[black_puppydog]

Okay I guess I have to heavily adjust my view of public transit here. Given, I've only seen European transit systems, but none of them had a problem of that scale. Sure, the occasional junkie and drunk, but nothing even remotely bad enough to have an influence on my everyday transit behaviour.

That being said: I prefer biking, and with two saddle bags I can easily do the shopping for two. And I've seen friends get e-bikes and ditch a lifelong car lifestyle on the countryside.

EDIT

And "by the way": why do the richest societies of the world afford themselves the " luxury " of having homeless people at all? It's so weird...

[btingle]

Because solving the issue of homelessness (or poverty in general) would mean parting with precious, precious currency.

[ManFromUranus]

You can't solve the issue of poverty. Poverty is as unsolvable as stupidity, or having people you don't personally get along with in the world. Those aren't solvable problems. Poverty is relative, so there will always be "poor" people. Even our poor people rich compared to Indias. And I assume you are fine with spending other peoples money to solve homelessness, or spend from the "commons" as is the typical solution to this issue. You want to spend while requiring nothing in return for that spend. So easy to make trite little comments that show you "care".

[btingle]

I think my original comment may have been a bit too snarky. But countries like the US could absolutely be doing more for their poor and downtrodden than they currently do. And yes, I guess I am fine with spending "other people's money" (AKA money belonging to people who don't need it) if it means that the quality of life for those with the least advantages was improved.

[ManFromUranus]

>But countries like the US could absolutely be doing more

They could do more for sure. But it's a bottomless pit. The more you invest the more "poor" people are "pulled" into orbit of the programs requiring more spend, which brings more poor which requires more spend ad inifinitum.

> I am fine with spending "other people's money" (AKA money belonging to people who don't need it)

Oh ok then, I just decided that you don't need your money and I will spend it on the poor. Since I am "good" and I have everyones best interests at heart because I said so, then there's no problem. I will also decide who does and doesn't "need" their money. What an awesome power to wield.

What weasel word language you're using "life for those with the least advantages" just because you are poor doesn't mean you didn't earn it or don't deserve it. What simplistic logic you are using, what gigantic and awesome powers you propose to wield with such little thought.

[dang]

Could you please not use HN for political and ideological flamewar? It's not what this site is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[ManFromUranus]

Because they are a money pit, more and more and more money is required. The more resources and infrastructure you build to "help" them simply pulls more of them to you, which then requires more money to maintain and on and on.

The most basic standards of care and concern are absent from them, they litter and loiter and harass and stink and steal without any regard. So attract them to your city at your peril.

>That being said: I prefer biking, and with two saddle bags I can easily do the shopping for two

^This right here. You don't come into contact with them ever, so you don't see the problem. You probably never will but you cluck cluck whenever somebody who does have to deal with them complains.