Slashdot Mirror

UBI won't eliminate begging. Many homeless people have mental illnesses that prevent them from being successful at "normal" jobs and lives. UBI won't fix that.

Here's some data on just homelessness: http://www.nationalhomeless.or...

The total number of people experiencing poverty will obviously be higher than that.

You are aware that mentally ill people and drug addicts are always going to spend whatever cash they are given, and remain homeless, right?

You are aware that you're both mischaracterizing what was said and that you're spouting nonsense, right? The GP didn't say "throw money at mentally ill and drug-addicted homeless people".

No, he said throw money at poverty and homelessness.

You are, of course, free to argue with The National Coalition for the Homeless:

"According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 20 to 25% of the homeless population in the United States suffers from some form of severe mental illness."
http://www.nationalhomeless.or...

"Although obtaining an accurate, recent count is difficult, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2003) estimates, 38% of homeless people were dependent on alcohol and 26% abused other drugs."
http://www.nationalhomeless.or...

I'm not making a value judgement here, and yes, I realize that there is some overlap in those groups, due to the tendency for mentally ill persons to "self medicate" using those drugs available to them. The point is, these problems were nowhere near as prevalent before Governor Ronald Reagan instituted new rules on involuntary commitment in California (as a budget measure), and the NY ACLU won their supreme court case about non compis mentis people being able to refuse treatment for mental health issues. Without treatment, many become homeless.

Ad you realize that poverty is defined as a certain percentage of the population at the bottom end of the bell curve, right?

Not legally it's not. Economics... life in general, in fact, isn't the kind of zero-sum game you seem to be implying it is. Poverty is defined by a number of guidelines. There are a number of factors. Whether the subject actually has adequate nutrition is an important one. Under those guidelines, 16% of Americans and 20% of American children live in poverty.

Poverty is defined politically, and it's whatever's convenient for the politician defining it that day.

It also has a dictionary definition. From that dictionary definition, it's easy to come up with an economic definition.

Look, we've been in Lyndon B. Johnson's "War on Poverty" for 51 years now. You can't win a war if you are unwilling to define victory conditions. We've proven that in the Vietnam conflict, and every war/conflict we've entered since then. When can we stop fighting "The War On Drugs"? When can we stop fighting "The War On Terror"?

What is the F'ing definition of victory conditions in "The War On Poverty"?

If we go by your definition, even a Basic Guaranteed Income can't possibly stop poverty. It's definitionally always going to be with us. We can either accept that it's always going to be with us, and declare at least an armistace, or we can keep throwing money at it with no hope of ever, ever winning, unless we are willing to implement a fully managed economy.

And you're aware that basic health care is already fixed, and was before the ACA, sincethe hospitals are legally required to treat you if you present at the ER, right?

What idiot/liar keeps spreading this load of nonsense around? Hospitals are legally required to _stabilize_ you! That means that, if you show up dying of something acute, they have to take you in, but can kick you out the door the moment you're not in critical condition anymore. If you show up, for example, with a terminal case of cancer, they don't have to treat, or even diagnose your cancer. If you have immediate, life-threatening symptoms, they have to provide some treatment for those symptoms. In a practical sense, it pretty much just means that they have to p

You are aware that mentally ill people and drug addicts are always going to spend whatever cash they are given, and remain homeless, right?

You are aware that you're both mischaracterizing what was said and that you're spouting nonsense, right? The GP didn't say "throw money at mentally ill and drug-addicted homeless people".

No, he said throw money at poverty and homelessness.

You are, of course, free to argue with The National Coalition for the Homeless:

"According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 20 to 25% of the homeless population in the United States suffers from some form of severe mental illness."
http://www.nationalhomeless.or...

"Although obtaining an accurate, recent count is difficult, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2003) estimates, 38% of homeless people were dependent on alcohol and 26% abused other drugs."
http://www.nationalhomeless.or...

I'm not making a value judgement here, and yes, I realize that there is some overlap in those groups, due to the tendency for mentally ill persons to "self medicate" using those drugs available to them. The point is, these problems were nowhere near as prevalent before Governor Ronald Reagan instituted new rules on involuntary commitment in California (as a budget measure), and the NY ACLU won their supreme court case about non compis mentis people being able to refuse treatment for mental health issues. Without treatment, many become homeless.

Ad you realize that poverty is defined as a certain percentage of the population at the bottom end of the bell curve, right?

Not legally it's not. Economics... life in general, in fact, isn't the kind of zero-sum game you seem to be implying it is. Poverty is defined by a number of guidelines. There are a number of factors. Whether the subject actually has adequate nutrition is an important one. Under those guidelines, 16% of Americans and 20% of American children live in poverty.

Poverty is defined politically, and it's whatever's convenient for the politician defining it that day.

It also has a dictionary definition. From that dictionary definition, it's easy to come up with an economic definition.

Look, we've been in Lyndon B. Johnson's "War on Poverty" for 51 years now. You can't win a war if you are unwilling to define victory conditions. We've proven that in the Vietnam conflict, and every war/conflict we've entered since then. When can we stop fighting "The War On Drugs"? When can we stop fighting "The War On Terror"?

What is the F'ing definition of victory conditions in "The War On Poverty"?

If we go by your definition, even a Basic Guaranteed Income can't possibly stop poverty. It's definitionally always going to be with us. We can either accept that it's always going to be with us, and declare at least an armistace, or we can keep throwing money at it with no hope of ever, ever winning, unless we are willing to implement a fully managed economy.

And you're aware that basic health care is already fixed, and was before the ACA, sincethe hospitals are legally required to treat you if you present at the ER, right?

What idiot/liar keeps spreading this load of nonsense around? Hospitals are legally required to _stabilize_ you! That means that, if you show up dying of something acute, they have to take you in, but can kick you out the door the moment you're not in critical condition anymore. If you show up, for example, with a terminal case of cancer, they don't have to treat, or even diagnose your cancer. If you have immediate, life-threatening symptoms, they have to provide some treatment for those symptoms. In a practical sense, it pretty much just means that they have to p

The vast majority of chronic homeless people (stunk, dirty, massive backpacks) have drug addiction and/or mental illness[3]. They also make a boatload of money (often > $100,000/yr). The problem is that they lack the skills necessary to effectively use that money and reintegrate to normal society, so they're relegated to homeless life. Homeless life isn't easy either--most of them have either been around someone who's been shot, or been shot themselves. Rape is prevalent, for both genders, but especially women. [2] Life expectancy is not good[1]. In talking to hundreds of homeless people, I have only met one homeless person who was there by choice.

Having a Starbucks cup doesn't mean that they have piles of money. It means they received > $4 in donations recently and were able to spend it. The money they earn usually quickly goes to drugs, alcohol, theft, or impulse purchases. This is why it's so key to NOT give them money. You or I would be smart enough to put the money in a bank, save, and get back on our feet. They can't (or they would have already done so).

When I walk down the street and run into a homeless person begging, I offer to take them to a nearby fast-food restaurant. About 50% decline, and the other 50% are immensely grateful. That allows you to engage them in conversation, and offer them to take up a rehab program, which can teach them to break their addictions and gain the life skills they need to become part of society again.

[1] young homeless women are four to 31 times as likely to die early as housed young women (O’Connell, 2005)
http://www.nationalhomeless.or...

[2] In yet another study, 9% of homeless women reported at least one experience of sexual victimization in the last month
http://www.vawnet.org/applied-...

[3] According to Didenko and Pankratz (2007), two-thirds of homeless people report that drugs and/or alcohol were a major reason for their becoming homeless.
http://www.nationalhomeless.or...

The vast majority of chronic homeless people (stunk, dirty, massive backpacks) have drug addiction and/or mental illness[3]. They also make a boatload of money (often > $100,000/yr). The problem is that they lack the skills necessary to effectively use that money and reintegrate to normal society, so they're relegated to homeless life. Homeless life isn't easy either--most of them have either been around someone who's been shot, or been shot themselves. Rape is prevalent, for both genders, but especially women. [2] Life expectancy is not good[1]. In talking to hundreds of homeless people, I have only met one homeless person who was there by choice.

Having a Starbucks cup doesn't mean that they have piles of money. It means they received > $4 in donations recently and were able to spend it. The money they earn usually quickly goes to drugs, alcohol, theft, or impulse purchases. This is why it's so key to NOT give them money. You or I would be smart enough to put the money in a bank, save, and get back on our feet. They can't (or they would have already done so).

When I walk down the street and run into a homeless person begging, I offer to take them to a nearby fast-food restaurant. About 50% decline, and the other 50% are immensely grateful. That allows you to engage them in conversation, and offer them to take up a rehab program, which can teach them to break their addictions and gain the life skills they need to become part of society again.

[1] young homeless women are four to 31 times as likely to die early as housed young women (O’Connell, 2005)
http://www.nationalhomeless.or...

[2] In yet another study, 9% of homeless women reported at least one experience of sexual victimization in the last month
http://www.vawnet.org/applied-...

[3] According to Didenko and Pankratz (2007), two-thirds of homeless people report that drugs and/or alcohol were a major reason for their becoming homeless.
http://www.nationalhomeless.or...

If by small part of the population you mean an estimated 20-33%? http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/homeless-mentally-ill.html http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/Mental_Illness.pdf

http://www.wifr.com/news/headlines/Homeless_Deaths_in_the_Stateline_136027648.html
http://www.kulr8.com/news/local/Dozens-Gather-To-Remember-Homeless-Deaths-136039473.html
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/dyingwithoutdignity/dyingwithoutdignity.pdf
This one has a positive tone, at least something is being done:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/27/local/me-skidrow-deaths27

Obviously, the absolute numbers are not huge, but most or all of these deaths could have been prevented through better shelter and soup kitchen offers rather then the bare minimum that is currently on offer. Initiatives such as letting homeless people help and give a hand in the soup kitchens could help them feel some self-worth again, which leads to motivation to at least try and do something about their current station in life.

I work a full 37 hour work week including the occasional paid overtime. I don't consider any of those hours to be "working for the government", I have no idea how that silly simplification has taken root with you guys.

You know what? I don't mind that 70-year old fat asshole getting a new heart. I sure don't mind children getting the urgent medical care they need, either. Nor do I mind anyone, no matter their station in life, viewpoints, personal wealth, race, creed or color, getting the medical help they need. Who are you to put different amounts of worth on different people's heads?

Please note that your current insurance-based privatized health care system is massively more expensive than the public health care systems of the countries you usually compare yourselves to. They're getting better health care for less:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/etc/graphs.html

I pay my taxes gladly. With them, I buy civilization.

There is some grey in this world.

Some people are poor because they have mental health issues. They can't hold down jobs, but they are rational enough to say no to help, or there is not enough help to set their lives on an even keel.

Some people are poor because of bad luck. In the USA there is the unique situation among first world countries that a bad health issue can ruin you financially. Losing your job suddenly and not being able to get a new one quickly enough can be cause you to lose your home. If you are living cheque to cheque losing a job can cause very quick downward spiral.

Some people are homeless, generally the young, to escape abuse at home. Living on the street is better than being beaten and abused at home.

Some people enjoy the homeless lifestyle. They enjoy the freedom, they work odd jobs, collect bottles, dumpster dive, and get by. They don't complain much.

Some people are screw ups. They did not get an education. They can't hold down a job. They have a bad attitude. They do self destructive things. Many drug abusers are in this category.

So how many are in each of these categories? Depends where in the world you live. Most people are homeless for short periods and get back on their feet. Good stats for the usa. More good stats and info.

Being homeless is not a simple issue with one cause. It is a symptom of many different problems that is a short term problem for most people, and a long term problem mainly for people with mental health problems, substance abuse problems, and youth facing abuse at home. Most others recover after a short time.

hmmmm, houses that can't be sold sitting empty, yet you still have homeless people.

Looks like your economic system isn't that effective.

Actually there are McDonalds that have raised the prices of would-be Dollar Menu items just to discourage the homeless.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2584593/posts

Some cities have done things that effectively make it illegal to be homeless.

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/allcities.html

I don't suppose a town with mandatory gun ownership would try that though.

http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=87&p=779947

MHz WorldView carries a bunch of international news channels. They're on some cable systems, some public tv stations, and on-demand via Roku.
They've gotten a little more exposure lately as one of the few U.S. outlets carrying Aljazeera. RT ("Russia Today") is a channel they carry that looks like blantently anti-U.S. propaganda. Most of the facts check out, but they give plenty of unsupported or poorly supported conclusions and show things out of context. They covered Kennesaw GA, a town and the mandatory gun ownership there, portraying the U.S. as being more gun-crazy than is actually the case. They made no mention of it being done as a response to a town (Morton Grove IL) that had banned guns.

I suspect most people have few clues who they're voting for when it comes to city council members. It is worth going to some city council meetings to find out what's going on, and who the crazy ones are.

The U.S. covers the ancient "give them food and circus and they will not rebel" areas pretty well (plenty of fat tv-numb people around?), but some people unable to afford housing are really hurting.

Most studies show that single homeless adults are more likely to be male than female. In 2007, a survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that of the population surveyed 35% of the homeless people who are members of households with children are male while 65% of these people are females. However, 67.5% of the single homeless population is male, and it is this single population that makes up 76% of the homeless populations surveyed (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2007).

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/who.html

http://www.nchv.org/background.cfm

Veteran-specific highlights from the USICH report include:

23% of the homeless population are veterans
33% of the male homeless population are veterans
47% served Vietnam-era
17% served post-Vietnam
15% served pre-Vietnam
67% served three or more years
33% were stationed in war zone
25% have used VA homeless services
85% completed high school/GED, compared to 56% of non-veterans
89% received an honorable discharge
79% reside in central cities
16% reside in suburban areas
5% reside in rural areas
76% experience alcohol, drug or mental health problems
46% are white males, compared to 34% of non-veterans
46% are age 45 or older, compared to 20% non-veterans

Who are the Barbarians

I think terrorists would be the best analogy.

...where is the enormous economic divide (don't even begin to talk about the middle-class squeeze, it cannot compare with Roman economics)

Let's compare and contrast the poor and the rich. There are several classes of people making less than minimum wage in the US. Illegal immigrants immediately come to mind. However, waiters and waitresses in some states only make $2.13 an hour because tips would presumably make up the rest. A family living on the minimum wage is certainly beneath the poverty line. In 2000, 11.3% of the U.S. population, or 31.1 million people, lived in poverty. Poverty in the US is defined as earning just less than $15,000. To put this in perspective, rent for a one bedroom apartment in a bad neighborhood of Seattle costs $8400 a year.

Let's compare this with the wealthiest of the US. Bill Gates is reported to be worth about $30,000,000,000. That's six orders of magnitude higher than someone earning minimum wage in the Microsoft cafeteria. Granted, I'm comparing Bill's accumulated wealth to the cafeteria worker's yearly income. However, the income difference is still at least five orders of magnitude. Either way, we're still talking about a medieval or romanesque difference of incomes.

...where was the death of democracy

The highjacking of the 2000 election? The nomination of the president of the US by an activist Supreme Court? The subsequent trampling of the rights of citizens by the administration in the name of security? Shall I continue?

...where are the growingly incompetent dynasties?

We could look at American companies. Costs are a little better, but that's because the work is being done in third world countries. Quality is poor. Customer service is down the drain. Management gets more and more incompentent by the year.

We could look at American students, the "future of America". They increasingly turn to cheating, grade inflation, and teacher intimidation in place of actual learning. They also tend to put sports ahead of academics. There's also the pressure to dumb down classes get high numbers of graduates.

Don't make me bring up the politicians. We already know how incompetent those fools are.

As a Christian, I believe that homosexuality is sinful

According to what? The Bible? Or what your hate-mongering preacher spoon-fed you?

If you are planning to hate gays based on the the Old Testament purity laws in Leviticus, then you'd better follow all of them, including no blood transfusions, no clothing of mixed fibers, eating kosher, and not clipping off the edges of your beard. Otherwise you're cherry picking which parts of the Bible to follow, and that's hypocritical. Furthermore, passages in the Bible indicate that adherence on the Levitican purity laws is contrary to Jesus's teachings

Killing babies, though... man. That's a moral issue, not a religious one. Even the most vocal proponent of "choice," which is just a euphamism for "death,"

I hear something like this and I think of a kid who cries when Bambi's mother dies and later munches on a hamburger. The cute deer gets the tear in your eye while you ignore the fact you're eating the entrails of probably 200-300 different cows for your mealtime. Your heart's in the right place, but you suffer from moral myopia -- you don't take into account the larger picture involved. Mourning the death of unwanted babies while sentimental, really does nothing to fight the world's suffering.

Tell you what, instead of sensationalistic bemoaning of the unborn children, why don't you work on the following causes first?

- According to estimates, there are 800 Million people who go hungry worldwide. 1 child dies every 7 seconds from hunger.

- Over one million children were homeless in nice warm months - like October and February.

- In Africa, 16 million children are homeless due to the AIDS epidemic there.

- over 3 million children were abused in 2001 . 1300 died from abuse, amounting to 3 per day.

So why don't you work on helping the kids people actually want first before harassing women facing a difficult choice?

Mrs. Roe is now wishing that she hadn't had an abortion.

Hmmm... wouldn't you have second thoughts if you'd become the nationwide target of assholes telling you how to live your life? That's succumbing to peer pressure, not a moral revelation.

Not only is it mindless killing, it is also a psychological burden to most would-have-been mothers.

Ummm... bullshit.

Lastly, unless it's your body that's carrying the baby, it's really none of your fucking business. It's the woman's body; the woman has the right to chose to have a kid -- when she's ready, and no sooner. If you can't respect that, then you have no right to have your grubby hands (much less your penis) in a woman's womb.

I work for a charity in Atlanta that helps children in homeless shelters (Children's Restoration Network). We have a recycled bookstore where people donate books that we resell to raise money for our org. Someone donated a bunch of those "things to do on the internet for kids" books. If you email me your mailing address I'll see if I can send you one. I would also recommend this site about homelessness in America that has some stuff geared toward educating kids about other homeless kids, which is cool if they ever get interested in community service or something like that.

(Please guys, hear me through before flaming or modding down.)

Can someone please explain to me the exact portions of the bill that state that

a) you will not be allowed to run linux
b) you will not be allowed to build your own PC from commodity parts

??

What I see is "unlawful to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies that adhere to the security system standards.". Which is basically saying that "if you want to have something that you can view multimedia on, it has to have built in digital copyright controls on it".

So what you're saying is: "Hey, hell no we won't put such things into linux! .... Damn! now we can't use linux (to view videos or listen to music)" "Hell, I don't want to build a computer using those parts that have built in copy control ..... damn, now I can't build my own computer!"

While I am not saying that this is a good thing, don't you think that you all are going just a wee bit over the deep end with the exaggerations on this one?

Please tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that it is nearly as bad as you are claiming it to be. If linux were to implement these technologies (which, of course, the people who make linux would really, really, truly rather not do) then you could still use it. If you bought the hardware that conformed (which, btw, all hardware sold will so I don't see the argument there?) then you can still build your own computer.

Now, with that aside, this "proposed" legislation is shitty for the customers, but why is it? If you think about it, they are not preventing us from doing anything that the majority of customers don't already do. Now let me qualify that. What you are legally allowed to do is buy something and watch it. What this prevents is piracy, which BTW is illegal anyways. Piracy in this case means viewing it when you're not allowed/making copies/etc. Yep, it sucks. However we always break these laws anyways.

Oh, can someone please explain to me how the ability to copy a movie or music is a funamentally basic human right?

In any case, as with all things, if this does get passed and these restrictions are put on, and if you don't like it, nobody is making you buy that movie or listen to that music ... Sure you like to, but it's not a necessity. As has been said before (that seems to fall on deaf ears), vote with your wallet. Don't buy that stuff that has the restrictions that you don't agree with. If people adapt this mentality, then 1 of 2 things will happen:

1) the purchases of music/videos/etc will fall by the curb and the industries will be left scratching their heads going "wtf happened?"

-or-

2) the majority of people won't care and will still continue to buy the new restricted stuff anyways, and, in the eyes of the corps, they will not have lost.

Of course, if #2 happens then that means that you, my friends, are indeed in the minority and it's just because you want to illegally copy/pirate your stuff or get stuff for free, because the majority of people won't have seen a difference.

however if #1 happens, then it will turn out that everything that you are saying is correct, and justice will take care of itself.

Thus perhaps you should be putting your energies into the right place. If indeed this legislation does pass, (or even before it does), then lean on the same mechanisms that they use to promote this shit. Write your local newspapers. Create situations where this stuff truly is horrible. Tell your friends and neighbours. Put up billboards and posters. And certainly not the entire public are morons, they can see through shit, and if it is truly, absolutely horrible for the gross public then the gross public will respond.

Is everyone aware here that there are 5,000 children dying every month in iraq from malnutrition? check out the list of the top 30 atrocities of the 20th century, some of which are still continuing. And there's more that happens every day, in front of you, that you're too desensitized to look at. There's homeless (up to 700,000 each night sleeping on the streets, begging for money during the day), and many others.

Just a reminder that perhaps you guys with your DVD players and 28" televisions and well paying jobs and 1GHz+ computers might want to step back and take it all in perspective.

And finally, talk is cheap. If you are seriously angered by this, that's GREAT, seriously, so do something about it. I don't agree with this type of legislation any more than you do, but yelling/overexaggerating about it on /. isn't going to accomplish anything. And I'm not really sure that sending emails/real mail to your congress is going to do anything either. Educate the public at large and you'll find out if either everyone thinks the same way, or if you are indeed just in the minority. If you can't get your mother and your computer illiterate significant other to get the least bit roused by this, the perhaps it isn't that big a deal after all.