this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
1249 points (98.4% liked)

Enough Musk Spam

2272 readers
594 users here now

For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.

No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.

Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.

Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.

Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

You don't have to believe it, good lord!

650,000 homeless people times one thousand in rent for twenty years.

650000 x $1,000 x 20 years = $13 billion. That leaves enough left over to also feed them for 20 years as well

Do you believe it now!? Don't answer that, because it is clear you have a serious case of learned helplessness.

Edit:

650,000 x 12 x $1,000 x 2.5 years of rent with no food. Buuuut Elon gained 50 billion so that would be over 5 years with food. He could house every homeless person and feed them with the money he made since the election.

[–] draneceusrex@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Wouldn't that be $1k a month minimum? Even if you could find housing at that price where most destitute people are located... that's $7.8 Billion a year.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Yeah your right. That would only pay for almost three years. Honestly though $1000 may be a bit high for a room, but perhaps not an actual house depending on the area.

[–] shishka_b0b@lemm.ee 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Yeah that was not right

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Putting aside your confusion on monthly versus annual rent, the pricing you are thinking of has baked in the assumption that the homeless are not participating. Every value is based on supply and demand, and there's no such thing as a true objective numerical value for "a month of rent". If hypothetically you have housing for a 1,000 but 1,500 people to house, then the rent is going to go up so long as 1,000 can afford what's available, and 500 would be left out.

Of course with more incentive, construction can happen, but just saying it's not that simple.

See also cost of college. Well intended measures to make financing available to everyone caused massive cost increases in universities. Any measure to try to secure these resources for everyone requires more than just throwing cash at the problem.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yeah my math was way off.

Putting people in tents is just ridiculous. You need to get that thought far out of your mind.

No need for construction though as there are already more empty homes than homeless by a large margin.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

I would wonder about the distribution of available housing stock. If you can place every homeless person, but to do so you tell them they have to move 80 miles to the empty house you find for them, that is likely not going to work.

Also, they likely need more than just a roof over their heads to have a safe, healthy life. There's a high likelihood of that housing stock being mismatched with the capacity to provide those services.