People call it "the homeless problem". That's because it IS a problem. In an ideal world, would there be homeless people? No. End of discussion. Now, I'm not saying you should bomb them off the planet - far from it. You should take them out of being 'homeless' and just make them normal citizens.
NOTE: I'm just spitballing here. Obviously, I am not an economics major or someone who is intensively looking at statistics or anything of the sort. If you're going to nitpick everything or get butt-hurt about this article, do both me and yourself a favor and skip it. If you're willing to listen to this as a normal conversation and bounce some ideas back and forth like intended, go right ahead.
There's 3 problems that contribute to homelessness: 1) laziness, 2) substance abuse, 3) bad luck. You can't really solve bad luck. Substance abuse and laziness would still contribute to being homeless but at least at that point, you've given people a chance at redemption and they've CHOSEN to remain homeless. At that point, well, you can't help those that don't want to help themselves and if someone is a burden and nothing more, they need to be removed from the system somehow.
Why is it that immigration continues to exist? Because people are able to get jobs that allow them to stay here. Why are they getting these jobs? Because they work for little pay. Why are places employing them for such little pay? Because that way, THEY can make more money. The problem isn't that everyone is trying to cheat the system - the problem is that the system isn't allowing them an alternative to AVOID cheating the system. It's the argument that people bring up with downloading piracy problems. I don't want to spend $10 per movie, so I might either download it for free or watch a DVD I borrowed from my friend for free. Either way, you're losing money, but that's because you're being greedy. If you were charging me $5, maybe I would take the risk and see it at the movies rather than choose a free option. Maybe if these companies had legal methods to save money on employees that were willing to work cheaper than normal, they'd do it and not hire illegal immigrants to do the jobs.
Hire the homeless at the same relaxed, sub-minimum wage rates. You might be arguing that that means I'm saying they're less than human and not deserving of the minimum wage. I'm not saying that. But if you force them to hire them at minimum wage, you either have to LOWER the minimum wage rate for everyone (which won't work) or you have to accept the fact that it won't work as that is already in place and nobody does it. The ENTIRE point is that they aren't willing to hire people at that much money.
You might be thinking right now that this will cause a problem where employers will only hire homeless people to save money on their wages. That's why you put a limit on the number that they can hire. Put a cap on the number of employees that they can hire in this program. It's all about limitations and balance. Businesses want to make the most amount of money possible and they should be trying to do that. Just in the same regard, employees are trying to make the most amount of money possible - and they should.
So instead of having homeless people taken out of the equation, you give them an option. They can choose to do the job at a lower rate or they can choose to remain homeless. For each homeless person that opts to do this, the government will place them in a program that gives them some help (some food, shelter, clothing, etc). They pay income tax to help this out and they're able to keep some of their money for themselves. The companies that hire these homeless people are given some tax breaks -- incentive to do it. This will help people have a better chance at moving out on their own and NOT being homeless, wherein they can go find a different, better job and get their life back on track. That means less homeless people. Less homeless people means less crime, less money spent on the homeless people and on anything they become a burden to, etc. Public transportation is utilized to get them to the jobs. Other jobs open up as people are employed to oversee this program. Everyone wins out...except of course, illegal immigrants.
The illegal immigrants are suddenly being pushed out of their job positions because they can't find that work. Doing it illegally means the companies don't get those incentives, as they can't register them as working for them. America is still a country where we'll take you in and you can become a citizen but by doing so, you have to go through the proper system. Then, once you're a citizen, there's no "illegal immigration" problem in regards to you getting a job as you're entitled to any of them that you want. Less illegal immigrants in the country helps tone down crime as well as spending less money for programs about illegal immigration and so on.
In the end, we get a country with people that are citizens, we help our homeless problem, and everyone saves money. All it takes is people actually giving a shit to help each other out and not having our priorities out of order. Would it take time? Sure it would. Every kind of change takes time. Would it 100% solve both problems? Of course not. There would still be homeless people and there would still be people illegally coming into the country - but there would be significantly less. Morale would go up. When morale is up, people accomplish more and they're more willing to give to each other and help each other out.
|Now, let's go watch the baseball match!|