The Homeless

[SalinasSpartan]

On 11/28/2024 at 5:36 AM, HR_poke said:

Not surprising without treatment most will remain homeless

And free “treatment” by itself won’t do much either. 

[halfmanhalfbronco]

On 12/4/2024 at 10:50 PM, SalinasSpartan said:

And free “treatment” by itself won’t do much either. 

Disagree 

Out patient treatment has about a 15% chance first time over a 2 year period. In patient about 30.

Not small numbers.

As an NA sponsor I have seen people fail and die.  It's when they isolate I know there is a problem.

Community is the best antidote to addiction.  And we should be funding it

[SalinasSpartan]

Homelessness is one issue I pretty confidently think will never get “fixed”. The resources aren’t there for municipal and county politicians to “fix” the problem even though they get almost all the backlash, while the incentives aren’t there for state and federal lawmakers to really prioritize the issue. 

[HR_poke]

On 12/5/2024 at 12:50 AM, SalinasSpartan said:

And free “treatment” by itself won’t do much either. 

In terms of re-hab.  Probably not unless they really want to change.  And mental health is long term care that government struggles to afford with no cure.

[happycamper]

On 11/27/2024 at 4:21 AM, CPslograd said:

Yah, giving homeless people cash with no obligation to enter the workforce, treatment, or counseling is a great idea.  I'm sure they won't spend it on drugs and booze.

i mean, it worked. so your bitchy sarcasm is kinda stupid 

[happycamper]

On 11/28/2024 at 2:42 PM, thelawlorfaithful said:

I find it very surprising that there wasn’t much of a difference for groups B and A despite receiving 20 to more than 30 times more income than group C. The additional lump sum for group A seems to have been a benefit securing a place to own or rent as you’d expect. But other than that a lot of pre-conceived notions fall flat. You can tell by the way it’s written about nobody is more disappointed than the researchers.

That would imply to me that there's a threshold you cross of funding where additional doesn't do much of anything and that 550/month is above that threshold. 

 

[CPslograd]

On 12/5/2024 at 7:28 AM, happycamper said:

i mean, it worked. so your bitchy sarcasm is kinda stupid 

The links were jive turkey puff pieces with no evidence that it worked.  Gimme a break.  You guys are a lot more radical than you realize.  Handing out a grand a month cash with no strings attached to homeless is not a mainstream policy position.

[thelawlorfaithful]

On 12/5/2024 at 7:30 AM, happycamper said:

That would imply to me that there's a threshold you cross of funding where additional doesn't do much of anything and that 550/month is above that threshold. 

 

$50 a month was above that threshold, not 550.

[happycamper]

On 12/5/2024 at 11:46 PM, CPslograd said:

The links were jive turkey puff pieces with no evidence that it worked.  Gimme a break.  You guys are a lot more radical than you realize.  Handing out a grand a month cash with no strings attached to homeless is not a mainstream policy position.

I mean, ~45% of homeless people living in a home or apartment in 3 month is pretty awesome evidence.

I don't know how radical it is to look at various experiments like Utah's "just give them somewhere stable to live for 6 months" or this, and comparing the cost of the program to the overall cost of having a homeless population, and saying "this is actually more cost effective". 

Mainstream policy positions have led us into the disaster we're in now. Why would I want to continue failure? 

On 12/6/2024 at 1:19 AM, thelawlorfaithful said:

$50 a month was above that threshold, not 550.

gotta get my eyes checked.

regardless, frankly, that's fantastic news. It is pretty obvious that our current system of welfare with oodles of forms, means testing, agencies that help people through the maze of forms and means testing, and watchdogs making sure there aren't abusers are extremely inefficient per dollar spent. A 100 dollar deposit to your bank account, every month, because you have a social security number, no matter what, is roughly half what we're spending on means tested welfare at the federal level - and guarantees that no matter what, you get money. 

[CoachKenFTW]

On 12/6/2024 at 4:32 AM, happycamper said:

I mean, ~45% of homeless people living in a home or apartment in 3 month is pretty awesome evidence.

I don't know how radical it is to look at various experiments like Utah's "just give them somewhere stable to live for 6 months" or this, and comparing the cost of the program to the overall cost of having a homeless population, and saying "this is actually more cost effective". 

Mainstream policy positions have led us into the disaster we're in now. Why would I want to continue failure? 

gotta get my eyes checked.

regardless, frankly, that's fantastic news. It is pretty obvious that our current system of welfare with oodles of forms, means testing, agencies that help people through the maze of forms and means testing, and watchdogs making sure there aren't abusers are extremely inefficient per dollar spent. A 100 dollar deposit to your bank account, every month, because you have a social security number, no matter what, is roughly half what we're spending on means tested welfare at the federal level - and guarantees that no matter what, you get money. 

 

[thelawlorfaithful]

On 12/6/2024 at 4:32 AM, happycamper said:

I mean, ~45% of homeless people living in a home or apartment in 3 month is pretty awesome evidence.

I don't know how radical it is to look at various experiments like Utah's "just give them somewhere stable to live for 6 months" or this, and comparing the cost of the program to the overall cost of having a homeless population, and saying "this is actually more cost effective". 

Mainstream policy positions have led us into the disaster we're in now. Why would I want to continue failure? 

gotta get my eyes checked.

regardless, frankly, that's fantastic news. It is pretty obvious that our current system of welfare with oodles of forms, means testing, agencies that help people through the maze of forms and means testing, and watchdogs making sure there aren't abusers are extremely inefficient per dollar spent. A 100 dollar deposit to your bank account, every month, because you have a social security number, no matter what, is roughly half what we're spending on means tested welfare at the federal level - and guarantees that no matter what, you get money. 

10 months. Timepoint 3 is 10 months.

[happycamper]

On 12/6/2024 at 4:53 PM, thelawlorfaithful said:

10 months. Timepoint 3 is 10 months.

reading is hard. that's why i math