[MetricMike]

This is usually a fair point to make, but you're pointing at neither the flaws in the underlying case study nor the weakness in generalizing Utah to a wider area. That's not really fair, especially since parent comment is providing data.

[asift]

The parent comment is now significantly different from when I replied to it.

The articles were originally cited, but my response was in reference to their claim that their prior statement:

>its been proven that its cheaper to give the homeless housing than to pay for the resulting issues of not providing housing

...was neither sweeping nor overly-simplistic. The merits of the referenced case study--which may be an excellent case study--provide no grounds for refuting my claim that their prior statement was sweeping and overly-simplistic. Also, when making an argument based on extrapolated data, the burden for justifying extrapolation lies on the person making that argument.

Regardless, my only real point here is that the original claim (that giving people housing is cheaper than other forms of welfare has been "proven") is simply too powerful of a claim. It might be a good policy and it may in fact be cheaper, but it's incorrect to say any position on this topic has been "proven".

[toomuchtodo]

asift,

I did indeed edit my comment, removing my assertion that my claim was not sweeping and overly-simplistic (I wish HN would keep an edit history that was visible).

With that said, I still disagree with you. If an experiment takes place, and data is apparent, that data stands on its own merit; if that data can then be used to make a statement, its proof, not "sweeping and overly-simplistic".

You can disagree with me, that's fine. I believe, based on the data, that we should be giving housing to the homeless. If you don't agree, I encourage you to engage politically; I do, and I'm passionate about positive social change. I appreciate you engaging in discourse with me in a civil manner; it happens much less than I wish it would (in general).

[paulhart]

A community in Alberta, Canada has, in effect, ended homelessness [0]. The mayor claims[1] the cost of providing housing to someone is around CAD20,000, but the cost of a homeless person can be up to CAD100,000 - meaning that it's financially prudent for the municipality to proactively house people.

Both links are to press reports and don't provide any further information to back up the claims, but given that Medicine Hat and several other municipalities have taken up objectives of ending homelessness, I suspect it wasn't just for the warm fuzzies of giving people roofs over their heads. A lot of people (including the Mayor himself!) would have the same knee-jerk "they didn't earn it" response.

[0]: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/medicine-hat-on-brink-...

[1]: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-e...

[toomuchtodo]

Thank you for contributing an additional data point!

[asift]

I'm fairly new to HN, but I've found people here tend to be much more civil than most places on the web, which I think is great.

>if that data can then be used to make a statement, its proof

I'm not trying to be overly semantic, but I think "evidence" would be more appropriate than "proof" in this case. My claim was never that there isn't evidence that housing the homeless costs less than other welfare programs (or that I think it's something we shouldn't do), I just think you are being too forceful in your claim.