So what's better for the world?

[wolfwings]

• Giving a single parent struggling with two jobs to make ends meet welfare.
  
• Handing the keys to an apartment to a homeless man for free indefinately.
  

Pick one.

Welcome to logic versus emotion when you start dealing with power-law statistical problems. Enjoy the headache.

Comments

Wow

[catwoman69y2k.livejournal.com]

This could be a meme of sorts...

I would say the single mom. I think the homeless man would be more likely to cause more problems. Granted, I have met many a homeless man that was truly down on his luck and was drug/alcohol free. However, the single mom strikes a different cord to me.

-Kat

Re: Wow

[wolfwings.livejournal.com]

Statistically, giving the homeless guy an apartment for free actually ends up costing less for the same benefit than giving the mother welfare. Because getting the homeless guy off the street prevents millions of dollars in medical bills over the course of a year when they get plastered and pass out on the street and catch pneumonia and other illnesses over and over again. And this isn't theory, this is what actually happens in documented cases. Ask anyone in an emergency room that has a homeless population nearby.

Yes, it's a very nasty idea to many people, even myself. There is a very large amount of instutionalized learning that creating any kind of dependancy for a small group of people is bad. But the simple fact is that a lot of problems are caused by a couple of bad apples. And 'bottling up' those bad apples somewhere removes a much larger burden. And the most effective way to contain such a bad apple is to create an artificial, but healthy dependancy.

It's a prime example of the goods, and evils, of truely rational cost effectiveness over emotional morals.

Re: Wow

[wolfwings.livejournal.com]

And feel free to Meme-ify this query if you feel like it. :-)