undefined | Better HN

0 pointszepto10y ago0 comments

I don't really know what your point is. The amount may be a large dollar figure, but it is clearly not enough to solve the problem, therefore the problem still exists.

I'm curious how many people live in SF on 12-20k, but that's irrelevant. If someone has accommodation and is able to earn wages as a steady state, it is obvious that their costs will be less than a homeless person who needs mental health treatment, rehabilitation and maybe even education before they are employable.

The figure that employed people can survive on is well below the lower bound for what is needed to rehabilitate a homeless person.

0 comments

ctlby10y ago

The point is that no amount of money will solve the problem with San Francisco's current approach (whatever that is). If they spend $50 million with zero effect, and they spend $100 million with zero effect, and they spend $150 million with zero effect, where do you guess the problem stands at the $200, $250, $500 marks?

zeptoOP10y ago

What are you talking about? How do you know the approach has zero effect?

ctlby10y ago

Check out the chart on page 18. $1.5 billion spent over 10 years, and the homeless population... increased! What a humiliating statistic for anyone who thinks this can be solved with mental-health treatment, rehab, empathy, or [homily of choice].

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointszepto10y ago0 comments

I don't really know what your point is. The amount may be a large dollar figure, but it is clearly not enough to solve the problem, therefore the problem still exists.

The figure that employed people can survive on is well below the lower bound for what is needed to rehabilitate a homeless person.

0 comments

ctlby10y ago

zeptoOP10y ago

What are you talking about? How do you know the approach has zero effect?

ctlby10y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse