A situation like that is almost unimaginable. Sounds like a potential idea for a startup/app though. If the author got together with another homeless person they could probably get an apartment between them.
I really like your approach: hear a problem, extend sympathy, but also propose a possible solution. Obviously your proposed solution has a lot of possible problems, but that doesn't mean they can't be solved.
Odds are good that she'll end up with a shared apartment, but she's already done that once (though not starting out with someone else homeless) and it didn't work out well.
I suspect the biggest problem with finding another homeless person or two to share an apartment with is what she already ran into - for a lot of homeless there are mental health issues that may have led to them being homeless in the first place. Many who are homeless also are going to have a hard time covering even part of the cost of an apartment, particularly since it's going to be harder to find and keep a job without having a permanent place to stay in the first place. Finally, I suspect that many cities have limitations on how many unrelated adults can live in a single residential unit - something that for many it'd be easy to ignore, but for a small group of people it could make it very difficult to secure an initial lease unless one of the group members was able to demonstrate the resources to get the lease on their own anyway.
> CeliaSue Hecht’s writing work has been featured in more than 40 local and national newspapers and magazines, on her dog travel blog, in newsletters, and in five romantic travel guides. She has traveled around the world and has written and led seminars and workshops in the US and Europe. Her travels have included about 245 cities. She can be contacted by email at prmatchmaker@yahoo.com or on her website celiasue.com.
I'm a little confused. Her blog and personal site make it seem like it's more of a lifestyle choice than a victim of circumstance. Perhaps both?
Anyway, I don't think social security was designed to be a complete retirement plan. I agree with the author about some laws discriminating those without permanent lodging (e.g. many places it's illegal to sleep in your car), but I hope that able and intelligent people take responsibility for their own retirement.
There are probably no greater predictors of success than a stable marriage and delaying children. I know people like to roll their eyes when conservatives talk about this stuff, but shouldn't we try to increase focus on the two greatest predictors of success?
Is encouraging people who wouldn't otherwise get married to get married going to produce stable marriages? I would imagine that it would produce more of the other kind.
What percentage of 16-year-olds understand that who they marry and when they have children are the greatest predictors of their success? Can we increase that number?
This isn't about getting Tommy to marry Jane. It's about a more general cultural education.
Probably says more about the cultural acceptance of divorce in cultures that have arranged marriages than it does about the success of arranged marriages.
If you get married, and the marriage falls apart, it's because of your personal failings. If you don't get married, and your life falls apart, it's because you didn't get married.
Either way, if you want to be successful, clearly you should get married!
I think you underestimate the advantages of marriage for people living on the margins. I suppose my suggestion sounds quaint, to some. But a partner in the struggle makes a life-altering difference to marginalized people.
So, yes, I think we should better educate children about the importance of this decision.
> CeliaSue Hecht’s writing work has been featured in more than 40 local and national newspapers and magazines, on her dog travel blog, in newsletters, and in five romantic travel guides. She has traveled around the world and has written and led seminars and workshops in the US and Europe. Her travels have included about 245 cities. She can be contacted by email at prmatchmaker@yahoo.com or on her website celiasue.com.
I'm a little confused. Her blog and personal site make it seem like it's more of a lifestyle choice than a victim of circumstance. Perhaps both?
Anyway, I don't think social security was designed to be a complete retirement plan. I agree with the author about some laws discriminating those without permanent lodging (e.g. many places it's illegal to sleep in your car), but I hope that able and intelligent people take responsibility for their own retirement.
I think that her blog and personal site are making the best of a bad situation. If she was focused there on homelessness it might have a major impact on her ability to get temporary, freelance or permanent work as well as on her readership and any income she can get from that.
The fact that she's currently without a permanent residence doesn't change any of the other things you quoted, any more than someone taking a lower-skilled job during a downturn would mean that "working retail is a lifestyle choice."
People do live off of ~600$/month in the south west. No need for heating and you can get away without cooling. An acre of land is as low as ~1,000$ or so to buy. Add some minimal shelter, water, and minimal electricity plus some very minimal taxes..
It's not what I would call pleasant, their are few jobs, and transportation is an issue. However, basic food and shelter can be really cheap.
Young healthy people can get away without cooling in the southwest, but can an elderly person who has been hospitalized thirteen times in the past year?
For the most part they don't need active cooling. At near ambient temperatures and low humidity it's generally easy to keep cool assuming your in the shade and not actively moving. With a well designed house it's often stays in the upper 70's to low 80's even during extreme heat because the nights are often cold.
The real issue is many structures are designed to be actively cooled so they get much hotter than ambient temperatures which is an issue. The urban heat island effect also tends to make thing far worse for homeless populations.
People will also do things like fill a cheap kiddie pool with water under a tarp which will take the edge off. In extreme days you can even add some ice cubes to that, but just as heating a kotatsu is much cheaper than heating a room this is fairly cheap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotatsu
PS: I recommend using a comforter to make a low cost Kotatsu out of a computer desk in you use your PC near the window in the winter. You stay comfortable at a much lower room temperature.
Not having active cooling in the arid southwest US does not necessarily mean dangerously hot during the day. When night-time temps can hit the 50s and 40s in higher elevations, a house with decent mass can remain comfortably cool throughout the day if you ventilate properly at night.
That's surprisingly cheap. Would your $1k acre have permission to put up a dwelling (there are some land restrictions here in the UK)?
Not sure what I'd do near retirement age in that situation. I'd be torn between staying near work I might not get for age discrimination reasons, and building a retirement cabin to see out my days looking at trees and surfing the net. If I had health issues I might want reasonable distance to doc and hospital.
Not all land let's you build there, and water is often a larger issue in the south west. But, the point is when land is cheap renting it is also cheap. Budget shelter at say 120$/month, food at 60$/month and living off of 600$ / month becomes far more reasonable. Transportation, and entertainment can be hard. At 55 walking a few miles to town and back with say 20lb of supplies might not seem so bad at 70 it's a much larger risk. Eventually most people flat out can't drive or walk so there are also end of life issues.
PS: Medicine is also a huge issue, but such is life.
That specific case may have all kinds of issues, like any purchase buyer beware. You generally want someplace close to people that let's you live there. Further, transaction costs are not free. However, the point is land is cheap, making renting it cheap, not that someone would necessarily want to buy any specific part of it.
If 1/3 of population is >50 years old, a random subset of this population is expected to have 1/3 of >50 years old as well. After reading this title, one could get an impression that this part is un-proportionally big, which is not.
"The statistic grew from ~25% to 33%. This is noteworthy."
That's the whole point! Compare to, for example: "Homeless people in America that are over 50 increased by 30%". See the difference? "A third" is just what one would expect from pure statistics.
I'm really confused as to what your point is. Just because over-51s now represent their demographic in homeless population as well, doesn't negate the fact that there was a MASSIVE upward trend in over-51s in the homeless population. If the trend continues, wait a few years and they'll be severely over-represented.
Imagine people 50 and under all of a sudden accounted for 70% of Alzheimers diagnoses. Would you say that's not notable, because 70% of the population is 50 or under?
In the US, a meaningful fraction of the population over fifty is receiving direct cash distributions in the form of Social Security [and perhaps other forms of 'retirement checks']. Such direct cash support is much less common among the rest of the population. One way of looking at it is that the rate of homelessness among people over 50 is what it is despite the rates at which individuals within it recieve of direct cash support.
Except it's not a 'random subset', it's the subset of homeless people. If you take the subset of poor people or the subset of sick people I would expect a different distribution than that of the whole population.
My take is that perhaps the rate of homelessness tracking overall demographic distribution might cause one to question the education->work->retirement life-cycle model wherein cohorts achieve greater financial stability and autonomy as they age. If we consider homelessness as some objective measure, under the EWR life-cycle model, rates of homelessness should decline due to the accumulation of benefits from many years of education and work in the aggregate of the cohort.
Alright, these situations are sad, and sometimes unavoidable due to what is essentially "bad luck". I can't imagine being caught in the vicious cycle.
But I do take issue with:
>The housing crash and its chilling effect on mortgage lending have hit the poor the hardest...Homeowners are being replacing by renters, as the American dream of owning your own property is becoming increasingly a luxury for the rich and upper middle class.
Why should "the poor" have access to mortgages? Lending to poor people (NINJA loans, predatory loans) was a root cause of the housing collapse. Do people really think giving the poor mortgages is any kind of solution?
It's a pretty common refrain on HackerNews that the "banksters" and (mostly, in reality) shady mortgage brokers took advantage of people by providing them with loans they couldn't afford. But, other times, this is seen as a good idea?
> Alright, these situations are sad, and sometimes unavoidable due to what is essentially "bad luck". I can't imagine being caught in the vicious cycle.
Social and societal safety nets are supposed to help with "bad luck". We all have bad luck from time to time, but imagine if all your close friends and relatives had died... you'd be in a really hard spot.
> Why should "the poor" have access to mortgages? Lending to poor people (NINJA loans, predatory loans) was a root cause of the housing collapse. Do people really think giving the poor mortgages is any kind of solution?
The issue is that there is a limited supply of affordable rental properties in many markets. This means that people who do have the money / credit to get loans can charge a huge renter's premium: there is a large segment of the market that simply doesn't have the option of getting a mortgage if the rent is too high.
> It's a pretty common refrain on HackerNews that the "banksters" and (mostly, in reality) shady mortgage brokers took advantage of people by providing them with loans they couldn't afford. But, other times, this is seen as a good idea?
Because they often pushed people towards larger loans than they could afford. Someone who can afford a $300k house was being pushed toward a $500k house with a ballooning payment.
I'm all for poor people being able to buy homes they can afford. We'll ignore the fact that land value is correlated with location and the implications of that; but yes: home ownership should be in reach of every income level.
I believe part of what the author was trying to lead to is that the housing crash/current situation has more people electing to rent then buy homes, so the demand for renting is down. I don't think she was arguing to bring back the shitty loans for the poor, just that more people are renting.
They mention upper middle class. Should not the middle class have access to home ownership. Other than that I agree that across the western world there is an unhealthy obsession with homeownership.
I live in Norway and I am just waiting for housing market to come crashing down. I am a homeowner but I really don't want to be one. It is just that the economic incentives created by the tax system makes it stupid to rent. It shouldn't be like that because it causes an over-investment in property and runaway prices. Countries like Germany which has not been so overly focused on home ownership has much healthier housing prices.
If feel like Russian roulette. You got to figure out that right time to pull out and go renting before everything comes crashing down. But if you pull out too early you pay a heavy premium and getting into the housing market will be so much more difficult in the future with even higher prices.
Makes you wonder about the whole free market pricing. Back in my parents day the whole housing market was socialist. Government set the prices. As any socialist system, it caused a lot of waiting lines to get housing, but man it was so much cheaper. Despite making way more money than my parents did, they could afford a much bigger house than I can today.
The free market seems very poor at stopping asset bubbles. I think we need a new way of handling assets in the market.
Maybe she's alluding to the fact that if buying a house was more affordable, but the time she was 60 she might have owned her own home, so at the very least she would have had a roof over her head when she ran out of money.
Also, when you see the US press - including Vox - talk about how low unemployment is, bear in mind that she doesn't count as unemployed. When the fact checkers point at Trump's claims about unemployment and say they're lies, they're treating people like her who're forced into early retirement they can't afford because the jobs have gone away as success stories in the fight for full employment and insisting it's stupid to think otherwise. Even before she officially retired, she probably didn't count because she was still freelancing.
Which is how they have always measured it, as far as I am unaware. While you may not like the measurement, this allows you to make actual comparisons to past years data, instead of comparing two different metrics.
They measure it many ways. They just report it with the lower statistical number so that it doesn't seem that bad. I would prefer all numbers to be given out. If I am the only person working in my family supporting 9 other people so that they can do other things we are not exhibiting 100% employment. 10% of the people are working to support the whole. If that works, great, but on the level of society as a whole you want to know all of the numbers.
All numbers are given out.. In fact they're in the exact same report from the BLS every month. This is the most nonsensical conspiracy theory. We report U3 most widely because it matches the historical rate and the rate used by other countries in their reporting. If you prefer U4/5/6 just read one sentence further, is not like Trump's team found some deep government secret...
Re: "nonsensical conspiracy theory."
I'm not with any candidate, but I don't think it's a conspiracy. And I think it makes sense. I think the point is that many people have given up looking for work and are no longer counted as unemployed in the statistics. Many speculate that this number is larger than in the past, due to corporate downsizing and automation. So, even if the amount of people who have given up looking was always ignored in statistics in the past, it's not an apples to apples comparison because that ignored number is now larger than in the past.
Also, while the second link shows data for Marginally Attached Workers, the government definition for that term is those who have looked in the last 12 months. So those who have given up for more than 12 months are not considered unemployed. See also discouraged workers.
I've no doubt it matches how other countries report unemployment; the UK's about as bad. Also, one of the things that annoys me is exactly that this isn't something that Trump pulled out of his hat - the existence of unemployment that's hidden by the statistics has been a topic of discussion for a long time, especially on the left. Then Trump comes along and the fact checkers declare that U3 is the one true definition of unemployment and anything above that is an unpatriotic lie designed to undermine America. It's all been a bit much really. (Though even U6 isn't broad enough to help much here.)
Of course it's been discussed, it's a serious problem. Nobody has ever claimed that U3 is the measure of unemployment, it's just one in a series but happens to be the one with the most history.
If you want to look at the impacts of long-term unemployed or the falling mix, check out the prime-age labor force participation rate.. another metric that is also in the same report:
The definition of "prime-age labour force" is under 55, which also excludes the author of this piece (and is about a decade under the age at which most people can claim retirement benefits). It also excludes under-25s who have a much lower labour force participation and higher unemployment rate.
Great, so use the full labor participation number, then spend some time disentangling the impacts of rising college attendance and the waves of retirements of Baby Boomers. I don't care which metric is your preferred one, the point is, they are all in the very same report. Nobody's hiding anything.
A sad read. It is provocative that one of the richest countries in the world can treat its unfortunate citizens in such a manner. But I guess that is what happens when you build a whole country on the myth that the life you get is completely your own choice. It is very odd how many American you read who state I don't need health insurance because I make sure I live healthy.
That is about as intelligent as saying I don't need a seatbelt in my car because I drive safely. Many people utter words like that too.
Perhaps it is simply something people want to believe in. They don't want to believe they can be the next victim. They want to believe everything is under control and they are master of their own faith. If you realize how much is out of your control it would be all too depressing to know how screwed you are going to be if you developed serious health problems, getting into serious accidents etc in the US. There is little safety-net to fall back on.
I have a good job today, but I have period mental problems. I do worry about what would happen if I suddenly couldn't hack it anymore. What do you do when you got small children to provide for and you get screwed up in the head? Fortunately I know that because I live in Norway and not the US, there are limits to how far I can fall. I will never end up on the streets with my kids. They will still be able to go to good schools, and university whatever happens to me. That takes some stress away.
I can not begin to imagine what it is like struggling in America and knowing that if you can't work, your whole life is over and the future of your children.
It is surprising why American's don't want a proper welfare system. People buy insurance for their car and house. They buy health insurance. I pay higher taxes than Americans but I view that as the cost of having airtight insurance against the mishaps of life.
There sure are a lot of people who don't live here and carefully explain our attitudes to us as though the filters of bias are somehow pure perception. I used to get annoyed by it, but now I just find it endlessly amusing.
If I were as clever as a feminist, I guess I could call it Eurosplaining.
well it helps them to talk down about American and over exaggerate the issues here so they can ignore what they don't want to see at home.
There are enough horror stories everywhere that people fail to acknowledge, first world problems pale in comparison what people suffer in the non Western worlds. From complete lack of some basics we considering necessary to every day threats to their lives and property, should they even have the ability own anything.
Why do you think "well it's worse other places" is some sort of defense for our callous handling of our social safety nets? All while every other industrialized nation shows a better way (see: Healthcare)
Why is it better? Because you say so? The American way offers huge rewards for success and punishes failure brutally. It forces you to take risks. Overall, it creates more than other systems.
I find it odd that you care more about the perception of your country than actually dealing with the horrible problems you have.
What is more important solving poverty in America or shut up some smug European saying unfavorable things about America?
I would never excuse problems in Norway by saying look how horrible it is for people in Ethiopia. We are a rich country and should be judged by those standards. So is America. It ought to be embarrassing that you are even competing with third world countries.
In your sad world I guess you imagine that this is a game to me. That I just want to embarrass America to feel all good about myself. I don't. I feel deeply sad about the many people suffering in the US. Why do I not feel the same about people in say South Africa?
Well we humans are odd. We don't care equally much about everybody. As Europeans we will feel strong kinship with Americans. We have many family members there and we can relate to American society as it is another western society with many of the same values.
Solving Uganda, Jordan or Colombia's problems are very difficult not at least because they are poor. America's problem seems like the most unnecessary problems in the world because America is so wealthy and still have third world problems. They could have been solved with political will.
Other countries don't have that luxury, they actually have to build and industrial base and get rich first.
I've lived in the US and my wife is American. I also have distant relatives in the US. I know what their lives are like and I know the struggles various members of my wife's family has gone through as well as my distant relatives.
I work with a lot of Americans and deal with a lot of American companies.
I'd say in many ways I think see America clearer than a lot of Americans because they have nothing to compare it with. I've lived in several countries and I can compare my experiences. If you have never lived abroad you tend to take too many things for granted and you become blind to so many realities in your own country.
Anyway it isn't like American's are the quite guys in the corner never volunteering their opinions to anybody else about how the rest of the world should be run. Quite the opposite, except American are frequently extremely opinionated about things they know absolutely nothing about.
If you were a Congressman, you would call the American version of this phenomena the Voice of America. (The conclusions that it draws are consistently pro-business, anti-labour, pro-Pax Americana, anti-red, etc.)
You'd be absolutely shocked at how little a vast majority of Americans are in interested in paying taxes to improve their communities from the smallest to the largest. I don't really get it because I've lived here my whole life and you can pretty much 100% guarantee the more a locality taxes their populace the better the quality of life is, at least in the states. I live in a town (Boulder, CO) where this isn't the case and it's such a breath of fresh air.
There's such a prevalent "the federal government is less efficient than private business" attitude it's mind blowing. This despite the fact that in any area where public competes with private public wins here every single time (ISPs, Infrastructure, Criminal Justice, etc)
edit. oh yeah and the army of "well at least the poor here aren't literally dying of starvation en masse"
>I don't really get it because I've lived here my whole life and you can pretty much 100% guarantee the more a locality taxes their populace the better the quality of life is, at least in the states.
..what? This makes no sense. My quality of life was significantly better when I lived in TX than when I lived in SF, and you already know which one taxed me more. Even a lot of public infrastructure, like roads and highways especially, was just so much better. Plus, even though TX doesn't do much to help the homeless, the likelihood that the author would have ended up homeless in the first place is lower because home ownership is feasible. And the programs the OP is referring to, social safety net type things, aren't local but national in scale.
That said, I do like the idea but the quoted statement just makes no sense to me.
People like him equate cost with quality of life. "SF is more expensive, therefore it must be a better place to live". It's a sad and naive outlook that a lot of consumers grow up with.
the quality of life in san francisco is absolutely abysmal unless you are the top 10% in either wealth or income.
being able to spend $300 on a multi-course crudo and wine prix fixe dinner for 2 is not 'quality of life', that just means you're rich and you like nice shit. you can do that anywhere there are other rich people, texas included.
most people consider quality of life to be cleanliness, low crime, affordable property, personal freedoms, etc., all of which are in dramatic short supply in san francisco.
San Fransisco does have a great deal of personal freedoms, has low crime and is clean compared to tons of cities across the states. Beyond that, I don't know that San Fransisco would be the ideal model because they aren't really what I'm talking about, cities that collectively pitch in to use taxes to provide more services. In many cases, SF isn't doing that.
All of that being said, Texas, by any measure, is a way worse place to live in the US than SF if you actually do value things like a criminal justice system that doesn't make a point of murdering the mentally disabled.
Yeah the problem comes when you have cities like Boulder which are very close to natural wonders and are actively pursuing policies to deal with homelessness in the local community instead of throwing their hands up with statements like this:
> And the programs the OP is referring to, social safety net type things, aren't local but national in scale.
They are because you choose to make it that way, and that's why Texas is a shithole. It's not that here is perfect, it's that they actually are taking steps that make sense to try to improve things. Texas's laws as a state pretty much preclude any sort of development there in that direction. That's beyond the absurd political climate you have to deal with in a state where Rick Perry was governor multiple times.
I used to live in LA, now I live in Austin and travel all over Texas for a living. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Texas has shitty roads that are way too narrow and full of potholes, a non-existent public transport system, and quite a few more homeless people per capita than SF. The difference with the last one is that you don't see them as often, because Texans aren't nearly as tolerant as homeless people as Bay Area residents, so the homeless hang out in places such as highway underpasses and the wilderness areas surrounding the cities. You know, out of sight of the rich.
> quite a few more homeless people per capita than SF
Citation please.
This is an issue with comparing large states with cities. You can't compare LA or SF w/ Texas anymore than you can compare Austin with Dallas. It makes statements like "quite a few more homeless people per capita than SF" unfair (or possibly just straight false in your case). For instance, you could easily say "CA has WAY more homeless per capita than Texas" and actually be accurate.
Similarly, you can't making sweeping generalizations about potholes across the state in TX or CA since people don't live in every area of the state all of the time. And wrt quality of life, which is an extremely subjective measure, public transport may not be what the local citizens want compared with road infrastructure that isn't well known to be mired in traffic (again, depends on where you are, but CA consistently ranks worst here).
It's bad enough comparing two states at that high level, it's even worse to throw in subjective opinions about quality of life on specific things.
How much of that thinking really comes from the mindset that believes govt is not doing a good job with the taxes they are already paying them. If our DMVs, EPA, Education systems are all working efficiently and in a modern way, more people will change their mind.
Maybe they aren't because we refuse to fund them adequately? If Americans keep electing Democrats and Republicans who make it a point to ensure those agencies remain unfunded... it's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy at that point.
Then it means there is no proper oversight. This also has to be corrected. Corrections take resources but measures have to be designed and vetted first.
We pay taxes now, it just goes to everything else but local communities. Politicians decide where that money goes. The military gets a lot of it, which could be argued is a socialist plan to employ at risk youth fresh out of high school and give jobs to factory workers making military vehicles they don't need. We spend a lot on military so that most of NATO, etc doesn't have to, so they can have their safety nets.
Bottom 10% in US live considerably better than OECD bottom 10% average (#4 of OECD countries) and better than top 10% in a lot of countries [0]. Perhaps that's what drive the optimism in the US.
Since you present this number, then I assume you have read how this have been calculated, and can give some credible answer to e.g. why the low 10% in America are considered better off than the bottom British, Germans, Australians and Swiss.
Having been in several of these countries and knowing people who have lived there it simply does not strike me as believable. Maybe it is true, but I'd like to hear some articulated reason for it.
Here are my counter points. We know that for all these other countries supposedly worse off than America health care access for the bottom is considerably better. Access to education is better. Crime levels are lower. So within what area is it that American's gain the upper hand?
I've seen studies like this before giving poor Americans an upper hand and all to often it is due only focusing on material aspects. E.g. the poor in the US usually have bigger houses, more microwaves, bigger cars etc than the poor elsewhere. This is often given as evidence that they are better of while ignoring the fact that poor Americans have significantly worse access to health care and education than other people. Also Europeans e.g. spend a lot more on travel than on just accumulating stuff at home. So quality of life is difficult to asses exclusively by just adding up stuff.
Well certainly how "well off" someone is requires a value judgement. Everyone has preferences and one individual may prefer to be bottom 10% in one country as opposed to another. The scale is based off data compiled by OECD and includes the below:
Housing
Income
Jobs
Community
Education
Environment
Civic Engagement
Health
Life Satisfaction
Safety
Work-Life Balance
Another index includes EPI’s State of Working America Report [0] as well as research from World Bank economist Branko Milanovic [1].
I understand you might disagree with methodology or how they weigh certain aspects and that's perfectly fine. But if you come across some objective measure that tell me that people in the US are considerably worse off than other Western nations (in absolute terms), I would like to see it.
Edit: I tried looking at the study and the factors and numbers they used. I find it very unconvincing. The numbers are very abstract and the weighting rather arbitrary. You'd have to correlate these numbers by sampling actual people in each country at the bottom and top half and see how they live. When you conclude that the bottom 10% of Americans all living on food-stamps are about as well off as the top 10% Italians then something seems very wrong with the methodology.
It is actually very hard to come by studies and comparisons of these things, but one knows certain facts, which is that health care is not easily accessible to the poor in the US, while it generally is in other western nations. We also know that college costs considerably in the US if you are not especially talented and get a scholarship.
Germany which is supposed to much worse than the US according to this study offers cheap health care and college to all citizens.
So I am not saying this study IS wrong. I have no proof of that. It simply isn't believable to me unless somebody can offer a proper explanation for the way in which say poor swiss or germans are worse off than the poor americans.
This would not be the first time I've come across dubious studies like this. There have been studies in the past where they claimed Mississippi was better off than Sweden. If you start looking into this assertion and talk to people who have been both places it becomes clear that the assertion is completely ridiculous. It is one of the many cases in which statistics can serve you a fat lie.
Fair enough, but I would take several flawed studies over anecdotal evidence to the contrary. I would also point out the net migration numbers to the US suggest that it really is the land of opportunity.
What's especially sad is that it would probably save us money to get homeless people off the street and we still don't do it. If getting her a place to live would have prevent even one of her thirteen hospitalizations in the past year, that would almost certainly have a positive ROI.
This has been proven, I can't find the link but there was a study done with statistics for New York and they found that the homeless cost on average about $30k a year to keep homeless, between interactions with the police/jails, ER visits because they can't get medical care any other way, reduction in property values, etc. On the flip side putting them in cheap housing with a shower, food, and a TV would cost s fraction of that but there's no way in hell you're going to sell that to the American culture as long as the bootstraps narrative holds.
There is never a way to fully control everything in your life. And the poorer you get, the less you can control.
Poor do not get to shop for jobs, move to healthier or cheaper places (especially faraway), spend money or time on exercise. (if they attempt to make ends meet) Older people are much less wanted on the job market too.
She needs to talk to a social worker because she is not claiming all her senior benefits. First the minimal SSI is 733, a bit above her regular SS check. Second, she automatically qualifies for almost free medicaid.
Plus when you qualify for either of these its easier to get other poverty benefits like food stamps, housing assistance and a free cell phone.
Sometimes people go into victim-pity mode and dont claim everything available.
Also in the storm it's easy to forget to ask for every possible aid. And probably avoid asking for more if you're already given some, to actually avoid being seen as more of a leech that you feel being.
Yes, this is a horrible situation that she is in, and it's extremely sad. However, Social Security is not meant to be lived on; it's meant to simply be a supplement to a retirement that the individual was saving up for their entire working life. Let this simply be a lesson to put money away for retirement, as people have successfully done for centuries.
You can't save up for mishaps of life. Chronic disease, cancer can cost a lot more money than people can save up. That is why you buy insurance in case your house burns down. Catastrophic events are not things you can save up for in advance. Do you suppose that people should save up for in case their car crashes or their house burns down?
Of course not. The whole point of insurance is that most people pay in more than they get back. A few take out way more money than they put in. That is acceptable because those who pay more, get safety in return. That is the whole point of a welfare system. Most pay more in than they get back, but they get safety back. They get the certainty that if their life should get screwed up by chronic disease, accidents etc, then there is something to fall back on.
Sad read and hope to never see anyone close to me have to go through this, but; why stay in a city? It must be cheaper to live in some town far from cities? At least here you would not only be able to live of your the money she has in a village and no one would bother you if you sleep in your car outside a village. Not sure how that is in the US but i would imagine it makes a difference outside cities.
And then ofcourse; how many close friends do you have; i have many friends and family who would all just rent a house for me. Or let me stay at theirs. Not one but well i could think of at least 20 people who would not hesitate; am i lucky or did she just connect with very few people?
Most of whom are dead I'm presume, and her circles were/are perhaps composed of similar freelancers who are also barely scraping by, though not homeless and thus not in a position to help given limited retirement funds?
A quick search on Apartment Finder for a random city like Albuquerque, NM shows apartments for under $300 per month. She is receiving $672 per month in Social Security. It seems to me she can afford housing.
I've been personally thinking what I would do if I were in such a situation. If I had to purely rely on govt funds and found it very hard to get by. I can't imagine.
I can see why so many people want trump. He feeds on the anger at how broken this country is.
From experience in the Seattle area, if you are in the USA you can get yourself passes for state and/or federal parks. In Washington state for example with a Discover Pass ($30 annual fee) you can park overnight for I believe up to two weeks. Not sure about the federal parks. Much cheaper than motels and no harassment from law enforcement. You're just camping! Move around as needed.
Having escaped from poverty in my 20s (I'm one of those guys who made it in software via dumb luck and no college degree) that's a cozy concept, but I don't think it's at all accurate. The poor people I grew up with have no idea of the life we lead. They live in a world where there's no such thing as air travel, you'll probably never travel outside the US, having your car start in the morning (if you've got one) is a sometimes thing, and you'd be mega-rich if you had 4 figures in your bank account - and that's all most of them have ever experienced. They don't see themselves as embarrassed millionaires, because most of them don't even have the faintest understanding of what that means.
I live in a Van. Mid 30s junior software developer who's kinda regretting taking the CS path at this late age.
However, that as it may be, it's really not that bad. I shower at a gym at I'm rarely home anyways, usually doing things so I really just need a place to sleep which I don't feel paying 800 a month is worth.
The only issue is authorized places to park.
There's a lot of us vehicle dwellers there's a whole sub-reddit /r/vandwellers devoted to it.
I think it's an growing problem and solution to massive housing shortages that are just going to get worse.
How big of a deal is it to have parking lots for 'liveaboards'?
You can obviously have applications to weed out troublemakers like any other apartment complex.
This might be a very interesting sort of start up.
Your idea about a parking lot for "liveaboards" sounds kind of cool. Or how about an airbnb-like service where people offer up part of their yard for people to park their van or pitch a tent. Especially in more rural areas where people have a lot of land that is just sitting there and other people could take advantage of it.
And I'm also curious, in what ways do you regret taking the CS path at your age? Did you just get your CS degree? Are you experiencing a lot of ageism?
Ah, another resident of a homogeneous country with 13% of the population of California with vast amounts of oil is telling everyone else how their country should be organized. It's like the only son of a rich lawyer telling his college buddy, from the worker's family of seven: "why do you still drive that 2002 Accord, clearly my brand new BMW M5 is much better! It's surprising you poor people don't want a proper car"
Just about every one of us is culturally indoctrinated with a list of necessities and norms. It's interesting to see what happens when people who received different lists bump into one another.
American Exceptionalism is the card being played here.
It effectively means: "Our country is fundamentally different from your country, so what works for you won't necessarily work for us. Your success or failure is no reason for us to follow your example."
Often this card is played despite the "fundamental differences" not necessarily being all that pronounced, or all that relevant. No two countries on this planet are identical, yet an astounding number of policies translate generally well despite that.
> Often this card is played despite the "fundamental differences" not necessarily being all that pronounced
How having a population of 60+ times higher and oil revenues 10 times lower as a percentage of GDP is not a relevant difference when discussing the amounts being spent per person on a a social safety net?
Again, America may have lower oil revenues, but it's a much bigger country geographically, and has vastly more natural resources. You'll have to do a much better job explaining why oil, specifically, is relevant here.
Norway oil exports in 2015 even with low oil prices were still more than $5000 per person. Combined with the proceeds from the oil investment fund the revenues go even higher. United States on the other hand has to "work for a living" since it does not get 60 times more revenue from selling natural resources than Norway does. And distribution of proceeds from natural resources among the population is regarded to be fair by a much higher percentage of people than distribution of revenue from taxes on the working population.
Norway isn't even really spending it's oil money, so this entire comparison is entirely invalid. Norway puts 100% of the oil revenue in a trust fund and takes out no more than 4% per year.
Norway only spends about 22% of it's GDP on Social Benefits. The U.S. spends 19.2%. Breaking that down into dollars does tell a different story: Norway spends about 50% more on social benefits than the U.S. does, but you can hardly argue that the U.S. cannot afford it.
To throw Canada into the mix, it spends about 17%. That's a lower percentage of a lower GDP. In fact that would imply that Canada spends approximately 25% LESS on social benefits than the U.S. and has still has free healthcare.
One caveat to this is that I am comparing social benefit percentages from 2014 and comparing them to GDP Per Capita data from 2015, so take the exact numbers with a grain of salt.
The argument I'm trying to make is that it's political, not economic.
Intense variations in local resources and culture heavily impair nationwide consensus on healthcare.
Families in rural areas can thrive with a knife, saw and shotgun, drinking from clean lakes, growing food and living healthy, aerobic lifestyles. They see little need for government intervention. They barter and travel on unimproved roads with horses and all-terrain vehicles, even making their own fuel. Even in the event of a fire disaster, they can quickly rebuild on their own vast property.
In denser urban areas, housing codes and other cultural laws, like riding horses, drying clothes on a line, noise and land use restrictions and sleeping in public spaces make living close to the land impractical and/or illegal. Collusion with the developed world and its government is mandatory. People in these areas are happy to invest in personal radios transmitting their consumption habits and private conversations in exchange for access to the benefits of mass production, including remedies for their own sacrificed health. In these areas, those with the ability to generate for the system do just fine or excellent.
Families with cultural lag, such as the poor, badly educated and immigrants - voluntary and involuntary - have to get up to pace, learning the unintuitive ways of the modern, urban jungle. It's hard work, yet with all the access to information, it remains largely possible. The bottom layers who can't keep up get minimal assistance from the government to figure out how to get back into the system or move out to the rural areas.
America is all about navigating the 1,000 shades between these two extremes.
> What does cultural homogeneity have anything to do with the way a country treats its homeless?
It's easier to be generous to people who are more like oneself, and who are physically closer to oneself.
Consider all the people in Europe right now who may be perfectly happy to support generous welfare for homeless people who happen to have been born on the same side of their borders, but who are hostile to homeless people who just fled Syria.
Or consider the difficulty of scrapping every national welfare system in Europe and uniting them under a single EU government. I contend that would be very difficult. America is more like the EU than it is like Norway. Norway is much more like Massachusetts, which has very Norway-like quality-of-life metrics.
So why not solve the problem in each state separately? Add long as the problem is solved, nobody would care why. Federal government can provide the right incentives and resources.
I hear this often, but somehow precise objections never come up. What exactly is wrong with what he's proposing? Why would a socio-economically heterogenious country with a population of 350M not benefit from public health insurance and welfare? What makes it such that, in principle, these social plans could not be applied in a manner sympathetic to the political and social organization of the US (e.g. by delegating implementation details to states and municipalities)?
The US has very real and tangible problems with healthcare and the lack of a social safety net, yet a significant portion of Americans insist on brushing off advice from cultures that have all but solved these problems.
To conclude with an analogy in a similar vein as yours, this is like watching a minimum-wage earner blowing his money on a luxury car, plasma-screen TV, XBOX and weed, and subsequently complaining that he's stuck in a rut. And when concerned, well-to-do neighbors offer friendly advice, he responds with the equivalent of "buzz off, your situation is different than mine". Yes. That's the point. Their situation is different and they know something about how to get there.
Socialism did take hold. It was brutally repressed.
The battle of blair mountain is a clear example of what happens when workers demand fair treatment in America. They didn't just send the army in to break the strike, they sent the air force.
Though they lost, in the long term it raised awareness enough to actually lead to organized labor victories like the New Deal (which effectively led to the creation of the middle class 'good life' from the 50s).
The thing that really worries me is that another, similar battle would be necessary in order to arrest the current decline of the middle class.
I had never heard of it until I saw it mentioned in an HN comment a year or so ago. For anyone who's interested, here's a link to the Wikipedia article on it.
> The battle of blair mountain is a clear example of what happens when workers demand fair treatment in America. They didn't just send the army in to break the strike, they sent the air force.
This was very sad to read. I was wondering why - given the fact that she has a car - she doesn't drive for Lyft or Uber. Maybe it is because her car is filled with her living stuff, or hygiene reasons. These are assumptions that might not be true. Let's assume that she is able to meet the qualifications of a driver. Would Uber and Lyft block her application because she doesn't have a home? I wonder if this is something the Ubers / Lyfts can do - employing homeless drivers - to help people get back on their feet.
This, even if possible, would quickly kill her car and make her additionally homeless.
Uber and Lyft drivers not in premium service are not paid enough to get maintenance.
Also, an older person requires often psychological and technical checks to see if they still can drive at all. In EU those are mandatory after 60 years to keep your licence at all, earlier in pro drivers.
I'm working on a piece about living in my truck. I live in a major metro area (not a top five most expensive however), as a software developer making over six figures.
It's impossible to find rent for under $900/month. My anger boiled over when someone wanted $975/month for a 6 month lease for a 350 square foot "studio" that has no kitchen.
Yet, supposedly there are 18 million vacant homes in the United States [1].
It's time to put together an Airbnb for these vacant units that provide the new transients of America with affordable and safe places to stay. Interested in helping, or just want to have a conversation about this topic, check out my profile.
Honest question. You make over $100k and can't afford > $1k/month for rent. Why? Because you morally object to the cost or because you can't afford it?
Most of these threads end up with dry platitudes about living carefully or demonizing homeless people as mentally imbalanced or irresponsible.
There is no concept of victim or adverse circumstances and zero sense of the collective. It is denial. For other countries poverty is a problem to be solved, for the US it's identity, something everyone wants to wish away.
The first modern dystopia will be here, the idealogy of selfishness, greed, wealth and narcissism may benefit some individuals but leaves no space for a community to form and a culture that is not only bereft of empathy but positively despises it.
166 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 241 ms ] threadI suspect the biggest problem with finding another homeless person or two to share an apartment with is what she already ran into - for a lot of homeless there are mental health issues that may have led to them being homeless in the first place. Many who are homeless also are going to have a hard time covering even part of the cost of an apartment, particularly since it's going to be harder to find and keep a job without having a permanent place to stay in the first place. Finally, I suspect that many cities have limitations on how many unrelated adults can live in a single residential unit - something that for many it'd be easy to ignore, but for a small group of people it could make it very difficult to secure an initial lease unless one of the group members was able to demonstrate the resources to get the lease on their own anyway.
I'm a little confused. Her blog and personal site make it seem like it's more of a lifestyle choice than a victim of circumstance. Perhaps both?
Anyway, I don't think social security was designed to be a complete retirement plan. I agree with the author about some laws discriminating those without permanent lodging (e.g. many places it's illegal to sleep in your car), but I hope that able and intelligent people take responsibility for their own retirement.
In my county, the number one (by far) reason people are homeless is because of divorce.
Marriage is a commitment and the second biggest choice one (usually) has to make.
This isn't about getting Tommy to marry Jane. It's about a more general cultural education.
Either way, if you want to be successful, clearly you should get married!
So, yes, I think we should better educate children about the importance of this decision.
But she failed to find a good roommate too.
I'm a little confused. Her blog and personal site make it seem like it's more of a lifestyle choice than a victim of circumstance. Perhaps both?
Anyway, I don't think social security was designed to be a complete retirement plan. I agree with the author about some laws discriminating those without permanent lodging (e.g. many places it's illegal to sleep in your car), but I hope that able and intelligent people take responsibility for their own retirement.
The fact that she's currently without a permanent residence doesn't change any of the other things you quoted, any more than someone taking a lower-skilled job during a downturn would mean that "working retail is a lifestyle choice."
I don't know where cheap rentals are in the US (Detroit?), but presumably $600 a month isn't going to get there, pay rent, deposit and keep her alive.
It's not what I would call pleasant, their are few jobs, and transportation is an issue. However, basic food and shelter can be really cheap.
The real issue is many structures are designed to be actively cooled so they get much hotter than ambient temperatures which is an issue. The urban heat island effect also tends to make thing far worse for homeless populations.
People will also do things like fill a cheap kiddie pool with water under a tarp which will take the edge off. In extreme days you can even add some ice cubes to that, but just as heating a kotatsu is much cheaper than heating a room this is fairly cheap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotatsu
PS: I recommend using a comforter to make a low cost Kotatsu out of a computer desk in you use your PC near the window in the winter. You stay comfortable at a much lower room temperature.
Not sure what I'd do near retirement age in that situation. I'd be torn between staying near work I might not get for age discrimination reasons, and building a retirement cabin to see out my days looking at trees and surfing the net. If I had health issues I might want reasonable distance to doc and hospital.
PS: Medicine is also a huge issue, but such is life.
That specific case may have all kinds of issues, like any purchase buyer beware. You generally want someplace close to people that let's you live there. Further, transaction costs are not free. However, the point is land is cheap, making renting it cheap, not that someone would necessarily want to buy any specific part of it.
> A third of the homeless people in America are over 50
So is the case for the entire population of America, it would seem.
"The percentage has spiked by almost 10 points since 2007 — in 2014"
That's the whole point! Compare to, for example: "Homeless people in America that are over 50 increased by 30%". See the difference? "A third" is just what one would expect from pure statistics.
Imagine people 50 and under all of a sudden accounted for 70% of Alzheimers diagnoses. Would you say that's not notable, because 70% of the population is 50 or under?
But I do take issue with:
>The housing crash and its chilling effect on mortgage lending have hit the poor the hardest...Homeowners are being replacing by renters, as the American dream of owning your own property is becoming increasingly a luxury for the rich and upper middle class.
Why should "the poor" have access to mortgages? Lending to poor people (NINJA loans, predatory loans) was a root cause of the housing collapse. Do people really think giving the poor mortgages is any kind of solution?
It's a pretty common refrain on HackerNews that the "banksters" and (mostly, in reality) shady mortgage brokers took advantage of people by providing them with loans they couldn't afford. But, other times, this is seen as a good idea?
Social and societal safety nets are supposed to help with "bad luck". We all have bad luck from time to time, but imagine if all your close friends and relatives had died... you'd be in a really hard spot.
> Why should "the poor" have access to mortgages? Lending to poor people (NINJA loans, predatory loans) was a root cause of the housing collapse. Do people really think giving the poor mortgages is any kind of solution?
The issue is that there is a limited supply of affordable rental properties in many markets. This means that people who do have the money / credit to get loans can charge a huge renter's premium: there is a large segment of the market that simply doesn't have the option of getting a mortgage if the rent is too high.
> It's a pretty common refrain on HackerNews that the "banksters" and (mostly, in reality) shady mortgage brokers took advantage of people by providing them with loans they couldn't afford. But, other times, this is seen as a good idea?
Because they often pushed people towards larger loans than they could afford. Someone who can afford a $300k house was being pushed toward a $500k house with a ballooning payment.
I'm all for poor people being able to buy homes they can afford. We'll ignore the fact that land value is correlated with location and the implications of that; but yes: home ownership should be in reach of every income level.
I live in Norway and I am just waiting for housing market to come crashing down. I am a homeowner but I really don't want to be one. It is just that the economic incentives created by the tax system makes it stupid to rent. It shouldn't be like that because it causes an over-investment in property and runaway prices. Countries like Germany which has not been so overly focused on home ownership has much healthier housing prices.
If feel like Russian roulette. You got to figure out that right time to pull out and go renting before everything comes crashing down. But if you pull out too early you pay a heavy premium and getting into the housing market will be so much more difficult in the future with even higher prices.
Makes you wonder about the whole free market pricing. Back in my parents day the whole housing market was socialist. Government set the prices. As any socialist system, it caused a lot of waiting lines to get housing, but man it was so much cheaper. Despite making way more money than my parents did, they could afford a much bigger house than I can today.
The free market seems very poor at stopping asset bubbles. I think we need a new way of handling assets in the market.
Here's the table from the monthly report;
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Or you could look at any of the data viz sources that are more user-friendly than the BLS to see trends;
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7tTt
But instead, we just get "the official numbers are a hoax."
Also, while the second link shows data for Marginally Attached Workers, the government definition for that term is those who have looked in the last 12 months. So those who have given up for more than 12 months are not considered unemployed. See also discouraged workers.
If you want to look at the impacts of long-term unemployed or the falling mix, check out the prime-age labor force participation rate.. another metric that is also in the same report:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7ujb
There's no conspiracy to hide these numbers, they're reported dutifully every month. It's been discussed by politicians, economists, journalists..
That is about as intelligent as saying I don't need a seatbelt in my car because I drive safely. Many people utter words like that too.
Perhaps it is simply something people want to believe in. They don't want to believe they can be the next victim. They want to believe everything is under control and they are master of their own faith. If you realize how much is out of your control it would be all too depressing to know how screwed you are going to be if you developed serious health problems, getting into serious accidents etc in the US. There is little safety-net to fall back on.
I have a good job today, but I have period mental problems. I do worry about what would happen if I suddenly couldn't hack it anymore. What do you do when you got small children to provide for and you get screwed up in the head? Fortunately I know that because I live in Norway and not the US, there are limits to how far I can fall. I will never end up on the streets with my kids. They will still be able to go to good schools, and university whatever happens to me. That takes some stress away.
I can not begin to imagine what it is like struggling in America and knowing that if you can't work, your whole life is over and the future of your children.
It is surprising why American's don't want a proper welfare system. People buy insurance for their car and house. They buy health insurance. I pay higher taxes than Americans but I view that as the cost of having airtight insurance against the mishaps of life.
If I were as clever as a feminist, I guess I could call it Eurosplaining.
There are enough horror stories everywhere that people fail to acknowledge, first world problems pale in comparison what people suffer in the non Western worlds. From complete lack of some basics we considering necessary to every day threats to their lives and property, should they even have the ability own anything.
What is more important solving poverty in America or shut up some smug European saying unfavorable things about America?
I would never excuse problems in Norway by saying look how horrible it is for people in Ethiopia. We are a rich country and should be judged by those standards. So is America. It ought to be embarrassing that you are even competing with third world countries.
In your sad world I guess you imagine that this is a game to me. That I just want to embarrass America to feel all good about myself. I don't. I feel deeply sad about the many people suffering in the US. Why do I not feel the same about people in say South Africa?
Well we humans are odd. We don't care equally much about everybody. As Europeans we will feel strong kinship with Americans. We have many family members there and we can relate to American society as it is another western society with many of the same values.
Solving Uganda, Jordan or Colombia's problems are very difficult not at least because they are poor. America's problem seems like the most unnecessary problems in the world because America is so wealthy and still have third world problems. They could have been solved with political will.
Other countries don't have that luxury, they actually have to build and industrial base and get rich first.
I work with a lot of Americans and deal with a lot of American companies.
I'd say in many ways I think see America clearer than a lot of Americans because they have nothing to compare it with. I've lived in several countries and I can compare my experiences. If you have never lived abroad you tend to take too many things for granted and you become blind to so many realities in your own country.
Anyway it isn't like American's are the quite guys in the corner never volunteering their opinions to anybody else about how the rest of the world should be run. Quite the opposite, except American are frequently extremely opinionated about things they know absolutely nothing about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
There's such a prevalent "the federal government is less efficient than private business" attitude it's mind blowing. This despite the fact that in any area where public competes with private public wins here every single time (ISPs, Infrastructure, Criminal Justice, etc)
edit. oh yeah and the army of "well at least the poor here aren't literally dying of starvation en masse"
..what? This makes no sense. My quality of life was significantly better when I lived in TX than when I lived in SF, and you already know which one taxed me more. Even a lot of public infrastructure, like roads and highways especially, was just so much better. Plus, even though TX doesn't do much to help the homeless, the likelihood that the author would have ended up homeless in the first place is lower because home ownership is feasible. And the programs the OP is referring to, social safety net type things, aren't local but national in scale.
That said, I do like the idea but the quoted statement just makes no sense to me.
edit. yeehaw, downvotes
hth
being able to spend $300 on a multi-course crudo and wine prix fixe dinner for 2 is not 'quality of life', that just means you're rich and you like nice shit. you can do that anywhere there are other rich people, texas included.
most people consider quality of life to be cleanliness, low crime, affordable property, personal freedoms, etc., all of which are in dramatic short supply in san francisco.
All of that being said, Texas, by any measure, is a way worse place to live in the US than SF if you actually do value things like a criminal justice system that doesn't make a point of murdering the mentally disabled.
"Homeless tent city outside my apartment has grown 2x in the last week" -1 Big City
"I went to Glacier Park last Saturday" -1 Big City
"I make >$180k" +1 Big City
"I ordered pizza from a place that wasn't Dominos" +1 Big City
> And the programs the OP is referring to, social safety net type things, aren't local but national in scale.
They are because you choose to make it that way, and that's why Texas is a shithole. It's not that here is perfect, it's that they actually are taking steps that make sense to try to improve things. Texas's laws as a state pretty much preclude any sort of development there in that direction. That's beyond the absurd political climate you have to deal with in a state where Rick Perry was governor multiple times.
Texas has shitty roads that are way too narrow and full of potholes, a non-existent public transport system, and quite a few more homeless people per capita than SF. The difference with the last one is that you don't see them as often, because Texans aren't nearly as tolerant as homeless people as Bay Area residents, so the homeless hang out in places such as highway underpasses and the wilderness areas surrounding the cities. You know, out of sight of the rich.
Citation please.
This is an issue with comparing large states with cities. You can't compare LA or SF w/ Texas anymore than you can compare Austin with Dallas. It makes statements like "quite a few more homeless people per capita than SF" unfair (or possibly just straight false in your case). For instance, you could easily say "CA has WAY more homeless per capita than Texas" and actually be accurate.
Similarly, you can't making sweeping generalizations about potholes across the state in TX or CA since people don't live in every area of the state all of the time. And wrt quality of life, which is an extremely subjective measure, public transport may not be what the local citizens want compared with road infrastructure that isn't well known to be mired in traffic (again, depends on where you are, but CA consistently ranks worst here).
It's bad enough comparing two states at that high level, it's even worse to throw in subjective opinions about quality of life on specific things.
I'm not sure what your personal experience represents. We really need some data.
[0] http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-c...
Having been in several of these countries and knowing people who have lived there it simply does not strike me as believable. Maybe it is true, but I'd like to hear some articulated reason for it.
Here are my counter points. We know that for all these other countries supposedly worse off than America health care access for the bottom is considerably better. Access to education is better. Crime levels are lower. So within what area is it that American's gain the upper hand?
I've seen studies like this before giving poor Americans an upper hand and all to often it is due only focusing on material aspects. E.g. the poor in the US usually have bigger houses, more microwaves, bigger cars etc than the poor elsewhere. This is often given as evidence that they are better of while ignoring the fact that poor Americans have significantly worse access to health care and education than other people. Also Europeans e.g. spend a lot more on travel than on just accumulating stuff at home. So quality of life is difficult to asses exclusively by just adding up stuff.
Housing Income Jobs Community Education Environment Civic Engagement Health Life Satisfaction Safety Work-Life Balance
Another index includes EPI’s State of Working America Report [0] as well as research from World Bank economist Branko Milanovic [1].
I understand you might disagree with methodology or how they weigh certain aspects and that's perfectly fine. But if you come across some objective measure that tell me that people in the US are considerably worse off than other Western nations (in absolute terms), I would like to see it.
[0] http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishi...
[1] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-t...
It is actually very hard to come by studies and comparisons of these things, but one knows certain facts, which is that health care is not easily accessible to the poor in the US, while it generally is in other western nations. We also know that college costs considerably in the US if you are not especially talented and get a scholarship.
Germany which is supposed to much worse than the US according to this study offers cheap health care and college to all citizens.
So I am not saying this study IS wrong. I have no proof of that. It simply isn't believable to me unless somebody can offer a proper explanation for the way in which say poor swiss or germans are worse off than the poor americans.
This would not be the first time I've come across dubious studies like this. There have been studies in the past where they claimed Mississippi was better off than Sweden. If you start looking into this assertion and talk to people who have been both places it becomes clear that the assertion is completely ridiculous. It is one of the many cases in which statistics can serve you a fat lie.
That is really the only 2 options you believe can exist?
Congratulations on figuring out freedom doesn't exactly mean what people think it means.
But really that's what freedom actually means. You are responsible for your life. Both good and bad parts of it.
Poor do not get to shop for jobs, move to healthier or cheaper places (especially faraway), spend money or time on exercise. (if they attempt to make ends meet) Older people are much less wanted on the job market too.
Nobody is God. Nobody can fix everything.
Plus when you qualify for either of these its easier to get other poverty benefits like food stamps, housing assistance and a free cell phone.
Sometimes people go into victim-pity mode and dont claim everything available.
She says she gets foodstamps. She may well have a free cellphone.
By the sounds of the article she isn't passive and actively looks for ways to improve her situation.
Of course not. The whole point of insurance is that most people pay in more than they get back. A few take out way more money than they put in. That is acceptable because those who pay more, get safety in return. That is the whole point of a welfare system. Most pay more in than they get back, but they get safety back. They get the certainty that if their life should get screwed up by chronic disease, accidents etc, then there is something to fall back on.
Even in your personal finance pro world you would fail to avoid this exact situation
And then ofcourse; how many close friends do you have; i have many friends and family who would all just rent a house for me. Or let me stay at theirs. Not one but well i could think of at least 20 people who would not hesitate; am i lucky or did she just connect with very few people?
I do relate to the dog though, they are amazing companions. I would really worry about depression if he passes away.
http://www.apartmentfinder.com/New-Mexico/Albuquerque-Apartm...
> Dexterdog
Is this a coincidence?
I can see why so many people want trump. He feeds on the anger at how broken this country is.
Edit: pass fee.
However, that as it may be, it's really not that bad. I shower at a gym at I'm rarely home anyways, usually doing things so I really just need a place to sleep which I don't feel paying 800 a month is worth.
The only issue is authorized places to park. There's a lot of us vehicle dwellers there's a whole sub-reddit /r/vandwellers devoted to it.
I think it's an growing problem and solution to massive housing shortages that are just going to get worse.
How big of a deal is it to have parking lots for 'liveaboards'?
You can obviously have applications to weed out troublemakers like any other apartment complex.
This might be a very interesting sort of start up.
And I'm also curious, in what ways do you regret taking the CS path at your age? Did you just get your CS degree? Are you experiencing a lot of ageism?
Also, while Norway may be rich in natural resources, so is the USA. So I'm not entirely certain how that matters either.
It effectively means: "Our country is fundamentally different from your country, so what works for you won't necessarily work for us. Your success or failure is no reason for us to follow your example."
Often this card is played despite the "fundamental differences" not necessarily being all that pronounced, or all that relevant. No two countries on this planet are identical, yet an astounding number of policies translate generally well despite that.
How having a population of 60+ times higher and oil revenues 10 times lower as a percentage of GDP is not a relevant difference when discussing the amounts being spent per person on a a social safety net?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...
Norway is #11 with $68k, the U.S. is #19 with $55k, Canada is #32 with $45k.
Also, oil revenue as a percentage of GDP is hardly relevant. It's not like you're only allowed to spend Oil money on social security.
Think again on the similar GDP Per Capita rankings, and review this: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SOCX_AGG
Norway only spends about 22% of it's GDP on Social Benefits. The U.S. spends 19.2%. Breaking that down into dollars does tell a different story: Norway spends about 50% more on social benefits than the U.S. does, but you can hardly argue that the U.S. cannot afford it.
To throw Canada into the mix, it spends about 17%. That's a lower percentage of a lower GDP. In fact that would imply that Canada spends approximately 25% LESS on social benefits than the U.S. and has still has free healthcare.
One caveat to this is that I am comparing social benefit percentages from 2014 and comparing them to GDP Per Capita data from 2015, so take the exact numbers with a grain of salt.
The argument I'm trying to make is that it's political, not economic.
Why are you so caught up on the idea that the money can only come from oil
Families in rural areas can thrive with a knife, saw and shotgun, drinking from clean lakes, growing food and living healthy, aerobic lifestyles. They see little need for government intervention. They barter and travel on unimproved roads with horses and all-terrain vehicles, even making their own fuel. Even in the event of a fire disaster, they can quickly rebuild on their own vast property.
In denser urban areas, housing codes and other cultural laws, like riding horses, drying clothes on a line, noise and land use restrictions and sleeping in public spaces make living close to the land impractical and/or illegal. Collusion with the developed world and its government is mandatory. People in these areas are happy to invest in personal radios transmitting their consumption habits and private conversations in exchange for access to the benefits of mass production, including remedies for their own sacrificed health. In these areas, those with the ability to generate for the system do just fine or excellent.
Families with cultural lag, such as the poor, badly educated and immigrants - voluntary and involuntary - have to get up to pace, learning the unintuitive ways of the modern, urban jungle. It's hard work, yet with all the access to information, it remains largely possible. The bottom layers who can't keep up get minimal assistance from the government to figure out how to get back into the system or move out to the rural areas.
America is all about navigating the 1,000 shades between these two extremes.
It's easier to be generous to people who are more like oneself, and who are physically closer to oneself.
Consider all the people in Europe right now who may be perfectly happy to support generous welfare for homeless people who happen to have been born on the same side of their borders, but who are hostile to homeless people who just fled Syria.
Or consider the difficulty of scrapping every national welfare system in Europe and uniting them under a single EU government. I contend that would be very difficult. America is more like the EU than it is like Norway. Norway is much more like Massachusetts, which has very Norway-like quality-of-life metrics.
The US has very real and tangible problems with healthcare and the lack of a social safety net, yet a significant portion of Americans insist on brushing off advice from cultures that have all but solved these problems.
To conclude with an analogy in a similar vein as yours, this is like watching a minimum-wage earner blowing his money on a luxury car, plasma-screen TV, XBOX and weed, and subsequently complaining that he's stuck in a rut. And when concerned, well-to-do neighbors offer friendly advice, he responds with the equivalent of "buzz off, your situation is different than mine". Yes. That's the point. Their situation is different and they know something about how to get there.
The battle of blair mountain is a clear example of what happens when workers demand fair treatment in America. They didn't just send the army in to break the strike, they sent the air force.
Though they lost, in the long term it raised awareness enough to actually lead to organized labor victories like the New Deal (which effectively led to the creation of the middle class 'good life' from the 50s).
The thing that really worries me is that another, similar battle would be necessary in order to arrest the current decline of the middle class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
The air force? in the 1920s?
Uber and Lyft drivers not in premium service are not paid enough to get maintenance.
Also, an older person requires often psychological and technical checks to see if they still can drive at all. In EU those are mandatory after 60 years to keep your licence at all, earlier in pro drivers.
It's impossible to find rent for under $900/month. My anger boiled over when someone wanted $975/month for a 6 month lease for a 350 square foot "studio" that has no kitchen.
Yet, supposedly there are 18 million vacant homes in the United States [1].
It's time to put together an Airbnb for these vacant units that provide the new transients of America with affordable and safe places to stay. Interested in helping, or just want to have a conversation about this topic, check out my profile.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EVACANTUSQ176N
Additional info from the Census: http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/index.html
There is no concept of victim or adverse circumstances and zero sense of the collective. It is denial. For other countries poverty is a problem to be solved, for the US it's identity, something everyone wants to wish away.
The first modern dystopia will be here, the idealogy of selfishness, greed, wealth and narcissism may benefit some individuals but leaves no space for a community to form and a culture that is not only bereft of empathy but positively despises it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_State...