Seattle Socialists Strangle Golden Goose

[JohnDonne]

Trek, the Zillow study, and all the rent and homeless numbers I cited are from the first article I linked.

It's not a random article, it actually explains in great detail how the billion dollars is spent, not all of it is government money, and it would take a lot of quoting to cover it. There's a neat infograph too, feel free to actually read the article.

[Fife]

According to a study by Zillow, for every 5 percent rent increase about 256 people in Seattle become homeless.

As DB said already, I'd be thrilled to see this study by Zillow. Got a link? I'm a bit lazy when it comes to re-reading your posts.

I'm going to be especially interested in seeing the syllogism showing how x number of people "in" Seattle "become" homeless *because* of every y rent increase. Just show the relation between x and y.

Or, you know, you could just set out the syllogism yourself, since you quoted the conclusion you reached. It shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 lines, IMNSHO.

:goteam: :drunk:

[JohnDonne]

Here is the Zillow source:

https://www.zillow.com/research/rents-l ... ion-16124/

It’s well documented that there’s a connection between escalating rents and growing numbers of people experiencing homelessness. With this new research, w[media][/media]e quantify that effect in 25 major metro areas. We found that in four metros currently experiencing a crisis in homelessness — Los Angeles, New York, Washington, D.C., and Seattle – the relationship between rising rents and increased homelessness is particularly strong. In Washington, D.C., our model shows that a 5 percent average rent increase in 2016 would have translated to 224 additional people experiencing homelessness, for a total of 8,722. In Seattle, that increase would add 258 people to the homeless population for a total of 12,498.

Which is based on this study:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.09380

Dynamics of homelessness in urban America

The relationship between housing costs and homelessness has important implications for the way that city and county governments respond to increasing homeless populations. Though many analyses in the public policy literature have examined inter-community variation in homelessness rates to identify causal mechanisms of homelessness (Byrne et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2003; Fargo et al., 2013), few studies have examined time-varying homeless counts within the same community (McCandless et al., 2016). To examine trends in homeless population counts in the 25 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, we develop a dynamic Bayesian hierarchical model for time-varying homeless count data. Particular care is given to modeling uncertainty in the homeless count generating and measurement processes, and a critical distinction is made between the counted number of homeless and the true size of the homeless population. For each metro under study, we investigate the relationship between increases in the Zillow Rent Index and increases in the homeless population. Sensitivity of inference to potential improvements in the accuracy of point-in-time counts is explored, and evidence is presented that the inferred increase in the rate of homelessness from 2011-2016 depends on prior beliefs about the accuracy of homeless counts. A main finding of the study is that the relationship between homelessness and rental costs is strongest in New York, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Seattle.

[DBTrek]

Trek, the Zillow study, and all the rent and homeless numbers I cited are from the first article I linked.

It's not a random article, it actually explains in great detail how the billion dollars is spent, not all of it is government money, and it would take a lot of quoting to cover it. There's a neat infograph too, feel free to actually read the article.

Oh, you mean the article that explicitly states:

Homelessness is not a resource problem, experts say. It’s a communication problem. (Funny, city council is always seeking resources, not communication)

... Nearly three-quarters-of-a-billion dollars is flowing through the region’s nonprofits to tackle the homelessness crisis — but it’s unclear who is in charge of overseeing those funds and measuring the return on investment. (aka, as we already know, they city squanders hundreds of millions without accountability)

But all that has changed, right? Now that they’ve already squandered a billion, THIS time they’re going to be accountable. THIS time they’ll deliver some results. THIS time the money they’ve jacked out of Amazon, Starbucks, Dicks, Zillow, and countless other major employers at the cost of our job growth won’t simply disappear into the bureaucratic machine without a blip.

Nope. Sorry. Your social and political solutions are a billion dollar failure that have only exacerbated the problem on all fronts, for all parties. Take your disgusting graft-circus and homeless-exploitation-for-profit show somewhere else before Seattle winds up looking like Detroit.

[Fife]

The relationship between housing costs and homelessness has important implications for the way that city and county governments respond to increasing homeless populations.

I'm seeing that city and county governments aren't "responding" to increasing homeless populations. They are causing them.

Change my mind. Is there an argument, *any* argument in that stuff you put up, or in your mind, that addresses that?

[Speaker to Animals]

^^^ The critical point liberals don't want to admit. They create this.

[JohnDonne]

The relationship between housing costs and homelessness has important implications for the way that city and county governments respond to increasing homeless populations.

I'm seeing that city and county governments aren't "responding" to increasing homeless populations. They are causing them.

Change my mind. Is there an argument, *any* argument in that stuff you put up, or in your mind that addresses that?

Your argument is analogous to saying that animal shelters "cause" increasing populations of animals wherever they set up shop. If you can't see why that is silly then nothing I can say will change your mind.

[DBTrek]

You all must have missed their rock-solid premise that Amazon causes all this to happen by ruthlessly providing well-paying jobs. If it wasn’t for Amazon and their generous compensation packages no one in Seattle would shoot heroin or live on the street.

And from this genius premise they begin to formulate their various well-considered “solutions”, which mostly involve taxing the fuck out of Amazon and anyone evil enough to make more than $38k a year.

/shrug

[Fife]

Your argument is analogous to saying that animal shelters "cause" increasing populations of animals wherever they set up shop. If you can't see why that is silly then nothing I can say will change your mind.

Hoho. Dogs and cats are an analogue to heroin addicted freeloading humans making rational choices to fly towards the gibs. Okie-dokie.

At least I have an argument.

We'd all be enthralled with an argument from you, I'm sure. See my last post in this thread for details on what you fail at doing.

[Fife]

You all must have missed their rock-solid premise that Amazon causes all this to happen by ruthlessly providing well-paying jobs. If it wasn’t for Amazon and their generous compensation packages no one in Seattle would shoot heroin or live on the street.

And from this genius premise they begin to formulate their various well-considered “solutions”, which mostly involve taxing the fuck out of Amazon and anyone evil enough to make more than $38k a year.

/shrug

You read the book, DB. Can't you see that Bezos is "crowding out" the functions of the Seattle city council?

Bizarro world, kids. We're living in it.