A hungry homeless person is everyone's problem and a huge risk. No matter how you slice it, you end up paying the price: the value of your house goes down, the crime rate goes up, etc. It is a myth that you can escape poverty. Sure, you can move to an expensive gated community with a white gloved guard shooing away the "undesirables", but why do you think it's so expensive?

Moreover, a hungry homeless person is a security risk. How many iPhones, GPS's, laptops, etc. are stolen in a smash-and-grab incidents? How many people get hurt? No, not by your friendly neighborhood homeless lady, but by a person who feels they have no other choice but to steal or a person who is hooked on an addictive substance and can't stop?

Poverty also does not take a lot of people. A few percent here and there will cause enough headaches to become noticeable.

And poverty is chronic in society. It's not like if you took all the homeless, poor, and hungry and shipped them off to some unknown land you'd rid of the problem. No, instead more people would be pushed into the margins, becoming poor. You have to treat the cause.

Therefore, if poverty is inherent in certain societal setups, if it is everyone's problem (i.e.: everyone pays the cost) and it takes only a small percentage of people being poor to become a big problem, it is in the interest of everyone to change the societal setup so that poverty is minimized. Your original point was that it's not the government's job to do this. I argue that it is. The government (by the people and for the people) would not be doing it's job if it wasn't taking care of me or the person next to me.

As an aside, some might argue that private charities work much more efficiently than governments when it comes to homelessness/poverty/hunger. Personally, I believe a balanced approach works best. Big slow moving government projects with lots of oversight and restrictions coupled with flexible and quick-acting private charities are much more effective than either of the two.

Wish I could upvote this enough.

Not to mention the toll on the children of the poor who do not get enough good nutrition, education, or a sense of safety and permanence to grow up to be respectable, law-abiding citizens.

That's what I don't get about allegedly intellectual, allegedly fiscally conservative people who are anti-welfare. They think that it's about not "giving a free ride" to people who "don't deserve" it. They are neither intellectual nor fiscally savvy enough to understand that there is always a cost, and to help and house people with welfare -- even people who will never "contribute" -- will cost far less in the long run than the ripple effect from feeling righteous.

>I disagree it is the governments job to give people a place to live. From the sounds of it, Hong Kong already does a lot of this. At some point, people need to take care of themselves.

The government IS the people. It's not some alien body as some people (mostly in the US) seem to think.

The government is the people voting to elect some representatives, so they can get some things done for them ("the country") that need massive co-ordination and central planning.

Of course it can go astray (politicians taking advantage of their power for their own benefit and such), but it's not like there such thing as "perfection" anywhere in life, be it private or public.

Right and if the people of Hong Kong thought the government should be providing suitable housing for everybody who comes to Hong Kong (note that many of these people are foreigners) then they would vote in politicians who would make that happen.

Not everybody who comes to HK, but permanent residents in HK. Foreigners shouldn't get to come and grab resources. One of the reasons property prices in HK is so ridiculously high is because of many mainlander speculators coming in buying up apartments, jacking demand even higher. The reason this city needs government intervention is because the government controls the majority of land supply, and there isn't nearly enough to satisfy everybody.

They could set up an emigration plan to somewhere less crowded.

As the video pointed out, only about half of government officials in Hong Kong are directly elected by the population. For the remainder, there is little pressure or incentive to get anything done in this regard.

Are governments here for the sake of their people? Or are people here for the sake of their governments?

You are free to hold your opinion. But at least be upfront with that you consider it an ideological issue as there obviously are reasonable alternatives to having poor people live in prison cells.

they are not being forced to live there, they are choosing to do so and paying rent. they are free to move anywhere else they want, including across the border to mainland china where it is much cheaper.

It is absolutely the governments job to give people places to live if they are unable (not unwilling) to do so on their own. The difficulty lies in determining who is truly unable and who is simply unwilling.

It is absolutely your opinion that it is their job.

It is the job of the people to determine what the job of the government is.

That was my point.

You're going to end up paying for it one way or another. Either in expensive prisons with armed guards, or by intervening before things get out of hand.