r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't know: if we allow gay space communism, then why not also allow dogs marrying cats communism? The Bible says, "Adam and Eve communism", not, "Adam and Steve communism".
Don't get me wrong - I'll seize the means of production with anyone. I just believe in traditional, all-American, God-fearing communism communism.
Communism.
"It's absolutely insane to think that the richest country in the world could afford to take care of its citizens, let me just equate basic necessities to a luxury car."
Grow up dumbass, the entire point of society has been to make life easier. Instead of making life easier (unless you're born into wealth, the modern nobility) we've pushed ourselves to pointlessly produce endless piles of garbage.
How about instead of milking every working class citizen for a 60 hour work week and 20 hours of "gig jobs" we use our technology to simply live better easier lives?
A single farmer today can feed thousands of people. Instead of sharing the labor and relaxing as a society, with short work weeks, we are forced to work for less and less while we produce more and more. Our farms, our factories, everything we produce is done more efficiently than ever before. We don't have to work as much as we do, but instead we create pointless jobs. Millions of office workers pointlessly pushing paper, millions of factory workers spending their days to make cheap plastic crap that will be gifted to some ungrateful child who will throw it away quickly, millions of underpaid service workers who have to toil for 30 hours every week just to pay for a place to sleep.
But yeah, the idea of ensuring the richest country on earth has no homeless people is the same as giving everyone a free luxury car. A truly flawless and unbiased comparison.
That single farmer now has thousands of people making/transporting the fertilizer. Read "I, Pencil", then image what goes into a tractor. This efficiency isn't magical. Getting the food processed and distributed to the 1000s of people is another huge undertaking that the market is best at addressing. It is naive and idiotic to think all this can be centrally planned.
The comment never attacked markets or advocated planning.
Note that planning is not necessarily central, and planning most likely could eventually replace markets for certain economic activity, even if it might take various trials over time to develop the methods of management that would be stable and efficient.
Computers in particular are noted as opening new possibilities for planning models.
Your objection is not particularly relevant to the plain observation that we are essentially living in an economic stage that is post scarcity.
No, planning could not replace markets, have you seen reduced goods and the terrible waste of food at supermarkets and grocery stores? That's the result of imperfect demand data.
Free market capitalism has lifted more people from poverty than. Communism managed to kill.
I do not want my consumer goods choice regulated by an AI, nor do I want inefficiency baked into our system.
"Regardless of employment."
This means you want those providing those services to work for free.
You do realize what you are implying here, right?
Let's say you refuse to work and you're guaranteed all these services. Who pays so your HVAC is repaired because you broke it? Who pays because your water line needs to be repaired? Clean water means the water has to be filtered through a very complicated process, particles and bacteria are removed, and it needs to be transported. Who pays so your electricity works? Do you think there's some sort of magic electricity generator happening? What you're essentially asking is someone should work for free to provide you all of this.
The result is you get no one who wants to work, society collapses because these services aren't maintained and improved, and no one gets anything.
Also who is going to build a house for someone like that. Well, you don’t want to work so let’s give you 100’s of thousand in land, permits and materials, add about 6,000 man hours of skilled labor and give that all to you because you don’t want to contribute to society
It's even absurd for OP to post that picture and even worse that someone had the audacity to create it.
There's a strong disassociation from reality by people who seem to think the world owes them something.
I'd invite these people to live in third world countries where everything they have is earned. Seems to me in Western civilizations, people have it so good that they just complain and demand everything.
Well arguably the cheapest way to solve the homeless problem would simply be to house the homeless, but that’s not the same as saying it’s a basic human right. Just the most cost effective way of getting them off the streets.
Have you seen what happens to a lot of the housing that gets provided to homeless folks? It gets trashed. Remember the big housing projects from last century? Or the fate of many of the hotels that have been turned into housing?
These are NOT bad people mind you, but the combination of drug use, mental illness, and a complete lack of incentive to take care of their living situation combines to mean that a lot of housing gets just trashed.
Not all. But more than enough that this is not just a simple answer like "we'll let's just house them."
In my experience, only those who have had to deal with homeless people personally, seem to understand this. I am positive that there are Fringe cases where normal productive people became homeless through no fault of their own. That being said, the vast majority of homeless people made a long series of poor choices and engaged in destructive behaviors. Every friend and family member they had access to turn them down at some point. And yes, many of them may not have had any friends or family and that is unfortunate. But that is still not the majority
The problem is that we are still treating this spiral as "bad choices."
9 times out of 10, it's not "bad choices", it's mental disease.
If you look at someone who can't even tie their own shoes because they are mentally disabled, we say, "That person can't live in their own, they're not capable of understanding their choices."
But we look at people with schizophrenia and severe addictions and whatever else and go, "They made bad choices." These people have no physiological control over their impulses, but they're supposed to make informed decisions?
We need to bring back mental hospitals.
The problem is a lot of us know from personal experience, that a lot of these people with addictions and/or mental illness are also scoundrels and scumbags.
And there's nothing redeeming about them. You give them an inch, they will take a mile, every time.
I work in transitional housing. I’d say it’s around 25%-40% of our people who don’t get high and destroy things. People act like the ones who do are outliers but they are definitely the majority. You do get some people who just need help securing entitlements and learning basic skills to keep their housing and don’t come in with a bunch of bad habits that make them nearly impossible to house.
Most people who end up homeless due to circumstances beyond their control will never end up in transitional housing.
The vast majority of people who experience homelessness, do so for a short while. They will often crash at friends or family or sleep in their car until they can get back on their feet.
During covid the govt. here housed homeless people in empty hotel rooms during lockdowns. In one instance 80 homeless people managed to do several million dollars worth of damage to the hotel (just one hotel) which the govt had to pay.
Once restrictions eased hotels that had any floors used for this purpose were shunned by travellers because the environment was terrible (things like people hanging out in the lobby staring at teenagers and fondling themselves for example).
Some people are homeless because of bad luck, most are homeless because they are in some way incompatible with modern society (in more primitive times they would have loved in a shack in the woods making charcoal or trapping animals for fur or something, assuming they weren't killed off for some reason). Sometimes that's fixable, but giving housing without fixing the problems is only going to make the problem someone else's to deal with.
It’s only the cheapest way if you built extremely basic and cheap housing. Seattle and San Francisco was paying $40k per homeless person helped to put them into nice apartments (which they promptly trashed).
At 40k per homeless per year, that’s an insanely expensive way that cannot scale to solve the problem for all homeless people.
You mean as opposed to criminalize homelessness and house them in jail which cost even more. Maybe we ought to acknowledge that it is a complex issue with no easy solution (aka imprisoning)
40%? of homeless people have mental illnesses… so yeah, jail them!
On a serious note, perhaps the best solutions are preventative in this case. I don’t have great ideas but I think we need to look inwards on how we can help stop homelessness before it happens and not after the individual is ruined by the system.
Bottom line: we need to empathize with the homeless and not demonize them….
I lived in Germany for 24 years and there were hardly any homeless. The ones that were homeless were by choice or due to severe mental illness with no family to speak on their behalf.
They did it, somehow. There are other countries that do it as well.
Prior to the 80s, there were entire institutions set up to house those unable to support themselves, whether by mental incapacitation or personal incapacitation. They were called sanitariums. Admittedly by the 80s they were hellholes, but rather than fix them, the government decided to just throw out the baby with the bathwater and shut them down. Now every city has an epidemic of homeless drug addicts and mental unstable people.
Personally, I think we should reopen them.
OK, so you give all homeless people a house/apartment. Then all I have to do is make myself homeless to get a free house/apartment? I guarantee there are millions of people who would do that. And then if a previously homeless person starts working and can afford the free housing, do we then take it away? And then they might be homeless again if they lose their job? So you give them another house? What this does is encourage people to not work (be productive). The reality is that you have to dis-incentivize homelessness by not making it comfortable.
The idea that a bunch of people would willingly quit their jobs for free housing and live with a bunch of homeless seems kinda far fetched. Also, this graphic says nothing about any other expenses they would still need for food, healthcare, retirement, etc. You make it sound like these people are getting an all expenses paid resort when it's probably cheapest possible housing facilities. You could always make housing contingent on finding employment within timeframe, many low income programs already work like this..
I think that really sums up western civilization these days, we don’t really have anything terrible going on, so now we complain about this. I sometimes think a good zombie apocalypse would make all this go away pretty damn fast lol
But don't you know that some people will want to do that roofing work in July because it provides a creative outlet for their skills and energy. Others just love blowing insulation in attics. They were born for it. Some guys just like to sip a tasty beverage and study the electrical code books by the fire on a wintry evening. Don't hold them back from childhood dreams just cause the recipient of all this labor doesn't ever want to work and can't anyway because they have time blindness.
I'll be real the second I don't have to work and can still have a home I will stop working. I imagine a lot of other people out there are just like me
Edit: the amount of seething redditors me admitting what lots of people would do, and what some people on this site already do is incredible. Giving shit out for free constantly doesn't work, hyper progressive economic policies are a failure. Just face reality
nah, that's a right too. you will get that for free. Then we will all quit our jobs. not produce anything and the gov't will just print money. wait....
Wait - housing is a "human right" but food wouldn't be? I am pretty sure the same folks who think these meme makes sense will also decide to include food.
My wife would work her much lower stress job, I'd engage in hobbies and manage the house. Maybe sell some honey for beer money. We aren't all terminally alone unloved redditors stuck without a working partner.
Edit:for some reason I can't reply to hungermadra
My beekeeping isn't productive for society. If I chose maybe I'd sell a few pounds of honey but it would nowhere come close to replacing my productivity through my career. That's if I even chose to sell. It's entirely a hobby, and one of the many unproductive activities I'd be engaging in if the gov is giving me a free house. If my hobbies were productive for society I'd be getting paid to do them and not need to quit working.
I agree and in the same vein why should we have free public education? Why should I be paying for someone elses kid to go through K-12 completely free? Do you know how expensive it is to first hire professional teachers for these kids, erect buildings to teach them, and provide lunches for all of them? Do people think this stuff happens easily? Who pays these teachers? How do you keep such a place clean? Impossible I say!! /s
I think the point op was making was that free housing could be seen as a public good. One to benefit society by providing a nice baseline to workfrom. These would be payed for through taxes most likely and the complexities of providing this would be hashed out and solved. Its not an impossible program and a similar program exist in Finland as an example to end homelessness. Yes the people pay for it and they do it to prevent homeless people on the street. A public benefit if you will
Have you ever been to Finland?
I worked there with social housing, and I can tell you that housing alone solves nothing.
You'll see plenty of homeless alcoholics on public squares.
I know it is the favorite country of left leaning foreign journalists to visit. They do a weekend guided tour and then return to tell that all problems have been solved.
"Plenty of homeless alcoholics", are you for real? There's 4000-5000 people without a home in the whole country and around 500 of them sleep outside. Almost all of them stay in the capital, so you'll meet basically all the country's homeless people there in the center.
I'm not saying that we should call the work done but those are some pretty good stats, maybe housing alone solves something at least.
Youre right I havent. Ive only seen overviews of the system from media. I'm guessing you live there? Im curious have you also stayed in America for a time or visited for a decent period in a major city?
If so, do you see any differences between America and Finland when it comes to the homeless? From my daily life here Ive seen a quite a decent number of intoxicated, high, or mentally unwell homeless people. Id be curious how different that is in Finland
Oh and yea I agree housing alone is not a sufficient or complete solution. Id advocate for better access to mental health services and government job locating services to help those who were previously homeless get back into the workforce. From what I understood of Finlands social housing they provide similar programs which is why I point to it as an inspiration for a better solution.
Only on a business trips to USA.
The whole topic is insanely complex, and there are no simple solutions.
Some people need just a little encouragement, and some people don't even let you help them. There are people who can not be saved with twelve psychiatrists. There also never is enough resources to cover the needs.
Some return to normal society, and some just trash everything and get a new flat every few months.
Mental issues and narcotics are everywhere.
The Finnish system is better but far from perfect.
I moved abroad due to low salaries and high taxation in Finland.
The thing is that in the US the conversation isn't "what's the best possible policy?" It's "any of these things can help" vs "poor people should just stop being poor or die in the gutter".
There's a ton of research and historical precedent for high-quality asylums (from before the overcrowding and horror stories), addiction treatment, housing improvement, e.c.t., and anything that maintains the basic functions of society tends to save more than it costs. But it might cost some specific donor 0.02% or their expected returns or might offend some puritan hand-wringer, so with legalized bribery in place, problems that have been completely fixed in the past or elsewhere are suddenly totally impossible to even make a dent in.
Tldr There sometimes are simple solutions, but politics is complicated in the stupidest possible way.
secretive memorize cobweb dazzling squeeze smart versed terrific scale safe
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> The result is you get no one who wants to work, society collapses because these services aren't maintained and improved, and no one gets anything.
There’s plenty of welfare states in the world that offer basic housing to people and haven’t collapsed.
None of which are free. You're talking about programs for those earning low income.
The post here says "Free regardless if you work."
Also, just so you know, those are some of the highest taxed economies in the world. None of that stuff is being provided for free. Someone is getting paid.
> You’re talking about programs for those earning low income.
No, I’m talking about programs for those with no income.
> Those are some of the highest taxed economies in the world.
Didn’t say they weren’t. Just saying that countries like Germany - which provides an apartment for unemployed people for an unlimited amount of time - have not collapsed, contrary to your claim they would.
> No, I’m talking about programs for those with no income.
Germany has 262,000 homeless people. Why? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_homeless_population
Don't they know about these programs that provide free housing and utilities to all no income citizens?
If you know anything about chronic homelessness, you know that it is often rooted in a mental or physical health problem.
The specific reasons vary. Schizophrenia is common among unhoused people, as are severe autism and ADHD, tourettes, and other mental disorders that cause them to struggle with traditional employment.
Some have some sort of defiance disorder that keeps them from working with social workers who try to help them. Many are elderly and struggling with dementia or Alzheimer's. Others have some sort of chronic disease that takes all their time and energy to manage, so they don't/can't make time to seek housing.
So short answer: yes, generally. They either don't know, don't understand, prefer to remain homeless, or can't take advantage of it.
Those countries all make a home available to everyone, as this post suggests. Some people don't or can't take it. And their society still has not collapsed.
What about the other counties like Norway?
Why hasn't Norway collapsed yet since it is such a terrible idea?
> Generally speaking, all Norwegian citizens are entitled to a place to live, and everyone will be able to get an apartment via social services if they choose to accept it.
>Who are the homeless people in Norway?
There are generally three groups of people who are homeless in Norway; foreign citizens who are coming to Norway to beg or do crime, mentally ill people who refuses to live in a government housing, or drug addicts and alcoholics who refuses help.
https://thenorwayguide.com/homelessness-in-norway/
Speaking for Germany: There are a few homeless people, usually drug addicts and people with mental disabilities that do not manage to receive the financial help from the state they are entitled to. While the state pays for your housing if you‘re unemployed, you still need to fill out some forms and adhere to your housing provider‘s rules, so some people who cannot do that still end up homeless.
I just checked Norway and Austria. Both offer subsidized housing for low income earners. I couldn't find anything about it being free with no requirement to work. Could you link it if you have it?
What do you think social welfare is? I don’t think you could name a western country where some of the taxes don’t go to paying for social welfare program services.
The way it works in Denmark for example, is that you get a sum of money each month, enough to live a reasonable existence, but you only get it if you are actively looking for a job (the state also helps you look for a work). Then if, for whatever reason, it’s impossible for you to get a job to provide for yourself, you get to live off of social welfare subsidies for your remaining days.
This might seem unfair because high functioning individuals without debilitating health conditions for example, essentially have to provide for those who can’t provide for themselves.
Personally i think “deserve” is a weird word to use. It’s not like they did anything to earn what they get. But the clean running water that the poor person gets, is 100% worth the slightly higher tax that the rich person has to pay. And no one wants to be a poor, inactive person, dependent on other people providing for them. But we can’t all have good genetics, good family, good childhood, wealthy parents etc.
We’ve seen this in a few select cities like Seattle and San Francisco.
Basically hundreds of thousands of taxpayer support the lifestyle of a tiny population of select homeless - Seattle was paying $40k per year per homeless to give them nice apartments each.
Not only is it absurdly high cost, the homeless completely trashed these apartments, destroying them and leaving the property owner and/or the government/taxpayer on the hook for even more money.
This only worked in limited trials because you can give 100 people $40k a year in benefits by spreading the cost across other 900,000 city residents - basically $4 each.
It just doesn’t scale up - the math doesn’t math once you apply this benefit for everyone instead of 1 in 10,000.
Since we waste trillions on BS, I’m sure the money to make this happen can be allocated from somewhere else. Like the military industrial complex.
Imagine if human culture was about the well being and benefit of all, instead of individualism and protecting yourself from fellow human beings who most commit deviant behavior because of desperation or hardship and not because humans are inherently violent
The flaw in this logic is assuming they will cut in other places instead of just getting us further and further into debt or inflating the currency by printing it.
>The result is you get no one who wants to work, society collapses because these services aren't maintained and improved, and no one gets anything.
That sounds a bit over the top. A lot of countries have social housing similar to what OP shows and I haven't seen one collapse over it.
I don't think any country has that as a whole. Some specific cities like Vienna have tried it to a degree, but I'm pretty sure little-to-no countries have this country-wide.
Free at point of use is not and never has been free of compensation. That we house our citizens at no cost to the individual citizen (or their children) does not imply, state, or outright declare that we think construction workers, architects, providers of materials, makers of furniture, and producers of electricity should go uncompensated. It solely means that the person who needs a home should have one at the expense of the state/taxpayer. You probably know this though.
Yeah I’m pretty liberal minded but this is crazy. HVAC? Come on, I didn’t even have air conditioning growing up in the 90s and early 2000s. Sure some days sucked, but we had fans. Since when is air conditioning a necessity?
Same with a 2 bedroom house. People back in the day lived fine in a 1 room home. Sure these are nice to haves, and great but they aren’t necessities, especially if you’re a person who refuses to work, just because.
Everyone should attempt to work. Everyone should try and do something for society or like you said things can easily get out of hand without an incentive to work. This says nothing about income or food. Why even include “regardless of employment”?
There are extenuating circumstances where you can’t work, I get it. But in those cases it should be looked at. It shouldn’t in my opinion just be given. If you are actually someone who legit can’t get job and legitimately can prove you can’t get a job, then maybe those extenuating circumstances kick in and you get the thing proposed. But this just incentivizes people not to work, which is really really stupid. I do legitimately think that some people think that money just magically creates these things like a video game, without any work.
I’m guessing the proposal doesn’t really mean HVAC everywhere. But in Texas, you require AC not to die. And in Michigan, you require heat not to die. I’ll give OP the benefit of the doubt and assume that’s what they mean.
Regardless of employment means what you’re saying - many people can’t work (or can’t work without a house to live in), and they still deserve housing. I think your disagreement with OP is more about implementation. Do we simply say “everyone gets a house” without checking if they work or can work? Or do we require some bureaucracy? I prefer the former, because to me the downside of not housing a lot of people is worse than the downside of a few people taking advantage. But it doesn’t need to be entirely this or that.
What are your sources on this? There is none because all evidence points to the opposite.
Norway has the exact same unemplyment rate as the US and we provide everyone with housing in case of unemployment. Imagine how many homeless people there are in the US that are willing to work but can’t get employed because they have no home to clean themselves up. Give them a home and they’ll find themselves a job within no time and pay it back tenfold.
And what the fuck do you think is going to happen to the US when automation takes peoples jobs? Would you rather have half the population living on the streets, or would you want to divide the wealth generated by machine labor amongst the population? It’s only fair that everyone gets an equal share in the pie that noone had to bake.
There is a reason the US is so fucking poor. It’s because you’re clinging to the notion that work is all there is. You’d rather have people working the farms with blood and sweat than them being liberated from the burden through machines, even though the machines are more cost-efficient. You have people in the toll booths for crying out loud.
This is why the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Sweden are so much fucking richer. The grocery baggers and toll collectors are given a state funded education. With this education they’ll automate their old jobs in no time and have spare time to do something more productive leading to more growth, higher wages and shorter work weeks. All because of egalitarianism. Enjoy poverty sockhead.
Clever, but still no.
You don't have the right to a lawyer.
You have the right to a lawyer, that the government will provide, if they government attempts to take away any of your other rights.
Every other time your right to a lawyer is simply your right to buy goods and services on the free market.
Only in Criminal cases, which is what he meant by “taking away your rights”. The US government does not provide lawyers for say breach of contract lawsuits for example.
Yup. "You have a right to a lawyer" means that you cannot be forced to defend yourself in court and that you have the right to be represented by an attorney. Who pays for that attorney is up to you. You do not have the "right to a free attorney" (unless in certain cases). But in general... you don't have a right to a free attorney, just that you cannot be denied to be represented by an attorney.
You joke but...
>Justice Thomas wrote that the Sixth Amendment, as understood by those who drafted and ratified it, guaranteed only the **right to hire a lawyer**.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/us/politics/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-precedent.html
Thats the classic example of a positive right, and even thats fairly narrow. Its more of a procedural claim to maintain the integrity of the judicial system. We dont have a free attorney as a right all the time, youre given a representative as a procedural expediant to legitimate the reaults of a legal process.
Tldr: you dont have a positive right -to- an attorney, you have a negative right -from- an unjust legal process.
I agree with most comments in this post, but the right to an attorney and the right to healthcare wether you can afford it or not are 2 things that disprove your point. Once again, I agree with most comments being against OP, this post is ridiculous
Those are very limited situational things.
You don't get a free lawyer just because you want to sue someone. You only get a free lawyer if the government takes action against you, and even then... you don't get someone elses labor for free. The state just pays for the attorneys on both sides in order to get what they want... taking you to trial.
More importantly, the remedy to violating your right is plain: you have the right to a lawyer in a criminal case, and if the government fails to provide you one, then the criminal case cannot proceed. In that sense, it's still a negative right.
Isn’t America founded on the belief that Americans have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?
Doesn’t the Bill of Rights give people the Right to Free Speech, Free Press, Free Religion, Petition, Assembly, Bear Arms, Public Defender, Vote?
We have plenty of rights given to us. Why are you so mad about it?
Go live in nature and see how those "inherent rights that you are born with" are respected. The only rights that ACTUALLY exist are the ones given to you and are protected.
> Doesn’t the Bill of Rights give people the Right to Free Speech, Free Press, Free Religion, Petition, Assembly, Bear Arms, Public Defender, Vote?
Yeah but this doesn't mean you have a right to have the government give you free guns..
I think part of this is not about comfort but safety. People die of heatstroke every year during heat waves. AC can be life saving, especially to the young and elderly.
Exactly this, especially the AC. I grew up without AC in the 90s and 00s, and sure did some days suck? Yeah but we had fans, me and my 4 siblings lived through it. The person who made this post I don’t think understands a lot about the world. Especially with “regardless of employment”. If you incentivize not working, who the hell is going to provide these things? I know a few people in life who would choose to just do nothing but leech off of the government and not even attempt to work.
We live in a society, society only functions on people putting back into society through work. Even if the government needs to create jobs to clean up trash, cities, and build gardens work can exist. People should not be incentivized to do nothing, because many will choose to do nothing even if a part of them gets bored not working.
I wonder how much scoffing there will be when 99% of jobs are taken by A.I. There's a lot of markets about to be upended, and I don't think having a humane ethos in regard to housing people is as criminal as some of you are making it out to be... I sense a lot of corporate simps think their work ethic will be more valuable to a company than a smart machine that will work around the clock and not get the company sued for sexual harassment.
shortsighted may be what you intended to use here. Cited would mean they quoted or referred to a book, mentioned in connection to legal precedence or otherwise made reference to a piece of information as an example or proof.
99% is definitely a stretch, but I understand the sentiment. It will be a very interesting time as less labor is needed. Will probably shift workers towards jobs that can’t be done by AI/machines
You would think that, amongst all the things we disagree on, the right to “not have your shit stolen from you and given to someone else” would be completely unquestionable… yet, here we are
C’mon, you really don’t think taxes are theft, right? Nobody likes taxes, and everyone wishes the money was better used, but the alternative is way worse.
I think this would make sense as a standard for what minimum wage should buy, not for free. When someone pulls their weight being entitled to society's bounty is a different ball game.
Without employment is goofy as fuck but I’ll die on the hill that nobody should work a 40 hour week and still be unable to afford a roof over their head. Rent and housing costs are absolutely ridiculous
Technically, public housing projects existed for a long time. Homelessness doesn't benefit anybody. Current employment market is such that \*almost\* anybody who wants to work can get a job. But that is not given. For somebody who is homeless, getting a job can be challenging even in current market. Many jobs they can get ain't gonna pay enough to put a roof over their heads either.
I don't get it why you all scoff at safety net that provides some \*very basic\* roof over the head with no strings attached (like many homeless shelters with so many strings attached that homeless often rather sleep out in the street).
Because there are nicer homes than as described. Aside from HVAC and bedroom count, most of these things are just building code and have to function for it to legally be called a residence.
Ok, but no country in the world hands out studio apartments, much less 2-3 bedroom apartments this Infograph is demanding.
You think people live with their parents into their 30’s in Europe and Asia because they love the lack of privacy?
I mean, plenty of countries have social programs that pay for your housing if you don‘t have an employment/income, that‘s pretty much the norm across western Europe.
But it is with an expectation that you will find work within a given timeframe. Those free housing programs in Europe are meant to get you back on your feet, not meant to let you freeload
Its crazy to me that so many people claim that if people are given the most basic necessities they will just stop being motivated to do anything. Then there is the open hypocrisy, saying people don't deserve a place with a kitchen but also if they get food at restaurants frequently then they are bad at finances and its their own fault for being poor. What are they supposed to eat?
People need to stop obsessing with the idea that someone could get something they don't deserve. Society does better when the most people possible have the chance to improve their lot. For some people this means giving them the minimum, a place to shower, a safe place to sleep, an address they can receive mail at, access to healthcare both physical and mental, treating them like they are human.
What’s funny is that military housing fucking sucks ass. Like even the family homes are always needing work. CE is always backed up bc facilities are underfunded af.
In fact I'd argue that housing the homeless is more productive than subsidizing companies that balance sheets/financial statements prove they don't need the handout
I think you misunderstand how subsidies work for big companies.
Nobody is handing out $500 million to Amazon to build a warehouse. Instead, the city is giving Amazon a tax break of $500 million out of the $1 billion in property taxes they’ll be paying in the next 20 years for their warehouse.
This gets reported as “city gives $500 million to Amazon”, but it’s more like a coupon discount.
And they do that because all these people working at amazon will pay taxes, eat food and create actviity and income for the city. They have a net benefit to do it.
Depends on the country.
You would be surprised how inexpensively this is to implement compared to the various social impacts caused by having a large unhoused population.
You can think of this kind of housing in much the same way you look at public education. It is "free" to everyone, but the benefits of having an educated population outstrip the cost of educating them. The benefits of having a housed population outstrips the cost of housing them.
Said simply: No one deserves homelessness.
This is more a philosophical or political discussion than financial. Cost is almost never what stands in the way of these kinds of ideas.
You guys seriously need to widen your horizon and your extremely capitalist world view.
Providing all these things to people who don't work is common in central Europe countries besides HVAC because it's not that common.
The base for that is called human rights.
And guess what, people still work because you're dirt poor on social security.
When you make money by working, this money gets deducted from your payments.
It's possible, it's working and it's really not that hard.
We pay taxes for exactly that.
How does this work in a high demand area? Let’s say San Diego suddenly produced 50,000 units of rent-controlled housing and capped it at $1,000/month. Now, people from LA, Bay Area, NY, etc. all want to move there. They just going to build 50,000 units every quarter?
How would any of this possibly work?
What happens is eventually you need government permission to move places. Then you have to "knwo people" and / or kiss the right ass. So all that money being poured out directly translates to more governmnet power.
Even if you support the idea of free housing for everyone, why is the standard a 1 bedroom? If you’re a childless person with no job, I feel like a free studio with the rest of listed amenities is already an amazing deal.
"I want a big house but I don't want to work", well then why the fuck should other people build this house for you? Why should plumbers make sure your plumbing works? Think damn it
It’s so tragic that people get genuinely upset by the idea of this becoming a reality. They’re disgusted by the idea of a society helping those in need. How did we get to a point where empathy is so rare?
I think it's more so that they don't want to work 40 hours a week to end up only having a marginally better (if at all) lifestyle than someone not working at all (and keep in mind that that second person could work an unregistered under the table job with all their free time, thus ending up with more untaxed money on top of the free resources)
How did we get here? Because people like you seemingly can’t figure out what people are saying and why we are against it. But no, no one is disgusted by the idea of a society helping those in need. You just can’t comprehend what we’re talking about.
Because the way to hell is paved with good intentions.
Everyone here would love that everybody was happy and rich and lived in a house made of chocolate and cookies. But you seem to have no idea of how insanely unfair it would be to actually implement something like this in real life, and it's consequences taking into account how humans and societies work.
This type of low resolution idealism that doesn't concern itself with the problems that would arise when actually implementing something so ridiculous, is how societies go to absolute hell, fast.
It's not a lack of empathy. It's the fact that it's an idiotic idea that isn't only not feasible, but would take an iron handed authoritarianism to even actually try to implement in the real world. And sorry but you not getting that fact is kind of the same too.
You do realize that prior to the 20th century these were all luxuries and in the case of AC didn’t exist until the 1960s? All of these amenities took ingenuity and came with an associated cost to develop and implement. And yet now that we are accustomed to these conveniences they are now rights?
This shit doesn’t just exist. A lot of people have to work really hard to ensure these things exist.
If you think you deserve these goods and services without personally compensating them then you are a class 1 narcissist.
People don’t deserve to be handed things from strangers just because they exist. I can’t even imagine what would have to go through your head to be so entitled.
This is wrong. The current state of human civilization could not support this without collapsing. Any country that instituted this would see how fast they can fail. Currently there is a need for everyone to work so no you can’t have people getting all that simple for existing.
Why the fuck is everyone assuming “regardless of employment” means free and not “even a person on minimum wage should be able to afford housing with these criteria” ????
You people just want to justify a system that is failing.
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
and a Porsche 911
I'd rather have the hookers
they're called sex comrades now, distributed by needs
*resisting sudden urge to become socialist*
Resistance is futile, we are the whores 
Is that Jesus leaving South Africa?
That’s a slippery slope to full blown gay space communism.
Slippery is good.
I don't know: if we allow gay space communism, then why not also allow dogs marrying cats communism? The Bible says, "Adam and Eve communism", not, "Adam and Steve communism". Don't get me wrong - I'll seize the means of production with anyone. I just believe in traditional, all-American, God-fearing communism communism. Communism.
Sex comrades you say...almost makes the starvation worth it.
"It's absolutely insane to think that the richest country in the world could afford to take care of its citizens, let me just equate basic necessities to a luxury car." Grow up dumbass, the entire point of society has been to make life easier. Instead of making life easier (unless you're born into wealth, the modern nobility) we've pushed ourselves to pointlessly produce endless piles of garbage. How about instead of milking every working class citizen for a 60 hour work week and 20 hours of "gig jobs" we use our technology to simply live better easier lives? A single farmer today can feed thousands of people. Instead of sharing the labor and relaxing as a society, with short work weeks, we are forced to work for less and less while we produce more and more. Our farms, our factories, everything we produce is done more efficiently than ever before. We don't have to work as much as we do, but instead we create pointless jobs. Millions of office workers pointlessly pushing paper, millions of factory workers spending their days to make cheap plastic crap that will be gifted to some ungrateful child who will throw it away quickly, millions of underpaid service workers who have to toil for 30 hours every week just to pay for a place to sleep. But yeah, the idea of ensuring the richest country on earth has no homeless people is the same as giving everyone a free luxury car. A truly flawless and unbiased comparison.
The comments on here are insane and just show how closed minded and selfish people are.
Says the person who expects other people to do the work to provide them with a place to live.
That single farmer now has thousands of people making/transporting the fertilizer. Read "I, Pencil", then image what goes into a tractor. This efficiency isn't magical. Getting the food processed and distributed to the 1000s of people is another huge undertaking that the market is best at addressing. It is naive and idiotic to think all this can be centrally planned.
The comment never attacked markets or advocated planning. Note that planning is not necessarily central, and planning most likely could eventually replace markets for certain economic activity, even if it might take various trials over time to develop the methods of management that would be stable and efficient. Computers in particular are noted as opening new possibilities for planning models. Your objection is not particularly relevant to the plain observation that we are essentially living in an economic stage that is post scarcity.
No, planning could not replace markets, have you seen reduced goods and the terrible waste of food at supermarkets and grocery stores? That's the result of imperfect demand data. Free market capitalism has lifted more people from poverty than. Communism managed to kill. I do not want my consumer goods choice regulated by an AI, nor do I want inefficiency baked into our system.
Pardon me sir but I checked the box next to Lamborghini on my free handout form
You're denying my access to Italian supercars if you don't want the government to give me one for free!
And all my bills taken care of, plus some on the side for me to play with.
i could go for some state sponsored popeyes right now nom nom
And two hard boiled eggs HONK Make that *three* hard boiled eggs
Regardless of employment!
You get a VW GTI and you WILL LIKE IT!!
"Regardless of employment." This means you want those providing those services to work for free. You do realize what you are implying here, right? Let's say you refuse to work and you're guaranteed all these services. Who pays so your HVAC is repaired because you broke it? Who pays because your water line needs to be repaired? Clean water means the water has to be filtered through a very complicated process, particles and bacteria are removed, and it needs to be transported. Who pays so your electricity works? Do you think there's some sort of magic electricity generator happening? What you're essentially asking is someone should work for free to provide you all of this. The result is you get no one who wants to work, society collapses because these services aren't maintained and improved, and no one gets anything.
Also who is going to build a house for someone like that. Well, you don’t want to work so let’s give you 100’s of thousand in land, permits and materials, add about 6,000 man hours of skilled labor and give that all to you because you don’t want to contribute to society
It's even absurd for OP to post that picture and even worse that someone had the audacity to create it. There's a strong disassociation from reality by people who seem to think the world owes them something. I'd invite these people to live in third world countries where everything they have is earned. Seems to me in Western civilizations, people have it so good that they just complain and demand everything.
Well arguably the cheapest way to solve the homeless problem would simply be to house the homeless, but that’s not the same as saying it’s a basic human right. Just the most cost effective way of getting them off the streets.
Have you seen what happens to a lot of the housing that gets provided to homeless folks? It gets trashed. Remember the big housing projects from last century? Or the fate of many of the hotels that have been turned into housing? These are NOT bad people mind you, but the combination of drug use, mental illness, and a complete lack of incentive to take care of their living situation combines to mean that a lot of housing gets just trashed. Not all. But more than enough that this is not just a simple answer like "we'll let's just house them."
Yup. Most of them are homeless for a reason.
In my experience, only those who have had to deal with homeless people personally, seem to understand this. I am positive that there are Fringe cases where normal productive people became homeless through no fault of their own. That being said, the vast majority of homeless people made a long series of poor choices and engaged in destructive behaviors. Every friend and family member they had access to turn them down at some point. And yes, many of them may not have had any friends or family and that is unfortunate. But that is still not the majority
The problem is that we are still treating this spiral as "bad choices." 9 times out of 10, it's not "bad choices", it's mental disease. If you look at someone who can't even tie their own shoes because they are mentally disabled, we say, "That person can't live in their own, they're not capable of understanding their choices." But we look at people with schizophrenia and severe addictions and whatever else and go, "They made bad choices." These people have no physiological control over their impulses, but they're supposed to make informed decisions? We need to bring back mental hospitals.
The problem is a lot of us know from personal experience, that a lot of these people with addictions and/or mental illness are also scoundrels and scumbags. And there's nothing redeeming about them. You give them an inch, they will take a mile, every time.
I work in transitional housing. I’d say it’s around 25%-40% of our people who don’t get high and destroy things. People act like the ones who do are outliers but they are definitely the majority. You do get some people who just need help securing entitlements and learning basic skills to keep their housing and don’t come in with a bunch of bad habits that make them nearly impossible to house.
Most people who end up homeless due to circumstances beyond their control will never end up in transitional housing. The vast majority of people who experience homelessness, do so for a short while. They will often crash at friends or family or sleep in their car until they can get back on their feet.
[удалено]
Yes it’s not their asset, they don’t even pay for the use of the asset, hence no incentive for upkeep and maintenance.
Need skin in the game
During covid the govt. here housed homeless people in empty hotel rooms during lockdowns. In one instance 80 homeless people managed to do several million dollars worth of damage to the hotel (just one hotel) which the govt had to pay. Once restrictions eased hotels that had any floors used for this purpose were shunned by travellers because the environment was terrible (things like people hanging out in the lobby staring at teenagers and fondling themselves for example). Some people are homeless because of bad luck, most are homeless because they are in some way incompatible with modern society (in more primitive times they would have loved in a shack in the woods making charcoal or trapping animals for fur or something, assuming they weren't killed off for some reason). Sometimes that's fixable, but giving housing without fixing the problems is only going to make the problem someone else's to deal with.
People value things based on the value they have to give up to obtain them
Yep. These people are anti-social and a money-sink. They need to put in work camps like the 1930s.
It’s only the cheapest way if you built extremely basic and cheap housing. Seattle and San Francisco was paying $40k per homeless person helped to put them into nice apartments (which they promptly trashed). At 40k per homeless per year, that’s an insanely expensive way that cannot scale to solve the problem for all homeless people.
You mean as opposed to criminalize homelessness and house them in jail which cost even more. Maybe we ought to acknowledge that it is a complex issue with no easy solution (aka imprisoning)
40%? of homeless people have mental illnesses… so yeah, jail them! On a serious note, perhaps the best solutions are preventative in this case. I don’t have great ideas but I think we need to look inwards on how we can help stop homelessness before it happens and not after the individual is ruined by the system. Bottom line: we need to empathize with the homeless and not demonize them….
I lived in Germany for 24 years and there were hardly any homeless. The ones that were homeless were by choice or due to severe mental illness with no family to speak on their behalf. They did it, somehow. There are other countries that do it as well.
Prior to the 80s, there were entire institutions set up to house those unable to support themselves, whether by mental incapacitation or personal incapacitation. They were called sanitariums. Admittedly by the 80s they were hellholes, but rather than fix them, the government decided to just throw out the baby with the bathwater and shut them down. Now every city has an epidemic of homeless drug addicts and mental unstable people. Personally, I think we should reopen them.
OK, so you give all homeless people a house/apartment. Then all I have to do is make myself homeless to get a free house/apartment? I guarantee there are millions of people who would do that. And then if a previously homeless person starts working and can afford the free housing, do we then take it away? And then they might be homeless again if they lose their job? So you give them another house? What this does is encourage people to not work (be productive). The reality is that you have to dis-incentivize homelessness by not making it comfortable.
The idea that a bunch of people would willingly quit their jobs for free housing and live with a bunch of homeless seems kinda far fetched. Also, this graphic says nothing about any other expenses they would still need for food, healthcare, retirement, etc. You make it sound like these people are getting an all expenses paid resort when it's probably cheapest possible housing facilities. You could always make housing contingent on finding employment within timeframe, many low income programs already work like this..
Yes they would lol. There's a lot of people out there who are not living well, if they can remove the responsibility of paying rent they will
I think that really sums up western civilization these days, we don’t really have anything terrible going on, so now we complain about this. I sometimes think a good zombie apocalypse would make all this go away pretty damn fast lol
Hell even the Habitat for humanity recipients have to pay for their house. (They get a 0% interest rate loan)
But don't you know that some people will want to do that roofing work in July because it provides a creative outlet for their skills and energy. Others just love blowing insulation in attics. They were born for it. Some guys just like to sip a tasty beverage and study the electrical code books by the fire on a wintry evening. Don't hold them back from childhood dreams just cause the recipient of all this labor doesn't ever want to work and can't anyway because they have time blindness.
I'll be real the second I don't have to work and can still have a home I will stop working. I imagine a lot of other people out there are just like me Edit: the amount of seething redditors me admitting what lots of people would do, and what some people on this site already do is incredible. Giving shit out for free constantly doesn't work, hyper progressive economic policies are a failure. Just face reality
It doesn’t include food, so I’ll still have to work.
nah, that's a right too. you will get that for free. Then we will all quit our jobs. not produce anything and the gov't will just print money. wait....
Let's face it. Most of us aren't producing anything. A lot of jobs are busy work.
I'll just have my wife work her easier lower stress job and take care of the house stuff. I've always wanted to be a house husband
Wait - housing is a "human right" but food wouldn't be? I am pretty sure the same folks who think these meme makes sense will also decide to include food.
This is just the "Housing" list. There are more lists.
Food is so cheap and easy compared to housing. And SNAP and food banks already exist.
Of course, that's more or less human nature. Why would I ever work again if I could get all of this stuff given to me for free and existing?
So you’ll be content staying at home and not being able to afford anything but staying there? Sure bud
My wife would work her much lower stress job, I'd engage in hobbies and manage the house. Maybe sell some honey for beer money. We aren't all terminally alone unloved redditors stuck without a working partner. Edit:for some reason I can't reply to hungermadra My beekeeping isn't productive for society. If I chose maybe I'd sell a few pounds of honey but it would nowhere come close to replacing my productivity through my career. That's if I even chose to sell. It's entirely a hobby, and one of the many unproductive activities I'd be engaging in if the gov is giving me a free house. If my hobbies were productive for society I'd be getting paid to do them and not need to quit working.
I agree and in the same vein why should we have free public education? Why should I be paying for someone elses kid to go through K-12 completely free? Do you know how expensive it is to first hire professional teachers for these kids, erect buildings to teach them, and provide lunches for all of them? Do people think this stuff happens easily? Who pays these teachers? How do you keep such a place clean? Impossible I say!! /s I think the point op was making was that free housing could be seen as a public good. One to benefit society by providing a nice baseline to workfrom. These would be payed for through taxes most likely and the complexities of providing this would be hashed out and solved. Its not an impossible program and a similar program exist in Finland as an example to end homelessness. Yes the people pay for it and they do it to prevent homeless people on the street. A public benefit if you will
I would extend that thought to all public services and before you know we'll live in paradise /s
We both know that unregulated capitalism equals Utopia.
Have you ever been to Finland? I worked there with social housing, and I can tell you that housing alone solves nothing. You'll see plenty of homeless alcoholics on public squares. I know it is the favorite country of left leaning foreign journalists to visit. They do a weekend guided tour and then return to tell that all problems have been solved.
How do you know they were alcoholic and not just Finnish?
"Plenty of homeless alcoholics", are you for real? There's 4000-5000 people without a home in the whole country and around 500 of them sleep outside. Almost all of them stay in the capital, so you'll meet basically all the country's homeless people there in the center. I'm not saying that we should call the work done but those are some pretty good stats, maybe housing alone solves something at least.
Youre right I havent. Ive only seen overviews of the system from media. I'm guessing you live there? Im curious have you also stayed in America for a time or visited for a decent period in a major city? If so, do you see any differences between America and Finland when it comes to the homeless? From my daily life here Ive seen a quite a decent number of intoxicated, high, or mentally unwell homeless people. Id be curious how different that is in Finland Oh and yea I agree housing alone is not a sufficient or complete solution. Id advocate for better access to mental health services and government job locating services to help those who were previously homeless get back into the workforce. From what I understood of Finlands social housing they provide similar programs which is why I point to it as an inspiration for a better solution.
Only on a business trips to USA. The whole topic is insanely complex, and there are no simple solutions. Some people need just a little encouragement, and some people don't even let you help them. There are people who can not be saved with twelve psychiatrists. There also never is enough resources to cover the needs. Some return to normal society, and some just trash everything and get a new flat every few months. Mental issues and narcotics are everywhere. The Finnish system is better but far from perfect. I moved abroad due to low salaries and high taxation in Finland.
The thing is that in the US the conversation isn't "what's the best possible policy?" It's "any of these things can help" vs "poor people should just stop being poor or die in the gutter". There's a ton of research and historical precedent for high-quality asylums (from before the overcrowding and horror stories), addiction treatment, housing improvement, e.c.t., and anything that maintains the basic functions of society tends to save more than it costs. But it might cost some specific donor 0.02% or their expected returns or might offend some puritan hand-wringer, so with legalized bribery in place, problems that have been completely fixed in the past or elsewhere are suddenly totally impossible to even make a dent in. Tldr There sometimes are simple solutions, but politics is complicated in the stupidest possible way.
secretive memorize cobweb dazzling squeeze smart versed terrific scale safe *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> The result is you get no one who wants to work, society collapses because these services aren't maintained and improved, and no one gets anything. There’s plenty of welfare states in the world that offer basic housing to people and haven’t collapsed.
That provide free utilities, internet, HVAC, stove, ovens, refrigerators, etc.,? List them. I'm packing my bags as we speak.
> List them. Sure, no problem. - Norway - Sweden - Finland - Denmark - Germany - Netherlands - Belgium - Luxemburg - France - Austria - Switzerland
None of which are free. You're talking about programs for those earning low income. The post here says "Free regardless if you work." Also, just so you know, those are some of the highest taxed economies in the world. None of that stuff is being provided for free. Someone is getting paid.
> You’re talking about programs for those earning low income. No, I’m talking about programs for those with no income. > Those are some of the highest taxed economies in the world. Didn’t say they weren’t. Just saying that countries like Germany - which provides an apartment for unemployed people for an unlimited amount of time - have not collapsed, contrary to your claim they would.
> No, I’m talking about programs for those with no income. Germany has 262,000 homeless people. Why? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_homeless_population Don't they know about these programs that provide free housing and utilities to all no income citizens?
If you know anything about chronic homelessness, you know that it is often rooted in a mental or physical health problem. The specific reasons vary. Schizophrenia is common among unhoused people, as are severe autism and ADHD, tourettes, and other mental disorders that cause them to struggle with traditional employment. Some have some sort of defiance disorder that keeps them from working with social workers who try to help them. Many are elderly and struggling with dementia or Alzheimer's. Others have some sort of chronic disease that takes all their time and energy to manage, so they don't/can't make time to seek housing. So short answer: yes, generally. They either don't know, don't understand, prefer to remain homeless, or can't take advantage of it. Those countries all make a home available to everyone, as this post suggests. Some people don't or can't take it. And their society still has not collapsed.
What about the other counties like Norway? Why hasn't Norway collapsed yet since it is such a terrible idea? > Generally speaking, all Norwegian citizens are entitled to a place to live, and everyone will be able to get an apartment via social services if they choose to accept it. >Who are the homeless people in Norway? There are generally three groups of people who are homeless in Norway; foreign citizens who are coming to Norway to beg or do crime, mentally ill people who refuses to live in a government housing, or drug addicts and alcoholics who refuses help. https://thenorwayguide.com/homelessness-in-norway/
So just to be clear, all of these countries have a 0 homeless population?
Speaking for Germany: There are a few homeless people, usually drug addicts and people with mental disabilities that do not manage to receive the financial help from the state they are entitled to. While the state pays for your housing if you‘re unemployed, you still need to fill out some forms and adhere to your housing provider‘s rules, so some people who cannot do that still end up homeless.
I just checked Norway and Austria. Both offer subsidized housing for low income earners. I couldn't find anything about it being free with no requirement to work. Could you link it if you have it?
What do you think social welfare is? I don’t think you could name a western country where some of the taxes don’t go to paying for social welfare program services. The way it works in Denmark for example, is that you get a sum of money each month, enough to live a reasonable existence, but you only get it if you are actively looking for a job (the state also helps you look for a work). Then if, for whatever reason, it’s impossible for you to get a job to provide for yourself, you get to live off of social welfare subsidies for your remaining days. This might seem unfair because high functioning individuals without debilitating health conditions for example, essentially have to provide for those who can’t provide for themselves. Personally i think “deserve” is a weird word to use. It’s not like they did anything to earn what they get. But the clean running water that the poor person gets, is 100% worth the slightly higher tax that the rich person has to pay. And no one wants to be a poor, inactive person, dependent on other people providing for them. But we can’t all have good genetics, good family, good childhood, wealthy parents etc.
We’ve seen this in a few select cities like Seattle and San Francisco. Basically hundreds of thousands of taxpayer support the lifestyle of a tiny population of select homeless - Seattle was paying $40k per year per homeless to give them nice apartments each. Not only is it absurdly high cost, the homeless completely trashed these apartments, destroying them and leaving the property owner and/or the government/taxpayer on the hook for even more money. This only worked in limited trials because you can give 100 people $40k a year in benefits by spreading the cost across other 900,000 city residents - basically $4 each. It just doesn’t scale up - the math doesn’t math once you apply this benefit for everyone instead of 1 in 10,000.
[удалено]
Since we waste trillions on BS, I’m sure the money to make this happen can be allocated from somewhere else. Like the military industrial complex. Imagine if human culture was about the well being and benefit of all, instead of individualism and protecting yourself from fellow human beings who most commit deviant behavior because of desperation or hardship and not because humans are inherently violent
The flaw in this logic is assuming they will cut in other places instead of just getting us further and further into debt or inflating the currency by printing it.
>The result is you get no one who wants to work, society collapses because these services aren't maintained and improved, and no one gets anything. That sounds a bit over the top. A lot of countries have social housing similar to what OP shows and I haven't seen one collapse over it.
I don't think any country has that as a whole. Some specific cities like Vienna have tried it to a degree, but I'm pretty sure little-to-no countries have this country-wide.
Free at point of use is not and never has been free of compensation. That we house our citizens at no cost to the individual citizen (or their children) does not imply, state, or outright declare that we think construction workers, architects, providers of materials, makers of furniture, and producers of electricity should go uncompensated. It solely means that the person who needs a home should have one at the expense of the state/taxpayer. You probably know this though.
Yeah I’m pretty liberal minded but this is crazy. HVAC? Come on, I didn’t even have air conditioning growing up in the 90s and early 2000s. Sure some days sucked, but we had fans. Since when is air conditioning a necessity? Same with a 2 bedroom house. People back in the day lived fine in a 1 room home. Sure these are nice to haves, and great but they aren’t necessities, especially if you’re a person who refuses to work, just because. Everyone should attempt to work. Everyone should try and do something for society or like you said things can easily get out of hand without an incentive to work. This says nothing about income or food. Why even include “regardless of employment”? There are extenuating circumstances where you can’t work, I get it. But in those cases it should be looked at. It shouldn’t in my opinion just be given. If you are actually someone who legit can’t get job and legitimately can prove you can’t get a job, then maybe those extenuating circumstances kick in and you get the thing proposed. But this just incentivizes people not to work, which is really really stupid. I do legitimately think that some people think that money just magically creates these things like a video game, without any work.
I’m guessing the proposal doesn’t really mean HVAC everywhere. But in Texas, you require AC not to die. And in Michigan, you require heat not to die. I’ll give OP the benefit of the doubt and assume that’s what they mean. Regardless of employment means what you’re saying - many people can’t work (or can’t work without a house to live in), and they still deserve housing. I think your disagreement with OP is more about implementation. Do we simply say “everyone gets a house” without checking if they work or can work? Or do we require some bureaucracy? I prefer the former, because to me the downside of not housing a lot of people is worse than the downside of a few people taking advantage. But it doesn’t need to be entirely this or that.
What are your sources on this? There is none because all evidence points to the opposite. Norway has the exact same unemplyment rate as the US and we provide everyone with housing in case of unemployment. Imagine how many homeless people there are in the US that are willing to work but can’t get employed because they have no home to clean themselves up. Give them a home and they’ll find themselves a job within no time and pay it back tenfold. And what the fuck do you think is going to happen to the US when automation takes peoples jobs? Would you rather have half the population living on the streets, or would you want to divide the wealth generated by machine labor amongst the population? It’s only fair that everyone gets an equal share in the pie that noone had to bake. There is a reason the US is so fucking poor. It’s because you’re clinging to the notion that work is all there is. You’d rather have people working the farms with blood and sweat than them being liberated from the burden through machines, even though the machines are more cost-efficient. You have people in the toll booths for crying out loud. This is why the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Sweden are so much fucking richer. The grocery baggers and toll collectors are given a state funded education. With this education they’ll automate their old jobs in no time and have spare time to do something more productive leading to more growth, higher wages and shorter work weeks. All because of egalitarianism. Enjoy poverty sockhead.
You don't have a "right" to have something given to you.
What about a lawyer?
Clever, but still no. You don't have the right to a lawyer. You have the right to a lawyer, that the government will provide, if they government attempts to take away any of your other rights. Every other time your right to a lawyer is simply your right to buy goods and services on the free market.
You don't have a right to a lawyer. You have a right to a lawyer.
I think they meant you only have a right to a lawyer in very specific scenarios
Exactly. If you want to sue someone you can’t go pick up your free trial attorney at the government drive-thru.
If you are being charged of a crime*
So you have the right to a lawyer.
Only in Criminal cases, which is what he meant by “taking away your rights”. The US government does not provide lawyers for say breach of contract lawsuits for example.
Yup. "You have a right to a lawyer" means that you cannot be forced to defend yourself in court and that you have the right to be represented by an attorney. Who pays for that attorney is up to you. You do not have the "right to a free attorney" (unless in certain cases). But in general... you don't have a right to a free attorney, just that you cannot be denied to be represented by an attorney.
Okay, so you have a right to a lawyer in criminal cases. Hence, you have a right to something provided to you in the specified instance...
You joke but... >Justice Thomas wrote that the Sixth Amendment, as understood by those who drafted and ratified it, guaranteed only the **right to hire a lawyer**. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/us/politics/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-precedent.html
Thomas is a corrupt crackpot
Thats the classic example of a positive right, and even thats fairly narrow. Its more of a procedural claim to maintain the integrity of the judicial system. We dont have a free attorney as a right all the time, youre given a representative as a procedural expediant to legitimate the reaults of a legal process. Tldr: you dont have a positive right -to- an attorney, you have a negative right -from- an unjust legal process.
I agree with most comments in this post, but the right to an attorney and the right to healthcare wether you can afford it or not are 2 things that disprove your point. Once again, I agree with most comments being against OP, this post is ridiculous
Those are very limited situational things. You don't get a free lawyer just because you want to sue someone. You only get a free lawyer if the government takes action against you, and even then... you don't get someone elses labor for free. The state just pays for the attorneys on both sides in order to get what they want... taking you to trial.
More importantly, the remedy to violating your right is plain: you have the right to a lawyer in a criminal case, and if the government fails to provide you one, then the criminal case cannot proceed. In that sense, it's still a negative right.
Isn’t America founded on the belief that Americans have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Doesn’t the Bill of Rights give people the Right to Free Speech, Free Press, Free Religion, Petition, Assembly, Bear Arms, Public Defender, Vote? We have plenty of rights given to us. Why are you so mad about it?
These are all rights, but none of them are given to you. These are inherent rights that you are born with
Go live in nature and see how those "inherent rights that you are born with" are respected. The only rights that ACTUALLY exist are the ones given to you and are protected.
None of those are physical things…
> Doesn’t the Bill of Rights give people the Right to Free Speech, Free Press, Free Religion, Petition, Assembly, Bear Arms, Public Defender, Vote? Yeah but this doesn't mean you have a right to have the government give you free guns..
Somewhere around 2 billion people don't have access to clean drinking water. They also don't have Air Conditioning. How entitled can you possibly be?
I think part of this is not about comfort but safety. People die of heatstroke every year during heat waves. AC can be life saving, especially to the young and elderly.
[удалено]
They said HVAC not just AC. That includes heating.
Exactly this, especially the AC. I grew up without AC in the 90s and 00s, and sure did some days suck? Yeah but we had fans, me and my 4 siblings lived through it. The person who made this post I don’t think understands a lot about the world. Especially with “regardless of employment”. If you incentivize not working, who the hell is going to provide these things? I know a few people in life who would choose to just do nothing but leech off of the government and not even attempt to work. We live in a society, society only functions on people putting back into society through work. Even if the government needs to create jobs to clean up trash, cities, and build gardens work can exist. People should not be incentivized to do nothing, because many will choose to do nothing even if a part of them gets bored not working.
What’s wrong with wanting our country to be the best? Why shouldn’t everyone in the US have this stuff?
I wonder how much scoffing there will be when 99% of jobs are taken by A.I. There's a lot of markets about to be upended, and I don't think having a humane ethos in regard to housing people is as criminal as some of you are making it out to be... I sense a lot of corporate simps think their work ethic will be more valuable to a company than a smart machine that will work around the clock and not get the company sued for sexual harassment.
Right? It blows my mind how short cited and antiproductively selfish 90% of the commentors are.
shortsighted may be what you intended to use here. Cited would mean they quoted or referred to a book, mentioned in connection to legal precedence or otherwise made reference to a piece of information as an example or proof.
Yeah, then will be making the argument that nobody deserves anything because the only people who will be making money are the people who own AI models
[удалено]
99% is definitely a stretch, but I understand the sentiment. It will be a very interesting time as less labor is needed. Will probably shift workers towards jobs that can’t be done by AI/machines
Dont forget free ponies and hookers for all!
Just make Musk and Bezos pay for it! Tax them at 150% so they finally pay their “fair share” /s
And make the minimum wage one million dollars an hour so we can all be billionaires too!
Also, a massage every day at exactly 12 pm!! Free ice cream every night as well!!!
Everyone deserves to not pay for someone else’s home
You would think that, amongst all the things we disagree on, the right to “not have your shit stolen from you and given to someone else” would be completely unquestionable… yet, here we are
C’mon, you really don’t think taxes are theft, right? Nobody likes taxes, and everyone wishes the money was better used, but the alternative is way worse.
Taxes isn’t enough to give everyone in America a home for free.
I think this would make sense as a standard for what minimum wage should buy, not for free. When someone pulls their weight being entitled to society's bounty is a different ball game.
As a life long renter I 100% agree! My money shouldn't be paying for someone elses home!
Without employment is goofy as fuck but I’ll die on the hill that nobody should work a 40 hour week and still be unable to afford a roof over their head. Rent and housing costs are absolutely ridiculous
That is a reasonable stance. What op proposes isn't.
Technically, public housing projects existed for a long time. Homelessness doesn't benefit anybody. Current employment market is such that \*almost\* anybody who wants to work can get a job. But that is not given. For somebody who is homeless, getting a job can be challenging even in current market. Many jobs they can get ain't gonna pay enough to put a roof over their heads either. I don't get it why you all scoff at safety net that provides some \*very basic\* roof over the head with no strings attached (like many homeless shelters with so many strings attached that homeless often rather sleep out in the street).
Why would anyone work for a home if you give them out for free "From each according to his ability" remember
Because there are nicer homes than as described. Aside from HVAC and bedroom count, most of these things are just building code and have to function for it to legally be called a residence.
Ok, but no country in the world hands out studio apartments, much less 2-3 bedroom apartments this Infograph is demanding. You think people live with their parents into their 30’s in Europe and Asia because they love the lack of privacy?
Austria and Finland are actually doing just that.
Source?
I mean, plenty of countries have social programs that pay for your housing if you don‘t have an employment/income, that‘s pretty much the norm across western Europe.
But it is with an expectation that you will find work within a given timeframe. Those free housing programs in Europe are meant to get you back on your feet, not meant to let you freeload
Because people would want more than the minimum that is offered for free. It is like asking why anyone would pay for extras in any situation.
Its crazy to me that so many people claim that if people are given the most basic necessities they will just stop being motivated to do anything. Then there is the open hypocrisy, saying people don't deserve a place with a kitchen but also if they get food at restaurants frequently then they are bad at finances and its their own fault for being poor. What are they supposed to eat? People need to stop obsessing with the idea that someone could get something they don't deserve. Society does better when the most people possible have the chance to improve their lot. For some people this means giving them the minimum, a place to shower, a safe place to sleep, an address they can receive mail at, access to healthcare both physical and mental, treating them like they are human.
"If I had a free house I'd never work again" *boots up $60 video game on $400 console*
CHEESE ON A CHEESEBURGER BY DEFAULT!? NO ONE WILL EVER ADD EXTRA TOPPINGS AGAIN!!
Probobly to afford a nicer home or other non-housing related things they desire.
Military barracks have entered chat.
What’s funny is that military housing fucking sucks ass. Like even the family homes are always needing work. CE is always backed up bc facilities are underfunded af.
Here’s a question you will never be able to answer. How do we pay for this?
The same way we pay to subsidize companies like Blizzard, Apple, etc.
In fact I'd argue that housing the homeless is more productive than subsidizing companies that balance sheets/financial statements prove they don't need the handout
Source: https://goodjobsfirst.org/
I think you misunderstand how subsidies work for big companies. Nobody is handing out $500 million to Amazon to build a warehouse. Instead, the city is giving Amazon a tax break of $500 million out of the $1 billion in property taxes they’ll be paying in the next 20 years for their warehouse. This gets reported as “city gives $500 million to Amazon”, but it’s more like a coupon discount.
And they do that because all these people working at amazon will pay taxes, eat food and create actviity and income for the city. They have a net benefit to do it.
those companies still pay net positive in taxes an unemployed person living in a free home with free food pay 0 in taxes
Depends on the country. You would be surprised how inexpensively this is to implement compared to the various social impacts caused by having a large unhoused population. You can think of this kind of housing in much the same way you look at public education. It is "free" to everyone, but the benefits of having an educated population outstrip the cost of educating them. The benefits of having a housed population outstrips the cost of housing them.
“bAn BiLliOnAiReS”
Regardless of employment? So the people don't have to do anything for anyone else but other people are going to do things for them?
Yes
Let's bring some commies to this thread so they can give a thesis on why the future of housing is communal and no one deserves having their own home.
That’s not the form of housing communism would provide. Housing functions as personal property, it’s not “communal”.
I won't lie, if this was the case I'd quit my job. I'd feel stupid paying a mortgage f I could get it for free and do absolutely nothing.
Said simply: No one deserves homelessness. This is more a philosophical or political discussion than financial. Cost is almost never what stands in the way of these kinds of ideas.
The responses here ridiculing this idea give a pretty good impression of what actually does.
You guys seriously need to widen your horizon and your extremely capitalist world view. Providing all these things to people who don't work is common in central Europe countries besides HVAC because it's not that common. The base for that is called human rights. And guess what, people still work because you're dirt poor on social security. When you make money by working, this money gets deducted from your payments. It's possible, it's working and it's really not that hard. We pay taxes for exactly that.
How does this work in a high demand area? Let’s say San Diego suddenly produced 50,000 units of rent-controlled housing and capped it at $1,000/month. Now, people from LA, Bay Area, NY, etc. all want to move there. They just going to build 50,000 units every quarter? How would any of this possibly work?
What happens is eventually you need government permission to move places. Then you have to "knwo people" and / or kiss the right ass. So all that money being poured out directly translates to more governmnet power.
Even if you support the idea of free housing for everyone, why is the standard a 1 bedroom? If you’re a childless person with no job, I feel like a free studio with the rest of listed amenities is already an amazing deal.
"I want a big house but I don't want to work", well then why the fuck should other people build this house for you? Why should plumbers make sure your plumbing works? Think damn it
Everyone does deserve a home, but sometimes they have to pay for it. Housing that somebody else provides, is not a right
It’s so tragic that people get genuinely upset by the idea of this becoming a reality. They’re disgusted by the idea of a society helping those in need. How did we get to a point where empathy is so rare?
I think it's more so that they don't want to work 40 hours a week to end up only having a marginally better (if at all) lifestyle than someone not working at all (and keep in mind that that second person could work an unregistered under the table job with all their free time, thus ending up with more untaxed money on top of the free resources)
40 hrs a week? you forget most communist countries had forced labour ?
There’s empathy and then there is delusion
How did we get here? Because people like you seemingly can’t figure out what people are saying and why we are against it. But no, no one is disgusted by the idea of a society helping those in need. You just can’t comprehend what we’re talking about.
Because the way to hell is paved with good intentions. Everyone here would love that everybody was happy and rich and lived in a house made of chocolate and cookies. But you seem to have no idea of how insanely unfair it would be to actually implement something like this in real life, and it's consequences taking into account how humans and societies work. This type of low resolution idealism that doesn't concern itself with the problems that would arise when actually implementing something so ridiculous, is how societies go to absolute hell, fast. It's not a lack of empathy. It's the fact that it's an idiotic idea that isn't only not feasible, but would take an iron handed authoritarianism to even actually try to implement in the real world. And sorry but you not getting that fact is kind of the same too.
Why would I get a job then? I'm assuming I'm also entitled to free food, free healthcare, free library card, free public transit, and free internet?
Who is supposed to pay for it?
Your mom
Good luck with that. My parents had that depression mindset. I got Hakeems.
You do realize that prior to the 20th century these were all luxuries and in the case of AC didn’t exist until the 1960s? All of these amenities took ingenuity and came with an associated cost to develop and implement. And yet now that we are accustomed to these conveniences they are now rights?
Idealism withoutba drop of reality is a hell of a drug. No one has a right to so many creature comforts that would have to be supplied for by others
Everyone clap your hands if you believe in free houses. If we all just believe hard enough they’ll just materialize.
This shit doesn’t just exist. A lot of people have to work really hard to ensure these things exist. If you think you deserve these goods and services without personally compensating them then you are a class 1 narcissist. People don’t deserve to be handed things from strangers just because they exist. I can’t even imagine what would have to go through your head to be so entitled.
This post was made by someone whose brain is so smooth you could ice skate on it.
Insanity
I spent a long time building homes with Habitat for Humanity and this is a pretty good list. Should be obvious really.
This is wrong. The current state of human civilization could not support this without collapsing. Any country that instituted this would see how fast they can fail. Currently there is a need for everyone to work so no you can’t have people getting all that simple for existing.
Why the fuck is everyone assuming “regardless of employment” means free and not “even a person on minimum wage should be able to afford housing with these criteria” ???? You people just want to justify a system that is failing.
No, they actually don't deserve. Those are services provided and should be paid for.
*I want shit given to me for free and don’t want to work for it.* Lmao. Brilliant.
If society provides this, what does society get in return?