Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

Pouring more money into homelessness without fixing the underlying incentive structures does not solve the issue. Instead, it funds the bureaucracy around the problem, making it larger and more entrenched, as evidenced by NYC's budget nearly quadrupling while the homeless population grew.

Related Insights

Politicians are incentivized to pass more bills to show they are "doing something." However, this constant addition of regulation and process often makes issues like housing and education more expensive and complex, demonstrating a paradox where less government intervention could yield better results.

A bureaucracy can function like a tumor. It disguises itself from the "immune system" of public accountability by using noble language ("it's for the kids"). It then redirects resources (funding) to ensure its own growth, even if it's harming the larger organism of society.

The core issue for many on the streets is not a lack of housing but severe addiction. By mislabeling it 'homelessness,' society builds an 'industrial complex' around providing services that enable addictive behavior instead of mandating effective treatment.

Arguing to redirect inefficient government spending towards populist policies like free buses is a trap. It doubles down on a broken system by replacing one form of poor allocation with another, ultimately accelerating economic decline rather than fixing the fundamental problems.

Despite a massive budget increase from $36.5B to $127B since 2000, key metrics like safety and education have declined while population growth was minimal. This shows that simply increasing spending doesn't solve civic problems and often indicates deep inefficiency.

San Francisco's non-profits are often paid based on the number of homeless individuals they serve. This creates a perverse financial incentive to maintain and manage the homeless population like a "flock" rather than pursuing solutions that would permanently reduce their numbers and, consequently, the NGO's funding.

NYC spends more per homeless person than the median household income, yet its homeless population is growing. This suggests that without proper outcome tracking and incentive alignment, massive funding can simply make a social problem more comfortable and entrenched, rather than solving it.

Criticism of the 'non-profit industrial complex' is misplaced. The root cause of misaligned incentives is politicians failing to tie public funding to performance. Elected officials must create outcome-focused contracts that hold service providers accountable for measurable results, rather than just activity.

Despite a $150 billion state budget increase over six years, California has seen no corresponding improvement in critical areas like housing, education, or safety. This points to a systemic lack of accountability and misaligned incentives, not a lack of money.

For many in government, the state is their "startup." They are incentivized to increase their budget and influence. This can lead to perverse outcomes where a homelessness agency's success is measured not by reducing homelessness, but by growing its budget, which paradoxically requires more homeless people.

NYC's Increased Homeless Spending Actually Exacerbates the Problem | RiffOn