I've been blissfully away from work for three days, so I've fallen way behind now. ;)
The point you made is valid - but it already exists. One of the reasons there is a homeless population is incentive - people are homeless because they *can*.
I believe it was Tocqueville who noted the phenemonen even 200 years ago. In Portugal, a poor rural country, he noted there were no beggars. But in England, the richest nation in Europe, beggars abounded. The difference? Beggars essentially could be supported in Britain. In Portugal, charity for the non-productive was simply out of the question.
We have several different "kinds" of bums, as I see:
1. We have the mentally ill and chronic, severe drug abusers that are arguably non-rational.
2. There is the neo-hippy youth subculture that chooses to be homeless and sparechanges its way across North America
3. The lazy that simply don't want to work
4. And maybe a very small minority that are the economic unfortunates who are only homeless for a few months in any case.
The social welfare system already caters to all these people. There is already a "homeless entitlement", which is why homelessness is an apparent fictional problem for the non-mentally ill. There is no reason to be homeless in America. There is HUD housing, food stamps, cash assistance, WIC, subsidized electricity, subsidized telephone service, SSI disability insurance, MEDICAID, State welfare health insurance plans related to MEDICAID, etc etc etc.
The resources available to the homeless through the existing social welfare system on top of these, like homeless shelters, soup kitchens, health care clinics, etc, are an INCENTIVE to be homeless. San Francisco, for example, is one of the most bum-friendly cities in America, and that is why it is a magnet for hobos.
It doesn't matter, IMO, if the non-ill take advantage, as long as it defunds the incentive-izing social welfare programs. The goal is to get these people off the street. If that means giving them a welfare handout they are already "entitled" to, then it is a net gain. If it means cities shifting Federal money to housing programs from shelters and soup kitchens and free street health care clinics and everything else, then you're on a path to trying to solve a problem, instead of perpetuating it.
There will always be homeless people in a free society that is wealthy enough to support them. But if as in the Atlantic article it is possible to reduce the population by two-thirds, as in Britain, it is worthwhile to pick up the ones that don't overtly CHOOSE to be on the street. We're spending the money on them anyway. We may as well get results, instead of feeding the problem.
Derek |
