this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025
1177 points (99.1% liked)

News

36000 readers
2294 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 27 points 6 months ago (4 children)

I'm very supportive out housing the homeless as a fix, but to be clear math is on a per-day basis, it isn't some sort of long term fix.

I hate these stupid math headlines that don't actually make any sense.

Current deployment costs are around $1.1 million per day, housing all of those people in shelters at $45 per person works out to something like $250,000 per day.

This math calculation entirely ignores the fact that there aren't enough shelters to actually do that.

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 33 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Would other costs go down over time? Housed people don’t need emergency healthcare nearly as much, and with a permanent address that would open doors to a lot of things.

[–] Archer@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

I can’t believe you would forget the interests of the shareholders here

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 26 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's a simplistic calculation, but it does seem that often doing the right thing ends up cheaper in the long run. It just doesn't benefit certain groups, so it's not an option. If a million a day was applied to not just pay for sheltering, but to find solutions there wouldn't be a problem to throw authoritative measures at, or use as a reason to tighten security and control. They don't want to fix the problem, it works for them.

[–] wheezy@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago

They will happily spend $10, $20, $40, $100 from the working class to put even an extra penny in the hands of the capitalist class

Michael Parenti talking about American empire and it's cost to the workers in the imperial core.

Which is fitting because I believe he also said (or he quoted someone that did)

Fascism is Imperialism turned inwards.

[–] sznowicki@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

When communist were forced on Poland by soviets in 1945 one of their tasks for the next decade (that continued until 1980 collapse) was to build houses and give it to people. Other tasks were less nice like killing opposition, but housing was indeed how they decided to spent the resources.

US could start a massive communal housing programm on federal budget. They chose not to.

[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 4 points 6 months ago

We don't even need to build housing. That's the worst part.

We just need to outlaw landlords.

"But no one will purchase our valueable real estate and we lose money by keeping it!"

And what happens when you have a supply of housing that far exceeds demand? Well if it's an actual functioning economy the cost of housing decreases. The ifs are doing a lot of fucking lifting in this idea though.

[–] dangling_cat@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Ok what about we increase the budget 4x? We can put each homeless person in hotel for $180 a day. The hotel shareholders would be happy too.