Trump admin looks to fix homeless issues in California

[Xzi]

China will take over as the World's biggest economy soon after Trump leaves office in 2025.

Lol, you're absolutely correct, the economy will be in shambles by then if Trump gets a second term.

 

[morvoran]

the economy will be in shambles by then if Trump gets a second term.

The only way that happens is after the economy grows so big that everybody (even you) will get tired of winning so much, and we decide to let one of your democrat leaders play "president for a day". What's one day going to do? Oh, the economy would tank.

 

[Xzi]

The only way that happens is after the economy grows so big that everybody (even you) will get tired of winning so much, and we decide to let one of your democrat leaders play "president for a day". What's one day going to do? Oh, the economy would tank.

Yeah, you would be dumb enough to blame the GWB crash on Obama, just as you'll blame Trump's late 2020 crash on the next president before they're even inaugurated. Do us all a favor and go back to eating your Tide pods.

 

[morvoran]

Yeah, you would be dumb enough to blame the GWB crash on Obama, just as you'll blame Trump's late 2020 crash on the next president before they're even inaugurated. Do us all a favor and go back to eating your Tide pods.

No, I'm saying that if a democrat wins for some insane reason in 2024, that on day one after Trump leaves office, the economy, that Trump worked so hard to build to the greatest it's been in over 50 years and getting better, will tank due to the stock market crashing, the top 1% and corporations leaving the US, as well as all our tax dollars being given to Mexicans and South Americans for housing, healthcare, and cash assistance once they all cross our new opened border. As well as them taking over what's left since we won't have guns to defend ourselves. The military won't help defend us from them because "they don't want to appear racist".

 

[Xzi]

No, I'm saying that if a democrat wins for some insane reason in 2024, that on day one after Trump leaves office, the economy, that Trump worked so hard to build to the greatest it's been in over 50 years and getting better, will tank due to the stock market crashing, the top 1% and corporations leaving the US, as well as all our tax dollars being given to Mexicans and South Americans for housing, healthcare, and cash assistance once they all cross our new opened border. As well as them taking over what's left since we won't have guns to defend ourselves. The military won't help defend us from them because "they don't want to appear racist".

 

[morvoran]

Trump threatens San Francisco with EPA violation because of city's homeless
Source: here
President Donald Trump on Wednesday threatened to have the Environmental Protection Agency issue a "notice" to San Francisco over the city's homeless issue, comments that were criticized by local officials.
From Air Force One, Trump, who had been in California for a two-day fundraising trip, blamed the homeless population for environmental issues. "There's tremendous pollution being put into the ocean," he said, noting "there are needles, there are other things."

"We're going to be giving San Francisco — they're in total violation — we’re going to be giving them the notice very soon," Trump said.
"The EPA is going to be putting out a notice and you know they're in serious violation and this is environmental, very environmental," Trump said. "And they have to clean it up. We can’t have our cities going to hell."

View attachment 179887

That's what will be going through your head after you vote for Bernie or whatever democrat gets the nomination.

 

[lexarvn]

Do you honestly feel that you should go for the highest ratio of homeless over the total population in a state?

That's besides the point I was trying to make. I think both should be considered as well as lots other things. Like for instance, the acceleration of those rates, and the climate that those homeless people are living in and how that contributes to the death rate among the homeless. I have no idea if more homeless people die in California or New York due so it may very well be that the only reason California has more homeless is because there aren't as many freezing to death over the winter for instance. Homelessness in not a one dimensional problem so you shouldn't base decisions based on just one dimension.

 

[morvoran]

I have no idea if more homeless people die in California or New York due so it may very well be that the only reason California has more homeless is because there aren't as many freezing to death over the winter for instance. Homelessness in not a one dimensional problem so you shouldn't base decisions based on just one dimension.

I agree that some situations should have different criteria used to determine which way is best to solve it. In this case, we should help as many people at once as we can because, like you are trying to convey, there isn't a cookie cutter solution to everything. Why help a state with less than 100,000 homeless when you can help over 130,000 homeless? The solution for New York may not work in California. If you ran into a burning home with two trapped people and could only save one, would you draw up a chart and look at ratios to determine which one you should go for?

Some homeless may freeze to death during winter, but so do people living in homes. I live in the midwest and people die in their homes during summer and winter. It's not like the homeless are zombies and end up freezing to death while walking around. They have shelters and other ways to keep warm. Being warm all year round, it may be possible that the homeless suffer from heat stroke or dehydration more than those in New York.

Regardless, in the end, I am not part of the current administration, so I can't say for certain why they chose California's homeless over any other state. California's status as the state with the largest economy in the US may be why they chose that state. It doesn't matter why to me as much as that is the state they are focusing on. The point of my comment about numbers was only brought up because somebody else said Florida was a "close second", and I looked up the difference in the two populations of homeless. My intention was not to use numbers as the focus of this story but to prove that person wrong.

 

[lexarvn]

Why help a state with less than 100,000 homeless when you can help over 130,000 homeless

Well, maybe because pretty much all efforts to help the homeless have to be done on the city level anyways and California homeless are distributed among many cities that are mostly geographically removed from each other while almost all of New York's is in just one, so it may not be the state with the most homelessness but it as does have the city with the most homelessness.

If you ran into a burning home with two trapped people and could only save one, would you draw up a chart and look at ratios to determine which one you should go for?

No, but that's not really comparable due to time constraints. One the decision has to be made in a split second because executing the solution will take minutes at most, while the other will likely take years.

It doesn't matter why to me as much as that is the state they are focusing on.

Well, I think a lot of people probably do care more about the why, especially since the only reasons Trump has given (that I've heard at least) are that California has the biggest homeless population (which is fair enough) and that the state has mostly been run by democrats for a long time (which shouldn't be a reason at all). I'd be just as upset if he said he was going to work on problem that is most prevalent in a republican state because it's republican. It's hard to say that it isn't politically motivated when one of the reasons he gave himself is related to politics.

The point of my comment about numbers was only brought up because somebody else said Florida was a "close second", and I looked up the difference in the two populations of homeless. My intention was not to use numbers as the focus of this story but to prove that person wrong.

Fair enough.

 

[Deleted User]

I'm not sure about this. It seems like a major overreach of authority, and it could set a bad precedence. By the same token, is there anything necessarily wrong with them wanted to curb the issue?

I really don't know...

 

[notimp]

Why is government responsible for the homeless issue?

Ehm.. Where do I start.

We live in capitalist societies. The concept here is, that markets decide over distribution of earnings. Think of your best imitation of GTAVs Lifeinvader Facebook alter ego, think of people as a whole embracing it, because it allows them to screen potential sexual partners faster, think about that company then pivoting into the 'sell 'family connections' to soccer moms getting old' as their main business model - and think about this generating the big bucks, and having political campaigns in a state of extasy because they can now feed every individual something different, depending on what works (and claim thats politics) -- then you kind have understood capitalism.

We do this, not because its all flowers and roses, but because 'whats best' is better decided by many people instead of just a few or a select group.

Also top down management works in some sectors, but not in R&D or innovation. So its better to allow avenues to exist for people with an idea or 'mission' to get their idea realized at least somewhat independently. If they want to (take more risk, get potentially higher earnings).


But - experience has shown, that some of that free market logic always ends at people beating down competition (when they become too big), or doing fraudulent deals with the competition (price negotiations, or agreements on not hiring each others workers... ), so we need some instance - that looks at regulation (are things at least somewhat balanced, and going into the right direction), and that is supposed to be the state.

To be able to do any of that - the state needs money.

State cant just 'print all the money' because if so, one administration would do so, and then the entire country would basically be ruined for years to come (relative to other countries) - so you have to somehow link that to a measure of 'productivity' within a society. So why not link it to wages and return on capital?

With that money (taxes), state usually does three things. Pay pensions/basic living expenses for people that are out of a job (redistribution), pay for things that are considered 'a common good' (infrastructure (roads, ...), the arts, defense, health), and pay for itself (public officials, police, fire departments...)
--

No where in there does it say - "the state makes the prices of the housing market".

So if those prices explode in a certain region (not the entirety of reasons why homelessness exists, but an important one) what can a state do?

Usually only indirect measures. Build public housing, f.e. If you have enough of that, you can leave housing prices in a city at a fixed level, forcing other players in the housing market not to always hike up rent, because - there are those cheaper public accommodations available.

Another way would be to finally start calling silicon valley companies assholes, and start to tax them more. But sadly, those also are your international cashcows, so you dont want to leash them too much.

Another way would be to get responsible people into the governing boards of those companies, but who am I kidding.
--

Long story short.

There is a conundrum here at - 'the state "takes" half me money' 'so I cant pay those housing prices that have risen so much' -- because if you follow that logic, the state becomes impotent, and the people that drive up housing pricings in a region have nothing that could potentially control them anymore. So whoever says that - dont follow that guys opinion. They be moron. They be stuck at 'I have money' - 'state takes half of it', 'state be bad'. Which usually turns out to be them not knowing, that most of that money is used for peoples retirement, and that that cycle will repeat, when they get old. Thats better than putting that money in a savings account - because, have you looked at interest rates vs. inflation lately... (but runs into problems if you have boomers, wich decided not to have kids, but rather consume more).

Also as the state is supposed to 'level' some of the problems that arise out of the deficiency of markets, yes - government is there to do something about the homeless crisis. But. If you can sell half your population, that low taxes are the way to happiness, and you have corporations that see the world 'sector by sector' with 'sector' being, 'how do we sell fake popularity to people, so they think they can get layed better, and make that attractive for our advertisers, as people spend more and more time on our platform' - corporations kind of arent the answer, but the problem here.

Not in general, but certainly, when all your best PHDs start working in that silicon valley world, because thats where you make money these days, thereby also raising housing prices in the area.

Hence - the market 'f*cked' you over on this. And government is the solution.

Same with the financial crisis of 2008. (Which also plays into the housing crisis, ...).


Problem: If you dont have intelligent people in your government so much, f.e. because you kind of brainwashed everyone for decades with your neoliberal newspeak. The 'solutions' government comes up with, might be poor as well.

Also - if you, as the government become too 'over the top' in your actions, you stifle the thing thats supposed to be good for value creation in your society.

So ultimately, you need a balance.

And somehow people in the USA have agreed on, that opioid crisis and homeless problem in the street is where its at. (You literally had politicians in a facebook hearing begging facebook to do something against opioid ads.)
--

Extended stuff. You will never get rid of 'homelessness' entirely, because of other reasons. But you can for sure develop better systems, that allow people to cope with a medical crisis (see corona) better, and with jobloss better, and that allow for lower housing prices in all districts. (Which means that people of all walks of life come into contact with each other - which usually also boosts innovation, happyness, ...)


So - if you are a neoliberal at heart, that always post in internet forums, that the state takes too much money through taxes - you also want your streets brimming with homeless people after every little crisis. Or company cities, which are even worse. And by crisis I mean - silicon valley having ruined California, and now beginning to relocate to Austin and a few other regions, because no one wants to live in that cestpool anymore.

But at the same time no one wants to fix it. And you can create beautiful walled gardens, where people that have all the money live. Problem, the next generation that interns, then has to live in the not so good parts of town - and you have successfully managed to KO your entire industry within one generation.

But then you still dont want to pay for it, but rather import new talent from all over the world thats still naive towards what you've done, and only sees the 'opportunity', and do a shitload of corporate social responsibility campaigns, where you'd plant a tree or something.

But since you never really care (5 year financial plans) - you (company) arent good at this stuff. State might be.

Emotionalized rough cut.



edit: Also, housing prices rise, not only because of silicon valley companies (they are the main reason why California has jumped the shark though, imho), but because of boomers.

Boomers be many (see name). Millenials be few. Boomers in the years before retiring have made money, and are all - collectively looking for good returns on investment. Which made the financial markets volatile. (Much investment capital around, but little opportunity for it to be invested in.) (Why little opportunity? Because there are fewer millenials than boomers, so nothing is growing in country anymore. This was offset, by millenials being driven into consuming more (instead of saving for larger investments, later in life), via historically low interest rates. With some very obvious negatives.)

So financial markets became volatile and more and more complicated. Which lead to people looking for less risky investment opportunities. So what does a millennial need, because they couldnt build their own homes? Housing thats rented.

Thats a safe investment opportunity! Thought all boomer money. And went into that market (in search for return on investment). Supply and demand then made prices in that market rise.

Ups.

Also not much new housing was built, because there are fewer millennials.

Ups.

More in other parts of the world than in the US - but thats also valid in the US.

But we cant talk about any of this politically in open terms, because if you pitch generations against each other -- you basically call your societies failed, openly.

So we all act as if that didnt happen. Once boomers die, problem goes away. We then will not have a housing price issue anymore. But we then will have an allocation problem on housing. (Few own much of it.) Thats in about 30 years from now.


edit2: Philanthropy (including 'corporate social responsibility (CSR)') also might be a solution (if the problem is small), but eff Philanthropy. Because Philanthropy always is, and always will be some money thrown in a certain direction. None of it changes anything structural (long term). In fact Philanthropy is done, so everything remains as is, mostly.

Still it might be a solution if the problem is small enough. Philanthropy usually means, corporations pay NGOs some pittances, then forget about the rest. Those NGOs usually dont provoke structural change.

 

[notimp]

Just read up a little on the gentrification process in San Francisco.
Roughly: https://www.citylab.com/perspective...ication-affordable-housing-california/598135/

Hipster communities are now harassing homeless people not to go over certain district lines anymore - when they'll call police to get them removed. By claiming fake harassment. This ties in wonderfully with predictive policing, which has a self reenforcing effect. (The more people call, the more computer says this is a problem, the more police capacity gets relocated into that area. The more of a chilling effect you have.)

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...lization-of-gentrifying-neighborhoods/548837/

Just when you thought you couldnt dislike California more...

So not only do they not want to fix the crisis, they are still sticking to - we'll get the next generation of silicon valley workers to still live in town, by 'fencing' the homeless out. Abusing the police system for that process.