624
submitted 4 months ago by gedaliyah@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The Oregon case decided Friday is the most significant to come before the high court in decades on the issue and comes as a rising number of people in the U.S. are without a permanent place to live.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] kevindqc@lemmy.world 39 points 4 months ago

So, where are they supposed to sleep? In a jail cell?

[-] toomanypancakes@lemmy.world 41 points 4 months ago

Yep! That way they can be used for slave labor for the owner class.

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 18 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

At a far higher rate than actually employing them at the median income would be as well.

the median state spent $64,865 per prisoner for the year.

The only reason that companies want prison labor is because it is cheap for them since the taxpayers are subsidizing the labor costs.

Overall it would be cheaper for states to just pay the homeless the median income than to incarcerate them. A lower rate that could be described as a basic income that is implemented universally would go pretty far in both increasing the opportunities for the homeless to afford housing and reduce the chance of people from becoming homeless.

[-] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

See, this is the most frustrating part of the American homeless crisis. Literally the cheapest solution is to just build free housing.

The cheapest solution is to just fix the problem, but instead we choose to do more expensive things that don't do anything to address the issue, but may possibly make it temporarily someone else's problem.

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 10 points 4 months ago

Incarcerating them is a benefit for multiple terrible reasons!

  • Cheap, state subsidized labor.
  • Gets undesirables out of public spaces so fragile people don't have to acknowledge their existence.
  • Gives those in power ammunition in the form of incarceration rates for riling up the masses about 'crime'.
  • Gives undesirables a history of incarceration so they can be denied other things if they somehow get out of their situation.
  • Gives undesirables a history of incarceration so they can be an easy suspect for criminal activity.
[-] lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 4 months ago

You don't even have to build housing. The US has more vacant homes than it does homeless people.

[-] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 4 months ago

It's that high to employ all the guards and construction and wardens and whatnot. A lot of hands are in that cookie jar.

[-] treefrog@lemm.ee 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

As well as to extract tax money from the working class. As it makes more economic sense to house and rehabilitate a person then it does to put them in jail. But the jail tends to have more kickbacks for the owner class.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 13 points 4 months ago

Yes, and without what meager belongings they had prior to arrest. Any changes of clothes, tent, coats, bicycle, all gone.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

I'm seeing people who are very likely homeless walking down busy highways and even the interstate to get to the town where I live, presumably to go to the jobs they still have despite being "lazy homeless people." Walking down them miles out of town. They must have to walk for 2 or 3 hours minimum just to get to work. It would take them 2 hours to get to the nearest bus stop from where I often see them walking (near a woods where they must be camping).

A significant number of them are Latino, and this town does not have a large native Latino population, making me think they are migrants who ended up homeless after hoping to come to America for a better life.

I assume Republicans think all of that is just fine.

[-] GluWu@lemm.ee 4 points 4 months ago

This is the ground work to start mass deportation during project 2025 when Trump wins.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

In the case of CA, these people are going to be given in shelter beds. (I know, it sounds counterintuitive to the ruling.)

The main reason CA brought the case is because they aren’t allowed force portions of their unhoused populations indoors. They can’t move a segment of the population unless there is enough space for the entire population.

So, if a county had beds for half of the unhoused population, and it wanted to bring half of them indoors, it couldn’t. It could only make moves once it had beds for all.

I’m sure some place will be shitty and will just throw people in jail, but the big west cost cities have a lot of unfilled shelter beds that they would like to fill.

And all that being said, a lot of these unhoused people are avoiding shelters for a reason. Being on the street is actually preferable to what people experience in some shelters. So, as much as Newsom will tell you that he wants to be compassionate and give people a bed, he’s not telling you that bed is next to a psycho that’s going to scream all night then assault someone.

this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
624 points (99.7% liked)

News

23284 readers
3494 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS