Gyroscopic Investing

IN NYC, APARTMENTS EARN MORE AS HOMELESS SHELTERS THAN AS PRIVATE RENTALS

(NEWSER) – Here's a head-scratcher. New York City's homeless shelters are full. So to find more space for the city's homeless, the city has been renting apartments in low-income neighborhoods. Only the city pays above market rate, which means the actual tenants of these apartments are being pushed out, and now they're facing homelessness, WNYC reports

Pointedstick wrote: Rendering people homeless to house the homeless? What a perfect example of a zero-sum game.

moda0306 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Rendering people homeless to house the homeless? What a perfect example of a zero-sum game.

Probably a very negative sum game when all is said and done.

AdamA wrote: Is this really so bad? 

NYC has A LOT of homeless people.  I think not housing them might cause the city more problems than paying to house them.

I mean, it's probably better economically for the City to put them up in studio apartments in SoHo or Chinatown or Hell's Kitchen than to have them sleeping on doorsteps on the Upper West Side.

Pointedstick wrote:And of course all of this is done at taxpayer expense, resulting in higher future taxes

Ironically, if she ends up on the street, she could move back into the building—it would cost her nothing and taxpayers $3,000.

Pointedstick wrote:

AdamA wrote: Is this really so bad? 

NYC has A LOT of homeless people.  I think not housing them might cause the city more problems than paying to house them.

I mean, it's probably better economically for the City to put them up in studio apartments in SoHo or Chinatown or Hell's Kitchen than to have them sleeping on doorsteps on the Upper West Side.

But they're rendering other people homeless in the process, thereby at best failing to alleviate the problem by simply making different people homeless, and at worst, worsening it by increasing the number of homeless people.

And of course all of this is done at taxpayer expense, resulting in higher future taxes. Also, the above-market rates will push up rents, further pushing out even more low-income tenants.

NYC needs to put most of the homeless people back in the mental institutions they came from. I've never seen such a place with so many crazy homeless people. At least in San Francisco, most of the homeless are sane.

dualstow wrote: Not only are they creating homeless, they are punishing the working poor and rewarding the non-working.

Simonjester wrote: minimum wage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbuJYhX3prc

jan van mourik wrote: http://www.americanprogressaction.org/i ... is-high-2/

MediumTex wrote: I'm not sure why they don't just put the homeless on buses and drop them off in New Jersey.

Problem solved.

Simonjester wrote:

jan van mourik wrote: http://www.americanprogressaction.org/i ... is-high-2/

While this simple analysis does not have the rigorous controls required of full-blown academic research,

advocacy organization dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through ideas and action. We are creating a long-term, progressive* vision for America—

not exactly unbiased or founded on economics.

*emphasis mine

Simonjester wrote:
i just wasn't sure if you realized you picked a page with a bias and an agenda.
i tend to agree with the reasoning in the cartoon (and found the presentation funny) but i will listen to sound counter arguments. why will people hire more low income people if it costs more? why not just automate or make due with fewer employes, or raise prices?

notsheigetz wrote: Isn't the solution to the homeless problem in America to require every citizen to either own or rent a home - or face a fine from the IRS? Those who can't afford it can, of course, apply for subsidies to be financed by fees on the homeowners who can afford it.

And I have a perfect name for the legislation - the Affordable Housing Act (unless that name has already been taken which is quite possible). We already know it would pass muster with the Supreme Court - the precedent having been set recently.