The issue of why you came and why you stayed are inter-connected. Some examples:
> Other reasons for moving to San Francisco cited in the homeless count were that they were looking for work
So they move for work, and a part of that, at least, is benefits if/when they don't find it. "If I go to SF, I can get welfare, which means I've got an extra month to find a job. I'll get one for sure in three months".
> that they were traveling through
And the benefits encouraged them to stay vs move on? Who knows?
I'm not saying it is true that stopping welfare would SOLVE the problem. Rather, homelessness in SF is at least partly a result of the benefits and caring, and that may not be a bad thing. An extra X homeless in SF vs in a less caring city may be a net positive for the USA. To say that SF's welfare options don't affect the total homeless population is overstating the case.
The deeper problem is EVERYONE is biased here, and the truth is hidden beneath 400 layers of guilt, emotion and in-group signalling, and no one is clear on what a "solution" means.
Not you; you seem to just be making up a series of random reasons that people might do things off the top of your head, and using them as some sort of evidence that listening to people who actually spoke to and surveyed the effected people and the people who work with them is equally as worthless as what you're saying.
> The deeper problem is EVERYONE is biased here, and the truth is hidden beneath 400 layers of guilt, emotion and in-group signalling, and no one is clear on what a "solution" means.
This is not the deeper problem. We were talking about the homeless.
> Other reasons for moving to San Francisco cited in the homeless count were that they were looking for work
So they move for work, and a part of that, at least, is benefits if/when they don't find it. "If I go to SF, I can get welfare, which means I've got an extra month to find a job. I'll get one for sure in three months".
> that they were traveling through
And the benefits encouraged them to stay vs move on? Who knows?
I'm not saying it is true that stopping welfare would SOLVE the problem. Rather, homelessness in SF is at least partly a result of the benefits and caring, and that may not be a bad thing. An extra X homeless in SF vs in a less caring city may be a net positive for the USA. To say that SF's welfare options don't affect the total homeless population is overstating the case.
The deeper problem is EVERYONE is biased here, and the truth is hidden beneath 400 layers of guilt, emotion and in-group signalling, and no one is clear on what a "solution" means.