Discord ID: 603974750024499210
2,977 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/30 | Next
When you’re out of vegetable oil you have to make do
I think that Warren's solution to homelessness would be as ineffective as the current administrations response to housing. What's discussed in this Medium article is well-and-good if you're under threat of homelessness as a result of gentrification, but it doesn't actually address transitioning people out of homelessness. @Platinum Spark
Like if you're homeless without income, an increase in investment in low-to-middle income housing will literally do nothing for you.
I can't find any studies backing that claim, and I organize in my city. Most of the people on the street have been there 1-2 years, or they're periodically in and out of temporary housing situations
The problem we should focus on chiefly is mental healthcare and harm reduction, if you're trying to tackle homelessness. I don't wholly disagree with the sentiment of decreasing rent (though something more aggressive than a 10% reduction is necessary), or incentivizing the expansion of more low-to-middle income housing, but presenting these things as viable solutions to solving homelessness is a mistake to me.
Actually addressing homelessness means a complete restructuring of mental healthcare, and a housing first approach.
just building housing they're not mentally equipped to afford
Also the way they're defining chronically homeless doesn't account for those who are constantly in and out of temporary housing situations
"*Chronically homeless individuals are individuals with disabilities who have either been continuously homeless for one year or more or who have experienced at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years where the combined length of time homeless in those occasions is at least 12 months.*"
And they also necessitate some form of disability
I'm not just talking about the disabled and people who're wholly unsheltered for an entire year. Anybody who cannot find a stable living situation is in just as shite a situation
I'm just talking about anybody without a stable living situation, I'm not sure how it ought to be arbitrarily understood for the sake of data-taking or particular social programs. If you can find somewhere to stay for 6 months in a program, but they put you back on the street at the end of the 6 months, you're suffering like any other unsheltered person to me because of the precarity involved with your living situation, but that's kind of beside the point.
Anybody who is without income outside of welfare, wouldn't be able to afford to live in a low-to-middle income housing situation
And a 10% reduction wouldn't help them much either
It's not a complete response to ending homelessness. Something like a Housing First policy or like we both agree single-payer could actually address the core cause of homelessness
I mean like I'm low-to-middle income. My housing combined with my roommate cost like 800 dollars
10% means I get 40 more dollars
a 40 dollar reduction doesn't make it accessible to people in lower income brackets.
I pay like around 400, if our rent was reduced 10%, I'd only pay 40 less a month
THat's not a significant change.
In terms of houses, like if you're taking out a mortgage, 10% is huge, but if you're renting, which is specifically what Warren talks about in that article, it can be miniscule.
Like it sounds big yearly, but when you contextualize that you pay monthly or bimonthly, you're unlikely to notice unless you're paying over a thousand dollars in rent, which low to middle income people aren't doing on the regular.
There's not housing for less than 1000 downtown
Nobody doing what I do for work lives downtown.
Sure if you live in like San Francisco or NYC, 10% on your rent as a low-to-middle income person is pretty substantial, but outside of areas NYC, San Francisco, LA, and maybe DC, like in the rest of the country, for renters it's negligible
Or they have an income so low that they can't afford rent, and a 10% reduction won't get them into an apartment building.
Approaching a solution to homelessness through the lens of the marketplace is usually going to be ineffective. Countries which have near non-existent homeless populations employ Housing First and get them in homes without asking for rent.
@3v6en8 Yeah like I said it'll help people dealing with gentrification, but it's not going to do anything if you're homeless
What does a 10% reduction to rent do for someone on Skid Row?
Okay, if your rent goes up, and you can't afford it, and you decide to stay anyway with no plan to relocate yourself and that caused your homelessness, yeah it'll help you
By a very strict definition of chronically homeless you've derived that number. If you're in and out of temporary living situations with no clear path to permanent housing, you're not counted as chronically homeless, and if you have no disability you're not counted as chronically homeless.
So this number is absolutely flawed when a large chunk of the population which is habitually on the street is not counted.
I don't disagree with the official estimates, I think the categories they've created don't accurately reflect the number of people without places to stay on a regular basis.
I don't care about your data when it's arbitrarily decided if you have no disability, or if you've found a temporary housing situation, you don't count as chronically homeless
I didn't say anything about economics not working, I just said it's unlikely to alleviate homelessness in a sufficient way, and it does nothing to directly improve the conditions homeless people are living in. Believing Warren's solution of rent reduction is sufficient when it does nothing to improve job opportunities for the unsheltered, it does nothing to ensure housing for the unsheltered, and it generally doesn't sufficiently address how you transition people out of homelessness
It will certainly help people who have an income, but the strata of the homeless without incomes, are not benefitting
BUt you presented it in the context of it as a democratic candidates plans to deal with homelessness
I'd just like to see democratic candidates address homelessness directly as opposed to discussing housing plans which tangentially may have a positive affect on the homeless.
Lots of people do something. The Trump Administration and state-level republicans do-something
But it's not addressing the problem holistically, and they're not discussing it because I don't think they're prepared to talk about the steps which need to be taken to holistically eliminate homelessness
As ineffective as I find Democrats to be on homelessness, at least they suggest and implement attempts at solutions. Republicans flat out lie about wanting to implement programs, or admit they're fine with the existence of a homeless population in the wealthiest country on the planet @!GoldenKingship!
@Charli Damelio I think it's sad that people lock themselves inside of a gender binary determined by biological essentialism and religious superstition
I mostly post in Leftist circles are most centrist conservatives just like this now? @Platinum Spark
Like casual transphobia in the other channel and outright conspiratorial thinking
The Deep State killed Epstein and that they're going to be responsible for the deposition of Donald Trump
@3v6en8 That's just all of them
Because you asked a question.\
WHo owns the media corporations?
"Think about who controls mass propaganda"
Nevermind it was just fragmented special mind talk
No it's literally just always capital.
Who lobbies the government and funds candidates? @Vision
The reality is that there isn't a complex conspiracy. There's just a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the reality is more boring, and more depressing, than layers of clandestine organizations trying to control our lives
Most of it can just be understood as the possessed trying to generate profit
@Platinum Spark Shiet you're right it's the satanic lizard aliens
I think you've been watching too much infowars
@Platinum Spark Within Marxism we use it to refer to the possessed class
It's an entire class of people who all operate by generating their money the same way
If you own stocks you're technically bourgeois
Yes there was a bourgeois revolution against the aristocratic classes in feudalism
Like a series of bourgeois revolutions
Where was there a peaceful transition from feudalism to capitalism?
and people can engage in class suicide
It is not unheard of for someone to go against their own class interest
It is not forcing them into my narrative. If you were part of the noble classes, and you supported the expansion of land-ownership to the merchant class, you were working against the interest of the noble classes. You were absolutely a class traitor
and if you were a possessed merchant trying to maintain feudalism, despite the fact it prevented your ownership of private property, you'd be working against your own class interest
No, but actively fighting for the changing of the status quo, or maintenance of the status quo, in a way which harms your socioeconomic class, is the definition of being a class traitor @3v6en8
Like if you're a slave, and you fight for the maintenance of slavery, you're a class traitor against the enslaved classes
In the same way if you're a noble fighting for an end to feudal and semi-feudal conceptions of property and government, you are harming the class you're a part of
@Platinum Spark Nobles supporting the maintenance of the aristocracy, and business owners, merchants, and non-noble land owners trying to destroy the aristocracy and replace it with some type of democratic process
2,977 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/30 | Next