• daellat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            So the solution is cost effective like my initial statement said and youre just arguing for arguments sake? Idgi

            • Chakravanti@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              You mean “cost” as in the cost of the collective people. Such is not given a fuck about by anyone with enough to not be a communist. That and such wealth would give zero fucks if it weren’t for the fact that this level of wealth can, instead of forcing people, simply buy anything to be done that is delirious, disgusting and more that even I don’t want to talk about here.

              At the end of the day it become the choice of every individual who doesn’t want to die to sell their kid to Bill Gates who will do you know what.

              • daellat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                7 months ago

                I just meant that in terms of tax payer money offering homeless people cheap free housing is not more expensive than not doing that and having all these other costs go up to combat the symptoms nothing more.

    • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      When Milwaukee implemented a housing-first homeless policy, they actually saved money.

      Turns out that, by almost completely eliminating homelessness, you can save a lot of money on the legal system, policing, healthcare, and other costs associated with homelessness.

      Housing-first homeless policy is the obvious solution: it’s humane, it’s effective, and it saves us money.