Homelessness in San Francisco is now so bad residents are being asked to house a homeless person in their OWN HOMES.

[whitehall]

Let's see Nancy Pelosi take in homeless people in her own district to set an example.

 

[Orangecat]

You can't post, with your own fingers, the part that you call incoherent without Badger making you look ridiculous in front of the others.

You can't even assemble a coherent thought, much less commit one to text. You're the epitome of a village idiot.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I have done it before, took in a mother and her granddaughter we had met in the store (mom was selling cell phones) when the lost their place. The experience was rather eye opening for me as I was in my early twenties at the time and did not realize how deep rooted these problems can be. Despite having a job, a free place to stay and all expenses covered for 6 entire months and no mental illness or other mitigating factor, she left us basically where she started. They had a place to stay at least but she will forever live at the poverty level.

When thigs begin to go well for them, she would intentionally do something to ensure something bad would happen. Every single time. It is sad to see someone that truly is self destructive but that is the case for most of the people I have met on the street.

You have now had your introduction to Malthusian economics

 

[1stNickD]

Lack of jobs will do this

Why is there a lack of Jobs in California? They keep telling us they are the greatest State in the Union everyone should be like them. Many homeless there have full time jobs.

 

[1stNickD]

The "leaders" need to LEAD then....

The Mayor needs to fill up their homes with homeless.
The Governor needs to fill up his homes with homeless.
All other politicians in that state need to fill up their homes with homeless.
Gates needs to fill up his mansions with homeless.

While I agree with much of what you said, I think Gates doesn't live in California. I thought he had a secluded palace somewhere in Washington or Oregon.

 

[FA_Q2]

You have now had your introduction to Malthusian economics

?

This has nothing to do with Malthusian economics. Not to mention Malthusian economics is blatantly false, food and basic resources have never been on a linear progression. That was the basis of the 'population bomb' which never happened and it is now well known that the core idea is without merit.

This has to do with the fact that poverty is directly tied to action.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

?

This has nothing to do with Malthusian economics. Not to mention Malthusian economics is blatantly false, food and basic resources have never been on a linear progression. That was the basis of the 'population bomb' which never happened and it is now well known that the core idea is without merit.

This has to do with the fact that poverty is directly tied to action.

i beg to differ, poverty is directly tied to "inaction"..

 

[EvilCat Breath]

?

This has nothing to do with Malthusian economics. Not to mention Malthusian economics is blatantly false, food and basic resources have never been on a linear progression. That was the basis of the 'population bomb' which never happened and it is now well known that the core idea is without merit.

This has to do with the fact that poverty is directly tied to action.

Poor people invariably find ways to remain poor when alternatives are available to help them out of poverty.

 

[FA_Q2]

Poor people invariably find ways to remain poor when alternatives are available to help them out of poverty.

Sure.

But the point I made was that has nothing to do with Malthusian economics. That was what you claimed this was. The two concepts are not related and, further, Malthusian economics does not seem to fly IMHO.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Sure.

But the point I made was that has nothing to do with Malthusian economics. That was what you claimed this was. The two concepts are not related and, further, Malthusian economics does not seem to fly IMHO.

Malthus maintained that poor people cannot climb out of poverty because as soon as their financial position improves, they have more children putting them back into poverty.

 

[FA_Q2]

Malthus maintained that poor people cannot climb out of poverty because as soon as their financial position improves, they have more children putting them back into poverty.

But that is simply not the case, at least with anyone I know that has been in long term poverty. It is not having more children, the same bad decisions are pervasive. I know my kids have almost nothing to do with my financial situation. They are expensive, yes, but if I save or not, if I go buy a new TV on credit or not, if I use payday loans or not, if I eat out when I have not payed all the bills or not are all immaterial to my family. They are choices I have made all on my own.

People that blame their financial situation on their kids are just looking for cover.

Besides, as far as I can tell, that was not his main point. That sounds like a simplified character rather than the economic concept.

Malthusianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Malthusianism is the idea that population growth is potentially exponential while the growth of the food supply or other resources is linear, which eventually reduces living standards to the point of triggering a population die off."

That is not saying poor people have more kids and that keeps them in poverty. It is saying that populations have more kids until resources are so constrained that it drives a starvation or deprivation die off. That is a societal hypothesis, not an individual one and, afaik, it is false.

But I am straying quite a bit from the topic.

 

[Penelope]

Their one of the richest places on Earth for cripes sakes almighty

P. I'm afraid no one would take you home you are that sorry










j/k

Why not they go to CA, TX and Fl, all warm states. Where in the heck would you want to homeless at? freezing weather.

 

[badger2]

i beg to differ, poverty is directly tied to "inaction"..

But Assuming that the action you refer to is a capitalist-exploited action, the musician (above) building tiny homes for street prisoners of LA was removing the class difference that defines a homeowner from a non-home owner. Capitalist wealth itself was being directly challenged because the prisoners were being given (the means of production [italics]) outside the capitalist axiomatic. Very dangerous indeed, because how those houseless came into houses directly opposed capitalist-style generation of wealth, in which wage labor is the foundation of social wealth.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

But Assuming that the action you refer to is a capitalist-exploited action, the musician (above) building tiny homes for street prisoners of LA was removing the class difference that defines a homeowner from a non-home owner. Capitalist wealth itself was being directly challenged because the prisoners were being given (the means of production [italics]) outside the capitalist axiomatic. Very dangerous indeed, because how those houseless came into houses directly opposed capitalist-style generation of wealth, in which wage labor is the foundation of social wealth.

And every time a human is "given" something they have no desire to take care of the gift, but if "earned" then those people have pride that they got the house on their own. Why else in the projects of Progressive LB Johnson did the blacks literally tear the place down? Because they had not earned their domicile.

50 Years Later, LBJ's 'War On Poverty' Has Proven A Total Failure

Doing the same thing over again and expecting different results is insanity.

www.forbes.com

 

[marvin martian]

Why not they go to CA, TX and Fl, all warm states. Where in the heck would you want to homeless at? freezing weather.

Texas and Florida don't have NEARLY the same problems with homeless that California has. California WANTS people homeless. Just like you want them homeless.