[zumu]

I've decided most homeless social programs are a trap. By locating these programs in the centers of the highest cost of living cities, we can't reasonably expect them to succeed, assuming success is actually getting people housed and back on their feet. We need to encourage people to move some place they have a chance in hell of getting out of poverty.

Centering these programs in rich city centers is a failed policy and needs to be scrapped.

[mgbmtl]

In some cases, these are indirect corporate subsidies. After all, who will work in low-paying jobs in SF, if they have to live far far away?

Where could people move that would give them more opportunities? Rural areas often lack the social resources to support people in more precarious situations, and big cities is where the opportunities are.

[hobo_in_library]

Interesting idea, but do homeless folks actually end up working for corporations? They have a hard enough time getting any job in the first place (and remaining presentable enough for their job if they do get one)

[mgbmtl]

Homelessness affects a ton of people, but I'm also including who live in subsidized housing (and otherwise might be homeless).

It could be a family with kids, who need a subsidy to live in a big-enough place, or an old person living off a tiny pension. etc