If you house the homeless they are no longer homeless so you can’t house them so they become homeless and then you need to house them and then they are no longer homeless so you can’t house them and then they become….
Sorry, got in a little loop there. Point being, taking care of people is ok. That’s what money is for. Even after the acute need has passed.
Every single study shows that it is economically cheaper to house the homeless. You literally save money. Less costs needed for policing, health care, social services and all that stuff.
Ah! But! Then you create a more functional society with less inequality and greater overall stability! An economy less prone to outlandish bubbles the wealthy can exploit to get even wealthier! Even positive trends in medical outcomes for the population at large!
Plus all those poor cops you’ve put out of a job! Those are good union jobs, man!
If you house the homeless they are no longer homeless so you can’t house them so they become homeless and then you need to house them and then they are no longer homeless so you can’t house them and then they become….
Sorry, got in a little loop there. Point being, taking care of people is ok. That’s what money is for. Even after the acute need has passed.
Every single study shows that it is economically cheaper to house the homeless. You literally save money. Less costs needed for policing, health care, social services and all that stuff.
But without the threat of homelessness nobody will work for me for what I want to pay them with how I want to treat them!
Ah! But! Then you create a more functional society with less inequality and greater overall stability! An economy less prone to outlandish bubbles the wealthy can exploit to get even wealthier! Even positive trends in medical outcomes for the population at large!
Plus all those poor cops you’ve put out of a job! Those are good union jobs, man!
So there are trade-offs!