Seattle Socialists Strangle Golden Goose

[JohnDonne]

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.

Your distinction is without a difference to the point you're making.

And I even agree with your argument. It's similar to saying, areas with orphanages have more orphans, so clearly the orphanages are "causing" increasing populations of orphans in the area. It's totally true on a literal level, but dishonest for the rhetorical point you seem to be angling for.

In other words, if you want to say homelessness in total is increased by social services, you'd have to prove it, and you've heard of correlation without causation, right?

[Fife]

Whatever you subsidize, you get more of.

Change my mind.

[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.

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.

The tax on amazon is for affordable housing, the affordable housing money is producing results, in the form of sixteen thousand affordable housing units, with the tax on big business to create 900 more, and the money for real estate is accounted for in the article. If you have a problem with the non-profits not accounting for the money, you should have specified your concern.

Now, I agree that the 750 million distributed to these non-profits needs to be accounted for, but just because it's not accounted for does not necessarily mean it is being used inefficiently. That's something where we would have to look closely to see what's going on. So the people of Seattle should have an audit, no doubt.

That's far from reason to stop building affordable housing though.

[JohnDonne]

Whatever you subsidize, you get more of.

Change my mind.

You're making the specific claim about homeless services causing more total homeless people. You have the burden of proof.

[JohnDonne]

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

Are you denying that the rent increases brought about by the tech boom resulted in homelessness? I think there's a study about that...

Oh and the head tax is for businesses that make over 20 million, not 38K. Slight difference, I realize.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Whatever you subsidize, you get more of.

Change my mind.

Wasn't one of DB's lectures in econ just about how subsidizing affordable housing reduces available affordable housing?

[Fife]

Whatever you subsidize, you get more of.

Change my mind.

You're making the specific claim about homeless services causing more total homeless people. You have the burden of proof.

lel, how many fingers am I holding up?

Res ipsa loquitur.

Once again, with feeling:

Whatever you subsidize, you get more of.

Have you ever heard of supply and demand curves?

[DBTrek]

Are you denying ...

If I didn't explicitly deny something then instead of typing "ARE YOU DENYING . . ." why don't you redirect that energy into fucking yourself? Jesus you all get tiresome. Progessive passive aggressive pussy posting 24/7.

Oh and the head tax is for businesses that make over 20 million, not 38K. Slight difference, I realize.

You think the head tax is the only tax Seattle City Council passed for affordable housing?
You probably do. And once you're proven wrong seven times over you'll locate a typo, a colloquialism, an analogy, or verb in the wrong tense in my post and immediately launch into a tiresome rendition of "Are you saying . . ."

You clearly don't live in King county as evidenced by your complete lack of knowledge surrounding this situation and the years of previous failures that have pushed people and businesses to the breaking point with the council. Rather than spoon feed you a decade of local news so you can perform the full range of leftist-diversions, excuses, and misdirections, I'm going to grab some dinner.

Good luck convincing anyone not already inducted into your cult of misanthropy that wasting a billion bucks is fine, as long as you have a pie chart (and no results). I'm sure it'll be the same smashing hit it always is with the mom's-basement crowd.

[Fife]

Whatever you subsidize, you get more of.

Change my mind.

Wasn't one of DB's lectures in econ just about how subsidizing affordable housing reduces available affordable housing?

What's being subsidized there, tardio?

"Affordable housing" or artificially depressed supply of housing?

Seems like what we got was a depressed supply of housing.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Whatever you subsidize, you get more of.

Change my mind.

Wasn't one of DB's lectures in econ just about how subsidizing affordable housing reduces available affordable housing?

What's being subsidized there, tardio?

"Affordable housing" or artificially depressed supply of housing?

Seems like what we got was a depressed supply of housing.

Looks like you don't get more of "whatever" you subsidize.

Hey look, I can use quotation marks too!