You could give a bunch of homeless people housing, but there’s simply no structure around it. They have no money, and there’s no jobs. There’s no services around. They won’t be much better off than homeless in a big city tbh. Might be WORSE off.
There needs to be available housing near the places where there’s actually things to do, jobs to hold, services to use.
Worst part is, I bet a LOT of those ghots towns are suburban, not urban - so it makes it more difficult and expensive to build up a new community there. Everything is spaced out
Homeless people, on average, contribute less to society than housed people, on average. Generally multiple societal structural failures and bad luck are major contributions to a person ending up homeless, but their own genetic- and nuture-driven characteristics play a role, too, and having a higher physical and mental disability burden than the average human is common.
Also, living remotely often means subsistence is a major part of how people get on, and subsistence is an intensely knowledge- and skill-based task highly specific to locale. Hunting in rural Alaska is not immediately transferable to hunting in Greenland, and dumping someone in rural Montana is not going to poof make them an expert gatherer.
Sounds like all those places need are people to live in them.
It’s a win-win.
They need economic activity to be livable. Shoving broke people onto a reservation doesn’t accomplish that.
They create the economic activity.
More people living in an area means there’s more to do and more people to do it.
On average, each additional person contributes more than they take out.
You have to go back and actually read Kapital.
Visit a refugee camp and explain that to the locals
…But nobody wants to live there.
You could give a bunch of homeless people housing, but there’s simply no structure around it. They have no money, and there’s no jobs. There’s no services around. They won’t be much better off than homeless in a big city tbh. Might be WORSE off.
There needs to be available housing near the places where there’s actually things to do, jobs to hold, services to use.
Worst part is, I bet a LOT of those ghots towns are suburban, not urban - so it makes it more difficult and expensive to build up a new community there. Everything is spaced out
Stalin thought Siberia needed a lot of people living there. Look how that turned out.
Forgive my ignorance; I don’t know much about Siberia other than it is desolate and not much fun. How did that turn out?
You need jobs near those places first. The locations are dying because of lack of industry.
The people who move there will create jobs and demand.
That’s really not how it works. If you’re homeless you’re not in a position to be a job creator.
More people living in a location means there is more work to be done and more people to do it.
Each additional person, on average, can contribute more than they take out.
If that were universally applicable the towns wouldn’t be dying to begin with. The houses are empty because there’s a lack of available work.
You are incorrect.
Homeless people, on average, contribute less to society than housed people, on average. Generally multiple societal structural failures and bad luck are major contributions to a person ending up homeless, but their own genetic- and nuture-driven characteristics play a role, too, and having a higher physical and mental disability burden than the average human is common.
Also, living remotely often means subsistence is a major part of how people get on, and subsistence is an intensely knowledge- and skill-based task highly specific to locale. Hunting in rural Alaska is not immediately transferable to hunting in Greenland, and dumping someone in rural Montana is not going to poof make them an expert gatherer.
A lot of those places suck and they’re not going to turn into vibrant cultural centers with social services quickly.
It won’t happen overnight.
If homeless people would prefer living in tents under highways, that’s their choice.