# Ahh, Rick Baker, you've finally got the homeless problem all figured out. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 27, 2007, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ahh-rick-baker-youve-finally-got-the-homeless-problem-all-figured-out/427969 "2007-11-27T22:29:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2007, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ahh-rick-baker-youve-finally-got-the-homeless-problem-all-figured-out/427969/101 "2007-11-29T14:37:03Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] The phrase in question was “vast majority”, and I already said I think that a proportion of children among the homeless of even only 12% or 10% seems too big to describe the remainder as a “vast majority”. You’re perfectly free to describe it as such if you want to, of course. [/quote] Nine out of ten? Like I said, you can quibble. > [@](#): > > Um, no, you’re misremembering, if nothing worse. I did not ever claim that the percentage of homeless people who are children is 41%. I linked in post #25 to a report which, as I said, “notes that 41% of the entire homeless population consists of families.” And, as noted, “homeless” means “sharing a bathroom” almost half the time. > [@](#): > > Well, I’d like to see some evidence before I venture to assume demonstrable superiority in either direction. But that is exactly the problem - you have asserted that government is the preferred agent without regard for what works. It’s the classic liberal line of thinking -[ul][li]Here’s a problem[_]The government has to fix it[_]Anyone who questions if it will work lacks compassion[/ul][/li] > [@](#): > > So far, you’ve provided no cites whatsoever about the comparative effectiveness of privately funded versus publicly funded efforts to help the homeless. You’ve only asked me to find you a cite about how the different types of programs succeed in addressing alcoholism, and since I didn’t provide one, you now appear to be falling back on sheer hypothetical speculation. Translation: I have no evidence to back up my assumptions, and you are resisting my attempts to shift the burden of proof. > [@](#): > > ? You accuse me of committing a fallacy of the excluded middle, and then make exactly the same sort of argument yourself. At least you recognize the fallacy of your own reasoning when it is stated by someone else. > [@](#): > > AFAICT, nobody here is arguing that we shouldn’t encourage the efforts of private charity to help the homeless. You’re not? I thought all your assertions that private charities could not possibly address the problem were meant seriously. My bad. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2007, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ahh-rick-baker-youve-finally-got-the-homeless-problem-all-figured-out/427969/102 "2007-11-29T17:09:53Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Most rational people will not be so attached to living in St. Petersburg that they will go homeless there before moving to a much cheaper place where they can keep a roof over their head. No, but they may be so attached to St. Petersburg that they fight and struggle to stay there, one paycheck away from being homeless, and then, as alluded to above, that paycheck doesn’t come. As for the scenario in other cities: 1. Who hires unskilled workers at 40 hours a week anymore? Out of the three retail jobs I’ve worked, I could only consistently get upwards of 20 hours a week at one, and that was only for a few weeks, at a Halloween store right before Halloween. 2. “So get two jobs”, you might say. Well, that’s nice, but generally you won’t be able to start two jobs at the exact same time, especially in a new and strange city. First, you spend whatever money it takes to move you and your stuff to your new town, then you put down a deposit, and then–assuming that you have a job waiting, which you won’t if you’re a minimum-wage worker–you start with a 20-hour job right off the bat and you make $400, or just barely enough to pay rent and utilities in the cheapest housing in America. How, exactly, does someone in danger of going homeless complete this process? Note that this is an especially generous (to your argument) scenario, since a minimum-wage worker is generally going to spend at least a couple of weeks putting in applications and doing interviews before s/he actually gets a job. They’d have to have a sizeable savings to live, eat and drive themselves to potential employers during this time, and if they had that much in savings they probably wouldn’t be worried about being homeless in the first place. 3. Even if you do pull off this fiscal feat, how are you going to pay for transportation to and from work _and_ to other places to fill out applications, do interviews, etc. for a second job, _and_ eat, with the $0 you have left? My guess is, you beg or (if you somehow have a few hundred dollars in savings at this point that you’re willing to invest) you sell drugs. > [@Shodan](#): > > My bad. > > Regards, > Shodan Either you’re deliberately using fallacious arguments to wear **Kimstu** and **RedRosesForMe** down or you’re phenomenally stupid. So far I’ve been inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I’m starting to wonder. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2007, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ahh-rick-baker-youve-finally-got-the-homeless-problem-all-figured-out/427969/103 "2007-11-29T19:49:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > you have asserted that government is the preferred agent without regard for what works. Where have I asserted that? What I’ve been saying is that government is an **indispensable** agent, and private charities by themselves can’t substitute for it, **because they don’t have the necessary resources**. Only taxpayer-funded programs have the money to address the problems of homelessness on the required scale. Like I said, if you need to clear a snowdrift, a teaspoon won’t do: you need a snow shovel. That remains true even if the snow shovel is old and cracked while the teaspoon’s in great shape. Now, what may be confusing you about my position is that I **also** said that I **personally** believe, as a matter of principle, that we have an obligation to care for the needy as citizens of a democracy working through government, not **just** as private individuals supporting private charities. I believe, as I said, that the task of social welfare should not be left entirely behind the closed doors of charitable-institution boardrooms, but should also be undertaken with public funds, as part of the duties of the elected representatives of the public, under the public eye. And that argument from principle **is** an argument for government involvement in social spending **irrespective** of pragmatic questions of the relative efficacy of public vs. private programs. So maybe that’s what confused you. **But** , if you discard that argument from principle, the pragmatic arguments about relative size and resources still hold good. Even if you don’t agree with me that it’s the government’s essential duty to spend public money on addressing the problems of homelessness, it’s still true that the government is the only institution big enough to tackle the problem on the necessary scale. > [@Shodan](#): > > > [@Kimstu](#): > > > > AFAICT, nobody here is arguing that we shouldn’t encourage the efforts of private charity to help the homeless. > > You’re not? I thought all your assertions that private charities could not possibly address the problem were meant seriously. I’m not sure if you really did misunderstand me on this point, or if you’re just pretending to do so in order to be annoying. I think anybody who was reading my posts for comprehension would have been able to figure out that I don’t think that the homeless services provided by private charities are worthless, nor do I think that we shouldn’t encourage them. In fact, as I noted in an earlier post, I contribute to them myself. But that doesn’t change the fact that private charities just don’t have the means to provide the necessary services on the necessary scale. In fact, they couldn’t even do most of what they do now if they weren’t getting a sizable portion of their revenues from government allocations. You may fuss and grumble about liberal propensities for looking to the government to solve problems, but realistically speaking, what’s the alternative in a case like this? If we defunded all public funding of programs to combat homelessness, what would take its place? That’s realistically speaking, now: no vague and fuzzy libertarian speculations about how private charities would somehow expand tenfold to fill the gap, or the market would provide a solution somehow, or we’d somehow suddenly figure out how to address the problems of homelessness at a fraction of their current cost. Realistically speaking, how would we handle this issue without looking to the government? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ahh-rick-baker-youve-finally-got-the-homeless-problem-all-figured-out/427969.md?page=5)