>Value for money, it's probably the most effective $43B anyone has spent in the US.
That seems unlikely. USD$43 billion could buy ~1,150,000 homes[0], which is double the number of homeless people in the US[1].
Getting a 1/2 million people into stable living situations could boost the economy by adding a couple hundred thousand to the work force (it's really hard to hold a decent job if you have no place to store your stuff or take a shower), with the median income for all workers over the age of 15 at ~USD40,000 [2] would add ~US$8,000,000,000 to the economy, as well as reducing dependence on public programs to help support them.
Of course, buying whole houses for half a million people isn't actually necessary. A reasonably sized apartment (based on household size) for each set of homeless folks would cost significantly less than that.
What's more, the children who could be helped by something like this are more likely to have good school experiences and improve their education -- boosting their lifetime earnings potential as well. Not to mention the economic boosts to local communities hit hard by homelessness.
So, no. Buying Twitter isn't anywhere close to the best use of US$43B. In fact, I suspect we could end homelessness in the US for significantly less than that. That seems a lot more useful than a payout to TWTR shareholders and making it one of Musk's vanity hobbies.
That seems unlikely. USD$43 billion could buy ~1,150,000 homes[0], which is double the number of homeless people in the US[1].
Getting a 1/2 million people into stable living situations could boost the economy by adding a couple hundred thousand to the work force (it's really hard to hold a decent job if you have no place to store your stuff or take a shower), with the median income for all workers over the age of 15 at ~USD40,000 [2] would add ~US$8,000,000,000 to the economy, as well as reducing dependence on public programs to help support them.
Of course, buying whole houses for half a million people isn't actually necessary. A reasonably sized apartment (based on household size) for each set of homeless folks would cost significantly less than that.
What's more, the children who could be helped by something like this are more likely to have good school experiences and improve their education -- boosting their lifetime earnings potential as well. Not to mention the economic boosts to local communities hit hard by homelessness.
So, no. Buying Twitter isn't anywhere close to the best use of US$43B. In fact, I suspect we could end homelessness in the US for significantly less than that. That seems a lot more useful than a payout to TWTR shareholders and making it one of Musk's vanity hobbies.
[0] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/median-home...
[1] https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homeless...
[2] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-27...