Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[draynay]

I didn't move them, I wanted to make sure to clarify exactly what I meant

Yeah, that the oppressed should fight each other instead of fighting against the system that oppresses them, we figured that out pretty quick, thanks.

[Doomcookie]

Most folks on public benefits aren't lazy, especially considering how fucking hard it is to actually get on those benefits much of the time. Really, Reagan's "welfare queen" bullshit is doing generational brain damage.

For that sentence, I was referring to co-workers who are not pulling their weight, but are making the same pay.

In the end, many states are spending a lot of money to deal with homelessness, with poor results. Democrats have to understand that this is a losing issue with the public.

[cubby]

I didn't move them, I wanted to make sure to clarify exactly what I meant, and further back my argument. Money not being spent well IS BEING WASTED in their eyes. This is not a complicated concept.

People see money getting spent on homelessness, and the homeless problem getting worse. That's a reality that needs to be understood. The efforts that states put in, has not actually caused homeless rates to go down.

It's not selfish to not want to labor for others. Otherwise, you are arguing that those who are not working, yet getting the benefits, are even more selfish. Is that your argument? It's not inhumane to resent people for being lazy, any more than it is to resent them for being fascists, or Trump supporters.

On your reaction to unproductive employees making as much as you, there would be no "staffing" issues, as they are getting everything done. If you choose to work less, requiring they hire more people, then you are going against your desire to minimize the LFPR.

The problem is that you're equating not working with lazy. Which it's NOT. It might be, but there are dozens of other considerations to take into account when assessing why people aren't working, or are working "less". By starting the conversation off with "lazy" a person ends up setting the entirely wrong tone for the discussion that needs to take place.

The money spent on homelessness is miniscule compared to the problem that exists and the costs associated with actually even trying to fix it.

Keep in mind that we currently have the technology for every person in the world to be fed and housed. We are on the cusp of being able (not willing to, but able) to provide UBI. Driving off the cliff re this subject, our entire society is driven by capitalism, which is a consumer driven model, antithetical to society happiness and long term survival of our ability to survive on the Earth.

[Elegiac]

Tapping the sign again.

The idealized market was supposed to deliver ‘friction free’ exchanges, in which the desires of consumers would be met directly, without the need for intervention or mediation by regulatory agencies. Yet the drive to assess the performance of workers and to measure forms of labor which, by their nature, are resistant to quantification, has inevitably required additional layers of management and bureaucracy. What we have is not a direct comparison of workers’ performance or output, but a comparison between the audited representation of that performance and output. Inevitably, a short-circuiting occurs, and work becomes geared towards the generation and massaging of representations rather than to the official goals of the work itself.

Indeed, an anthropological study of local government in Britain argues that ‘More effort goes into ensuring that a local authority’s services are represented correctly than goes into actually improving those services’. This reversal of priorities is one of the hallmarks of a system which can be characterized without hyperbole as ‘market Stalinism’. What late capitalism repeats from Stalinism is just this valuing of symbols of achievement over actual achievement.

It would be a mistake to regard this market Stalinism as some deviation from the ‘true spirit’ of capitalism. On the contrary, it would be better to say that an essential dimension of Stalinism was inhibited by its association with a social project like socialism and can only emerge in a late capitalist culture in which images acquire an autonomous force. The way value is generated on the stock exchange depends of course less on what a company ‘really does’, and more on perceptions of, and beliefs about, its (future) performance. In capitalism, that is to say, all that is solid melts into PR, and late capitalism is defined at least as much by this ubiquitous tendency towards PR-production as it is by the imposition of market mechanisms.

Notice how much emphasis the poster bitching about productivity is putting on how it feels to see those he doesn't believe deserve tolerance or assistance receiving such, and that's very important: "productivity" is just an attempt to rationalize (i.e. make contagious) an irrational feeling, and has no relation to any of the quantifiable factors which play into homelessness or poverty.

You see exactly the same shit with crime rates or suicide statistics when it comes to racists and TERFs, the only difference is that being a shithead towards unhoused persons is extremely normalized even among ostensibly left-leaning people.

[cubby]

In the end, many states are spending a lot of money to deal with homelessness, with poor results. Democrats have to understand that this is a losing issue with the public.

But those states aren't, really. They want to, but they don't have the money. Why? Because our tax rate continues to dwindle, and the mega-millionaires and billionaires pay little to no taxes (Warren Buffet said that if the top 400 companies in america paid their fair share of taxes, we wouldn't need individual taxes).

The specific problem with homelessness is that we think we can just throw money at it to solve it. Nope. It's systemic from a lack of healthcare and education and basic social services.

[Doomcookie]

The problem is that you're equating not working with lazy. Which it's NOT. It might be, but there are dozens of other considerations to take into account when assessing why people aren't working, or are working "less". By starting the conversation off with "lazy" a person ends up setting the entirely wrong tone for the discussion that needs to take place.

The money spent on homelessness is miniscule compared to the problem that exists and the costs associated with actually even trying to fix it.

Keep in mind that we currently have the technology for every person in the world to be fed and housed. We are on the cusp of being able (not willing to, but able) to provide UBI. Driving off the cliff re this subject, our entire society is driven by capitalism, which is a consumer driven model, antithetical to society happiness and long term survival of our ability to survive on the Earth.

My reference to being lazy was specifically about co-workers not pulling their weight, but making the same wage.

Look at it through the eyes of the average American. They see homelessness getting worse (and see it even more on the news), and will often blame the government, or the homeless themselves. The issue is that it's hard to convince those people that spending more money, or "giving them free stuff" will fix the issue. Capitalism is all about the consumption and providing of goods and services, with income as the primary carrot to maintain it. One could easily argue that the average American is "selfish" in that regard, but capitalism isn't going anywhere.

- - - Updated - - -

Tapping the sign again.



Notice how much emphasis the poster bitching about productivity is putting on how it feels to see those he doesn't believe deserve tolerance or assistance receiving such, and that's very important: "productivity" is just an attempt to rationalize (i.e. make contagious) an irrational feeling, and has no relation to any of the quantifiable factors which play into homelessness or poverty.

You see exactly the same shit with crime rates or suicide statistics when it comes to racists and TERFs, the only difference is that being a shithead towards unhoused persons is extremely normalized even among ostensibly left-leaning people.

People vote based on feelings. People are emotional, and people tend to get very emotional about money.

For democrats, this is not a winning issue.

- - - Updated - - -

But those states aren't, really. They want to, but they don't have the money. Why? Because our tax rate continues to dwindle, and the mega-millionaires and billionaires pay little to no taxes (Warren Buffet said that if the top 400 companies in america paid their fair share of taxes, we wouldn't need individual taxes).

The specific problem with homelessness is that we think we can just throw money at it to solve it. Nope. It's systemic from a lack of healthcare and education and basic social services.

The issue is that America has a monstrous government, with very little to show for it in the eyes of the general public. This also trickles down to the state level, where many people see their tax dollars going towards things they just don't care about. And, like it or not, most people don't care about the homeless. It's a problem they don't want to look at.

[cubby]

My reference to being lazy was specifically about co-workers not pulling their weight, but making the same wage.

Look at it through the eyes of the average American. They see homelessness getting worse (and see it even more on the news), and will often blame the government, or the homeless themselves. The issue is that it's hard to convince those people that spending more money, or "giving them free stuff" will fix the issue. Capitalism is all about the consumption and providing of goods and services, with income as the primary carrot to maintain it. One could easily argue that the average American is "selfish" in that regard, but capitalism isn't going anywhere.

That is a good point - capitalism isn't going anywhere at all - and it's even getting worse. And you're correct about the average american seeing the problem and ignorantly blaming the wrong entity or person. As has been pointed out before, the solution is relatively easy - implementing the solution is all but impossible (in the U.S.).

The issue is that America has a monstrous government, with very little to show for it in the eyes of the general public. This also trickles down to the state level, where many people see their tax dollars going towards things they just don't care about. And, like it or not, most people don't care about the homeless. It's a problem they don't want to look at.

Agreed. Monstrous and headed in the wrong direction re tax policy.

Our biggest mistake as a country was not voting in Universal Healthcare in 1945.

[Endus]

I didn't move them, I wanted to make sure to clarify exactly what I meant, and further back my argument. Money not being spent well IS BEING WASTED in their eyes. This is not a complicated concept.

"In their eyes" is a pointless thing to consider. What matters are facts, and better communication to correct the willfully ignorant you're describing.

People see money getting spent on homelessness, and the homeless problem getting worse. That's a reality that needs to be understood. The efforts that states put in, has not actually caused homeless rates to go down.

Again, this is not a reasonable argument. It's just as likely the money being spent is in sufficient. That doesn't meant what spending is ocurring is wasted. I don't know why you're trying to defend a clearly irrational take.

It's not selfish to not want to labor for others.

It literally is. It puts your petty comforts above the needs of others, for one, and for two, it tries to frame things on an individual level because you can't conceive of broader society as even a thing to begin with.

Otherwise, you are arguing that those who are not working, yet getting the benefits, are even more selfish. Is that your argument? It's not inhumane to resent people for being lazy, any more than it is to resent them for being fascists, or Trump supporters.

None of this makes sense.

Those garnering public support aren't "getting the benefits of working". You're trying to describe "having a home and food to eat" as "benefits". That, itself, is problematic.

Then you're trying to claim that everyone who's not working is "lazy", which is just misanthropy without basis in reality.

On your reaction to unproductive employees making as much as you, there would be no "staffing" issues, as they are getting everything done. If you choose to work less, requiring they hire more people, then you are going against your desire to minimize the LFPR.

Is there a reason you keep waffling between societal considerations and individual considerations as if they're the same thing? Because they aren't.

Society would be better off with a lower LFPR. Less people needed to provide the necessary labor to support that society.

Individually, you're better off by not working as hard and enjoying your life more.

Two entirely distinct categories.

- - - Updated - - -

My reference to being lazy was specifically about co-workers not pulling their weight, but making the same wage.

And again, this is almost always just a wildly incorrect framing.

If you're busting your ass at work and your buddy is dragging their feet, and you aren't getting promoted and your buddy isn't getting fired, then the issue is not that your buddy is "lazy". The issue is that your buddy is doing his job, and you're doing far more than expected, for no reason, and your effort is not being rewarded by your employer. Your employer is exploiting you. Focusing your attention on your buddy is a misdirect your employer is encouraging to deflect your attention from the real injustice at play.

The rare case where your buddy really is just not doing his job, he's gonna get fired. If that's not what's happening, you're the one who's got the problem, not your buddy who's just doing his job like they're expected to. You're suffering by busting your ass, and you want your buddy to suffer too. That's just a really shitty attitude predicated on your misconception of the injustice at play in this situation.

Your economic "enemies" aren't your coworkers. They're your management, as an extension of your capitalist employer. You should be looking for solidarity with your coworkers.

[Doomcookie]

That is a good point - capitalism isn't going anywhere at all - and it's even getting worse. And you're correct about the average american seeing the problem and ignorantly blaming the wrong entity or person. As has been pointed out before, the solution is relatively easy - implementing the solution is all but impossible (in the U.S.).



Agreed. Monstrous and headed in the wrong direction re tax policy.

Our biggest mistake as a country was not voting in Universal Healthcare in 1945.

I'd say very few countries have solved the homelessness problem.

[Elegiac]

That is a good point - capitalism isn't going anywhere at all - and it's even getting worse.

Capitalism is getting worse, but it's not accurate to say it isn't going anywhere.

The fact we're seeing a rise in fascism is demonstrative of the fact that the system feels itself to be under existential threat; fascism is capitalism's immune response to reform, after all, as similar forms of political extremism have been historically encouraged by elites in an endless cycle of reformation and counter-reformation. But the wheel of history has invariably turned towards reformation, as humans are a species desirous of both change and agency; and as our technology and systems make us better able to communicate, share ideas, organize, and compare each others' lots in life, so too are people realizing how inadequate the present structure really is.

We're seeing unprecedented rates of unionization and stronger political pushes for undoing the damage done by neoconservatism and then the Third Way, which combined with the constant push for climate-based reform is ultimately stronger than a small demographic of very old, very insular people who are increasingly out of touch and reliant on an increasingly more fragile system for their strength. The Ancien Regime seemed insurmountable, until it wasn't; God didn't save the Bourbons, and Adam Smith won't rescue Wall Street if it should come down to that.

It's not going to be easy or without suffering, but the internet has done what the printing press with movable type did: the scope of human awareness has been shifted, irrevocably. We're still dealing with the fallout of it.

[Doomcookie]

"In their eyes" is a pointless thing to consider. What matters are facts, and better communication to correct the willfully ignorant you're describing.



Again, this is not a reasonable argument. It's just as likely the money being spent is in sufficient. That doesn't meant what spending is ocurring is wasted. I don't know why you're trying to defend a clearly irrational take.



It literally is. It puts your petty comforts above the needs of others, for one, and for two, it tries to frame things on an individual level because you can't conceive of broader society as even a thing to begin with.



None of this makes sense.

Those garnering public support aren't "getting the benefits of working". You're trying to describe "having a home and food to eat" as "benefits". That, itself, is problematic.

Then you're trying to claim that everyone who's not working is "lazy", which is just misanthropy without basis in reality.



Is there a reason you keep waffling between societal considerations and individual considerations as if they're the same thing? Because they aren't.

Society would be better off with a lower LFPR. Less people needed to provide the necessary labor to support that society.

Individually, you're better off by not working as hard and enjoying your life more.

Two entirely distinct categories.

- - - Updated - - -



And again, this is almost always just a wildly incorrect framing.

If you're busting your ass at work and your buddy is dragging their feet, and you aren't getting promoted and your buddy isn't getting fired, then the issue is not that your buddy is "lazy". The issue is that your buddy is doing his job, and you're doing far more than expected, for no reason, and your effort is not being rewarded by your employer. Your employer is exploiting you. Focusing your attention on your buddy is a misdirect your employer is encouraging to deflect your attention from the real injustice at play.

The rare case where your buddy really is just not doing his job, he's gonna get fired. If that's not what's happening, you're the one who's got the problem, not your buddy who's just doing his job like they're expected to. You're suffering by busting your ass, and you want your buddy to suffer too. That's just a really shitty attitude predicated on your misconception of the injustice at play in this situation.

People's opinion and thoughts on homelessness isn't pointless to consider. This is a political threat, so their beliefs on the issue are front and center. if you don't think perception and marketing the issue doesn't matter, then you haven't been paying attention to the news in America. You can discount it as "unreasonable," but there's far too many examples of people getting upset at homeless people for doing one thing or another, even existing. Once again, this is a political issue, not just a socioeconomic one.

By your logic, then homeless people are selfish. "It literally is. It puts your petty comforts above the needs of others, for one, and for two, it tries to frame things on an individual level because you can't conceive of broader society as even a thing to begin with."

Those to different categories... are exclusive to one another, which I pointed out. They are both your argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Capitalism is getting worse, but it's not accurate to say it isn't going anywhere.

The fact we're seeing a rise in fascism is demonstrative of the fact that the system feels itself to be under existential threat; fascism is capitalism's immune response to reform, after all, as similar forms of political extremism have been historically encouraged by elites in an endless cycle of reformation and counter-reformation. But the wheel of history has invariably turned towards reformation, as humans are a species desirous of both change and agency; and as our technology and systems make us better able to communicate, share ideas, organize, and compare each others' lots in life, so too are people realizing how inadequate the present structure really is.

We're seeing unprecedented rates of unionization and stronger political pushes for undoing the damage done by neoconservatism and then the Third Way, which combined with the constant push for climate-based reform is ultimately stronger than a small demographic of very old, very insular people who are increasingly out of touch and reliant on an increasingly more fragile system for their strength. The Ancien Regime seemed insurmountable, until it wasn't; God didn't save the Bourbons, and Adam Smith won't rescue Wall Street if it should come down to that.

It's not going to be easy or without suffering, but the internet has done what the printing press with movable type did: the scope of human awareness has been shifted, irrevocably. We're still dealing with the fallout of it.

Not in the United States.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2023/un...nt-in-2022.htm

Sure, we see stories of groups, like Blizzard. But, the trend is still slightly down and/or flat.

[Paranoid Android]

In the end, many states are spending a lot of money to deal with homelessness, with poor results. Democrats have to understand that this is a losing issue with the public.

So yeah people like you with the Neo-Liberal mind hive is the problem. More accurately the Democrats with Neo-Liberalism are the problem to homelessness.

Trying to let the free market solve homelessness by tax breaks and incentives to build more housing is the worst way to build more homes. Letting landlords fix rents based on a supposed market rate is bs. Letting Private equity buy all homes and rental places then price fixing. Treating homes as commodities and expecting a return on their home to grow in value every year must go.

You can easily fix this by building homes. Use fixed market rates on rent; say a cap of 20% of your income. Don't make the mistake of building just all low income housing in one area that only breeds poverty. You need people who actually work at places that provide service to the wealthy around you have housing in their same building so they can easily get to their janitor job in the corporate building. A mixed tax base helps all.

In short I could mention a Vienna Social Housing.

But those states aren't, really. They want to, but they don't have the money. Why? Because our tax rate continues to dwindle, and the mega-millionaires and billionaires pay little to no taxes (Warren Buffet said that if the top 400 companies in america paid their fair share of taxes, we wouldn't need individual taxes).

The specific problem with homelessness is that we think we can just throw money at it to solve it. Nope. It's systemic from a lack of healthcare and education and basic social services.

Yes. A solution is never looked at that if we taxed corporations and billionaires we could probably raise easily a Half of Billion Dollars in revenue. I personally would like less military budget and you can get up to a trillion dollars in problem solving. As above the government needs to also be proactive and not let the free market solve this issue.




More of a comment to some others. You are all to Neo-Liberal pilled. You mention capitalism of course but the problem with Democrats have always been they still want neo-liberalism to solve issues.

[Endus]

People's opinion and thoughts on homelessness isn't pointless to consider.

If their opinions and thoughts aren't predicated on actual data and evidence, they're not just pointless to consider, it's necessary to discard their opinions wholesale. Efforts to address those concerns must only be met by informing/educating them why their opinions are hokum, not in appealing to their imaginary bullshit.

For the same reasons you can't take someone's opinions on the healing powers of crystal energies in defining your health care policies.

This is a political threat, so their beliefs on the issue are front and center. if you don't think perception and marketing the issue doesn't matter, then you haven't been paying attention to the news in America. You can discount it as "unreasonable," but there's far too many examples of people getting upset at homeless people for doing one thing or another, even existing. Once again, this is a political issue, not just a socioeconomic one.

And the response to that, again, needs to be informing the public about the facts, not in writing policy based on their imaginary bullshit. A society that listens to the ignorant to define policy is a society that is about to collapse in on itself.

I've said elsewhere that the USA is arguably a failed society in the middle of collapse. What you're arguing is one of the primary reasons for that.

By your logic, then homeless people are selfish. "It literally is. It puts your petty comforts above the needs of others, for one, and for two, it tries to frame things on an individual level because you can't conceive of broader society as even a thing to begin with."

In what world are homeless people enjoying "petty comforts"?

You're just being an open misanthrope at this point. No comprehension or attempt to understand what it must be like to be unhoused. Just a desire to see them starve and die in the ditch for being "unproductive".

[Doomcookie]

So yeah people like you with the Neo-Liberal mind hive is the problem. More accurately the Democrats with Neo-Liberalism are the problem to homelessness.

Trying to let the free market solve homelessness by tax breaks and incentives to build more housing is the worst way to build more homes. Letting landlords fix rents based on a supposed market rate is bs. Letting Private equity buy all homes and rental places then price fixing. Treating homes as commodities and expecting a return on their home to grow in value every year must go.

You can easily fix this by building homes. Use fixed market rates on rent; say a cap of 20% of your income. Don't make the mistake of building just all low income housing in one area that only breeds poverty. You need people who actually work at places that provide service to the wealthy around you have housing in their same building so they can easily get to their janitor job in the corporate building. A mixed tax base helps all.

In short I could mention a Vienna Social Housing.



Yes. A solution is never looked at that if we taxed corporations and billionaires we could probably raise easily a Half of Billion Dollars in revenue. I personally would like less military budget and you can get up to a trillion dollars in problem solving. As above the government needs to also be proactive and not let the free market solve this issue.

Who is going to build homes? the government? The issue is that government is often slow, cumbersome, and government contracts can get out of hand real fast. One trend is to build "tiny" homes, but that's horribly inefficient.

The other issue is actual land. Land gets more expensive when you get into urban areas. Not only that, most of it is already taken up. that means the city/state either buys it from private owners, or they use eminent domain, or both.

What works in Vienna will not sell in the United States. That's the problem.

- - - Updated - - -

If their opinions and thoughts aren't predicated on actual data and evidence, they're not just pointless to consider, it's necessary to discard their opinions wholesale. Efforts to address those concerns must only be met by informing/educating them why their opinions are hokum, not in appealing to their imaginary bullshit.

For the same reasons you can't take someone's opinions on the healing powers of crystal energies in defining your health care policies.



And the response to that, again, needs to be informing the public about the facts, not in writing policy based on their imaginary bullshit. A society that listens to the ignorant to define policy is a society that is about to collapse in on itself.

I've said elsewhere that the USA is arguably a failed society in the middle of collapse. What you're arguing is one of the primary reasons for that.



In what world are homeless people enjoying "petty comforts"?

You're just being an open misanthrope at this point. No comprehension or attempt to understand what it must be like to be unhoused. Just a desire to see them starve and die in the ditch for being "unproductive".

The data is that homelessness is getting worse. I provided that data. The data is that blue states have worse homeless rates than red states.

This is the data that people were upset about.

The Democrats are losing on this message, because the GOP gets to appeal to people's pocketbooks, as well as actual data. "The Democrats want to spend even more on homelessness, even though they already spend more than we do, and our rates are lower."

[Endus]

Who is going to build homes? the government? The issue is that government is often slow, cumbersome, and government contracts can get out of hand real fast. One trend is to build "tiny" homes, but that's horribly inefficient.

You don't need government to take over construction. You just need to apply zoning regulations and planning requirements.

You want to build a new skyscraper in downtown for high-end luxury apartments? Well tough. No. You can have the tower, but only if 50% of the floorplan is affordable housing units. You don't want to build with that much low-value housing? Then you don't get to build your skyscraper on that plot.

City planners have immense power to control development if they're not overruled by City Council for bullshit political reasons. They can literally just look at a plan and say "nah, doesn't fit what we want in that part of the city". And then the developer needs to redesign it so it fits. And if they don't, they don't get to develop at all. While maintaining the running costs of the property in the meantime.

The other issue is actual land. Land gets more expensive when you get into urban areas. Not only that, most of it is already taken up. that means the city/state either buys it from private owners, or they use eminent domain, or both.

Which already happens with literally all development, anyway. How was this meant to be an argument?

[Edge-]

You don't need government to take over construction. You just need to apply zoning regulations and planning requirements.

This. Things like addressing homelessness/housing are going to primarily be done at the local level. Sure federal funding to support is dope and some basic minimum standards are fine, but realistically solutions need to be tailored per-locality and the overwhelming number of roadblocks are state/local, rather than federal.

[Endus]

The data is that homelessness is getting worse. I provided that data. The data is that blue states have worse homeless rates than red states.

This is the data that people were upset about.

And? The unhoused tend to move towards places they can survive. That's more probable in States with warmer climates and more-supportive policies and legal systems. Addressing the reasons for people being unhoused does wonders. See the Finnish approach, where they just gave everyone who needed one a home. It's nearly ended homelessness in the country. https://thebetter.news/housing-first...-homelessness/

The Democrats are losing on this message, because the GOP gets to appeal to people's pocketbooks, as well as actual data. "The Democrats want to spend even more on homelessness, even though they already spend more than we do, and our rates are lower."

So a lie.

You're pointing to an intentional mischaracterization of the base facts as an argument. I'll agree that Democrats need better messaging, but the GOP aren't making a valid case here; they're just deceiving gullible idiots.

[Doomcookie]

You don't need government to take over construction. You just need to apply zoning regulations and planning requirements.

You want to build a new skyscraper in downtown for high-end luxury apartments? Well tough. No. You can have the tower, but only if 50% of the floorplan is affordable housing units. You don't want to build with that much low-value housing? Then you don't get to build your skyscraper on that plot.

City planners have immense power to control development if they're not overruled by City Council for bullshit political reasons. They can literally just look at a plan and say "nah, doesn't fit what we want in that part of the city". And then the developer needs to redesign it so it fits. And if they don't, they don't get to develop at all. While maintaining the running costs of the property in the meantime.



Which already happens with literally all development, anyway. How was this meant to be an argument?

You just laid out one of the things people hate about local governments. Also, city governments also don't tend to care about homeless people. It's a problem that they want to hide, not fix.

If cities push what you want too much, they lose tax dollars. They also get sued. Low-income housing generates less revenue for those cities.

- - - Updated - - -

And? The unhoused tend to move towards places they can survive. That's more probable in States with warmer climates and more-supportive policies and legal systems. Addressing the reasons for people being unhoused does wonders. See the Finnish approach, where they just gave everyone who needed one a home. It's nearly ended homelessness in the country. https://thebetter.news/housing-first...-homelessness/



So a lie.

You're pointing to an intentional mischaracterization of the base facts as an argument. I'll agree that Democrats need better messaging, but the GOP aren't making a valid case here; they're just deceiving gullible idiots.

It's not a lie. I provided you the data.

It is an argument that is factually true in every regard. You may not like how it is worded, or that it doesn't explain "why," but it is factually correct.

[Elegiac]

Daily reminder that having data doesn't make one not a bigot, as the bigotry is in the narrative that data is being used to paint.

And let's be entirely clear: "anti-homeless sentiment" is a form of bigotry. It entails many of the same processes of social death as seen in things like chattel slavery, and narratives like 'homelessness is the result of laziness' are fictions designed to buttress those processes.

[cubby]

Capitalism is getting worse, but it's not accurate to say it isn't going anywhere.

The fact we're seeing a rise in fascism is demonstrative of the fact that the system feels itself to be under existential threat; fascism is capitalism's immune response to reform, after all, as similar forms of political extremism have been historically encouraged by elites in an endless cycle of reformation and counter-reformation. But the wheel of history has invariably turned towards reformation, as humans are a species desirous of both change and agency; and as our technology and systems make us better able to communicate, share ideas, organize, and compare each others' lots in life, so too are people realizing how inadequate the present structure really is.

That's all well and good theory, but practically speaking all we've seen in the last 20+ years is wealth consolidation but the uber rich and miniscule pay rates along with a housing market that skyrocketed entirely out of synch with the flat pay rate increases.

We're seeing unprecedented rates of unionization and stronger political pushes for undoing the damage done by neoconservatism and then the Third Way, which combined with the constant push for climate-based reform is ultimately stronger than a small demographic of very old, very insular people who are increasingly out of touch and reliant on an increasingly more fragile system for their strength. The Ancien Regime seemed insurmountable, until it wasn't; God didn't save the Bourbons, and Adam Smith won't rescue Wall Street if it should come down to that.

We are? Can you cite that please?

It's not going to be easy or without suffering, but the internet has done what the printing press with movable type did: the scope of human awareness has been shifted, irrevocably. We're still dealing with the fallout of it.

That impact doesn't necessarily equate to capitalism going away or anything other than staying where it is and getting worse. Can you elaborate?