Inspired by a rant by George Carlin, I began wondering. He makes a statement about how we have a “War on Drugs, a War on Crime, but why no War on Homelessness.” He Gives the reason as “because there is no money in it”.
I know there are already tons of federally funded housing programs out there but every time you turn around you hear how the owners of apt complexes are skimping on repairs or contractors cutting corners to save money.
From the sounds of these articles there is literally BILLIONS of dollars in real estate money flying around it and many are trying to scam the programs that provide it. Yes a couple extra bucks here and there is nice but decently compensated govt employees getting $60K in subsidies that they knowingly stole. How many of these programs could have provided better homes for people who needed them if they thought even for a second about someone other than themselves.
I have been to several “make money in real estate” seminars and could easily see how housing programs could be done that would help way more people if people were not so wrapped up in making a bazillion dollars a year. I personally have little aspirations to be filthy rich, I would be happy just to make sure my bills were paid and a vacation once in a while. Maybe I’m too idealistic to understand but are there programs out there that are working, with truly needy families getting assistance, neighborhoods that are not turning into slums from the influx of subsidized housing? Is it possible for us to make low cost housing work or are we collectively too eager to make an extra buck that it will always have problems.
Answering your thread title rather than the more specific questions at the end of your OP…My guess is our fundamental greediness results from two things:
(1) Nature: There is probably an evolutionary advantage associated with having a desire to acquire, being that if you didn’t you would probably not be able to live long and reproduce.
(2) Nurture: I think our society really strongly reinforces this. We are constantly being bombarded with messages telling us we need to have more material positions in order to be happy and fulfilled.
I’m not sure which I think is the more dominant factor. They both probably make a pretty healthy contribution.
Well, the problem with you is that when the annual drought comes along, your grain harvest will fail because you were too lazy to be greedy and then you’ll starve away and your genes wont be progagated further into the gene pool. Well, at least that’s how it used to be. People with a reasonable amount of greed survived better than those with no aspirations so that trait got carried onto their children.
Yes, it is very possible. And, if it was society who made public policy decisions collectively, it would happen.
The problem is that public policy decisions are not made collectively. Indeed, the public has almost no say at all. It is not the public that is greedy, the public overwhelmingly favors increasing social spending, and always has. The problem is that in our system, the greediest and shiftless are selected out to rise to the top. Therefore, it is perfectly predictable that public policy decisions would be made, most of the time, to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The only exceptions to this rule occur when there is significant popular pressure on the ruling class.
Yes, the public overwhelmingly favors increased social spending…until taxes go up or they start building low income housing in their neighborhood.
If I am a homeowner living in a nice suburb, I don’t want a bunch of low-income housing built in my neighborhood, driving down my property values. Is that greedy?
Are you planning on moving sometime soon? How does low income housing down the street make you any more or less happy with your home. Most people buy homes for the lifestyle and the possibility of someday not having to pay for housing later in life. FTR I am a homeowner as well, just 297 more easy monthly payments to go
In several of the articles I linked the program paid a portion of the rent for an otherwise “normal” apartment. How would that affect the value of the property? If the programs were willing to assist with rent on a house next door to you for a poor family why would you be concerned. As long as they take decent basic care of their yard (or landlord provides yard service) it shouldn’t affect you home value in the slightest.
Actual experience says that public housing has been a disastrous failure. Part of the reason is greed. Another is that bureaucrats who make the big decisions may not have the expertise to make good decisions. Furthermore, their decisions may be based in part on political calculations or even bribery.
There’s no benefit to bemoaning human nature. We are what we are. So, let’s face reality and find some other approach that effectively works for needy people.
Unfortunately housing is a critical need for the homeless, are there better methods for tracking (cough) “campaign contributions” (cough) and such to limit the ability of individuals to sway a politician with cash/free services.
Also how much room is there legally for heavy handed lease restrictions like regular inspections, restrictions on drugs/alcohol on the premises, curfews, etc. I know it sounds like I am trying to create my own little mini gestapo state but I’m trying to give a “hand up” rather than a “hand out”. In previous threads on homeless issues I remember mentions of HR people “knowing” the addresses of homeless shelters when people used them and not calling them back for interviews. Why not build a little community where employers see that address and say, hmmm if they can survive there they cant be all bad.
It doesn’t matter how nice my house is if my neighborhood turns to shit because there are a bunch of welfare recipients hanging around all day drinking 40s and smoking blunts.
I don’t think you really care about helping the needy. I mean, that is just bloody obvious.
As for the dismal failure of the U.S. to provide affordable housing, this is true. Of course, the reasons for its failure are sort of the opposite of the fantasies you have in your head. But, fortunately for us, we don’t have to go far to see how a more civilized country deals with this problem. Canada, for example, does a far better job at providing basic necessities than does the U.S.
I’m trying to operate under the assumption that these people are the exception not the rule. This is also part of why I posted above on my musings for the “Gestapo Gardens Apartments” Kinda like running hard with the homeless shelter concept maybe something like college dorms or something. Heavily regulated, but adequate shelter for people who are willing and or able to help themselves with a little boost like a roof, inexpensive meals and access to some basic facilities (showers, laundry, etc.)
Perhaps the number one fault that conservatives find with liberals is favoring good intentions over good results. No doubt you approve of public housing because its proponents are so sincere in their beliefs. Does it matter to you that they’ve ruined the lives of innumerable people?
Incidentally, the answer to the riddle is, “Because she didn’t want to cross.” If liberals would stop pushing people in directions they don’t want to go, and discontinue government programs that are not effective, they could make the world a much better place.
My physiology teacher used to say we as human beings are cavemen in Armani suits----our bodies still want to store those hard-to-aquire fats for the almost certain famine that is right around the corner. Our experience tells us there is a 99 cent cheeseburger on every other street corner, but our bodies still store the fat in case we find ourselves in the Gobi desert tomorrow. We have to use our minds to limit ourselves in what we eat. Greed is what kept us plump and juicy throughout history. We have to use our minds to suppress our greedy human nature. Spending time, money and energy on helping the homeless is a compassionate and generous thing to do IMHO and takes the kind of person who is able to see past their very human nature.
That’s great and all but where do you put them? Do you displace some $2000 a month Manhattan appartments to put up some gub’ment housing? Who gets to live in them? Why should Joe Uppermiddleclass III pay $2000 a month to live in the same neighborhood as some guy who has his rent subsidized by the State?
Yes. But the “public” also overwhelmingly favors lower taxes. And when faced with the contradiction “the public” usually answer that the big fat government is wasting money (generally backing their statement with some example, or the salary if the representants, or whatnot) and that it could both reduce taxes and increase social spending, if the whole thing wasn’t run by incompetent/corrupted/stupid/lazy/wasteful civil servants and/or politicians.
The number of times you’ll see the same people complaining about them having paid too much taxes minutes after complaining that there isn’t enough of whatever their taxes are paying for is amazing…
Is Joe Goldentwat’s life somehow ruined by occasionally being forced to look at a poor person? Heavens, somebody disinfect the sidewalks. Fuck the prissy little trust fund barnacles.
The term “rampant classism” comes to mind here. Gotta make sure to keep those poor folk in the slums where they belong huh?
I would never suggest plowing under nice neighborhoods just to build low cost housing, thats just silly. I am pondering this as a prototype for something newer, bigger, and a little different. Set them up working in the feilds or something. If the people in question don’t want to work when work is offered, theres the door. In my area there is TONS of ag work, much of it done by questionably legal workers, and lots of relatively cheap land. I guess then it become a matter of would major cities be willing to ship us homeless people who are willing to work and stay clean in exchange for guarenteed work and shelter. Trying to build a program like this in a major city would probably be doomed to failure, a homeless minimally educated person with few if any skills is never going to be able to get out on their own with manhattan rents. Someplace like central CA with enough work and rents in the $400 range could make it possible for people to get out on their own with a little help.
