Tax Dollars at Work

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
#2 You do realize that under the system without these centers, it was a BIGGER waste of taxpayer money, right?



[/ QUOTE ]

Only because you assume society is obligated to pay these peoples' other costs. Also, how do you address the fact that by giving free admission to these centers you are increasing the demand? (Simple econ right as P decreases D increases.) I'll say it again, any benefit will be short lived because these centers will fill up as more and more people who barely function will have no incentive to keep hanging on.

They did a semi-commi expirament in colonial America. Everyone in the camp was going to pitch in for everyone else. Well, enough people decided to accept the dole (i.e., freeload) that almost everyone starved.

[ QUOTE ]
#1 Note your use of the phrase "relative luxury." Relative to what? Relative to how the average American lives? Relative to how they had been living before? If you mean the latter, which I think you do, a waterproof box is "relative luxury," so I think that whole statement is just bogus.

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone cannot afford any type of shelter because they drink their lives away, then these centers which have heat, clean bedding and food are luxurious. Just because it's not as nice as your house doesn't change the fact that it's nicer than they deserve.

[AvivaSimplex]

It's true, there is kind of a perverse incentive in that we're treating the worst of the worst. But it's not as if people are going to run off and quit their jobs and leave their homes and start passing out drunk on the streets every couple days just so they can eventually get a free efficiency apartment in a building filled with unpleasant people.

The high threshold for admittance, along with the limited space (just 75 people) would suggest that this would have minimal incentive power. But you know what? No one really knows. This is an experiment aimed at finding a better solution to this horrible problem. If it works and saves money, we'll expand it, and if it doesn't, it'll eventually get shut down.

[ QUOTE ]
What's a better WoD campaign setting: Technocracy, or Anarchocapitalist dystopia?

[/ QUOTE ]The approach I just described is an example of a technocratic (with a small "t") government. Identify a problem, design solutions based on the best available science, and test those solutions empirically.


I think AC dystopia would be a better RPG world. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] The Technocracy is too bipolar--it's just you vs. the Technocracy. In AC, you'd have all kinds of interesting different factions and backstabbing and intrigue.

Also, in an AC world, I think someone would have already rounded up all the homeless and either 1) harvested their organs and sold them to the highest bidder, or 2) organized a fight-to-the-death gladiatorial competition.

[FlFishOn]

"This is an experiment aimed at finding a better solution to this horrible problem."

And it's premised on the assumption that we, society, I owe these people something. I do not willingly assume that debt. It's simply one more unproductive drain on society that when 'fixed' with large infusions of public cash allows a small cohort of folks to feel righteous. Go to church and pitch in, you'll feel even better. You can remain secular at the same time.

[hmkpoker]

heh, yeah I feel the same way. The problem I always ran into with playing in those high-tech settings was that there was so much technology, and the social impact was so immense that the GM would have an aneurism trying to make it all fit together, and even then it didn't quite make sense to the players, unless they were all TOTAL, TOTAL RPG DORKS, which is not outside the realm of possibility either [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] (Alternity's Star Drive ran into this too)

M:tA always did make the Technocracy world seem like a really, really cool campaign setting, but for some reason it never quite worked out right. AC dystopia settings are just very intuitive and roll right [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Stu Pidasso]

Perhaps the drunks in Spokane will move to Seattle.

Stu

[CORed]

Something similar has been proposed for Denver. I see some potential problems with this approach. For one thing, if one city does it, and others don't, the city providing this kind of service may become a magnet for homeless people. Why sleep under a bridge, or in a Salvation Army shelter where they want you to get of the booze and work when Seattle gives you a free ride?

Also, not all homeless people are hopelessy, unemployably mentally ill. Some are just drunks. Some have treatable mental illnesses. This kind of program gives the non-hopeless cases no incentive to get better and might even cause some people to say, "screw it. Why work at my crappy job where I make barely enough (or not enough) money to pay my bills. I'll just get drunk all the time and let the city take care of me." The claim that this type of program will save money is based on the presumption that the number of homelss people to be cared for will remain constant. Unfortunately, there is a significant risk that the program will increase the homeless population.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the drunks in Spokane will move to Seattle.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]
basicly what I said, but much more succinct.

[AvivaSimplex]

[ QUOTE ]
For one thing, if one city does it, and others don't, the city providing this kind of service may become a magnet for homeless people.

[/ QUOTE ] This effect will be limited because the facility only holds 75 people. It won't even hold all of Seattle's homeless.

[ QUOTE ]
This kind of program gives the non-hopeless cases no incentive to get better and might even cause some people to say, "screw it. Why work at my crappy job where I make barely enough (or not enough) money to pay my bills. I'll just get drunk all the time and let the city take care of me."

[/ QUOTE ]Well, as I said, no one really knows to what extent this program will incentivize the marginally homeless. My guess is that it won't, very much, because of how disgusting and rock-bottom you have to get to be invited. But the point is, this is an experiment. Let's make this investment and see whether we can get a 30% return every year.