Why are cities on the left coast surprised that when they spend more on the homeless, they get more homeless people? Here is another question though. What if you had a soup kitchen for the hungry and no one showed up? Is that a failure or a triumph?  Would you advertise how great your free soup was?

That is a very basic question about the marketplace. Supply and demand exists even among the penniless. So in the empty soup kitchen example, is your soup trying to satisfy a demand, or is it creating a market? Its the chicken and egg question.

Keep in mind that if the market created by the empty kitchen does not have boundaries in place, then it might import one. Hungry people will talk about where they found a meal. They will eventually show up. And they will travel as far as it makes sense for them to participate in the market.

That is why government programs for the homeless, draw in more homeless. The new homeless village in L.A was even “happy to announce the Tiny Home Village on Chandler is almost at full capacity.” The homeless there are even provided food and other services.

In this case the homeless market may even be competing with the employed non-homeless. If someone had a choice to work to have a small home and basic necessities, versus not working and receive the same thing, the logical choice is to maximize your free time.

I’m not trying to propose a solution to homelessness. I am saying that increasing funding, and providing free homes, does not reduce the numbers of homeless in an area, and may even be a causal factor. It may sound good to say that we are fighting it but the current methods don’t show results. Its very similar to the war on poverty. After spending trillions, we still haven’t prevailed. We need to rethink it and look at results. Just letting the politicians throw money that direction and forget about it isn’t cutting it.