No one ever brought this opportunity to solve these problems. Put the homeless to work since we have a severe labor shortage. I saw a Zippys help wanted ad in Waipahu. $15 and hour + meals

Good idea but many choose to be homeless.  Drug issues or lifestyle.

No one ever brought this opportunity to solve these problems. Put the homeless to work since we have a severe labor shortage. I saw a Zippys help wanted ad in Waipahu. $15 and hour + meals

This is from memory so some details may or may not be correct. But from the best of my knowledge all of this is correct.

Los Angeles had a similar thought back in the 70’s or 80’s. The problem mostly arises that in order for people to get off the streets and/or be employed, they need a permanent  address. Most companies won’t hire you unless you have a valid permanent address. Hence the SRO (Single Resident Occupancy) program was developed. I won’t go through the details of this program. But it entailed getting the private sector on board by promising federal rent checks to be paid to the landlord that remodeled their buildings in the downtown slum area to the exact specifications as proposed by SRO. Then they would set up the homeless person with a room of their own and have the remainder of their welfare money coming in and the rent paid directly to the landlord so they have a permanent address. Then they were supposed to be encouraged to start looking for a job. But that pretty much rarely happened. The formerly homeless spent what was left of their welfare on drugs and such. The SRO buildings became unsafe as the residents had money and drugs and were targeted for theft. The now homed person ended up safer on the streets than in their own room. That is not to say that some success didn’t come from (and may still come from) the SRO Housing program. I personally worked in downtown LA for many many years with a lot of landlords remodeling their old hotels into SRO housing and saw some success but ultimately more failures. What I noticed is that a lot of the success of the program depended much on the locations of the buildings. The farther away from the center of the slum areas the buildings were, the safer the residents were. Hence there was a little more success. The buildings had to be located in the slum areas however. I stopped working with these landlords at some point in the 80’s so I don’t know if things have changed for better or worse with the SRO program. Obviously LA has some of the worst homeless problems in the US.

The programmed worked for those who wanted to get out from under the homeless trap. Otherwise there were unintended consequences that made more for failure than success.

The programmed worked for those who wanted to get out from under the homeless trap. Otherwise there were unintended consequences that made more for failure than success.

Government Rule:  If you want more of something, you subsidize it, and if you want less of something, you tax it.

The more we give the homeless, the less incentive they have to want to change their lives.  Human (& animal) nature requires some motivation to make us want to change.

Give -- that's the key word.  We need programs designed to REWARD desired behavior.  Giving someone a loaf of bread every day might help them survive, but only until you stop feeding them.  Then it'll have to be up to them -- or the next do-gooder.

Government was never supposed to be a charity.  Our funds are drained every year with more and more entitlements and welfare.  Whether it's healthcare, unemployment, food stamps, Social Security (we earned it, but it was spent long ago), food for kids, training programs, etc, etc, it all ads up.  And does it actually provide a temporary "safety net" for those who need it and long term assistance for those who can't work?  Or do they just continue to give benefits to those who "work" the system?

I was watching The People's Court and Judge Judy a few years ago.  I was appalled (but not surprised) at how many, when asked "What do you do?", answered, "I'm on disability."  Not "I'm disabled and get disability," just that they are "on it."  Reminds me of my brother telling me how many fast food stores he managed had an epidemic of on the job accidents -- usually just past the number of employment days needed to qualify for benefits.  They'd get a job, work for a few weeks, then fall.  They'd get disability payments after only a short time, and the company winds up paying the benefits from their insurance (which raises their rates after awhile).

So, it's not JUST the homeless who milk the system for a living with no intention of working in return.

I don't know the ratio of mentally ill, disabled, able-bodied, educated, and addicted among the homeless population.  Seems to me, we tend to create one broad-stroke solution for everyone, when we really ought to create smaller programs tailored for each type of individual.  There's probably many who fall into more than a couple of categories, like addict with disabilities and of low education.  The solutions should be tailored for the individual, not just thrust upon them.  "Here's a place to stay while you get a job," might only work for a third or less of the people we are talking about.  Screen the people getting that housing, and make steady employment a condition of living there after a certain period.

Those are just a few thoughts.  I wish we could solve the big three problems of the world:  Hunger, Poverty and Disease.  Even in Jesus' time, the knew there will always be these problems.  It just makes me ashamed that we have yet to make much of a dent in them -- hell, we've actually managed to make the numbers worse -- with all of our technology, wealth, and knowledge.

What are we waiting on?  Some Star Fleet Federation of Planets to figure it out?

Government Rule:  If you want more of something, you subsidize it, and if you want less of something, you tax it.

The more we give the homeless, the less incentive they have to want to change their lives.  Human (& animal) nature requires some motivation to make us want to change.

Give -- that's the key word.  We need programs designed to REWARD desired behavior.  Giving someone a loaf of bread every day might help them survive, but only until you stop feeding them.  Then it'll have to be up to them -- or the next do-gooder.

Government was never supposed to be a charity.  Our funds are drained every year with more and more entitlements and welfare.  Whether it's healthcare, unemployment, food stamps, Social Security (we earned it, but it was spent long ago), food for kids, training programs, etc, etc, it all ads up.  And does it actually provide a temporary "safety net" for those who need it and long term assistance for those who can't work?  Or do they just continue to give benefits to those who "work" the system?

I was watching The People's Court and Judge Judy a few years ago.  I was appalled (but not surprised) at how many, when asked "What do you do?", answered, "I'm on disability."  Not "I'm disabled and get disability," just that they are "on it."  Reminds me of my brother telling me how many fast food stores he managed had an epidemic of on the job accidents -- usually just past the number of employment days needed to qualify for benefits.  They'd get a job, work for a few weeks, then fall.  They'd get disability payments after only a short time, and the company winds up paying the benefits from their insurance (which raises their rates after awhile).

So, it's not JUST the homeless who milk the system for a living with no intention of working in return.

I don't know the ratio of mentally ill, disabled, able-bodied, educated, and addicted among the homeless population.  Seems to me, we tend to create one broad-stroke solution for everyone, when we really ought to create smaller programs tailored for each type of individual.  There's probably many who fall into more than a couple of categories, like addict with disabilities and of low education.  The solutions should be tailored for the individual, not just thrust upon them.  "Here's a place to stay while you get a job," might only work for a third or less of the people we are talking about.  Screen the people getting that housing, and make steady employment a condition of living there after a certain period.

Those are just a few thoughts.  I wish we could solve the big three problems of the world:  Hunger, Poverty and Disease.  Even in Jesus' time, the knew there will always be these problems.  It just makes me ashamed that we have yet to make much of a dent in them -- hell, we've actually managed to make the numbers worse -- with all of our technology, wealth, and knowledge.

What are we waiting on?  Some Star Fleet Federation of Planets to figure it out?

Well said, Flapp. EVERY time the government tries to solve a problem, they “F” everything up. I know of no program or project that our federal government created that has done well for the taxpayer. I cannot think of one. Even the programs/projects that have produced something of value ALL have extreme cost overruns and unintended consequences. There is not one federal program/project that isn’t wrought with corruption of some form or another. The federal government is run by a bunch of idiots. I saw it with my own eyes in Hawaii with the DOT, DOH, UH in the state and the C&C of Honolulu. And I can’t forget what I saw when I lived on the Big Island. Corruption and total government waste. I did not see one department where the federal government had touched that was not corrupt and wasteful. And I worked in a lot of different departments.

And the problem with the homeless is a very complex and difficult problem. There are ways of reducing the problem but due to human nature it will never be completely solved.

And as far as Star Fleet is concerned…… The food replicators also make synthahol. Keeping the alcoholics drunk.

Send them all to an island and have them figure out out. Worked for Australia. 

Forced natural selection and evolution

SNIP

The programmed worked for those who wanted to get out from under the homeless trap. Otherwise there were unintended consequences that made more for failure than success.

What I recall from other "social experiments" as well.  As well as some personal experience living in a very liberal state after college.

The system "can" work if folks are motivated to get out, to improve their situation, just down on their luck, etc.  Then there are those who just "want to be free", which often times yes does include drugs and other stuff.  There were many great homeless shelters, but most have some semblance of rules, like curfew, no illicit drugs, etc. 

When I worked in Seattle, there were tons of homeless on my way to work.  I'd offer them something to eat, my leftover lunch, etc.  Many scoffed even at offers to buy them a meal.  "I don't want your charity".  Many of them are doing exactly what they want and feel that they don't need help.  Sort of like rationalizing with an extremist.  How do you rationalize with someone who is quite irrational, or doesn't have the same sense of values as you? 

SNIP

1) So, it's not JUST the homeless who milk the system for a living with no intention of working in return.

2) I don't know the ratio of mentally ill, disabled, able-bodied, educated, and addicted among the homeless population.  Seems to me, we tend to create one broad-stroke solution for everyone, when we really ought to create smaller programs tailored for each type of individual.  There's probably many who fall into more than a couple of categories, like addict with disabilities and of low education.  The solutions should be tailored for the individual, not just thrust upon them.  "Here's a place to stay while you get a job," might only work for a third or less of the people we are talking about.  Screen the people getting that housing, and make steady employment a condition of living there after a certain period.

Those are just a few thoughts.  I wish we could solve the big three problems of the world:  Hunger, Poverty and Disease.  Even in Jesus' time, the knew there will always be these problems.  It just makes me ashamed that we have yet to make much of a dent in them -- hell, we've actually managed to make the numbers worse -- with all of our technology, wealth, and knowledge.

What are we waiting on?  Some Star Fleet Federation of Planets to figure it out?

That is VERY true.  I have known some very capable folks who worked the system, but in those cases, it was more out of a sense of the benefits were better than the job opportunities that came up.  Of course, there were those that just flat worked the system. 

2) The broad brush aspect is what I had in mind in my response to Inspector.  I do think there are some homeless that DO want to improve their situation.  Though how to truly find those and help.

What I recall from other "social experiments" as well.  As well as some personal experience living in a very liberal state after college.

The system "can" work if folks are motivated to get out, to improve their situation, just down on their luck, etc.  Then there are those who just "want to be free", which often times yes does include drugs and other stuff.  There were many great homeless shelters, but most have some semblance of rules, like curfew, no illicit drugs, etc. 

When I worked in Seattle, there were tons of homeless on my way to work.  I'd offer them something to eat, my leftover lunch, etc.  Many scoffed even at offers to buy them a meal.  "I don't want your charity".  Many of them are doing exactly what they want and feel that they don't need help.  Sort of like rationalizing with an extremist.  How do you rationalize with someone who is quite irrational, or doesn't have the same sense of values as you?

king county just started a program where security walks people to the car/bus/ferry due to all the homeless in downtown seattle...

king county just started a program where security walks people to the car/bus/ferry due to all the homeless in downtown seattle...

I used to work on 3rd and Pine.  Just over a block from Pike's.  That area slowly got worse even when I worked there from the late 90s to early 2000s.  Never felt unsafe to get to my car or bus.  That said, the areas down by the ferries were much different.  At that time, it was areas under the viaduct that were pretty sketch. 

No one ever brought this opportunity to solve these problems. Put the homeless to work since we have a severe labor shortage. I saw a Zippys help wanted ad in Waipahu. $15 and hour + meals

People want to get paid.  But work? Not so much.

king county just started a program where security walks people to the car/bus/ferry due to all the homeless in downtown seattle...

They walk GOVERNMENT employees not regular people.

I had a conceal carry permit for years in WA state. I worked and was University educated in Seattle.
I had to rescue my heroin addict cousin from many bad situations in Seattle.
So I know a thing or two about homeless, druggies on the streets.

I agree with most here that there isn't a good thing that the Government hasn't or can't screw up.

My solution is pretty simple and probably leagal.
move all services, food, medical, housing, et al for the homeless to
rural, isolated areas.  In Hawaii for example reserve Kahoʻolawe for them.
For WA state Waldron Island, you get the picture.
Not a prison per se as they can leave any time they want,  just keep all services there and there alone.
Kind of like a compassionate Lepers colony.
Government will screw it up, but it won't be in our immediate back yards.
 

People want to get paid.  But work? Not so much.

Some just either weren't taught or ignored ethics. . .

But when there are armies of folks who practically preach welfare for all, I can see how it is easy to take the easy route.

State should tell them no work, no $$. Plenty of public works projects like cleaning parks, streets, etc etc they can do. Well we all know it will never happen. Oh well, there’s always Kahoolawe. Put up housing, water etc etc, ship them over there, give ‘em food….aww shit I’m just an nasty old fart….. Nah just joking……..