412
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024
412 points (96.2% liked)
People Twitter
4976 readers
1399 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying.
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Imho Housing should be provided by the state.
Do you want shitty housing? Because that's how you get shitty housing. The government doesn't give a fuck about your comfort. They are as much a slum lord as Bob or Sandy or whoever owns the place you rent now. They will go with the lowest bidder, and do the bare minimum. The only benefit is the government pays SLIGHTLY more attention to safety standards (depending on your government).
Shitty housing would still be a big leg up for the homeless and the near homeless. Lots of newly productive workers who aren't worried about a roof. Win win
Because having a house makes productive workers? I fail to see your logic here. A city I lived in did this. It didn't produce workers, it produced income for contractors as the buildings were outright destroyed by the 'tenants'. Needless to say the city didn't stay in that business long, less than a year actually.
If your goal is 'workers' while simultaneously bitching about capitalism...who do you plan on them to work for?
The data is clear: the best way to reduce homelessness is to simply give people a safe, private address.