Socialism, and Marxism/Communism hasn't work anywhere. Even the EU and
Sweden are experiencing the negative results of Socialism. Brigham Young
experimented with Socialism, it was called the united order.( In fact their is a
town on highway 89 in southern Utah named "order vile), and it failed and
was soon abandoned.It's amazing that these "Ism" are
even being debated. If you want to live in a Socialist , Marxist/Communist
society, then please feel free, to move to Cuba or Venezuela they are
wonderful places to live.
@marxistTell us specifically how Marx fixes Homelessness. And show us
somewhere Marx did that.Most chronically-homeless people in USA are
not homeless because they used to work for GM. They are homeless because they
have a drug problem, don't show up to work, or mental problems and
can't keep a job, or they drop-out of school and have no work skills. Many
homeless people choose/prefer the transient lifestyle. Marx doesn't fix
that. And that's part of the problem for chronically homeless people on
the streets of SLC. Marx can't fix that.===Homeless shelters are not the solution. They are the safety-net, they just
treat a symptom, but they don't solve the core-problem.If you
live in a homeless shelter you can't stay there all the time. They kick
you out during the day. So you are on the streets with nothing to do. If you
don't have a job or anything to do all day every day you have all day to
stress and get into mischief... it can make your problem worse (if you get
depressed enough that you decide to self-medicate with drugs or booze).Maybe we need service-projects they can work on all day if they don't
have a job? That could help keep them out of mischief.
@SC Matt "Marx was let in to functioning societies, and it ruined
them."You mean like Czarist Russia and a hopelessly exploited
(by the British) China?I realize I am beating a dead horse in trying
to convince you Marx has something important to contribute to so-called
mainstream economics. Most do not know who Marx actually was (dictator of
Russia, right?). And most know little economics (even mainstream) and know
little about who's who in economics. Marx's theory of
surplus value is critical in dealing with all manner of economic problems,
including and especially those who are completely down and out, the homeless.
@marxistRE: "All hired labor is vulnerable, and threatened with
homelessness. Witness the GM factory workers"...---Just because
a job ends at one plant doesn't mean another job isn't created at
another plant. What do you want GM to do, keep making cars that
people won't buy in 2025? They need to shift operations, build new
plants, and start getting ready to make more electric cars, and less internal
combustion engine cars.When GM or Ford closes a plant, they open a
newer/better one somewhere else. The jobs don't disappear, they move.If they just closed plants, and never open new ones... they would be out
of business. But they are still making cars.Even when automation is
introduced... new jobs in software, hardware, and operators of the automated
equipment are created.Does Marxism mean workers never have to adapt,
learn new skills, or move?Do the GMs and Fords in Marxist countries
never close plants, or open new plants?===RE:
"Economics must let Marx in to help"...---How would Marx fix
this?They have more poverty in Cuba, Venezuela, and Brazil than we
have in America. And they let Marx in to help.Didn't fix their
problems... did it?
RE: "Utah must get the homeless solution right"...---I
don't know that there's one "Right" solution to
homelessness.Homelessness and the reasons and the solutions depend
on the individual. So there's no singular solution for it that fits all
people or situations.It's also not something we can completely
solve. The solution is more treating the symptoms than curing the disease.When treating the symptoms there's also no singular solution that
works best for all people. We need to have compassion and do the best we can.
But there's no recipe or solution that works for all people.So
if we are doing the best we can... we should be OK with that, even though it
won't totally remove or fix the whole problem.The person/family
in the homeless situation also needs to make changes to solve the problem. If
nothing changes, whatever you do will only be a temporary-fix, and they will be
back homeless again pretty quickly. We need to help them and encourage them in
their efforts to make those changes.We need a safety net to catch
them (shelters). But the "Solution" is more than shelters.
That's just the net to catch them when they fall. The "Solution"
is more complex.
All hired labor is vulnerable, and threatened even with homelessness. Witness
the GM factory workers who are being turned out in their 50's. They may
not be able to afford a conventional retirement. What then? The entire labor
relationship demands re-evaluation. But we don't have the collective
intellectual ability to do it. Economics must let Marx in to help.
Marijuana is an addicting drug. Perhaps not as addicting as heroin. It does no
one any good. Especially dangerous for children and teens. I heard
one person say Las Vegas gave the homeless a free bus ticket to SLC. Maybe
curing the homeless situation will attract more homelesss? Capitalism
is not the cause of poverty. In the past 20 years or so due to the use of
capitalism(private ownership of business) the world poverty rate has declined
from one in four to one in twenty. You may be sure under socialism all become
@Marxist: "Until it lets Marx in, it will spin its
wheels"Marx was let in to functioning societies, and it ruined
them.USSR: Dead. It was stuck in the 1920's until they
modernized (and became Russia again) in the 80's and 90's. China: Loss of personal freedom so bad that they actually enforced the evil
one-child policy. Clueless and destructive. Venezuela: Oil rich,
but broke in all other ways. Can't even grow enough food to feed the
population. Most countries consider that a core function.Cuba: Not
quite stuck in the 1920's. More like the late 1960's. Sure,
"everybody" has a job, but living conditions are worse than somebody
here making minimum wage. --------------------Regardless
of the society, capitalist or socialist, there needs to be a work requirement if
you offer benefits sufficient to cover basic needs. Socialist countries
don't work at all without it, and a lack of a work requirement leads to
other disfunctions in capitalist countries, such as the huge wealth and income
inequality that many liberals complain about.
No country that cannot feed its hungry, house its homeless, or provide medical
care for its sick can lay claim to being a civilized society. The first and most
fundamental step is providing free academic and trades based education of equal
and high quality to everybody for his or her entire lives. The more people learn
the better able to contribute to their society.Healthcare should be
a civil right and not only a privilege of the wealthy. Does anybody really think
our healthcare system will survive the second coming? How many more healthcare
providers could we have if education was free regardless of age or financial
ability?The homeless need housing first above everything else. In a
well-educated society that provides high-quality healthcare, the homeless
population will obviously be vastly reduced from present levels. Those that are
still homeless are not well served by the present meager resources available to
them. They need housing. We should build apartment buildings that include all
the necessary ancillary services onsite to house them in. We are
either all in this together or we are not. We are either our brother’s
keeper or we are not.
The "tough love" approach seems to be very effective. A tier system as
suggested by DN subscriber makes sense. Separate out those who can be lifted out
of poverty; cull the criminals ( this may require legal proceedings especially
in government-run programs ); have separate facilities for recidivists, who
cannot escape (non drug/crime )their condition; vi, mental illness, etc.. Can
government use these methods and actually do and adhere to them; or are there
regulations or laws that prevent it. @ Atheist - Some
philanthropies fund Public media ( TV/radio ); they certainly could shift that
money to helping the homeless. Religious charities are already stretched pretty
thin; somebody would suffer if their assistance were shifted to others. Soup
kitchens for one.
Diligent Dave - Logan, UTDec. 12, 2018 9:04 a.m.It would be helpful
for the public to know what percentage of those who are homeless have chemical
addictions (alcohol, opioids, meth, marijuana, etc).Dillgent Dave-
Marijuana not addictive.
Until people stop making bad life decisions, homelessness will never go away.
Also, their are some who have choose the homelessness life style as weird as
that may sound.
" Utah must get the homeless solution right,"Well it
can't, because it is embedded in a capitalist system whose foundation is
profit coming from the exploitation of labor, forcing people to the bottom. I
fear for my grandchildren. What if they should become homeless? It could
happen. Only a new socialist system has the prospect of protecting them. Of
course that could fail too. The economics profession must step up
and help. Until it lets Marx in, it will spin its wheels, being useless, as
useless as this opinion piece.
@Athiest: "So many commenters criticizing government... but
nobody is stopping private, charitable organizations from solving this problem!
So why haven't they? "They have. Oh, not completely of
course, because human choice is involved.There's a wiki page
that gives details on the Doe fund, which has been very successful. It's
designed for prison parolees, and reduces re-arrest by about 50% for graduates.
However, since it's a successful program, you will notice that
they have rules. Some people here have called rules "tough love." Some of the rules for this program are random drug tests and abstinence
from drugs and alcohol. They must also forgo any entitlement programs other than
Medicaid. Oh, and there's a work requirement. The first job
they do is clean sidewalks. With a broom, and a big rolling bucket. But they
then transition to other things, like security, driving or pest control. But when people suggest similar rules for government programs, they meet
a lot of resistance.It's almost as if people are more
interested in feeling good about helping everybody through the night instead of
helping them change their life.
Here's my 2 cents: close all the homeless shelters, close the free food
lines, and make people who are actually in need, work for their welfare
assistance. You built it and they came from 5 states in every direction, as we
all knew they would. The only "solution" to the homeless problem is make
them work for their handout. They will go back where they came from or to
california where being homeless & living off the taxpayer is a common,
accepted way of life.
"What if government is NOT the answer here?What if charitable
groups, like the owners of the D News, are the real answer to the homeless
problem?"So many commenters criticizing government... but nobody
is stopping private, charitable organizations from solving this problem! So why
haven't they? What are the Churches and private philanthropies doing with
all the billions of dollars they take in each year?!
Homeless = Drug addiction that is the problem that is where the answer lies. So
why don't we just legalize drugs and everyone will be happy. We're all
adults, drugs sex and homelessness what a wonder world.
As long as we rely on counting how much is spent and how many beds are provided
the problem will never be fixed.First- the economic homeless (a tiny
minority) can be helped with existing programs and should never get anywhere
near the "other homeless."Second- Sort out the addicts and
criminals and treat them as law enforcement problems, requiring tough love,
locking up, prosecution and rousting from their various spots blighting the
community.Third- Sort out the mentally ill and get them into
compassionate and safe surroundings. Yes, this is a problem due to court
rulings saying you cannot do that. In that case, drop them off at the
judges' neighborhood and let them cope with it.Fourth- Every handout
must come with a work requirement- picking up trash, washing dishes, doing
laundry, shoveling snow, cutting grass, etc. No work- no food or shelter-just
like for taxpayers.The solution to "homelessness" is not
providing "night care" for addicts and mentally ill and allowing them to
do as they please during the day.Tough love is tough, and will
undoubtedly attract the ire of the ACLU folks- who are welcome to adopt as many
homeless as they want to.
It would be helpful for the public to know what percentage of those who are
homeless have chemical addictions (alcohol, opioids, meth, marijuana, etc). It
would also help to find out how many nuclear families (that are currently
homeless) are in the mix. Also, know what percentage have porn addictions would
be helpful to know.Among those with these addictions, it would be
helpful to know how long individuals & families have been continually
homeless, and for how long.The cycle appears to be those who become
chemically dependent, and then lose either homes or apartments or rooms they
have with relatives & friends, are so chained to their addictions, that they
will repeatedly succumb to 'feeding' those addictions in lieu of
maintaining proper shelter, food, etc.We seem to be at a point
(& have for some years now), where in order to disrupt the chemical
dependency/crime cycle, perhaps permanent incarceration may be the only ongoing
solution.Societally, we shudder at using very strong measures to
deal with perhaps much stronger addictions. I contend we molly coddle far too
many far too long. Many die & many lives are ruined. But truly tough
'love' escapes us as a civilization.
What if government is NOT the answer here?What if charitable groups,
like the owners of the D News, are the real answer to the homeless problem?Government creates a bureaucracy to manage the project...then proposes
ANOTHER one to keep score, as they are doing here by suggesting more resources
for an MIS to make auditing possible.Government cannot implement
tough love. Clearly, the money spent is an outrageous amount,
compared to the size of the problem. You could build a mental hospital for what
we spend on the problem in just a couple of years.It.ain't.workin'.
One can constantly look for a solution but one cannot find what doesn't
exist. People make choices and this is where they want to be, not all for sure
but many. Help those who ask for help but the rest, who knows?
Glad to see efforts that show we care but state audit is right on target.
There ought never to be any problems with drugs or alcohol in any shelter for
the homeless. For a good program that actually works, we need look no further
than the program offered at The Good Shepard shelter in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
which searches all entrants for contraband before allowing admission to its
shelter. At the Good Shepard, they also have a "one strike and you're
out" policy -- meaning that if you do manage to smuggle drugs or alcohol
into the shelter, and get caught, you will be banned FOR LIFE from the shelter.
That's a large price to pay, to be sure, but it results in very few