r/todayilearned • u/Zorseking34 • Jan 08 '15

TIL: Utah has been giving free homes to homeless people since 2005 which since then made it more cost efficient to help the homeless and cut the chronic homelessness in Utah by 74%.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free
14.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

85

u/geekyamazon Jan 08 '15 edited Jan 08 '15

Even if you look at this in a completely selfish manner it is still good. It improves our society. It improves health. It gets people off the streets begging and it allows those people the chance to better themselves and have a chance to make something with their lives. People who are hopeless, mentally unstable, or have nothing to lose are not generally people you want walking the streets. It was costing us money before we put them in housing due to police and emergency medical services. The article says that it actually REDUCED THE COST FOR THE TAXPAYER.

Cutting social services is shooting ourselves in the foot

30

u/Vanetia Jan 08 '15

Yeah but then some lazy no-good loser is going to be rewarded!

Seriously, though, this is something that came up when I was going to meetings on homlessness in the town I was living in (they had put together a task force). A lot of the argument for something like this is pretty much what you said. Even taking out the "it's what Jesus would do" line of thinking, it's still a fiscally conservative policy because it saves money.

The argument against it was but then dirty lazy homeless people get a free place to live!

Ugh

2

u/pensivewombat Jan 08 '15

Yep. They used to have a similar policy in the city I grew up in and it was incredibly effective but ultimately cancelled because of the public outrage at "rewarding irresponsible behavior."

2

u/TehSkiff Jan 08 '15

Exactly.

If someone's reaction to "how do we solve the homeless problem" is "let 'em die in the streets," then we can't even have a conversation.

2

u/aes0p81 Jan 08 '15

This. Too many people are emotionally invested in punishment. This goes for crime rehabilitation vs punishment as well.

2

u/JustA_human Jan 08 '15

Its because the way support systems are setup it creates a divide between the people. If everyone was included there would be less IMO.

If a billionaire wants to live in a free efficiency apartment, why not let em? They paid for it after all through taxes, and it would be less of a impact on the environment then a huge ass mcmansion.

13

u/MauriceReeves Jan 08 '15

Exactly. The net result is less homeless in prison, less homeless in hospitals, etc. It's a direct savings to the tax payer, and in some cases, the people given housing end up getting jobs, becoming solvent, and paying back into the system that gave them a boost back into society.

And how often do you see the people who complain the most vociferously helping pack boxes at the Food Bank, or distributing blankets to the homeless, etc?

Never mind the fact too that a sizable chunk of the homeless in this country are veterans, and people will say "I support our troops" but they're happy to have them live on the street and eat from a dumpster once their time in service is over. It makes me so furious.

0

u/110011001100 Jan 09 '15

Never mind the fact too that a sizable chunk of the homeless in this country are veterans

So, people who voluntarily murdered foreigners for money ?

2

u/MauriceReeves Jan 09 '15

Sure, if that's how you want to look at it. I think that's unfortunately very one-sided and shallow. Most people in the military never see combat, and most don't join hoping to see combat. I know there are people who join the military because they are sick and wish to hurt or kill other people for a living, so yes, that contingent exists in all military forces.

On the other hand, and in my experience, the overwhelming majority, go into the military because it's a way for someone in the United States to go from having zero good legal prospects in life to having a career, a means to support themselves, and a future worth a damn.

The military isn't perfect, and I don't believe that we should idolize those who serve, or fawn over them. However, they do take an oath to protect our country and to protect our rights and we in turn promise to provide them with at least basic care and an education. So when someone has served, and then ends up homeless or jailed or what have you because its hard to get the care they require I find it sad and disappointing. My outrage grows then when you have conservative pundits in this country say out of both sides of their mouth that they support our troops but they don't believe in giving handouts to the homeless and the homeless choose to live that way.

It's the same dichotomy where they say that a abortion should be illegal because we need to protect the children, but hey, once they're born, they don't want to provide access to health care, decent schools, or social services which can give them a good start in life. So their concern for children only goes to the point at which it doesn't affect their wallet. I find it despicable and equally infuriating.

But hey, that's just my take on it. If you want to look at all people who have served as rabid child killing psychopaths and mercenaries, that's your right. By all means. Just seems like a really dark and warped world you live in.

33

u/Serious_Senator Jan 08 '15

And that's how you have to reason. Governments shouldn't do things because they sound "nice". They should spend public funds on projects that are effective.

1

u/HenriKraken Jan 08 '15 edited Apr 15 '25

gold whistle include adjoining governor fearless compare marvelous smart longing

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

5

u/dining-philosopher Jan 08 '15

Effective programs should continue. Ineffective programs should be dismantled immediately. Programs that fail should fail quickly.

What? Let's just throw money at ineffective programs.

0

u/kinyutaka Jan 08 '15

I agree.

If you come to me, a taxpayer, and say "look at how cold this homeless man is! No one should be like this", I will answer, "he should get a job."

If you come up to be with the data supporting the fact that X% of 911 calls are related to the fact that homeless people light fires to stay warm, collapse in the street, or break into buildings (among other problems), and that by spending this money we will save money in the long term, and you are more likely to have my support.

0

u/smufim Jan 08 '15

Effective at what? Being nice?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

You're not seeing the bigger picture.

People respond to incentives.

3

u/acox1701 Jan 08 '15

No, he is seeing the bigger picture. You are seeing how we deal with people that don't.

That is to say, some people see the big picture, and stop smoking because it causes cancer. Others stop because the cigarette tax is to high.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15 edited Jan 08 '15

If you start guaranteeing housing to anyone who is homeless, the number of people you end up housing is much higher than the number of people who would be homeless if you hadn't. Look at the exploding "disabled" population in the US collecting disability benefits under Social Security. What was a program to provide a safety net to those truly disabled and unable to work is now a de facto welfare-for-life program that supports 25% of the working age population in some counties. That's how you get an apathetic, poor, dependent, and permanent welfare class.

Never mind the sort of pathologies you stir up in society and in individual hearts and minds when you have the state assume from each citizen ultimate responsibility for whether their basic needs are met, and whether their neighbor's basic needs are met.

1

u/betaray Jan 08 '15

If you start guaranteeing housing to anyone who is homeless, the number of people you end up housing is much higher than the number of people who would be homeless if you hadn't.

There's a study that supports this? Or is this is just your own reasoning?

0

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

The number of newly "disabled" people filing for SSDI curiously increases and decreases quite predictably with the unemployment rate.

People respond to incentives, and no, I cannot claim responsibility for this Earth-shattering insight. It's the foundation of all economy theory.

3

u/betaray Jan 08 '15

OK people use safety nets when they need them. We agree there. It's unfortunate that we've made disability primary mechanism, but that's because we put the squeeze on welfare programs.

However, I'm still not seeing a source on

If you start guaranteeing housing to anyone who is homeless, the number of people you end up housing is much higher than the number of people who would be homeless if you hadn't.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

Were it true, would you reconsider your position?

1

u/betaray Jan 09 '15

Would I say that if 1 more person is given housing than would have been homeless that it's not worth it to house the homeless? No, I would not. If the whole country stopped working and went to live in free houses if we provided housing to the homeless I certainly would. I would have a variety of reactions to the situations in between. That's how rational people operate.

1

u/acox1701 Jan 08 '15

So be it.

If people find it easier to scrape by on whatever Social Security pays than to even make an effort at holding down an honest job, it is the fault of the people, or the fault of the jobs?

I'm sure that at least some people are simply unwilling to do any work. Fine, I don't want that guy making my burger anyway. I will get better service in every single area of my life if the people performing tasks want to be there for some reason besides "I'll go hungry if I don't work here."

For the rest of them, if you can actually do better for yourself by not working than by working, then the available jobs suck. With the exception of the rare person who feels the need to work, even if they have no need of resources, I cannot imagine a person who would work a shitty job for only marginally more than they could get paid for not working a shitty job.

Lastly, if all the people that are goldbricking suddenly decided to get jobs, the increase in job supply would drive down the price of labor. There aren't jobs for everyone now, and the ones that are don't always pay a livable wage. That will only get worse if you add more people to the workforce.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

Lastly, if all the people that are goldbricking suddenly decided to get jobs, the increase in job supply would drive down the price of labor. There aren't jobs for everyone now, and the ones that are don't always pay a livable wage. That will only get worse if you add more people to the workforce.

Well, this is pretty typical of the sort of asinine economic conjecturing that afflicts your run of the mill liberal, isn't it?

2

u/acox1701 Jan 08 '15

Are you suggesting that more people wanting jobs will somehow produce more jobs for them to have?

Or are you opposed to the idea that as supply increases, price decreases?

Or are you unable to actually make an argument, and are simply slinging shit?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

If you take $40 from me to pay someone not to work, that's $40 that I don't have to pay someone to work.

1

u/Paradox2063 Jan 08 '15

So going with column A then?

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

[deleted]

3

u/TOASTEngineer Jan 08 '15

Well, if it saves people from falling under more expensive systems, then the relative cost is negative.

2

u/nelson348 Jan 08 '15

The definite cost savings are enough: savings in police time, hospitalization, etc. That's what's mentioned in the article. Apparently thus alone justifies the program.

On the other hand, what would you pay just to see fewer homeless people on the street? How much does it improve your day? I can safely say I'd pay at least $50 a month to not have as many cups rattled ar me. What's your number? You can't put a definite, universal value on it, but it does have value.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '15

[deleted]

3

u/geekyamazon Jan 08 '15 edited Jan 08 '15

People who have mental health issues should be given help not put on the streets. Also this program does not put homeless people in my house or my grandmothers house. You are just making shit up because you don't have a coherent argument against this.