So yeah. Housing the homeless is an effective solution. There are more empty homes than homeless in the US at least. And you can subsidize or build new places for this purpose, especially if they are transitory for the majority. And it'll still be cheaper than dealing with all the knock-on effects of homelessness: litter, crime, health issues, etc.

[–] programmer_belch@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

But how will investors in the housing market recover from the loss in property value?

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 8 points 10 months ago

Won't somebody please think of the porky-scared-flipped

[–] pifox@pawb.social 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Public services in capitalist and communist societies are often hindered by inefficiency and corruption, causing issues with access to public housing. Public services are often influenced by political agendas and it can be difficult for disadvantaged groups to access. (https://council.nyc.gov/budget/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2022/03/DHS-.pdf, for New York Budget) (https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/07/26/homeless-shelters-are-overflowing-and-most-likely-in-poor-areas-despite-fair-share-promises/)

I think the problem has more to do with the fact that humans are common to fall into nepotism and greed. This is not a problem that is siloed to either economic solution. (https://www.history.com/news/ukrainian-famine-stalin)

This post was revised using the help of a locally run instance llama2-uncensored from https://ollama.ai/.