Thank you for clarifying your misunderstanding.
That misrepresents my words. Actually, I said
Not solve. Are you disputing that there would be fewer homeless in the park if minimum wage were enough to support someone?

Like you are with your own solution. Kill them? Help them? You don’t want your money to help feed them. You don’t want them in your park. What’s your plan?

Actually, my thoughts were in general terms at the time, and when you demanded specifics I hadn’t taken the time to do any calculations. I thought about it, and posted an estimate.

If you want minimum wage to be higher, suggest your own amount. I posted what I thought was a bare minimum.

Actually, I didn’t bring the government into it at all.
It’s the CEO, who makes $100 million, saying “I can exist on $80 million, I’ll put $20 million toward payroll and raise the standard of living for my employees, who can’t support themselves on $9.00/hour. See? Look Mom, no government!
And it was an either/or statement. Either society/government provides for these folks, with tax revenue, or business does, not by raising prices, but by not being wealth-gluttons. Except for the mentally ill and the prodigal sons, of course.:)

Hey, There’s an option I hadn’t considered.

Try living without those folks doing what they do.

Is that every homeless person? Probably not. How about we help the ones who will use the help? Pay them enough so that they aren't financially penalized for working? How can we, as a society, break the cycle? Should we do an "Escape from New York" or leper colony concept? What do we do?

While they might not be in danger of starving, there is increased exposure to disease and infection, and decreased access to healthcare, proper nutrition, etc.

I haven't met those homeless people.

Which has nothing to do with feeding them in the park. It's still political theater, and I'm not bound for find a "solution" to a phony problem. You claimed they were in danger of starving to death if FNB doesn't get to do their political theater, and that's bogus.

So...are you noww proposing some affirmative action program that eliminates the increased risks that arise from being homeless? That's looney.

Or are you just looking for another red herring to wave?

How would you know?

No, a red herring would be to claim that Isaid they were in danger of starving to death. I challenge you to supply a quote of that. Then we can get back on topic.
BTW, now has only one w.

And I haven't met the ones you describe.

My plan is exactly what's happening: running a food kitchen in the park is illegal. My money is dedicated to feeding and housing me and my family, and sending my kids to college so they'll be more likely to not be homeless.

I'd like to have some left over to live on when I'm too old to work, but that's not looking too strong right now; taxes for well-meaning entitlement programs soaked up all my retirement savings while I was unemployed for a few years. (Funny, nobody wanted to feed me then, in the park or otherwise...they still waned *me* to feed *them*). Fortunately I had enough to meet the above vital needs until I could improve my skills and become employable again.

No, I don't particularly...that's *your* idea. I lived though the Nixon administration, and I don't think wage controls are particularly useful. I prodded you to run the numbers to show you what a lame, ineffective idea it actually is.
Do you know such a CEO? I don't. That's a fantasyland scenario. You don't get to be a CEO by being altruistic.
Sure you have...it's implicit in your collectivist platform.

How many homeless people have you met? I'm guessing it's a small fraction of Wolf's cohort.

I missed the starve part.;)

What were you suggesting they would be left to die of? Boredom? The issue at hand to which you wished to return was feeding them in the park.

Didn't you watch the oreo video in ye olde video thread? A hell of a lot more oreos go to the pentagon than anywhere else. Don't blame high taxes on entitlements, blame the hawks.