> San Francisco homelessness is not a question about rich vs. poor.
Yes, it is.
> It's a question about what to do with people who are mentally handicapped and/or drug abusers.
Drug addicts and the mentally ill and/or handicapped who are not also poor have support systems and treatment options available, and are not part of the homelessness problem. So, yes, its about mental illness and drug addiction -- but also very much about rich vs. poor.
> This is partially a money problem, but it's largely a social problem.
Its a resource distribution problem; its not "partially a money problem" or "largely a social problem", its is completely both (money problems are equivalent to resource distribution problems and are a subset of social problems.)
> A lot of other countries deal with this better because they have stronger family support structures.
There may be some cases where countries do this better because of family support structures, but I can't think of any clear examples -- perhaps you could provide some. Most modern developed nations do it better because they have stronger public social support structures.
> Programming can help, but this isn't a programming problem.
This much is true. Its a policy (and, at a more fundamental level, values) problem, not a technical problem.
> Everyone here who's arguing about their superior European social programs are really preaching to the quire,
"Choir" is probably the word you are looking for; preaching to sheets of paper isn't exactly a sensible metaphor.
> because most Americans on Hacker News would kill to have these social programs.
I don't see much evidence for that "most Americans on Hacker news" would be willing to give up America's bias toward largely privatized health care financing, and income tax system that's heavily favorable to capital, and policy of financing a major part of the existing social support system via additional taxes that fall exclusively on labor for a stronger social support systems, much less that they would be willing to "kill" for such systems.
Yes, it is.
> It's a question about what to do with people who are mentally handicapped and/or drug abusers.
Drug addicts and the mentally ill and/or handicapped who are not also poor have support systems and treatment options available, and are not part of the homelessness problem. So, yes, its about mental illness and drug addiction -- but also very much about rich vs. poor.
> This is partially a money problem, but it's largely a social problem.
Its a resource distribution problem; its not "partially a money problem" or "largely a social problem", its is completely both (money problems are equivalent to resource distribution problems and are a subset of social problems.)
> A lot of other countries deal with this better because they have stronger family support structures.
There may be some cases where countries do this better because of family support structures, but I can't think of any clear examples -- perhaps you could provide some. Most modern developed nations do it better because they have stronger public social support structures.
> Programming can help, but this isn't a programming problem.
This much is true. Its a policy (and, at a more fundamental level, values) problem, not a technical problem.
> Everyone here who's arguing about their superior European social programs are really preaching to the quire,
"Choir" is probably the word you are looking for; preaching to sheets of paper isn't exactly a sensible metaphor.
> because most Americans on Hacker News would kill to have these social programs.
I don't see much evidence for that "most Americans on Hacker news" would be willing to give up America's bias toward largely privatized health care financing, and income tax system that's heavily favorable to capital, and policy of financing a major part of the existing social support system via additional taxes that fall exclusively on labor for a stronger social support systems, much less that they would be willing to "kill" for such systems.