Buying up all the affordable housing and charging out the ass for it, lobbying to keep wages low so most people can barely afford into (and refusing to sell to people of color a la redlining), outsource manufacturing jobs overseas to not have to pay Americans as much. Just a few things the rich do to make our lives worse just for a few extra dollars.
If the system is designed to keep people homeless, how do you reconcile that with California’s direct cash subsidies, rent assistance, and housing-first programs for the homeless? California spends more per capita on homelessness than any other state, yet still has the highest per capita homeless rate in the U.S. Doesn’t that suggest a policy failure rather than a deliberate design to keep people down?
Are you claiming all of this is actively happening today at a systemic scale? Redlining is illegal, outsourcing is a global trade pattern, and large landlords operate under state housing laws. If your point is literal, it should be measurable then what’s your source showing this is current and universal rather than selective examples?
Redlining is illegal, but its consequences still negatively affect people because those effected couldnt build generational wealth. Outsourcing being global doesnt make corporate heads any less guilty of stripping jobs in america. There are more empty housing units than homeless people in the US, and most of those are bought up by corporate firms. There is no universe where that isnt MASSIVELY unjust, and there is no universe where the poor are to blame for it.
You’ve now moved from claiming current actions cause homelessness to mixing historic wrongs, moral opinions, and selective stats. Redlining’s legacy is real, but it doesn’t prove present intent. Outsourcing is global, and “empty units” stats often include seasonal housing, construction, or uninhabitable properties, not just corporate hoarding. If your claim is that these directly cause today’s homelessness, can you show data tying them together at scale?
This is the height of false equivalencies in that this is two totally different funding systems. Military or infrastructure projects use earmarked budgets, fast-track approvals, and federal jurisdiction whereas housing projects face local zoning, permitting, environmental review, and community opposition. If it’s “never about the money,” can you show an example where those barriers didn’t exist and shelters still weren’t built?