They are drug addicts and mentally ill because usa has no safety nets for such people
Zero is the amount of drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers that Elon has built. Zero is the amount of mental health facilities.
Is this older or does his wealth just fluctuate ±100 billion as stocks fluctuate? Recently read he was at 450 billion.
What’s crazy is losing or gaining 100 billion doesn’t really affect him, he’s still the richest person in the world and it wouldn’t change his life any.
In short, yes.
See this graph: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-tesla-stock-spacex-valuation-xai-neuralink-trump-charts-2024-12
The guy who is so addicted with twitter engagement boostingbhis ego he bought it for himself just to go full fascist. Is calling homeless people addicts lol.
There’s full time employees that are homeless. Go out to a bridge, find a homeless person, ask how many homeless people they know that are working 40hrs a week. An alarming number. Looking forward to the violent end to elon musk. His violent games, have very violent ends.
Fucking dumbass. 25% of them are kids. Dude is a fucking loser.
As a broad statement it’s dumb, but depending on the city addiction can be a major contribution to the cycle of “homelessness”, especially the more visible populations who have reached peak “fuck it” and have no more cares for societal values or laws… Even if 25% of them are kids, yeah some of those may be hooked on drugs at an early age or be affected by parental/guardian drug abuse.
But ok then… he’s still a billionaire who could definitely spare a good portion of his wealth to improve both situations (homelessness and addiction) but would rather just leverage it to make more and more wealth while pushing policies that actually make life for the average person worse.
At the same time, homelessness and addiction are very much NOT just a throw-money-at-it problem and fucking both would require systemic change over time.
For Elon socially, how much of his wealth is liquid enough to make a difference I don’t know, but I haven’t really heard of him doing ANYTHING particularly altruistic with his money and Id say the changes/logistics required to make this world a better place are probably still a lot more feasible than building a colony on fucking Mars…
He bought and tanked twitter for more than that. I’d say his wealth is more than liquid enough
Bought and tanked Twitter and totally wasn’t funded by people who wanted to see it dead.
Pretty sure that move made him more money than it cost him.
Facebook (and other “Meta” subsidiaries) censored, reddit censored, TikTok on the chopping block…seems like an effective way around the First Amendment, just hijack social media.
The word “homeless” (without a home) literally as descriptive and neutral as possible. Elon Musk: Propaganda
pretty sure you can’t end homelessness with $20b unless we’re talking about absolute homelessness or something…
That could be the cost to house people who are otherwise unhoused, aka “homeless”
pretty sure you can’t end homelessness with $20b
The math is straightforward: Cost of a housing unit * number of unhoused people. Even assuming the extraordinarily inflated market rate for housing in 2024, $20B is more than enough to house 650k people.
Now, will the institutional actors that produced homelessness stop existing? Will we see an end to predatory lenders, robo-signed foreclosures, police harassment and civil asset forfeiture of the working poor, and unregulated real estate scammers targeting our most vulnerable neighbors? Probably not.
But we wouldn’t have so many billionaires running about squandering our national wealth on vanity projects like Twitter without billions to be fleeced from the public to begin with.
$20B is more than enough to house 650k people
I got curious, so I whipped out my phone’s calculator. $20B/650k = $30,800, give or take. I truly don’t know if that’s enough to break the cycle of homelessness, but if it is that seems like a pretty low number. We spend 40x that number on the defense budget, which is totally a jobs program but it seems like fighting homelessness would also ultimately be a jobs program.
I was homeless for 6 years because billionaires fucked with America’s housing market. I’m not even American.
I was 15 years old when that happened. My teenage years got robbed by billionaires.
Even if that is true, does it somehow invalidate the fact that they are also homeless?! Are they less deserving to be out of the elements because they have an addiction?
That’s what I find so disgusting about this statement. It’s just an excuse and doesn’t address anything at all.
Using his own “argument”, it would seem to me that a path to less addiction and violence would involve having a place to live and sleep.
Lots of people feel this way about homelessness and addiction. It’s very easy to dehumanized people. My cousin interrupted me, when I said something about it, and told me “when you have people shooting up outside your house, then you can complain”. As if i couldnt have an opinion until i experience the issue that is homelessness, the war on drugs, and our failure to address mental health issues in this country with my very own eyes. She’s a bit snooty, and she doesn’t even realize it.
Nevermind that once you become homeless, it becomes much harder to dig yourself out of that hole (probably by design).
It’s such a self-centered point of view. They can’t even conceive of themselves ever being in a similar situation so they assume the person inconveniencing them must be fully to blame for their homelessness. Then they can ignore those degenerates without feeling guilty about it.
If you are homeless, it’s because supply side Jesus doesn’t love you, obviously
Yeah wonder what could drive someone to addiction and desperation? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm couldn’t be not having a stable food supply and a place to live?
Yeah the whole correlation causation thing is going to be very mixed up here. Like lets look at it another way:
Oh no I become disabled > Can’t work anymore shit I got no money > Try to apply for disability benefits oh fuck its a million forms and I need a lawyer oh fuck I’m broke > Crash at friends to apply for disability, first try fails after 1 year (this is pretty standard usually takes 2-3 trys), oh fuck friend kicks me out > go to homeless camp struggling to feed yourself, no time to think about applying for benefits anymore > The pain is too much I don’t have my medicine anymore its fucking freezing oh shit that guys selling drugs > get addicted
Boom, you’re homeless and addicted. That story could happen to literally anyone without generational wealth and an exceptionally strong support network.
Are they less deserving to be out of the elements because they have an addiction?
That’s not what’s being said. He is criticizing the fact that so many people assume that ‘just give them a place to live’ is the solution, when it’s much, much more complicated than that. In that way, “homeless” is very reductive, and masks those other issues, in favor of making it look like it’s a simple problem with a simple solution.
Very few long-term homeless people are homeless simply because they can’t afford a place to live.
So we shouldn’t house them unless and until we figure out all of the complex issues? They’re not going to benefit any at all, or have any possibility of getting on their feet, until we have a perfect solution?
That’s what’s being said there: homelessness is not something we should do anything about, because of reasons. So let’s do nothing.
That’s a fucking cop out.
So we shouldn’t house them unless and until we figure out all of the complex issues?
That’s what’s being said there: homelessness is not something we should do anything about
No, Cathy, that’s not what was said.
The fact of the matter is that we know what happens when we provide shelter without anything else. It doesn’t last and you’re right back where you started before you know it. After all, it’s that stuff that is the reason they became homeless in the first place.
If you don’t address the other stuff, ‘just give them a house lol’ literally doesn’t work long-term. That’s the reality.
The fact of the matter is that we know what happens when we provide shelter without anything else. It doesn’t last and you’re right back where you started before you know it. After all, it’s that stuff that is the reason they became homeless in the first place.
Actually it is pretty darn successful when enough housing is provided.
Houston revamped its entire system to get more people into housing quickly, and it cut homelessness by more than half.
Housing First was a revolutionary idea when it was introduced in the 1990s because it didn’t require homeless people to fix their problems before getting permanent housing. Instead, its premise — since confirmed by years of research — was that people are better able to address their individual problems when basic needs, such as food and a place to live, are met.
Housing is the first step to being able to address those issues. Yes, the issues need to be addressed for long term success, but trying to address the issues while they are homeless is not successful. Too much emphasis is put on requiring the treatment as conditional for the housing.
I think you’ve misunderstood my position, based specifically on something I’ll quote later in this comment.
Somewhat ironic that the juxtaposition in the article is between an area of California and Texas, with the latter arguably taking the more progressive approach.
Too much emphasis is put on requiring the treatment as conditional for the housing.
For the record, I never believed in or advocated for this approach. I pushed back against specifically the implication that you can just throw these people into some sort of housing and now you can consider the problem “solved” and wipe your hands of it.
I definitely agree that the path to a long-term solution is taking that multi-faceted approach that tackles those root causes simultaneously. None of them should be conditional upon the others, and I believe that each one of them improving empowers the individual to be more capable of improving all the others. It’s much more efficient than trying to 100% solve one thing, and ignoring everything else until that one thing is completely eradicated, not only on efficacy, but in resources required.
For the record, I never believed in or advocated for this approach. I pushed back against specifically the implication that you can just throw these people into some sort of housing and now you can consider the problem “solved” and wipe your hands of it.
Nobody ever said that. They have said that it should not be a requirement to provide housing.
I pushed back against specifically the implication that you can just throw these people into some sort of housing and now you can consider the problem “solved” and wipe your hands of it.
Nobody ever said that.
From the OP:
“It would cost $20 billion to end homelessness in America.”
This $20 billion figure comes from an old estimate of what it’d cost to pay for homeless people’s rent, and nothing more. And that person effectively said that paying for that, and nothing more, would “end homelessness.”
So yes, somebody said that.
Cathy?
I see that you’re not interested in actual discourse and instead are just looking to be petty.
So I’ll assume you’re also not arguing in good faith either, so I’ll just add some downvotes and move on.
Cathy?
You did a pretty good impression of her with the “so you’re saying” followed by something not even close to what I was saying, so I called a spade a spade. If you don’t like it, try arguing in good faith and honestly instead of strawmanning.
So I’ll assume you’re also not arguing in good faith either
Projection.
Ah, the “NO U” gambit
One of us wrote an entire comment that contained nothing but a lie and personal attack, and it wasn’t me.
Edit: Facts make y’all real mad, lol.
If you were to provide housing only, nothing else, youd still pull out a significant portion of homeless people.
Of course, little to no one is advocating for housing only. These people often lack a solid support system and mental counseling.
Lastly, there will be a portion that cannot be fixed, that might remain broken but honestly? A lot of complete broken people have housing and the sole reason for them not being burned alive or bullied is that they have enough money to not sleep in the streets.
Homelessness encompasses far more than rough sleeping. I agree that there are issues that many homeless people may face that wouldn’t be resolved just by giving them a roof over their head. But it’d be a great start. And don’t forget, a lot of homelessness is people and families in temporary or crisis housing, or couch surfing with friends and family, because they can’t afford a place of their own.
I wouldn’t say this contradicts anything I said, really. I don’t disagree with any of this.
I bristled specifically at the ridiculously glib and reductive “solve homelessness” line. People love to think issues like these are things that have simple obvious solutions that no one thought of before their enlightenment came along and deigned to bless the rest of us.
I mean yeah, it’s a glib portrayal but I don’t think it’s wrong to present it this way. It’s a fact that a few of America’s most wealthy have enough money to house every homeless person in the US, with enough to spare to keep themselves in megayachts and luxury Texan compounds. It drives home the massive wealth inequality.
It also really isn’t infeasible to build enough homes to house all the homeless in the US within one or two years. It’s not infeasible to spend that same amount of time setting up universal basic income and healthcare. Those three things are achievable and would make a positive, life-long difference to the majority of people experiencing homelessness.
And there are a handful of people in the US whose combined personal wealth could easily fund all that.
It’s a fact that a few of America’s most wealthy have enough money to house every homeless person in the US
If they have enough to do that, then the government certainly already has enough to accomplish this, no? Even the wealthiest person on the planet’s total net worth is nothing compared to what is already spent every single year by the US government.
It also really isn’t infeasible to build enough homes to house all the homeless in the US within one or two years.
I thought it was commonly said that there were more empty houses in the country than there are homeless people, already?
It’s not infeasible to spend that same amount of time setting up universal basic income and healthcare.
If you’re talking about something that goes only to homeless people, then it’s not “universal”. If you’re now talking about true UBI, I just don’t see how it can be realistically afforded.
Back of the napkin math, a measly $10,000 to every working-age adult in the US amounts to an annual bill of over $2 trillion each year. We have no realistic way of paying for that–even if you squeezed all the billionaires completely dry, it’d only pay for it for a couple of years. And that’s just $10,000.
It just doesn’t seem feasible until/unless we are literally post-scarcity, from the raw numbers. And that’s assuming it doesn’t replace any of the welfare systems already in place–if it would, then it really wouldn’t lift anyone out of anything long-term.
And there are a handful of people in the US whose combined personal wealth could easily fund all that.
It’s honestly very difficult to believe this, knowing all the trillions upon trillions of dollars the government has already spent over the years on issues like these, without them being ‘solved’.
Aside from the fact that having a safe place to live alone helps both mental illness and substance abuse in most individuals, a major cause of homelessness is domestic abuse and being disowned. Having a safe place to live will absolutely help the over a third of domestic abuse victims who become homeless, and would help those who cannot afford to get away from their abusers due to lack of ability to find a safe haven.
Home the homeless, then we can start working on the harder parts.
A huge portion of the homeless population are orphans who age out of the system.
That too. There are so many reasons for homing the homeless first.
It’s probably the cheapest and most effective first step. There’s so much more that will need to follow it. There’s a lot going on. But home the homeless first.
The entire system requires homeless people to exist as a threat to the working class.
Homeless will never get fixed for this reasons.
We can’t even provide decent health care to the paying customers lol
It’s why they absolutely need to fix it.
What happens when being homeless is more common than not?
Uh oh, Luigi time!
The entire system would collapse at that point. But that’s the end state of Capitalism. Eventually just one ends up with all the wealth.
They want to see how far we can push it.
The entire system would collapse at that point.
GOOD.
Look how much they’re scrambling over the death of just one of them.
The idea that there are more of us than there are of them already terrifies them. They know they’re not immortal, they know they’re not divinely ordained, and they sure as hell know that they’re just people with money.
I wonder if they use drugs to cope with the mental illness they got from being forced to live on the streets?
Naw, that’s pseudoscience. We all know that it’s proven that poverty is a character trait that you actively choose. Not rich? Obviously you don’t want it hard enough. /s
I cannot explain how disgustingly evil it is to witness the suffering of individuals, whether due to substance abuse, illness, or homelessness, and dismiss it as untruthful.
The numbers to fix homelessness may be controversial, with some sites saying it was 20 billion in 2010 and that’s just to provide vouchers for a year, and some fact checking sites saying it can cost $60 billion in a year.
The primary concern is the actions of a South African billionaire, whose net worth is $350 billion. Instead of recognizing the complexities of a significant social issue, he appears to dehumanize those affected and assigns blame, rather than offering assistance.
What a fucking evil take.
Those numbers all take into account existing housing assistance programs, which are used by mostly non-homeless people.
There are 250k homeless people in the US. For $20B, you could spend $80k per each person. Since many of the homeless are families, that’s enough to buy a small house for each family.
But you still have to keep paying into the existing programs, or more people will become homeless. Compared to a quarter million homeless people, there are 4.5M households using the existing programs.
80k per person gets them a small house? It’d be more than one family to a house and for people without families it would be overcrowded atleast in my area.
You’re assuming buying a house at consumer prices, not government prices. Government already owns a great deal of land, which is one of the most significant costs. Then it’s a matter of just building a modest home, which absolutely can be done for 80k. It would be very small by american gigantic house standards but it would be an actual house, which is infinitely better than no house
While the word is “homeless” the problem is generally not just “lacking a home”. It usually stems from things like inability to work due to severe disability or psychiatric illness, unofficial immigrants struggling to find employment, addiction, abandonment from family, not enough money to retire but unable to work etc.
Like don’t get me wrong giving everyone a home is great. But it won’t magically solve all the problems. And they might not be able to afford maintinance, property tax etc. Also if it’s homelessness due to lack of employment I question whether the 80k home will be anywhere useful for someone to find a job they qualify for, and if it will have any transportation links or anything
Funny because elon is a drug addict who’s showing he has some affective disorder because his daddy didn’t love him and is a malignant narcissist.
Fuck Elon, but also there’s absolutely zero chance you can solve homelessness with $20b unless you’re just building tent cities with no other resources available there.
What til you find out about the number of unoccupied houses in the USA. Zero chance anybody is getting rich solving homelessness so we ain’t doing it.
That assumtion is an annual cost. Although doing it for one year only would still probably reduce the homeless numbers considerably.
https://www.sciotoanalysis.com/news/2024/1/16/what-would-it-cost-to-end-homelessness-in-america
20 billion could house and feed our entire homeless population for twenty years. While that would not solve the problem, it would drastically improve their lives.
I don’t really believe that. It cost us $10 billion just to provide free lunches to kids for a year during covid. I think we should spend that every year. But the cost of housing is much higher unless you’re planning housing with no HVAC or energy costs. Even if that number were theoretically real, it clearly isn’t accounting for inflation, or the potential increase in homeless population when they start providing free housing.
You don’t have to believe it, good lord!
650,000 homeless people times one thousand in rent for twenty years.
650000 x $1,000 x 20 years = $13 billion. That leaves enough left over to also feed them for 20 years as well
Do you believe it now!? Don’t answer that, because it is clear you have a serious case of learned helplessness.
Edit:
650,000 x 12 x $1,000 x 2.5 years of rent with no food. Buuuut Elon gained 50 billion so that would be over 5 years with food. He could house every homeless person and feed them with the money he made since the election.
Wouldn’t that be $1k a month minimum? Even if you could find housing at that price where most destitute people are located… that’s $7.8 Billion a year.
Yeah your right. That would only pay for almost three years. Honestly though $1000 may be a bit high for a room, but perhaps not an actual house depending on the area.
$83.33 a month for rent?
Yeah that was not right
Putting aside your confusion on monthly versus annual rent, the pricing you are thinking of has baked in the assumption that the homeless are not participating. Every value is based on supply and demand, and there’s no such thing as a true objective numerical value for “a month of rent”. If hypothetically you have housing for a 1,000 but 1,500 people to house, then the tent is going to go up so long as 1,000 can afford what’s available, and 500 would be left out.
Of course with more incentive, construction can happen, but just saying it’s not that simple.
See also cost of college. Well intended measures to make financing available to everyone caused massive cost increases in universities. Any measure to try to secure these resources for everyone requires more than just throwing cash at the problem.
Yeah my math was way off.
Putting people in tents is just ridiculous. You need to get that thought far out of your mind.
No need for construction though as there are already more empty homes than homeless by a large margin.
I would wonder about the distribution of available housing stock. If you can place every homeless person, but to do so you tell them they have to move 80 miles to the empty house you find for them, that is likely not going to work.
Also, they likely need more than just a roof over their heads to have a safe, healthy life. There’s a high likelihood of that housing stock being mismatched with the capacity to provide those services.
