YourFriendNoo t1_itvor95 wrote

>You think you can just unconditionally give a homeless junkie a house (which they will destroy) and they won't need any services? Get real.

No one thinks this.

>It's a lot cheaper to offer them shelter than a home.

Duh. We don't need to buy them single-family homes. We need to house them.

>Even a jail cell costs a fraction of a home, they get fed, and it removes them from society so we don't continue to get victimized by their bullshit.

Dear fuck, do you really think we need to imprison everyone who loses their primary residence?!

>In California it's costing somewhere around $700K to $800K to give these derelicts a home. You really think that's a good use of our money?

While I get that you made this up to imply someone suggested buying them all houses (which no one did), the fact that you think all people without housing are derelicts really says it all anyway.


YourFriendNoo t1_ituyhyw wrote

Always remember studies found it was cheaper for taxpayers to house the unhomed than it was to provide services for the unhoused population.

Homelessness is the more expensive option for society.

In the US, we maintain a large homeless population as a threat to the working class, that should they ever stop being productive, they will be discarded.

Hating the homeless is part of capitalist propoganda, as the worst thing for capitalism is people that aren't productive enough.