• GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    You’re not wrong, but a solution to the homeless that helps them, thus making them less of a problem for you, and is forward-looking to reduce the number of homeless helps in the future will yield better long-term results. This isn’t cheap, and will be attractive to homeless people living where there aren’t these options, which increases the burden on those states that are actually trying to solve the problem rather than mitigate the visible symptoms. I realize you probably aren’t in a position to change that, and certainly dealing with the symptoms you describe is also important.

    • Peck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I agree. But coastal states are rich enough to handle this yet they’ve been doing nothing except taking about it.

      • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, I think it’s a combination of those puritanical ideals and “rugged individualism” where if bad things happen to you you probably deserve it, and it’s up to you to fix it. Like how America spends as much on government healthcare as most other developed countries, and yet that only covers Medicare and Medicaid, and then have to get private insurance on top of that, because not helping others who can’t help themselves is more important than making your own life better.