What's to be done about homelessness?

[DocJones]

I think the problem in west coast cities is more visible because they've made it very attractive for the homeless.
I rarely saw homeless as the police used to roust them and send them packing here.

[Ghostmaker]

I think the problem in west coast cities is more visible because they've made it very attractive for the homeless.
I rarely saw homeless as the police used to roust them and send them packing here.

Rousting them is kind of a short term solution. It's like being the little kid pushing his vegetables around his plate because he doesn't want to eat them.

[zircher]

I know Tucson used to have a policy of giving the homeless some spending money and then shipping them out of state via bus.  I'm sure San Diego and Los Angeles loved that.  Of course, moving the problem does not fix it and it didn't stop people from coming back and doing it again.

[DocJones]

I think the problem in west coast cities is more visible because they've made it very attractive for the homeless.
I rarely saw homeless as the police used to roust them and send them packing here.

Rousting them is kind of a short term solution. It's like being the little kid pushing his vegetables around his plate because he doesn't want to eat them.

You might be trying to solve a different problem. 

[jhkim]

Yeah, that works till you run out of other people's money.

Though with the newly anointed Pederast In Chief, I expect some of these big-spender blue states will be coming hat in hand to the federal government for bailouts. Sleepy Joe already plans, supposedly, to remove the SALT (state and local tax) cap on federal tax deductions, which means once again states with lower taxes will be propping up the ones with higher.

From what I read, red states with lower taxes tend to be *more* dependent on federal money. Blue states tend to have higher GDP per capita, and thus bring in more federal tax money more than federal aid. In the Wallethub study below, for example, the most dependent were New Mexico, Kentucky, and Mississippi - while the least dependent were Kansas, New Jersey, and Delaware.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700

https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid/

https://taxfoundation.org/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005/

If you dispute these, do you have an another source that shows different results, where blue states are more federally dependent?

[EOTB]

Blue states should vote to dismantle all the federal mandate laws which drive that statistic, and also fund a lot of blue voter sector laws in red states (education, Gov admin, etc)

Red state red voters probably wouldn’t mind

[Pat]

I think all states should have a balanced budget amendment.

I think all states should be made sovereign, when it comes to currency. California starts issuing Calibuxs, only accepts Calibuxs in payment of taxes and other fees, and issues all their debt in Calibuxs. That way, when their pension funds look unsustainable, they can just print more money. Because, doncha know, sovereign budgets don't work the same way as households budgets.

I suspect it would take less than ten years to prove that Modern Monetary Theory, or more generally Keynesian monetary policy, is completely unsustainable as California is wracked by credit defaults, hyperinflation, and a collapse of their economy.

[Pat]

I think the problem in west coast cities is more visible because they've made it very attractive for the homeless.
I rarely saw homeless as the police used to roust them and send them packing here.

Rousting them is kind of a short term solution. It's like being the little kid pushing his vegetables around his plate because he doesn't want to eat them.

It does force them out of sight. Which doesn't solve the underlying problem, but it does improve the quality of life for everyone else because it reduces the quantity of feces on Main Street.

[EOTB]

We’ve always had hobos.  We’re never going to get rid of hobos.  The difference is that hobos 100 years ago almost uniformly had the life skills of today’s Eagle Scouts and instead of street shitting would live on the move, able to live off the land to some extent.  Offering odd-job skills to earn extra money.  “Homelessness” was in some cases purposely chosen by capable misfits. 

Female/child homelessness has also always existed, but society devoted more effort to mitigation of that on the private/charity level

[Ghostmaker]

Yeah, that works till you run out of other people's money.

Though with the newly anointed Pederast In Chief, I expect some of these big-spender blue states will be coming hat in hand to the federal government for bailouts. Sleepy Joe already plans, supposedly, to remove the SALT (state and local tax) cap on federal tax deductions, which means once again states with lower taxes will be propping up the ones with higher.

From what I read, red states with lower taxes tend to be *more* dependent on federal money. Blue states tend to have higher GDP per capita, and thus bring in more federal tax money more than federal aid. In the Wallethub study below, for example, the most dependent were New Mexico, Kentucky, and Mississippi - while the least dependent were Kansas, New Jersey, and Delaware.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700

https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid/

https://taxfoundation.org/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005/

If you dispute these, do you have an another source that shows different results, where blue states are more federally dependent?

A couple things:

First, the statistics used to justify the 'red states are more dependent' usually pile in -military- spending. Like, for bases. Not exactly welfare there.

Second, the state and local tax deduction is one of the biggest scams in the system. Residents of states and municipalities get to apply that tax as a deduction against federal taxes. Since we can't just magic that money up, someone has to make up the balance -- usually states and municipalities with lower tax rates.

Third, you can lecture me all you like, but California's pension system is completely out of control. The unfunded liabilities are, if unchecked, going to absolutely cripple them -- hence why California's been trying to find ways to tax people who leave or don't actually LIVE in California.

And I guarantee there will be a bailout for those hard-blue states. Rewarded, for their fiscal incompetence.

[jhkim]

From what I read, red states with lower taxes tend to be *more* dependent on federal money. Blue states tend to have higher GDP per capita, and thus bring in more federal tax money more than federal aid. In the Wallethub study below, for example, the most dependent were New Mexico, Kentucky, and Mississippi - while the least dependent were Kansas, New Jersey, and Delaware.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700

https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid/

https://taxfoundation.org/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005/

If you dispute these, do you have an another source that shows different results, where blue states are more federally dependent?

A couple things:

First, the statistics used to justify the 'red states are more dependent' usually pile in -military- spending. Like, for bases. Not exactly welfare there.

Second, the state and local tax deduction is one of the biggest scams in the system. Residents of states and municipalities get to apply that tax as a deduction against federal taxes. Since we can't just magic that money up, someone has to make up the balance -- usually states and municipalities with lower tax rates.

Third, you can lecture me all you like, but California's pension system is completely out of control. The unfunded liabilities are, if unchecked, going to absolutely cripple them -- hence why California's been trying to find ways to tax people who leave or don't actually LIVE in California.

And I guarantee there will be a bailout for those hard-blue states. Rewarded, for their fiscal incompetence.

So you dispute the points, but you don't have any source that says differently? The state and local tax deductions are *included* in the calculations I gave. So, even with those deductions, blue states are still on average giving in more in federal taxes than they are receiving federal spending, compared to red states. I agree that the deduction can be seen as a scam -- but it is counterbalanced by the scam of getting more federal money.

As for military, in terms of economics, it's no different than any other federal government contract. It puts federal money into the state. If a state could get more military contracts and get more money, then the state benefits.

Yes, California has a problem with its pension system - but lots of states have different financial woes. In general, blue states are not financially incompetent. On average, blue states have higher GDP per capita and household income than red states. They host dominant financial institutions like Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley. There's plenty of problems in blue states to nitpick, but overall, their finances are no worse than red states.

In terms of general debt, California is roughly average in debt as a percentage of GDP, and less than, for example, Texas.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/state_spending_rank_2021pH0C

[David Johansen]

Well, I've got my American citizenship so if I ever wind up on the streets I'm headed south to somewhere warmer.  That's for sure.  You can't blame people who live out doors for wanting to live where the climate is mild.

[Pat]

In terms of general debt, California is roughly average in debt as a percentage of GDP, and less than, for example, Texas.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/state_spending_rank_2021pH0C

14% of $3.1 trillion is about $430 billion. Yet here's a source that says California's debt is $1.3 to 2.3 trillion, with pensions alone accounting for $1 trillion:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelbeccaro/2018/04/19/the-top-four-reasons-california-is-unsustainable/
I'd bet that 14% doesn't include unfunded liabilities. Which private companies are required to include on their balance sheets, by government regulators, because it's just common sense to include legally promised future commitments. But which the government frequently doesn't include on its own balance sheets, because they're trying to hide their own failures to control costs.

[Ghostmaker]

In terms of general debt, California is roughly average in debt as a percentage of GDP, and less than, for example, Texas.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/state_spending_rank_2021pH0C

14% of $3.1 trillion is about $430 billion. Yet here's a source that says California's debt is $1.3 to 2.3 trillion, with pensions alone accounting for $1 trillion:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelbeccaro/2018/04/19/the-top-four-reasons-california-is-unsustainable/
I'd bet that 14% doesn't include unfunded liabilities. Which private companies are required to include on their balance sheets, by government regulators, because it's just common sense to include legally promised future commitments. But which the government frequently doesn't include on its own balance sheets, because they're trying to hide their own failures to control costs.

Yup. Jhkim is cheerfully quoting statistics that are, how shall we say, 'massaged'. Hence why I'm not really paying much attention.

And of course, the proof is in the pudding; why else would California be trying to pass blatantly illegal tax codes targeting people outside its jurisdiction?

[jhkim]

Yes, California has a problem with its pension system - but lots of states have different financial woes. In general, blue states are not financially incompetent. On average, blue states have higher GDP per capita and household income than red states. They host dominant financial institutions like Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley. There's plenty of problems in blue states to nitpick, but overall, their finances are no worse than red states.

In terms of general debt, California is roughly average in debt as a percentage of GDP, and less than, for example, Texas.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/state_spending_rank_2021pH0C

14% of $3.1 trillion is about $430 billion. Yet here's a source that says California's debt is $1.3 to 2.3 trillion, with pensions alone accounting for $1 trillion:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelbeccaro/2018/04/19/the-top-four-reasons-california-is-unsustainable/
I'd bet that 14% doesn't include unfunded liabilities. Which private companies are required to include on their balance sheets, by government regulators, because it's just common sense to include legally promised future commitments. But which the government frequently doesn't include on its own balance sheets, because they're trying to hide their own failures to control costs.

Yup. Jhkim is cheerfully quoting statistics that are, how shall we say, 'massaged'. Hence why I'm not really paying much attention.

And of course, the proof is in the pudding; why else would California be trying to pass blatantly illegal tax codes targeting people outside its jurisdiction?

Yeah, the proof is in the pudding. When it really comes down to it, what matters to people's lives is proposed laws that haven't been passed.

Oh, wait. No, that's not the proof.

The proof is in actual results - in how people actually live. Things like GDP per capita, average lifespan, poverty rate, suicide rate, violent crime rate, and so forth. Yes, California has problems - but so do all the other states. When we compare *proven* results, California mostly does better than average. Regarding the statistics - if you have a comparison of unfunded liabilities by GDP per state, I'd love to see it. I didn't see a comparison of that in my search.