The key point here is that the lifestyle being subsidized, as awful as it may be, is still less awful than what anyone attracted to it would be doing otherwise. If true, and I find it plausible, this would invalidate your objection.
The key point here is that the lifestyle being subsidized, as awful as it may be, is still less awful than what anyone attracted to it would be doing otherwise.
Really? You don’t think anyone would decide to go through the agony of detoxification and recovery because they have to endure more of the negative effects of their addiction? No one is at that marginal point of overcoming their addiction?
I think the idea is that you have to be beyond that point to go to wet houses. Of course, this just makes it so someone would make it look like they’re beyond that point. Instead of breaking their addiction they just have to last long enough to be accepted to a wet house.
Seeing your reply to FAWS (for which you forgot to credit Megan McArdle), I think you’re rushing too quickly to analogize a correct insight from one problem to a different one. It may be that unlike in the other case, the number of people on the relevant margin is far smaller here, possibly negligibly small, and this does sound plausible to me given the nature of the problem. You are of course welcome to disagree, but note that I merely said that I find this plausible, whereas you’re coming out with very confident assertions without evidence.
Moreover, with the example you cited (subsidizing illegitimacy through welfare), there is the additional problem that one of the main costs of the behavior in question used to be the strong social stigma attached to it. For this reason, subsidizing it caused a runaway feedback process in which the increased incidence of illegitimacy due to the subsidy increasingly eroded the stigma, thus further lowering the cost, until the situation settled in a wholly different equilibrium. I don’t think any such runaway feedback could occur in the wethouse case.
I can imagine wet-houses being overrun by frat boys who just want to drink all the time. This seems like a possible avenue for a runaway feedback loop.
It seems from the article that for the people in the wet house in question there is no marginal point of overcoming their addiction. They’ve decided that given a choice between continued sufferring on the street and an early death, or getting clean in a treatment program, they prefer continued alcoholism and death.
Take a look at this 5-minute clip of supper time at a wet house. They’re not getting clean, regardless of whether they’re in a wet house or not. They’ve chosen to die slowly, and they’ll do that whether they’re homeless or not.
The key point here is that the lifestyle being subsidized, as awful as it may be, is still less awful than what anyone attracted to it would be doing otherwise. If true, and I find it plausible, this would invalidate your objection.
Really? You don’t think anyone would decide to go through the agony of detoxification and recovery because they have to endure more of the negative effects of their addiction? No one is at that marginal point of overcoming their addiction?
I think the idea is that you have to be beyond that point to go to wet houses. Of course, this just makes it so someone would make it look like they’re beyond that point. Instead of breaking their addiction they just have to last long enough to be accepted to a wet house.
Seeing your reply to FAWS (for which you forgot to credit Megan McArdle), I think you’re rushing too quickly to analogize a correct insight from one problem to a different one. It may be that unlike in the other case, the number of people on the relevant margin is far smaller here, possibly negligibly small, and this does sound plausible to me given the nature of the problem. You are of course welcome to disagree, but note that I merely said that I find this plausible, whereas you’re coming out with very confident assertions without evidence.
Moreover, with the example you cited (subsidizing illegitimacy through welfare), there is the additional problem that one of the main costs of the behavior in question used to be the strong social stigma attached to it. For this reason, subsidizing it caused a runaway feedback process in which the increased incidence of illegitimacy due to the subsidy increasingly eroded the stigma, thus further lowering the cost, until the situation settled in a wholly different equilibrium. I don’t think any such runaway feedback could occur in the wethouse case.
I can imagine wet-houses being overrun by frat boys who just want to drink all the time. This seems like a possible avenue for a runaway feedback loop.
Thanks, I edited to add.
It seems from the article that for the people in the wet house in question there is no marginal point of overcoming their addiction. They’ve decided that given a choice between continued sufferring on the street and an early death, or getting clean in a treatment program, they prefer continued alcoholism and death.
Take a look at this 5-minute clip of supper time at a wet house. They’re not getting clean, regardless of whether they’re in a wet house or not. They’ve chosen to die slowly, and they’ll do that whether they’re homeless or not.