Expecting an American Politician to do more than knee-jerk to the homeless problem is wishful thinking.  An American politician can't understand that some problems might be the result of systemic system contradiction.  It would be heresy to admit to such a thing and it buys no votes.

That said, any solution that forecasts into the future is a MORAL failing unrelated to witch doctor economics, which is the only kind of economics American politicians know.  The failing is not one of simple ignorance.  There is tacit acceptance.

I doubt your Alaskan Politicians can see themselves in a mirror.  They can't reflect.

Quote from: K-Dog on Jul 18, 2024, 10:15 PMExpecting an American Politician to do more than knee-jerk to the homeless problem is wishful thinking.  An American politician can't understand that some problems might be the result of systemic system contradiction.  It would be heresy to admit to such a thing and it buys no votes.

That said, any solution that forecasts into the future is a MORAL failing unrelated to witch doctor economics, which is the only kind of economics American politicians know.  The failing is not one of simple ignorance.  There is tacit acceptance.

I doubt your Alaskan Politicians can see themselves in a mirror.  They can't reflect.

The problem here is there is no provision in the capitalist system for people who cannot or will not work, for whatever reason, so no housing except FREE housing would be affordable.  Before food stamps/SNAP cards, people at the very bottom either stole food or starved, or died from some disease from dumpster diving for food.  If they stole, they eventually landed in prison.

Food has become so cheap and ubiquitous in Amerika that handing out SNAP cards so people with ZERO income don't starve means they don't disappear through death as quickly.  That means they accumulate on the street.  They used to Squat in abandoned buildings in slum areas, but to take NYC as an example, the East Village which was a total slum area when I was in HS has all been renovated and gentrified.  There still may be some empty buildings in the South Bronx where people squat, but mostly they were demolished and are piles of rubble.

So, you start with the population of people with psychological problems and drug addicts on the street.  Then you have a person who loses his job and gets evicted.  He's now on the street with these people.  It doesn't take long before he also has a drug or alcohol problem, if he didn't have it before that.  Then you add recent immigrants with no job and add them.  All these street people are basically unemployable, they don't bathe regularly and they have to move around as the cops come and do sweeps to clear encampments.

Just like the society has to hand out Free Food to people with ZERO income, on the humanitarian level it has to provide FREE shelter.  It doesn't matter if they don't have a job because they are Schizophrenic or simply lazy, they still need a place to sleep and to shit and shower.  The mindset of the capitalist is "What incentive is there for people to work if we give them a free room and free food?"  The truth there is that unless the job pays enough to make the person's life significantly better than just a room with a bed, shower & toilet access, there is no incentive.   However, I think most people once they have their basic needs taken care of would choose to work at least part time so they could buy a bicycle and a cell phone and aspire to more and further improving their life.  If they are happy though just contemplating the meaning of life and playing chess in the park, that's OK too.  As a society we do have the resources to put up basic shelter that is free for everyone.

The society is quite comfortable with people who are born Rich not working.  Many an Aristocrat born with some Title has gone his whole life never working, and we are fine with that.  But if a person born poor wants to go through life not working, they are supposed to die.  If you feed them but don't give them somewhere to sleep and stay clean, they end up on the street.  So the common sense, obvious answer is simply to build the housing to accommodate that.

Now, the question is, what type of housing and where do you put it?  I think the Modular shipping Conex Tiny Home type housing is ideal for most locations.  It can be stacked to get good density and use of real estate.  It would come bare bones with just a cot to sleep on, a table and chair, a toilet, sink and shower.  Well insulated with heat and electricity.



If the person works and saves money, they can upgrade to buying their own modules they can have towed anywhere in the country.



Prices for your own starter module would be as cheap as $5000.  You have a safe place for all your personal possesions to stay locked up.

In cities with empty office buildings, they coul be gutted and a lift system installed that would raise the module to any floor and slide it in place.  All you need from the building is its steel framework.  Imagine simply sliding modules into this structure.



or this one



a round structure with a central atrium would be very safe with all the entries visible to the apartments.



As long as the modules come in a standard size, they can fit any building design you like.

To move your module into a nicer one than the free ones would cost money and be incentive to work to improve your situation.  You get to keep what you have accumulated over time though and moving is EZ.  You just ship your home on a Pod moving truck.



I guarantee this would be cheaper than the money currently being spent of the homeless problem.  The Real Estate biz will never allow it though.

RE

QuoteThe society is quite comfortable with people who are born Rich not working.  Many an Aristocrat born with some Title has gone his whole life never working, and we are fine with that.

I'm not.

In my world even an Einstein would have janitorial duty two days a week.  But no more than that considering the other job which has greater value  *.  Rich people would be those who have retired on a nice pension after working for twenty or more years.

When I think about the social contract I think about it from both ends.  I take my socialism seriously.  It is not about just getting free stuff.  That is adolescent.  Many people are into socialism just for free stuff **.  Not me.  The social contract goes both ways.

We are actually on the same page.  Everyone's basic needs should be met.  No exceptions.

* The Idle Rich who are lazy and never bothered to learn or develop skills would get low rated jobs because their labor has low social value.  Everyone should be employed at full social value.  On the other hand.  (In a thought experiment revolution.)  Many not so idle rich have had time to develop skills and would prosper under socialism.  If they adjusted attitudes.  For a few this would be easy because they recognize a better world, they are a part of this better world, and their needs are still met.  For others adjustment would be impossible because their core identities are built around exploitation.  For such living good is not good enough.

** Those in their youth who dabble in socialism only from a desire for free stuff develop warped and distorted understandings of it.  Jordan Peterson is an example of this.  He is happy to share his ignorance with anyone who will listen.

I agree that everybody who is able bodied physically and mentally should have to work at something and that everybody regardless of education or how brilliant they are should have to do some time each week working the shit jobs nobody wants but some people have to do all the time because they aren't qualified for anything else.

However, what do you do with the person who is just plain lazy and doesn't show up for work he doesn't like?  What is the punishment for Laziness if a person is guaranteed food to eat and a place to sleep, shit and shower?  Do you imprison them?  Force them to listen to Rap Music?

RE

Now that I have explained the common sense solution, here's why the RE bizness will never allow it to even start.

As soon as you start offering these FREE Universal Basic Shelter containers, everybody who is in one of the many tiny cramped NY studio or 1 bedroom apts that are no bigger than this (and sometimes smaller) but is paying rent of $3000/month will want one.  So it's not just the currently homeless who need shelter that you have to provide for, it's everyone with a low income who wants to start saving money and will take what amounts to a very small drop in standard of living to move into a free container home.

No kid just graduating HS is gonna want to stay at home and live with Mom & Dad when they can have their own little box to play video games and vape.  They don't have sex anymore, but in the old days having your own pad was how you finally graduated from 3rd base in the back seat of your car and got laid.

Free shelter, even very basic like this totally undermines the current RE market.  All the housing currently used for low income people becomes worthless.  I wouldn't move out of my container size free dwelling until I was making big money.  It's not worth it if it takes up 1/3rd or more of your monthly income.

The solution to this might be to have a 25% Housing Tax on all incomes.  So once you start making $10K/mo, it might be worth it to leave the system, although you still have to pay the tax in addition to your for pay home costs.

Besides this, as soon as you start offering this, the demand would be so great they never could supply the containers and places to drop them fast enough.  How do you you decide who gets them first?  A lottery?

Anyhow, it's not gonna happen.  Free Basic Shelter is pretty much an impossible dream to get rolling, except perhaps after collapse and a significant die off.  Then there sshould be plenty of excess housing around.

RE

QuoteAs soon as you start offering these FREE Universal Basic Shelter containers, everybody who is in one of the many tiny cramped NY studio or 1 bedroom apts that are no bigger than this (and sometimes smaller) but is paying rent of $3000/month will want one.  So it's not just the currently homeless who need shelter that you have to provide for, it's everyone with a low income who wants to start saving money and will take what amounts to a very small drop in standard of living to move into a free container home.

There can be no solution then.  Not short of a revolution.  In Japan the 'market' was able to provide a half-assed solution.  But America can't have anything like this.   

Markets can't respond to crisis, but Japan has unique circumstances.  A capitalist solution was already in place providing a digital office in a country where privacy is limited.  That solution somewhat adapted to provide 'housing' to people who can behave themselves better than most Americans can.


Internet Cafe Refugee - Homeless in Japan

And in this one we find what living the good life in a Internet cafe is like.

Quote from: K-Dog on Jul 20, 2024, 01:16 PMThere can be no solution then.  Not short of a revolution. 

Sadly, this is the case.  Because the Property Ownership system is so deeply embedded into our culture, all property of any type will either belong to an individual or belong to the state.  So to make Free Housing possible, all housing has to belong to the state.  It doesn't all have to be equal, if you make more money by working harder or have a higher paying job it can be priced higher, but the availability of free housing at the bottom level undermines how much can be charged for more luxurious digs.

While the dream of free housing isn't achievable this way, AFFORDABLE housing probably is.  If these container size homes are offered at a cheap enough price (say $5000) and cities zoned for where to put them and built the Frameworks they go into, charging say $500/mo rent and to hook up to the water, sewage and electric, this would put housing within reach of most people with min wage jobs.

Meanwhile, until then I still advocate for the Stealth Van & Trailer combo as the closest approximation you can have as an insurance policy against falling straight down to the street level sleeping rough level.





RE

Quote from: RE on Jul 19, 2024, 01:09 PMI agree that everybody who is able bodied physically and mentally should have to work at something and that everybody regardless of education or how brilliant they are should have to do some time each week working the shit jobs nobody wants but some people have to do all the time because they aren't qualified for anything else.

However, what do you do with the person who is just plain lazy and doesn't show up for work he doesn't like?  What is the punishment for Laziness if a person is guaranteed food to eat and a place to sleep, shit and shower?  Do you imprison them?  Force them to listen to Rap Music?

RE

I had to go to work so I could not answer the question right away.

It would take more than one incident to label a hard case, but while at work an interesting thing happened.  Before closing a couple came in to do some shoplifting.  They each left with a full shopping cart, their take was in the thousands.  They picked by price.  Hard cases they are.  Serious grifters.

If we confront a shoplifter, we will be fired and this causes the young men I work with to do nothing at all.  I'm part time employed on the bottom of the totem pole.  Actually not even on the totem pole.  So it was not on me to call the police.  I would have.   

This was case where the police should have been called right away.  Everybody working knew what was up, and the couple were in the store a long time to make sure that they would not be messed with on the way out our door.  The couple should be arrested and jailed but in the land of plenty we just call what they do 'shrinkage' and pass the costs along.  To this couple the huge new 'we prosecute shoplifters to the fullest extent of the law' advertised the fact that, no actually we do not.  We just like posting signs big signs that lie to you.

In a world where we have eliminated homelessness and hunger not everyone gets a tenth floor penthouse and prime rib for dinner.  A restaurant may have a free menu like a kids menu.  You can have a cheese sandwich and an apple any time you want.  Ordering something else would require a plastic credit card with a job or retirement so the card has a positive credit balance.  All of which the state can provide.  But everyone still has to work.  Not paying bills would have consequences.  Theft is still theft.

I have asked myself the question, how would your life (mine) change if your (my) socialist dream ever came true.  You (I) still have to get to work on time, or my social credit score (work history) suffers.  I have asked myself this question many times.  What would be different.  It has been a useful exercise.

Consequences we have for bad behavior now are inconsistent and as it is now, our society breeds criminal behavior.  In a more planned economy BOTH consequences for negative, and rewards or positive social conduct (showing up for work or not) become consistent.  More consistent than what we have now.  A fact which no doubt, scares the pants off some people.

A right-wing nutjob fears society would fall apart under socialism because everything is suddenly free.  They are wrong.  Prime rib still costs more.  We still have money.  Rewards for behaving in a socially positive way would mean a family is be able to buy a house unlike they are able to do now.  In a managed system rewards and punishments become consistent, more consistent than they are now. 

People go off about China having a social credit score.  I don't get their concern.  What is an American resume, a credit score, and a clean criminal record but the same fucking thing.  To get the good jobs I have had here required I looked good and show my papers.  As I must do in any civilized system.

With expectations more clearly defined, most people would be able to live a more successful life.  Define success as you wish, but a cheese sandwich and an apple does not work for me.

Quote from: K-Dog on Jul 20, 2024, 09:21 PMIn a world where we have eliminated homelessness and hunger not everyone gets a tenth floor penthouse and prime rib for dinner.  A restaurant may have a free menu like a kids menu.  You can have a cheese sandwich and an apple any time you want.  Ordering something else would require a plastic credit card with a job or retirement so the card has a positive credit balance.  All of which the state can provide.  But everyone still has to work.  Not paying bills would have consequences.  Theft is still theft.
............

With expectations more clearly defined, most people would be able to live a more successful life.  Define success as you wish, but a cheese sandwich and an apple does not work for me.

This returns to my original proposal.  NOT showing up for work does have consequences.  The consequence is that ALL you get is the bare bones box to live in and mac & cheese you eat.  If you are an ascetic who is happy with just this, you can live this way.  But if you want anything MORE than this, you need to work.

You start with the Mandatory 10 hr/wk Community Service job that everybody must do. These are all the unskilled jobs from street sweeper to janitor etc that would pay min wage.  They would be assigned weekly at the community employment office.  Once completed, if you have another skill like Dentist, you can drill teeth and make more for those work hours.

There's still problems.  People who do their community service job might be slackers.  They show up for work and pick up the broom, but they don't get much sweeping done.  They work slow and take long smoking breaks.

Then for the people with skills, if they are in short supply you might need say electricians to work lots of hours to get everybody's electricity going after an outage.  So they don't show up for their community service job.  If it's just once in a while, OK, but what about systemic shortages?  Not enough Nurses, are you going to make a nurse work 10 hours pushing a broom?

RE

QuoteThere's still problems.  People who do their community service job might be slackers.  They show up for work and pick up the broom, but they don't get much sweeping done.  They work slow and take long smoking breaks.

The supervisor will write in his/her report that the individual is not be invited back next week.  The individuals card balance falls to the cheese sandwich level.  Bouncing around from job to job would identify someone who needs training.

No different than now, except that someone with a problem gets help.

Quote from: K-Dog on Jul 21, 2024, 11:58 AM

QuoteThere's still problems.  People who do their community service job might be slackers.  They show up for work and pick up the broom, but they don't get much sweeping done.  They work slow and take long smoking breaks.

The supervisor will write in his/her report that the individual is not be invited back next week.  The individuals card balance falls to the cheese sandwich level.  Bouncing around from job to job would identify someone who needs training.

No different than now, except that someone with a problem gets help.

OK, what about the problem of professions with chronic worker shortages?

RE

Quote from: RE on Jul 21, 2024, 01:04 PM

Quote from: K-Dog on Jul 21, 2024, 11:58 AM

QuoteThere's still problems.  People who do their community service job might be slackers.  They show up for work and pick up the broom, but they don't get much sweeping done.  They work slow and take long smoking breaks.

The supervisor will write in his/her report that the individual is not be invited back next week.  The individuals card balance falls to the cheese sandwich level.  Bouncing around from job to job would identify someone who needs training.

No different than now, except that someone with a problem gets help.

OK, what about the problem of professions with chronic worker shortages?

RE

Those jobs pay better.  People still get paid.  How else are you going to get personal property if you don't earn money?

Quote from: K-Dog on Jul 21, 2024, 09:02 PMThose jobs pay better.  People still get paid.  How else are you going to get personal property if you don't earn money?

That's not what I'm talking about.  I mean on the requirement that everyone has to do some low level jobs to fulfill their social responsibility.  Nurses would be needed to do nursing work during all their working hours.  You could make the same case for Doctors and Dentists.

RE

Another article bemoaning the housing crisis, and another one drawing the same tired conclusion:

The crisis of housing affordability took years to emerge, and it'll take years to solve.

Yea, great, so what are we supposed to do in the meantime?

Now, he does point out Socialized Housing is an essential:

Whitzman was also quick and careful to point out that nonmarket housing is an essential part of any answer to the problem. In the United States, the idea of a green social housing development authority provides some hope for tackling two problems at once: housing and climate change. In Vienna, Austria, rents are much lower than similar cities in Europe thanks to its 220,000 socialized housing units.

Not sure where this green social housing development authority idea is coming from or who is promoting it?   This is the first time I've heard anything about it.  The example of Vienna though has merit.

The reason WHY not getting socialized housing going is brought up:

Shortcuts run the risk of tanking existing equity and the fortunes of those who rely on their biggest asset to make it to and through retirement.

As I mentioned with the Thought Experiment of the Free Basic Container Housing idea, if you offer TRULY affordable housing to everyone, then it will tank the value of housing all the way up the line until you get to the luxury housing for the elite, because nobody would move out of the free or even just low cost socialized housing until their incomes were really high, otherwise the upgrade in your living standard isn't worth the 50% of your take home pay it costs.  So we are protecting the value of the Boomers homes so they have a comfortable retirement at the expense of having affordable housing for Millenials.

What really pisses me off here is the "Enough Already!" title of this article when it's just another contribution to what we already have enough of, which is people moaning about it, saying it will take years to solve and then not really doing anything to get it solved.  They identify the CAUSE of the problem which is the financialization of housing and treating it as an asset which can be used for profit rather than as a social obligation and fundamental right of all the members of the society.  Their long term solution is "years of rising incomes and stable prices to really make a difference".  Where on the horizon are years of rising incomes coming from when we have had DECADES of falling incomes and rising prices, and nothing systemic is being done to change that dynamic?

So, once again, short of Revolution and/or Collapse, this problem is not gtting solved anytime soon and we'll keep on getting more of what we have already had more than enough of.

https://jacobin.com/2024/07/housing-crisis-homelessness-financialization

RE

Or how someone making twenty bucks an hour can't find a place to live.

Merica, do you still love it?