|
|
|
|
|
by lotsofpulp
1096 days ago
|
|
Imprisonment is to keep people moving along, or deter them from coming. Housing is more expensive because of the opposite, it incentives everyone to come get it. On a federal level, housing and healthcare might be cheaper than imprisonment. But what is even cheaper (in the short run) is ignoring it altogether. >I personally don’t understand why the some exceptionally wealthy billionaire in California doesn’t solve the homelessness problem themselves, expending some mere fraction of their net worth (i.e., the value of a couple bucks to the rest of us). Because the problem is far more expensive than any single billionaire or even group of billionaires entire net worth. Even if they could handle just California's population. there are 290M people in the rest of the country, and a significant portion who would not mind coming to California for free housing. |
|
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/06/1134230388/village-salt-lake-...
Median rent in SLC: 1.8k/mo, 21.6k/yr
Federal prison: ~39k/yr
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/01/2021-18...
Median rent in CA: 2.9k/mo, 34.8k/yr (according to Zillow)
CA prison: 106k/yr (!)
https://lao.ca.gov/policyareas/cj/6_cj_inmatecost
Incarcerating the homeless is not an economic decision, it’s an emotional one. Society doesn’t mind wasting endless amounts of money doing it, because the cruelty is the point.