I feel like that’s pedantry on whether the definition of “end homelessness” means, 0 homeless forever vs, homelessness is a small, manageable problem again.
And if say, half of that 20 billion were put in a perpetual trust it could give a perpetual budget of 100s of millions of dollars to fund maintenance and social work staff to continue to better manage the problem.
Possibly, but the text already specifically says “in America”. I feel like if you add qualifiers like that, you have already partitioned the problem as far down as you intended.
I guess but then you have to stop expanding what they mean by the solution. You’re not partitioning the statement of the problem any further but you’re seemingly appending “forever” to the end of the solution as well as other problems that go along with homelessness. $30,000 each is enough to get every currently homeless person in the US some form of legal shelter, by definition ending homelessness in the US, however briefly.
Also true, but only if you can locate every single homeless person in the country. Though I’m not sure I would consider “legal shelter” a high enough bar to consider homelessness solved for that person, even for a short duration. At minimum, I think it would require them to have control of some sort of “permanent” residence, such as a month to month rental. Not simply space at a shelter.
You don’t think ~$31,000 spent productively per every single homeless person in the US could effectively reset the homeless crisis?
Sure it would help significantly. It would most likely be the most successful initiative in human history. But it won’t “end homelessness”.
I feel like that’s pedantry on whether the definition of “end homelessness” means, 0 homeless forever vs, homelessness is a small, manageable problem again.
And if say, half of that 20 billion were put in a perpetual trust it could give a perpetual budget of 100s of millions of dollars to fund maintenance and social work staff to continue to better manage the problem.
Possibly, but the text already specifically says “in America”. I feel like if you add qualifiers like that, you have already partitioned the problem as far down as you intended.
I guess but then you have to stop expanding what they mean by the solution. You’re not partitioning the statement of the problem any further but you’re seemingly appending “forever” to the end of the solution as well as other problems that go along with homelessness. $30,000 each is enough to get every currently homeless person in the US some form of legal shelter, by definition ending homelessness in the US, however briefly.
Also true, but only if you can locate every single homeless person in the country. Though I’m not sure I would consider “legal shelter” a high enough bar to consider homelessness solved for that person, even for a short duration. At minimum, I think it would require them to have control of some sort of “permanent” residence, such as a month to month rental. Not simply space at a shelter.