Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I remember over the years that innovative inventors saw homeless people living in cardboard boxes on the street, and proposed very cheap and easily constructed pre-fab individual housing units that were safer, more weather resistant and more sanitary.
For example, a man named "James Stuart designed the world's smallest home after learning of the death of a Vancouver homeless woman when her makeshift shelter burnt down. The 12' by 12' cube includes a dishwasher, microwave oven, bathroom, closet, and natural light. The average price of a cube house is $24,500 (Canadian). prefabricated cube homes on Twelve3, James Stuart's website." A 12 x 12 Cube to Call Home by James Stuart | Apartment Therapy New York
Another approach to homelessness is the "Single Room Occupancy" (SRO) housing unit, which "is a multiple tenant building that houses one or two people in individual rooms...or to the single room dwelling itself. SRO tenants typically share bathrooms and / or kitchens, while some SRO rooms may include kitchenettes, bathrooms, or half-baths. Although many are former hotels, SROs are primarily rented as a permanent residence." Single room occupancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Interestingly, the primary reason Cube homes and SROs cannot be utilized is government building and zoning regulations. The government sets such high standards for housing units that it typically costs about $100,000 to build a structure that meets them. The only way a Cube home can be built is if a local government specifically writes laws that allow them, which it hates to do because (1) this opens the door for all builders to work around the extensive regulatory requirements, and (2) no local government wants to encourage a large population of a group that will need extensive (expensive) social services and provide very little in tax revenue.
As other posters have noted, the homeless population typically has a variety of problems in addition to simple lack of money, so simply providing a shelter is just one facet of the social services needed by this group.
I think that your solutions are indeed viable. As long as the SRO buildings are sanitary, and otherwise kept up to local housing codes. And I've said that those homeless people who are addicts, and/or mentally ill, need to have those problems addressed.
I've heard of some locales, that are trying a 'housing first' program. What that's about, is housing the homeless first, then working on any problems that they may have, such as mental illness, joblessness, etc. In some cities, I've read where this approach has been successful, at keeping people off of the streets.
I think that this 'housing first' approach, should be tried on a national level. It's hard for a person to overcome any other problems, if they don't have a safe, warm place to live. Here's a link, to an article about the 'housing first option: National Alliance to End Homelessness: Solutions: Housing First
We could round up the homeless and force them to knife fight trained assassin monkeys on pay-per-view. The winner would naturally be allowed to sell the harvested organs of the loser, and unlike that stupid college bowl championship series, we would create a logical play-off system that would allow the homeless champion to keep a reasonable portion of the proceeds while at the same time giving the fans what they want to see.
you are wrong that i dont think misfortune never happens to people. i have misfortunes of my own to deal with.
true, the economy is not helping people, but then lets look at what caused the problem in the economy, and that is the collapse of the sub prime mortgage market. and why did that collapse? because greedy people went out and knowingly bought far more house than they could legitimately afford. i mean how many people making $50k per year afford a $700k house? the correct answer is in fact NONE.
so where is the government supposed to get the money? and what happened to all the trillions that have been spent on the poor over the years? and how much more is the government supposed to do?
really? the democrats have done the least amount of damage to the poor? get real. which party has been in control of congress for the last four years? thats right, the democrats.
at some point the even the government has to tell the people to help themselves. remember the soviet union? well thats all you can do. why? because the type of programs you are advocating are far too expensive even for government, and the soviet union collapsed under the weight of all the government spending. look at europe and all their social spending. they are cutting back on social spending, why? because it is too heavy a burden to pay for everything for all the people.
well at least you recognize that government should be the last resort, thats a start.
and who do you think should supply the "free" housing?
actually private businesses have done a lot of hiring. during the bush years we had 52 straight months of job creation, and it ended with the election of a democrat majority in congress in 2007, and the anti business policies they put in place. higher taxes, and government regulation only do one thing, it kills business and jobs. and since government does not produce anything, what good are government jobs when no money is coming in to support those jobs?
again government regulation is not the way to create jobs, and neither is a higher minimum wage. the minimum wage was not designed to be a living wage for anyone. it was designed to be a wage for students, and part time workers, and other just getting into the job market to gain experience and move up to a job with a higher wage.
understand that those jobs that were created by the government during the great depression went away as soon as the spending went away. as for the tax burden, it is already on the wealthy, remember that the top 50% of wage earners in this country pay 97% of the taxes collected by the IRS. how much more do you want them to pay? also understand that the more you tax the rich, the more the middle class and the poor pay for the things they buy, because the rich push those taxes onto the others through higher prices for products, or smaller quantities, or fewer jobs.
you dont need as much credit or money saved up as you think. there are venture capital companies out there that if you send them a solid business plan, they will pony up the cash you need to start up a business. you just need a good idea to start with, and be willing to put in a lot of hours to make your business work.
yes the government needs to be accountable to the people, not provide for the people. that means that the government has to watch its spending just like we the people watch our spending. right now however the government is taking the robin hood approach, and taking from the rich to give to the poor. at some point in time, the rich are going to pick up their toys and go home, and then where will the country be?
I haven't advocated any government programs yet. And our awful economy, was set in motion during the Bush administration, not on Obama's watch. Private businesses have had tax breaks, to stimulate hiring. Well guess what? Businesses are STILL not hiring. At least not in any numbers, to bring down the unemployment rate.
The unemployment rate, is actually higher than the 9.6%, that is reported. They don't count the number of people who are so discouraged, that they stop looking for work. Or those who want to work full-time, but only find part-time jobs. And the unemployment rate, is also higher for certain segments of the population. For example, the unemployment rate for African Americans, stands at over 16%. And that's nearly twice the rate, than for whites.
The unemployment rate, is actually higher than the 9.6%, that is reported. They don't count the number of people who are so discouraged, that they stop looking for work. Or those who wqant to work full-time, but only find part-time jobs. And the unemployment rate, is also higher for certain segments of the population. For example, the unemployment rate for African Americans, stands at over 16%. And that's nearly twice the rate, than for whites.
You know part of the reason why blacks have a much higher unemployment rate than whites? because they are competing with cheap illegal aliens from Asia, Mexico, and Central America
You know part of the reason why blacks have a much higher unemployment rate than whites? because they are competing with cheap illegal aliens from Asia, Mexico, and Central America
I hesitate to agree with you on that. The unemployment rate for African Americans, has ALWAYS been higher, than for whites. And that goes back to long before illegal aliens, were arriving here.
The federal government, could provide more funding to state and local governments, to implement programs to help the homeless more.
You didn't answer the question. Implementing more programs isn't going to get someone to stop drinking, or any other behaviors that are the root causes of homelessness.
The homeless problem started up in the 80s, after Reagan became President. And it's been going on now, for over 30 years. Homelessness has continued to increase, since the great recession began over two years ago.
In a wealthy country like America, the homeless problem is a national disgrace. Shouldn't we use our considerable economic resources, to eliminate homelessness once and for all? And what do you think would be the best way, to go about doing so?
The 80's and Reagen....There You Go Again. Suppose there was no homelessness during the great depression?
What's all those hobos I keep hearing about?
Look, you are obviously a Democrat, that is why you blame everything on some Republican scapegoat. The truth is, as we place more and more trust in central government, we hold less faith in ourselves, so we live on the street and wait for somebody to bail us out.
Being poor should involve a certain amount of discomfort. Liberals seek to take that away. That encourages sloth and eliminates the incentive to take care of ourselves. The answer is not to do more but to do less. And hear this, I am not saying to do nothing, just reverse the trends that have led to the increasing problems, such as thinking that Obama was going to pay our mortgage or fill our tank with gas. Lets stop depending on Washington DC for everything and instead do as much as we can for ourselves. We cannot build aircraft carriers or negotiate treaties with Russia, but we must entirely stop looking to Washington DC for food and shelter.
There is a difference between state powers and federal powers.
Don't be silly! I know that this isn't in the Constitution. The Constitution was written eons ago anyway. A woman's right to vote, was never in the constitution, and neither was civil rights for minorities. Those rights, as well as many others had to be fought for.
I've been talking about a moral and humane obligation, for the government to step in and provide for a person's needs, when ever a person can't do so. After all, America is a wealthy, industrialized nation. Not a third world country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Suppose there was no homelessness during the great depression? 
