More colleges are looking at emergency housing solutions, including have students sleeping in alumni’s homes, napping pods, Airbnbs and even an assisted living facility.
One of the most humane solutions is also the most economically efficient. Early intervention programs like rent/utility assistance are significantly cheaper in the long run than trying to rehabilitate people who have already lost everything and have a litany of health issues because of it. If conservatives really want to save money, they should be embracing “an ounce of prevention saves a pound of cure.” Instead, they’re stuck in wanting to SEE the desperation before even considering helping. Safety nets are major economic stimulus in the long run because it’s much easier to attempt entrepeneurship if you aren’t making a life and death gamble. But something tells me the currently wealthy know this and don’t want competition popping up.
Then of course we also need to fix affordability issues, because unaffordable necessities put everyone at risk.
My point is that even if you mostly just care about efficient government and economic growth, you should still come to similar conclusions as “bleeding heart liberals.” Conservatives don’t come to those conclusions not by economic arguments, but because they fail to see the merit of collective problem solving. They want to have their own little castle with all their stuff that they can defend under penalty of death. We pretend the argument is about feasability and cost effectiveness, but the real issue is that they don’t think that any proposal that would take anything from them or require giving is an option. That’s why you see the economically destitute and ultra wealthy in an unholy alliance. Both of those groups are prone to wanting to circle the wagons and consider only the wellbeing of people in their little circle – the poor out of desperation, and the wealthy out of possessiveness. Everyone not in their little circle is someone else’s problem.
i live in boston area. every single person here is like this. they love the homeless, but if they have to see them in public the sudden they start talking about how they need to be ‘removed’ because it makes them feel uncomfortable.
same with schools, housing, healthcare. they support it, until it affects them. Then they are against it.
anf i you say you are for it, they call you evil and heartless and inconsiderate of ‘real people who work for a living’. because homeless people aren’t real people if they don’t have six figure office jobs.
NYMBYs is why politicians don’t have the balls to do anything progressive. Unless you have a wide swelling of support, which thanks to our two party system we never will, Democrats are often stuck keeping the status quo.
One of the most humane solutions is also the most economically efficient. Early intervention programs like rent/utility assistance are significantly cheaper in the long run than trying to rehabilitate people who have already lost everything and have a litany of health issues because of it. If conservatives really want to save money, they should be embracing “an ounce of prevention saves a pound of cure.” Instead, they’re stuck in wanting to SEE the desperation before even considering helping. Safety nets are major economic stimulus in the long run because it’s much easier to attempt entrepeneurship if you aren’t making a life and death gamble. But something tells me the currently wealthy know this and don’t want competition popping up.
Then of course we also need to fix affordability issues, because unaffordable necessities put everyone at risk.
My point is that even if you mostly just care about efficient government and economic growth, you should still come to similar conclusions as “bleeding heart liberals.” Conservatives don’t come to those conclusions not by economic arguments, but because they fail to see the merit of collective problem solving. They want to have their own little castle with all their stuff that they can defend under penalty of death. We pretend the argument is about feasability and cost effectiveness, but the real issue is that they don’t think that any proposal that would take anything from them or require giving is an option. That’s why you see the economically destitute and ultra wealthy in an unholy alliance. Both of those groups are prone to wanting to circle the wagons and consider only the wellbeing of people in their little circle – the poor out of desperation, and the wealthy out of possessiveness. Everyone not in their little circle is someone else’s problem.
Even efficiency takes a back seat to the[ir] real top priority: Hurting the right people and being seen to do so.
it’s not politically viable though. even liberal voters will revolt at this because it is ‘unfair’ or seem as rewarding laziness.
I’ve seen liberal voters only revolt when it’s in their back yard.
“I want to help house the homeless, but I don’t want to see them.”
i live in boston area. every single person here is like this. they love the homeless, but if they have to see them in public the sudden they start talking about how they need to be ‘removed’ because it makes them feel uncomfortable.
same with schools, housing, healthcare. they support it, until it affects them. Then they are against it.
anf i you say you are for it, they call you evil and heartless and inconsiderate of ‘real people who work for a living’. because homeless people aren’t real people if they don’t have six figure office jobs.
NYMBYs is why politicians don’t have the balls to do anything progressive. Unless you have a wide swelling of support, which thanks to our two party system we never will, Democrats are often stuck keeping the status quo.
most democrats benefit from the status quo and that’s why they want it.
the democrat base is wealthy educated professionals who are making a killing in this economy. it’s not working-class people.