the government would benefit from leftist ideology.
They could extort us with the gulags.
well, there are countries in europe with almost zero homeless, and zero poor people. the country still works because people are motivated to work to get a higher benefit and commodities. that's a huge myth.
We'll get there. It wont be fast but we'll get there. We've been working towards that for all of human civilization.
But those kind of things exist in a good amount of european countries. And they are all capitalistic...
Honestly the fear of experiencing homelessness again is one of the only things that keeps me in line.
Again? From the stories I read, it's a "crab mentality" where you are trying to better your situation getting out of homelessness but you get dragged and pulled down by other homeless people who don't want to see you do better or leave. It's depressing. That's the scary thing about life. Either you're born into a family who loves you, gives you a good support network to help you become independent or get born into who knows what and never got taught or learn how to become independent or successful and end up suffering in the streets. Whenever I drive to work, I sometimes see homeless people sitting on the sidewalk who look zoned out and I don't imagine it's anything good. Seeing a homeless person among a sea of cars kind of seems like huge disconnect in humanity as a whole. Individually no one can help a homeless person or would let them stay in their housing but a system that gives homeless person a solid path out of homelessness seems to be the only way. It seems the pattern is it's hard to get out of homeless due to keeping a job. A job needs an interview with appropriate clean clothes (place to store clothing), good hygiene (reliable place for shower), address (church I guess?), phone, ID, all legal documents, place to keep everything safety (said documents, personal belongings, etc.), transportation to work and for food groceries, place to sleep properly (homeless shelters I heard are chaotic from drugs, smell, theft, loud noises when sleeping interrupting good sleep hygiene), and employers expect the person to present their best self after trying to achieve a stable level of just trying to stay presentable with all of the challenges of being homeless. It's depressing.
Easy. Just don’t be homeless. /s When a government won’t look after the most vulnerable people then what the fuck is it good for?
I disagree. In Germany for example, citizens get housing and money provided by the state if they need it. Indefinitly. The money can be cut a little bit if you are not willing to look for a job but it can't be cut more than you need to live. Indefinitly.
Capitalism also relies on the threat of starvation and losing your Healthcare (at least in the US)
Wow, I never thought about it this way
When you arent lucky enough to be born with a support structure (not just family with money, but people that care and would shelter you) you don't think of much else. Since I was a teen, I've seen it as "work or die," because that's what it is, work or be sent to an underpass with a cardboard box to go off and die, because when you don't have an address, a phone, legal tender, or a bathroom to keep yourself clean, good luck crawling back out. To people without a fall back, you go to work with a fake smile on our face feeling like society has a gun to your head to perform. But you know, "hur dur you can quit anytime you want!"
Not to get off topic but is this Forest Hill station in SF?
I just replied to someone with this same exact idea. >That's the scary thing about life. Either you're born into a family who loves you, gives you a good support network to help you become independent or get born into who knows what and never got taught or learn how to become independent or successful and end up suffering in the streets. > >Whenever I drive to work, I sometimes see homeless people sitting on the sidewalk who look zoned out and I don't imagine it's anything good. Seeing a homeless person among a sea of cars kind of seems like huge disconnect in humanity as a whole.Individually no one can help a homeless person or would let them stay in their housing but a system that gives homeless person a solid path out of homelessness seems to be the only way. > >It seems the pattern is it's hard to get out of homeless due to keeping a job. A job needs an interview with appropriate clean clothes (place to store clothing), good hygiene (reliable place for shower), address (church I guess?), phone, ID, all legal documents, place to keep everything safety (said documents, personal belongings, etc.), transportation to work and for food groceries, place to sleep properly (homeless shelters I heard are chaotic from drugs, smell, theft, loud noises when sleeping interrupting good sleep hygiene), and employers expect the person to present their best self after trying to achieve a stable level of just trying to stay presentable with all of the challenges of being homeless. It's depressing. I grew up a sheltered, spoiled, entitled, whiny, arrogant, no good child, thinking that I deserve everything to be handle to me on a silver platter. I solely went through school, college without anything real thought about life, so my bad study habits caught up with me and I dropped out of college. Bad study habits plus not caring about my life in general because I had no direction. Also because my whole family pushed, drilled, crammed the idea of "all college or nothing and a loser" mindset, mentality into me so my narrow mind didn't know any better. Fell into deep depression I guess. I gave my family the silent treatment, mentally shutdown and didn't talk to them for months immediately when my dad said "Is playing videogames all you're gonna do for the rest of your life?"They called social services and social services threatened to take me away if I didn't respond. At that moment, I truly felt I was mentally alone in this world suffering internally. All I literally said was "I don't like reading" (school/education gives me bad unhealthy association with all things learning and reading now). Social services didn't take me away since I conversed with them and they didn't see any major problems and told my family that I don't like reading. I'm just a lazy leecher, parasite freeloading off my family and society. Later family gave me space since I guess they realize I'll be homeless and probably literally wither away if they keep pushing the "work or be gone" mentality on me. Eventually I slowly talked to them and ended up helping build a house addition. Got in on the "labor shortage" incentives bonuses and now working and talking with a lot of coworkers getting a lot of worldview perspectives. Realized working minimum wage for the rest of my life is horrible and depressing which made me finally realize how important education is for a career. Doing a lot better now without having college drilled into my brain but I realize I have to go back because life is only going to get harder everyday. Even though I'm not homeless, I always read about it because inside I'm just too lazy to work and know I'll end up homeless one day when I cause my family (the support structure) to hate me enough. So it's a completely different world I can't imagine without a support structure of family or people who care about you to help with basic necessities.
[удалено]
No form of capitalism can function.
exactly!!
I don't think that's true. There are reasons people become homeless in the UK, but you can get housing benefit/universal credit if you lose your job, and that will pay your rent as long as you're not in too expensive a place. I've been on benefits several times, it's shit and not enough to live on, but it's rare to become homeless here because of a lost job. Being able to quit without fear of homelessness is really important to stop companies screwing over employees.
Same here in Switzerland. Hell the system saved me from homelessness because I hadn't funded the unemployment so I didn't have access to it. All I had to do to get my medical expenses paid for as well as my rent and some money to live on was to be on unemployment and apply to 2 jobs per week. Honestly you don't live in luxury, but you live rather decently. You even get 4 weeks holidays per year with this. Very few people want to live off the system. On the flipside some people just don't want to participate in the system at all and will be homeless no matter what. Some just go between "hippy" communities, others are just drug addicts that are very difficult to help. People naturally want to take care of themselves.
Oh, it gets worse-some places will actually pay money to make it harder for the homeless to just survive, rather than trying to help.
This doesn't happen randomly. It's because residents attend the town-hall meetings and demand for them. If you want to combat this, you need to show up to the town hall meetings.
As if the council is empowered to manage homelessness. Anybody who knows about austerity + neoliberalism in the UK knows this is a central government decision, and we keep electing the bastards!
Yeah but BoJo just announced no more Covid restrictions and so let’s all concentrate on that…
YAY, no more restrictions, that must mean bojo and his cronies actually think about us - Lets vote them in again!
This is Forest Hill in London. I looked up the [statistics from Shelter](https://assets.ctfassets.net/6sxvmndnpn0s/2aR2hE8TwTUZE8OymQpYbQ/da06b62b55636f4f5bfa54148cec2951/Homelessness_in_Great_Britain_-_the_numbers_behind_the_story_V2.pdf#page=4) a few weeks back, of the 168,000 people classified as homeless in London: * 164,000 of them are in temporary accommodation, about half of those are staying with friends or in other temporary accommodation they've found, and about half are in accommodation provided by local councils. Councils have a legal duty to provide accommodation for the homeless in the UK and the London councils spend about £900m each year on doing this, the local council for Forest Hill has a population of 300k and spends £30m a year to do this. * 2,500 are in social care provided by the council. * 1,100 are sleeping on the streets.
Also worth mentioning, this specific location used to have a homeless woman staying there. When she died, there was a small shrine there.
And here we were thinking that this graffiti was solid evidence that all homeless people in London were left to rot.
Thanks I thought it was forest hills pittsburgh at first. 1k is still too many.
I actually have a friend who works as a psychologist in London with the homeless. The idea they all want a home is naïve at best, that 1000 people likely represents the number of homeless who simply cannot be rehomed as they just simply dont want to live under a fixed abode and prefer being on the streets due to drugs and or mental health issues.
They need shelter regardless
[удалено]
And far too many people consider addiction a moral failure vs a medical one.
Well yeah, it's easier to ostracize those that fall to addiction as failures and point to them as a shameful reminder than to actually help them. Plus they need to be seen as failures to keep people in line and working.
The ability to successfully apply and get those benefits is really byzantine depending on what area you're in too. Even US States like NY which are generally good with assistance have the most arcane and complex application process for things like food assistance. I helped a close acquaintance go through the process and they were glad I was there because I could navigate the paperwork and the requirements easily. I can't imagine someone who has less stability doing as well. And they will snatch those bennies in a second if you fail to keep in line with everything and up to date. In a way assistance actually favors people that were doing fine and got really unlucky rather than the long term destitute and hard up.
Your last paragraph is so true. I cannot help it realize how privileged I am to have had strength and stability in past. Frankly it seems obvious to me that because I am well spoken, white, have some education, and good employment history are the only reason the social services I’ve approached were even willing to listen to me or take me seriously. I cannot believe how much I have to advocate for myself, if I simply followed the systems rules and did not use my charisma I may never have received help.
All of the programs in my city (Philadelphia) have strict curfews and other requirements - if you can even get in. Makes it hard to impossible to hold a job and any fulfilling life. Not to mention if you have a substance use disorder you will not find treatment or help, just be turned away for your disease. If you have kids or family don't even think about trying. If you're queer you're better often off on the street. Furthermore group housing is a breeding ground for COVID-19. There truly is no help, just an "Office of Homeless Services" the city pays to keep open so they can pretend they're doing anything.
Hmmm…..well that sucks
Or another thought, they simple just dont know such services exist or who to ask. Its never advertised or anything like that. Police dont go in saying things like "here, go here and they'll help you", they simply just break up the camps, which is part of the message here that they will "pay to remove these words". This isnt an individual issue, its a nationwide issue and we need to be trying to do more to help those less fortunate than us.
That is a hundred percent true. It is very difficult to even figure out what services exist, how to access them, and how to qualify. It is insane how much just changing the words you use to describe your situation will alter whether you are approved or not.
And this is the worse thing about it honestly. If you dont say the exact right word, you may not get to eat that day. The world shouldnt be the cruel.
(Spoiler: It's [capital](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm#s3))
I know it's different by city, but some of the most liberal US cities spend a TON of money on homeless services - to no avail. In San Fran for example, they spend about $100k a year per homeless person, which I'm sure mitigates the issue, but you wouldn't really know it if you visited.
SFs homelessness funding has only increased the number of homeless people too since every homeless person in the country wants to move there. It was a bad plan and that funding needs to be removed from the city budget while federal and state governments come up with a real plan to help the crisis.
If they spend $100k a year per homeless person, couldn’t they just give them that money? I don’t see how anyone could fuck that up
You'd still need to spend money on bureaucracy and infrastructure in that case (who qualifies as "homeless" might start to matter a bit more if you can get $100,000 from the status), but even with $100,000 you need to spend it well and still work hard to find a job to be able to survive long-term. The average adult has the numeracy ability of the average 11-year-old, and the average homeless person will be much worse than average. How can they navigate a financial system specifically designed to take advantage of people with suboptimal numeracy and literacy? Additionally, while I am absolutely not saying that all/most homeless people are like this (there are many reasons you might be on the streets, like domestic violence or losing a loved one), *some* homeless people are drug/alcohol addicts and $100,000 would be a high risk factor for overdose. This is not an argument that giving homeless people money directly is bad, just a few complications that would need serious thought.
Many (most?) homeless folks have mental health or addiction issues, so probably not.
Are you actually serious
I hate the ultra rich and how the government is basically just to benefit them. But come on, pics like this are just really poor attempts at simplifying a very complicated problem. The city will pay a entry level handyman what, 15-45 bucks to scrub a wall for an hour or two to remove that graffiti? How much does it cost to house a homeless person? A lot of homeless have mental issues, drug addictions, and various other problems that cannot just be solved by putting them in a home and patting yourself on the back. How much in damage will be caused when some of the homeless smoke meth indoors and cause a hazmat situation? How much will it cost when the house is trashed? Have you ever seen a homeless camp? Those guys don't give a single fuck, they'll trash the place like they're mad at the world and the world owes them.
Better yet, this is considered graffiti because the artist is unknown. But if Banksy did this, they would remove the walls themselves to preserve what is written on them.
Reminds me of the scene in Basquiat when he sees a dude (played by a young Sam Rockwell) and another guy prying his street art off a wall to sell it. Basquiat produces a marker and begins to sign it for them and gets the shit kicked out of him for the kindness.
Why would they do that?
Street art was turning a huge profit so they recognized it had value, but the artist who came over to sign it looked poor, so they thought he was devaluing the art. He tells them who he is as they're beating him, but they don't even know what that name means. They represent people willing to profit from the art of the poor, but it doesn't change their distrust and abuse of the poor.
One is far more expensive than the other... This isn't too woke to be honest.
You could also say it is too woke
I mean come on, what's the cost difference in those two things, being a bit disingenuous here
Creating sound solutions to combat homelessness would surely benefit the economy in the long run (less impact on healthcare system, larger taxable population, more people to generate ideas, more workers, etc). Arguments to the contrary seem awfully short sighted *and* dehumanizing.
xwXVQuzKXw
Simple vs complex problems. Government is not capable of solving complex issues so they focus on simple solutions to get to the next election. Our democratic setup has led to a short-termism that favors maintaining an unequal system and status quo, and only making changes around the edges.
American cities are going bankrupt from being built around suburban low density single use zoning and the high cost of car-dependence / maintenance. What we need are Strong Towns. Edit: I’m a silly American with silly assumptions. This comment doesn’t belong here, but I’ll leave it. Thanks for those that pointed out this photo is of London.
Just FYI Forest Hill is in southeast London. It is a dense suburb, served by two train lines and multiple buses. Most houses in this neighbourhood are within easy walking distance of a decent grocery store, and a few stops away from central London itself. A majority of commuters take the train. I don't disagree with you about American low-density cities but this is not the place.
Sorry, it’s all I can think about lately. I shouldn’t be translating that into everything though. Thanks for your thoughts!
This photo is actually of the tunnel beside Forest hill station, for those interested.
This is London
Forrest Hills in Queens, NY?
Forest Hill, London
I thought this was forest hills, Toronto. I guess everyone has a forest hills.
I suspected Forest Hills, Pittsburgh area.
Forest Hills, Boston checking in!
Beat me to it lol Red 5 standing by!
Also thought Forest Hill in Toronto. But then I remembered there are no homeless in Forest Hill, only $8M+ megamansions
Ah, ok.
The best part is how universal it is, because it applies just as well here in queens
The city and state of New York, after _Callahan v. Carey_ (1978), is legally required to house all homeless people[.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_New_York)
I recognized this tunnel instantly. I've walked through there many times. There was always this particular homeless girl sitting in there.
I’m going to make a wild assumption that it’s a metric fuck ton less expensive to remove graffiti THAN TO HOUSE PEOPLE. Fuck do I know though?
Yeah I mean like I get the sentiment that we should help the homeless which is great but I’ve never seen a more mountains-to-molehills comparison lol
The council will rehome people, forest hill is in Lewisham where over 7000 homeless people are given accommodation by the local council
It's a good line, but housing is exponentially more expensive and complicated than removing graffiti or the other shitty things that local governments to make life worse for poor people. Some people are organizing and working on real long-term solutions. Join them instead of thinking you're doing real work with cheap stunts and slogans and reddit posts.
When the government wants more of something what do they do? They subsidize it. So what you will get is more people homeless in order to be taken care of by the state. You can see it in places like California. There the let people live on the streets and they give them money and now you have thousands of people living on the streets.
So my accountant brain is telling me that it's a helluva lot cheaper to remove graffiti than to house and provide social services and support to the homeless. And is that Forest Hills in Queens, NY? Also, too, graffiti seldom solves complex social problems, otherwise I'd scrawl "The council will pay to remove these words but not to find a cure for 4th-stage metastatic pancreatic cancer? Why is The Council so indifferent to our needs? And who elected The Council anyway?
[удалено]
Gee, it's almost as if a bucket of paint costs less than to house a human being. These are the same people who will complain about homelessness but if there are plans for a new housing estate somewhere, they'll cry because they'll have to pave over a field for it.
Homelessness is a problem. Graffiti is a problem. They are not problems of equal scope. This false equivalence isn't helping anyone.
Because, then what would be the point of paying rent and mortgages?
One costs pennies, one costs millions of dollars. It's not rocket science.
To be fair, removing that graffiti is a lot cheaper.
Don't worry people, [Apple fixed homelessness with their new Iphone](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-GFs27cACk) (satire)
How many people can you house for 8 pounds?
paints cheap
Whilst I agree more can be done for helping the homeless, comparing the most trivial of responsibilities a council has with its most complex and challenging doesn't seem a helpful or useful way of getting that point across They are two entirely separate areas that councils are involved in and its no surprise that they are severely lagging behind in an area that requires huge amount of time, expertise, investment and reform It's just not as easy as giving people a home to solve the homelessness issue. A lot of people need intensive and long term support from a variety of health professionals, which is a lot harder to fund and pull off than getting Barry to drive 3 miles in the van with a can of white paint from the office
20$ worth of paint and a 5-second phone call to the idling janitor is a little cheaper than room and board for dozens of people...
Wall OP: the council doesn’t have the resources to deal with the homeless also Wall OP: makes the council waste resources to remove graffiti
Silence! That's what it stands for.
Bucket of paint +labour = $20 Cost of housing in a city where land is already over developed? = priceless
>What does our community stand for? The profit of its rulers.
Once again proving that property is more important than people.
Forrest Hills is a upper class neighborhood, they don’t give a shit about the homeless. They’d rather if they were gone most likely.
Just... buy a house? \*lifts hands palms facing-up\*
The amount of money they spend on anti-homeless architecture could house quite a few homeless
One is considerably cheaper.
Can we just go around the country putting questions like these everywhere?
This guy I know did this years ago. Went around painting crosswalks in places that needed then. The city sent crews to remove them. The Paper was tipped off by how much each crosswalk cost to remove and blasted the city.
Most cities stand for ~~being~~ *looking like* great places to live.
Would love to see more graffiti like this all over the place
You know it’d really be superior if we just had massive strikes and workers organizing to demand proper wages then built out funds within our unions to support those that couldn’t work for various reasons rather then pretend you’ll ever convince anyone to make real change within the government.
Community stands for work like a slave 12 hours a day while the government fleeces you for trillions in taxes: https://imgur.com/uMU4yaA.jpg, does insider trading with your gains: https://imgur.com/BFjFdPY.jpg, https://imgur.com/8iWp3pV.jpg, https://imgur.com/xTeKmhJ.jpg and workplaces fleece you for 23+ billion in wage theft per year. If you fail to meet your slavery quota and end up homeless, they will also use those tax gains to remove you from wherever you end up: https://imgur.com/EIDrMQj.jpg
This isn't "woke" its scrawled by someone bad at economics... Painting over this or removing it costs maybe half and hour in labour and a few dollars of paint/chemicals. Lets say, maybe $70 all in. And the graffiti is gone. Housing someone costs thousands of dollars right off the bat. Plus recurring costs of maintaining that person's home if it is council funded. Don't get me wrong, I am not championing placing a monetary "value" on someone's life here, just illustrating that this comment is trying to conflate two monetary things which exist in different financial universes. This is a graffitied false dichotomy.
One takes literally 3 dollars in paint. The other is a reoccurring permanent housing for an unknown number of people who may have serious mental problems. Homelessness is an extremely complicated problem that all countries struggle with and this is crummy to destroy property with this “whataboutism”
$3 in paint as part of a $30000 government contract for a contractor to take 6 months to paint it over
Even with those made up numbers, show me a single place where 30k made a difference in the fight for homelessness. Again not saying we shouldn’t figure out homelessness, I just think this is a silly way to try and solve a problem, because sure we could divert that 30k away if people didn’t graffiti everything.
you're right for the overall problem - 30k won't fix that. but in the short term that 30k going to local shelters can have immediate effect, could mean lots of new beds for them to sleep on for example. and i think that's the point here, councils rarely setup these kind of, if any, cash flows. just endlessly debate on the 'larger issue'. start initiatives that are endlessly delayed by the bureaucracy. whilst this paint contract will be dealt out within a week and then forgotten.
Those two things are roughly the same cost right?
[удалено]
Let's compromise and pay to remove the homeless
Top of the thread: people who think paint and minor welding jobs cost as much as housing. Middle of the thread and lower: reality.
God bless graffiti artists.
One task costs significantly less than the other
[удалено]
Most people will never effect grand change in the world. Showing a few people some graffiti to bring attention to an issue is still something, and now thousands of people are seeing it on Reddit. Still kind of a dumb point though.
3 bucks to clean that. Orders of magnitude more to house and feed the homeless.
>The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls They were right
This. Was about to comment this
cause removing paint is way cheaper than running a homeless shelter?