I lost everything due to Covid in 2020. I have been on and off homeless since. Not able to find affordable or stable housing. I wrote three books, one of which is top ten on Apple Books for "design system", while living in parking lots at the library. I get continually harassed and fired for things I cant help. Americans are cruel to the homeless. Its quite disturbing. I have met so many that quite literally will never get out of their situation. No facilities, no showers. One lost a leg due to infection. Never trust your eyes only and most humans these days dont even use theirs very good.
Our government collects a lot of taxes for helping people like you. I guess I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that that’s not working but do you have any insight into why none of the homeless assistance projects aren’t capable of bringing you back to a stable situation?
It's a haphazard, inconsistent, bureaucratic, unkind, demeaning patchwork that isn't funded enough to meet the needs of people left-out in the actual cold. It's not meant to help people improve their situation because it treats people consistently like lazy criminals who don't want help and can't be helped.
- Section 8 housing takes forever.
- Work programs are for menial jobs that don't pay anywhere close to livable wages.
- Cash assistance amounts to $5 per day.
- Food assistance amounts to $7 per day (without a means of refrigeration).
- Medic-aid is barely accepted by any doctors except random ones. Medicare with SSDI takes years to get.
- Make just enough to try to get ahead, then you can't afford medications. Working severely penalizes the destitute into even more impossible situations.
- Everything takes longer and is more difficult and more expensive: laundry, showering, and transportation.
- Social workers don't go outdoors in most of America. They sit at desks, fill out paperwork, and randomly stop benefits based on errors, assumptions, and their lack of communication.
> Medic-aid is barely accepted by any doctors except random ones
What makes you think any sort of government intervention will solve this? If you implement universal healthcare these doctors will still have revenue streams from rich people and won't need to take poor patients. You can't force doctors to treat people they don't want to.
An even more absurd form of this is happening in France.
There used to be some "abuse" (according to the national health insurance administration) where people would, supposedly, try to see specialists for no reason. So they figured that everyone should have a "family doctor" and, with a few exceptions (dentist, eyes, maybe others) you always have to go through this doctor first.
Now most of these doctors are "full" and won't take any new clients. You don't need to be poor, they don't even ask your situation. If you call them up, they'll ask you if the doc knows you. If not, they hang up. And even if they're your family doctor, you better hope your cough isn't anything too urgent, 'cause they're in no hurry to see you.
Of course, there are doctors who will see you, but usually they charge extra, so they're not fully covered by the "free" healthcare, if at all.
Interesting, never had an issue in Lyon. Just use google maps, call the ones that are closer to you, sure some won't take you because they have too many patients but usually there are so many doctors that it's not a problem. I'm surprised that Paris would have this problem but not Lyon.
> So they figured that everyone should have a "family doctor" and, with a few exceptions (dentist, eyes, maybe others) you always have to go through this doctor first.
Every private insurer I've ever had in the US has the exact same requirement.
Univers healthcare almost always bans duplicate coverage. Without private insurance, a tiny fraction of people (<1%) can afford to bypass the public healthcare system. Therefore, it is not financially viable for all but a small number of doctors not to integrate into the public healthcare system.
The scenario you're described had the opportunity to be borne out in dozens of countries and generally didn't.
Other countries don't have Supreme Court rulings stating that banning campaign finance contributions was a violation of the 1st Amendment. Such a ban would absolutely be challenged and likely struck down in court in the US.
Meh. There are already Supreme Court rulings that state that insurance falls upon the Federal government as interstate commerce, and there is already precedent for banning certain categories of insurance.
The only way it would get struck down is if there were activist judges and if there was no political will to repair the Supreme Court. I would assume that in a world where the US political system manages to fix itself enough to pass universal healthcare that would be dealt with or fixable, because those are more urgent issues.
>manages to fix itself enough to pass universal healthcare
The Democrats could have done this of their own volition in Obama's first term, during periods where the Senate had a filibuster-proof majority. Instead, they came up with the ACA.
> The Democrats could have done this of their own volition in Obama's first term, during periods where the Senate had a filibuster-proof majority. Instead, they came up with the ACA.
How much more than the ACA (a campaign promise) and stimulus did you expect them to get done in the 4 months of the first term that they had a filibuster-proof majority?
> Lieberman, 67, used his deciding vote in Congress to help strip out a provision for government-run medical insurance, intended to set up competition to the abuses of private companies, by threatening to filibuster the legislation.
> Senate leaders agreed to drop the public option for all in favour of allowing people over 55 to buy into an existing government-run scheme for the elderly. In September, Lieberman supported the measure, as he had when he was Al Gore's running mate. But just as it seemed that a deal was done, Lieberman scuppered it by announcing that he had changed his mind and would block any bill that expanded government insurance coverage. Obama gave way.
No. Most proposals for universal healthcare by the American left would ban private insurance.
Most actual universal healthcare does not ban private insurance.
>Basically, every single country with universal coverage also has private insurance,” says Gerard Anderson, a professor at Johns Hopkins University who studies international health systems. “I don’t think there is a model in the world that allows you to go without it.”
You're making the exact mistake I was anticipating when I talked about duplicate insurance. Sure, you can get private insurance, but it cannot legally cover anything that is covered by public insurance. This is the standard worldwide.
You're conflating private insurance and duplicate private insurance, and ending up on a very mistaken conclusion because of it.
Nope. There is no such "standard worldwide". Read the article I posted. In most countries private insurance either replaces public insurance (in countries whose system uses an individual mandate like the original ACA) or as the article puts it, "complements it", for "faster access to specialty doctors or elective procedures."
In the vast majority of countries it "complements" or "supplements" it. There are very few countries where private healthcare is allowed to replace public care. Israel, Slovenia, the Netherlands and few developing countries are the only cases.
There are other countries with a system between complementary and duplicate where private insurance may also pay for duplicate care, but you still aren't allowed to not subscribe to the public healthcare plan.
Duplicate healthcare insurance is deeply toxic and
You left out Germany and Switzerland, probably others. Hardly "developing countries".
So you agree that universal healthcare systems do not almost always ban duplicate coverage, and you agree that there is no "worldwide standard" of banning duplicate coverage though private insurance.
You're just in favor of banning private insurance and are willing to engage in sweeping hyperbole toward that end.
Wanting better coverage - lower wait times, higher quality doctors - is deeply toxic? Getting higher quality doctors who don't want to get paid pennies by the public system is toxic? (for example Medicare pays substantially less than most private insurance in the US today to care providers, which is one of the biggest reasons why many doctors don't take Medicare patients)
I don't see how being able to have a private plan isn't a win-win for doctors and patients. Doctors get paid more by private insurance, and patients get better care. If you want to use the public system you have the option of doing that.
What happens in the long run if you force doctors to exclusively get paid public system rates? Doctors make less and less smart people want to become doctors. Why do you think the federal government can't hire top tier software talent? It's because they pay pennies on the dollar compared to private companies. You can't regulate your way out of a market. The Soviet Union found that out the hard way.
I read a statistic that the government spends $108k per homeless individual in San Francisco per annum. Reading this, it seems efficient for government to just hand that directly to the homeless..
That's the argument for UBI. Basically it's "no, we don't trust the government even to decide if somebody is in a precarious situation, much less to know how to help them".
It's probably more cynical than the reality warrants, but it's visibly closer to the truth than the current "let's poll the money and hire some people to help the ones in need".
> "no, we don't trust the government even to decide if somebody is in a precarious situation, much less to know how to help them"
UBI switches the question : "we think the people themselves would do a much better job if they just had the money". It's gonna be true in some cases. And completely wrong in many others.
1. I need to see the exact statistic, but IME statistics like that are flawed because they undercount the amount of people served (ie. housing assistance that keeps people housed would count towards the budget, but won't count toward the amount of "homeless individuals")
2. the other possibility is that for the very mentally ill, they actually do need 2x the median income to survive, eg. because of mental illness counseling costs.
If there was a no-strings attached $108K/y to be had somewhere, some conniving scum would find a way to get their hands on it before any single genuine homeless person in need.
Conniving scum skimming off the top is a large is part of the reason it costs $108k/y/pp in the first place. A simpler system is less prone to fraud and embezzlement.
urban campgrounds. even Rome had showers. people like me. i am a web developer and artist. i never took no help from any of your tax dollars. i paid my way or asked permission. very rarely broke laws. racially discriminated, income discriminated. people like me is part of the problem
I wouldn't say refuse, I was accepted to a program but got mugged and had to move to new location only to get mugged again. I think you are grossly over estimating the help there is or the strings tied to that help. I do still have legs and a brain and I work as much as I can, give back but I also dont sell out my work or myself or my goals or freedom.
red flag for what? ask me anything. good feedback but i guess i been so many roles over years i rather be objective about my accomplishments. the man, the myth, the legend!!!
One of the major problems is that inexpensive housing is illegal.
India has slums, and Brazil has favelas. They aren't good but they are better than the street. US used to have rooming houses. Now, if you cant afford an apartment, and can't get an expensive one gifted from the state, you have to live in the street. (Not in your car; that's usually illegal too.)
If you're an immigrant like me, then a lot of these services are not available to you in the USA. Or, if you do take advantage of any of them you are permanently excluded for applying for citizenship.
A minimum wage job will get you at least $900 a month.
You can get an apartment for $500. Health Insurance is $30, utilities $200. You can get a minimum of $50 per week in food stamps. You will get about $1000 in EITC each year.
That is with bare-bones, $7.25 an hour minimum wage and the lowest level of assistance.
With a tiny bit of advancement you can afford much more.
I agree with you. But I think some people are so sick of hearing about $400k salaries and those people complaining of a pay cut since inflation outpaced their $15k raise in 2022 that they might be "fighting the system" by living in tents next to rich people making $415k.
>>You can get an apartment for $500. Health Insurance is $30, utilities $200
Right off the bat, you're not "getting an apartment for $500." MAYBE you can find someone trustworthy who can rent you a bedroom for $500/month in some cities but:
As of 2020, monthly rent averaged $1,164 nationwide; median rent is $1,104.
Also, you need first month's rent ($500), security deposit ($500-$1000), utility deposit ($50 - $500), and sometimes last month's rent ($500).
So now we're talking a few grand. Better hope you spent the past three months working that guaranteed-40-hours/week minimum wage job without spending a single penny of your wages!
I also hope that your job is very close to your new apartment because you're going to need to spend a LOT of time chasing all the benefits that you seem to think are easily handed out and you don't have money for transit. Nope, you can't afford to take a whole day off work to wait in line for a free transit pass -- after all, you're going to spend $700 of this month's $900 income on housing and utilities!
At least make up numbers from this century if you're going to pull this Horatio Alger stuff :-)
That's not true at all. Those are absolutely real numbers. Cheapest ACA plans with income of $13k is $20 and no deductible. Lots of Apartments for $500 or less all over US. Check Zillow, which is a poor representative.
I am from Missouri USA and collecting help is frowned upon due to our Libertarian lean. As far as jobs go, whenever I have a project or a job I short term rent or house share. My reporting is that of actual street boot stompin and witnessing. I got accepted to a housing program but got mugged by a hotel and repeats the trauma cycle of abuse.
I dont really know what "their" talking points are I am just saying what is and isnt culturally accepted round here. I guess being independent and to provide for yourself are big ideals and sometimes these laws cultures and customs prevent that. I prescribe to no political ideology.
I say this without judgement, but it's very possible that the OP isn't able to hold down a job: not through any fault of their own, but because employment is extremely narrow in what it can accommodate. As they clearly state, they're able to get a job but unable to keep one: your suggestion, while probably meant to be helpful, isn't very helpful when the world of employment is out of reach to a lot of people, not because they lack the skills, but because employers don't care to accommodate people.
For what it's worth, I'd be completely incapable of handling a minimum wage job.
If you literally can't hold down a job you can get disability, but I think if you are able to live in a car you can get a job. There is such a wide variety of jobs and this guy says he wrote a book. You can make more than minimum wage right now, just writing posts on your phone.
> they're able to get a job but unable to keep one
(Genuine Q) if someone were to provide a home, would they be able to keep that?
I'm struggling to find an article I read years ago (feel sure it was somewhere at theguardian.com) in which it was proposed that just providing houses wouldn't all by itself "fix" homelessness.
No, that's an average luxury apartment or 2 bedroom regular apartment. If you're working a minimum wage job you can live with roommates. You can absolutely find a shared room with 1 other person for $900/mo (OP's $7.25 assumption is wrong as minimum wage in LA is $16.04/h = $2500/mo fulltime). In California you would also qualify for MediCal which is completely free, including 0 copay.
The cheapest ACA plans with $13000 income are $20-$30. So regular insurance. There are apartments all over for $500 or less. Search Zillow, there are far more though if you look on Facebook or just walk around an area and collect signs. Obviously it's not going to be the nicest spot, but most any college town will have lots of nice places for around $500.
Probably possible with a roommate. Still possible without, but rarer. I’ve seen dirt cheap one rooms available (think like $350/m) in middle of nowhere Utah. In certain cities, you can even live in the city, for maybe a little more than $500. I’ve seen them for example, in Des Moines.
I wouldn’t necessarily blanket any region, as as you drill down, you find that some places where’s you’d expect cheaper housing don’t have it because of whatever local bureaucracy is preventing it.
I know I will get downvoted to shit for this, but I honestly think most Americans have a poor relationship with money.
I grew up poor in Eastern Europe. When I came to the US in one of those work&travel programs, I was shocked people were sooo bad with their finances. I had a lot of financial responsibility because I grew up poor but most people did not have such a thing over there.
Just an offhand comment, but looking through your personal site[1] makes it seems like you're living this amazing life and smashing goals. One of those real "Instagram vs. Reality" contrasts.
These are touching portraits of people's backgrounds. However, they are exactly the archetypes I expect in the Venice homeless encampments.
The first person is an addict who chops up stolen bikes. The second person has untreated mental health issues. The third person came to LA with no money or employment because the weather was nicer.
They've all had struggles and we need better support for all of them, but nothing surprising here. It is nice to get a more individualized and personal background on each, it's easy to dehumanize when you're walking by and afraid of who is the 1-in-100 that's dangerous.
> How do you do drugs when you don’t have money to buy drugs?
I think the top comment up the chain has already mentioned one approach, which is "chop up stolen bikes". There are plenty of other options, but that one would be a solid start. Given the typical price of the kind of bikes that get stolen and chopped, that's a pretty solid income for drugs.
Seattle's local news station had an interesting coverage last year on the topic of stolen bikes specifically[0]. Take a look at the following quote:
> “So we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 bikes all reported stolen in the Seattle area,” says Hance. “Not all of them have prices. This one does. It’s $5,000 bucks. This one’s $1,500. This one’s $5,000. This one’s $900.”
Obviously the stolen ones will be selling for cheaper than the prices you see above. But even if we say that the stolen price is only 25% of the real cost (totally guessing, as i have no idea for the price conversion of stolen to clean), that's still quite plenty for drug money.
You steal. What do you think "I get bike parts from various places" means?
There's a special hell for bike thieves. I have empathy for the person and their situation, but not for their actions.
I mean, the 2nd guy is holding a meth bubble or crackpipe in his picture.. no judgements from me, I’m a recovering addict and alcoholic, but there’s plenty of drug abuse among the homeless population.
exactly. empathy is a wonderful thing to cultivate when designing solutions for obvious problems like homelessness and the community impact it has. But, the fact that homeless people are very real people does not change the fact that their encampments need to be dealt with and the communities around these encampments are suffering very real impacts.
Exactly. I want the support system to be good enough that there are few to no "unluckies" in these encampments. If we make it possible for virtually everyone who wants to get back on their feet to do so, then we can bring on the regulations to keep the streets clear. I'd gladly pay more in taxes if it meant I could eat lunch in my car in peace or go shopping in the bad part of town without getting accosted by some asshole who "just needs gas money to get home" like it's not the third time this week.
Because if the government has the power to imprison homeless people (even if the prisons are "nice" hospitals... today), then they also have the power to imprison "hysterical" women and blacks and gays and anyone else who the government thinks is mentally insufficient. Source: US History.
Not sure I follow, can you explain in more detail? You just conflated two different time periods in history and compared them as if the circumstances havent changed?
Not every. There's an odd coalition of rural republicans who don't want to pay, in cahoots with inner-city lefties fighting for the freedom to eat out of garbage cans. Add in a court restriction here and there and local government's hands are tied.
There's also the factor that it is a nation-wide problem. Once city can't solve it, if they did everyone would just go there.
Laws preventing people eating out of garbage cans seems to indicate that there are people who feel compelled to do so, presumably because the system has failed them terribly.
How does an inner city lefty being against such a law (which just seems to be criminalizing extreme poverty), put them in league with the people who don't want a social safety net and so are placing people in that very situation?
Isn't it cheaper to give them food than to lock them in prison ... and then give them food?
Results, not intentions. Seems you have focused on the "garbage" phrase, but it was not meant to be exactly literal. To clarify, it was rather shorthand for everything these folks do.
More specifically, supporting the mentally ill to refuse treatment. Later (as you allude), they will vocally support not enforcing various quality of life laws that have been broken. Logically, these two things are in conflict. Either the mentally ill are competent to make decisions, or they aren't... pick one.
This, combined with lack of funding are the primary hurdles to helping these folks get into places to care for them. I would also support other subsets of the homeless population to be helped. But, a lot of people prefer them just where they are apparently. The results of their actions speak louder than words.
We pay a ton of taxes in California already to deal with the homeless, yet nothing seems to get done. We need better government. There is no accountability for any of these programs that are enacted.
> There is no accountability for any of these programs that are enacted.
You can call or email Lourdes Morales in the non-partisan CA LAO if you're truly interested.
Note that nearly 1/4 of the entire United States homeless population currently resides in California. The state deals with homelessness at a scale/complexity that makes advice like "we should have better government" and "people should be accountable" not very helpful.
That's what happens when you start a homelessness program. The other states decide their homeless have a better chance with you and now you will never be able to fix the issue. State funding can never fix this issue and a state funded program will always fail. Don't even get me started on the idea that charity would solve it, they line their pockets more on nice vacation packages rather than solving the problem itself. Dig deeper and see the coolaid in action.
The tone of this really is disappointing because it sounds more like a complaint about the unhoused rather than compassion for their situation.
Anyway, housing first is a proven method for resolving the cycle of homelessness[0]. Rather than placing restrictions on people (get sober, get a job, etc) to access shelter, putting people in a stable home environment right off the bat has greater success at keeping people housed long-term.
I learned about a study on housing first and one of the primary champions of the initiative in a fantastic podcast series called According to Need, by the 99% Invisible crew. It's an eye-opening look at the beuracracy that keeps people unhoused when they seek help[1]. Bonus points that it's reported on in the Bay Area, where the problem is completely out of control. Episode three deals with housing first, but I'd really recommend listening to the entire series if you have the time.
"However, for the chronically homeless population, which represents about 10 percent of the homeless population, research has shown, and our experience has been, that when these individuals have a place of their own where they can be safe, the drinking and drug use decreases. Also, with effective case management support, we have found a positive supportive community is created in the single site locations."[2]
Pardon my ignorance, but does "housing-first" come with an expiration date, or is it indefinite? Obviously, if you pay for someone's home, you cure their homelessness, but the goal is to have them pay for their own home eventually, right?
I'd expect something like: You get 1 year of "housing-first"-style free housing with no requirements, then you get 1 year of "tough love" free housing with sobriety and job-search requirements, then you get kicked out.
I imagine it depends on the cost differential between the externalities of them being homeless like crime, health and surrounding business impact vs just providing basic housing indefinitely with some resources to get out when ready.
People with complex issues have variable amount of time to resolve it. Can't put a time on it. But you can figure what cost you more and how much you value human dignity within that cost framework.
So an arbitrary time limit in this case does not make sense as a government public welfare policy.
Drug use sometimes feels like a method homeless people use to self medicate because of being homeless. So if the bottom of Maslow like housing first is addressed then by implication it means less medication needed to treat the horrors of being homeless.
Sounds cheaper as well compared to the policing and emergency hospital bills needed to deal with them as well.
I helped a middle-class family member get off legally-prescribed opioids, and it took over a year of tapering and misery. If you stop cold turkey (or even just taper too fast), it can become dangerous. All that to say: I the drug problem is a separate but related epidemic that thrives on vulnerable populations. Even if you’re temporarily vulnerable, it just takes a few bad decisions to land someone into an addictive cycle that can last a lifetime. Once someone decides they want off hard drugs, it takes an enormous amount of willpower and support. Even years after getting off something like opioids, the cravings can linger.
I honestly think the drug problem is more powerful and detrimental than homelessness itself. The drug trade definitely feeds on homelessness, but it would likely still find a vulnerable population if homeless people were eliminated.
My experience has been that as you dig deeper into the success of housing first programs, you start to find a lot of caveats. For example, for a while Utah was being praised for “solving” homelessness by applying the housing first method, but their program failed after a few years.
It’s still probably the best idea we have going, but it’s not without significant downsides. Where I live, many small time landlords who have agreed to participate in programs like this with the city have had to evict the tenants placed with them because they made the entire property unlivable for other people through actions like smoking meth in their apartments, letting their dealers move in with them, or in one case, piling all their belongings into the bathtub and lighting them on fire in a state of meth induced psychosis.
In Portland, there is a large housing complex called Bud Clark Commons that provides low barrier housing to the homeless. Since it was constructed, the area around it has become far more dangerous than it was before. There are hundreds of tents surrounding it, meth dealers operating openly from RVs, and trash strewn all around the area. But what’s really interesting about Bud Clark Commons is that the staff actually struggles to keep people there. People cycle in and out, often leaving to return to the streets voluntarily.
It’s really depressing to consider, but it seems clear that some of the people living on our streets have been fundamentally changed in such a way that will make it extremely difficult for them to find their way back into society again. Especially for addicts, the call of euphoric oblivion right outside the door seems very hard to resist in the long term.
It would be great if Californian cities could actually implement housing first policies, but that's probably not possible unless the state government takes away their ability to control housing approvals.
Until you actually implement it and discover that the problem isn't housing, it's drug use and mental health. After all, homeless individuals have "stable" housing in their encampments (which is why they form in the first place).
And then you realize that the problem isn't solved until you can force the individual into rehab or into treatment, which you can't do because the homeless advocates will fight you in court to prevent treatment and cite stories like the above, but these homeless advocates are the reason why the bureaucracy doesn't work.
You misunderstand housing first. There's a reason it's called housing first, not housing only. Every housing first initiative I've ever heard about has wrap-around services (physical/mental health, case management, employment, etc).
Mental health care or substance use treatment just cannot be very effective if a person doesn't have a safe, climate-controlled place to be and keep their stuff. If policy insists that the mental health or substance use must be addressed prior to housing support, then money is being wasted. More importantly, people who could have gotten better under a housing first system are being denied the chance to do so.
Homeless advocates are not the reason for the failures of housing policy. There's barely any of them and they have basically no power. It seems strange to blame them when all they do is ensure that people's rights are upheld, and clearly there are much larger forces at play.
As someone who works in human services, forced treament almost always leaves the person being subjected to it worse off; it's used to satisfy the needs/biases of providers. Once someone is isolated from their supports, that's when they are most vulnerable. Providers treat people as objects to fulfill their own incentives; abuse runs rampant.
The idea that we could fix homelessness if we just canceled the human and legal rights of people who are homeless is a terrifying take. If this ethical stance is unconvincing, please know that it would cost more and be even less effective in helping people.
No, I understand the stated goal of housing first. And as someone who also used to work for the homeless, I know firsthand what works and what doesn't.
You know what the most effective way of treating homeless drug addicts is? Forcing them into rehab, while incarcerated.
You know what the most effective way of treating mental illness is?
Forcing them into mental hospitals where they are forcibly medicated.
You know what the least effective way of treating mental illness and addiction is (of the ways where some sort of action is taken)? Housing first. Because it focuses on the wrong problem: it focuses on the symptom (homelessness) and not the cause of the homelessness (drug addiction or mental illness).
If housing first worked, then permanent shelter assignments would be the quick and easy fix to the homeless problem.
The idea that we could fix homelessness if we just canceled the human and legal rights of people who are homeless is a terrifying take. If this ethical stance is unconvincing, please know that it would cost more and be even less effective in helping people.
This is the kind of silly belief that keeps the mentally ill and the addicted on the streets, shitting themselves and being eaten by rats and preyed on by rapists and drug dealers. Human rights are an theoretical concern for the homeless, not a tangible one.
> And as someone who also used to work for the homeless, I know firsthand what works and what doesn't.
Since you are appealing to your authority: I have worked with the homeless. I have also been homeless. I know firsthand what works and what doesn't. You are wrong.
> You know what the most effective way of treating homeless drug addicts is? Forcing them into rehab, while incarcerated.
> You know what the most effective way of treating mental illness is? Forcing them into mental hospitals where they are forcibly medicated.
Both of these are absolutely false, both in my experience and according to every study I've ever come across. Involuntary treatment, whether physically forced or coerced by denying certain benefits, almost never has successful outcomes. Why would it? Recovery is an active process that cannot be forced onto someone.
> You know what the least effective way of treating mental illness and addiction is (of the ways where some sort of action is taken)? Housing first. Because it focuses on the wrong problem: it focuses on the symptom (homelessness) and not the cause of the homelessness (drug addiction or mental illness).
You're now arguing with a strawman. Housing first claims to be neither mental health care, nor substance use treatment. It just makes those things dramatically easier. As I said in my first comment, housing first programs always offer mental health and subsrance use support in addition to the housing.
It should be self-evident that navigating treatment is easier when you have a safe, consistent place to live. It's easier to get mail fron Medicaid and other supports (and you should know that you can lose your benefits if you don't respond to certain pieces of mail!). It's easier to have providers arrange transportation to and from appointments. You have a physical boundary you can set with people who are triggers for unhealthy behavior. And it just takes off a massive cognitive load so you can focus mental energy on recovery.
> If housing first worked, then permanent shelter assignments would be the quick and easy fix to the homeless problem.
Be consistent. Don't compare it to "quick and easy". Give an honest, apples-to-apples comparison to your suggested alternative.
If we take all the permanent housing assignments after forced treatment, are those "quick and easy solutions"? No, long-term success rates are abysmal.
Housing first isn't a magical spell, it just works better, at a lower cost, with less authoritarianism than the alternatives.
> This is the kind of silly belief that keeps the mentally ill and the addicted on the streets, shitting themselves and being eaten by rats and preyed on by rapists and drug dealers. Human rights are an theoretical concern for the homeless, not a tangible one.
No, it's the hardass mindset which you're advocating that prevents sufficient funding toward evidence based approaches. Having safe, stable housing one controls reduces the chances that someone will be "eaten by rats" or "raped". We've tried what you're proposing and it was a human rights disaster.
During my time in the system, I avoided seeking help at times because I knew I might get psychiatrically locked up and lose my job. That's my human rights being a tangible concern.
It's very cavalier of you to suggest other people's human rights are "theoretical concerns". Thank goodness our (including anyone who is homeless, me, and you) human rights are legal, and not subject to what you deem "theoretical". They matter to me, and to the people who I support in my work.
Involuntary treatment, whether physically forced or coerced by denying certain benefits, almost never has successful outcomes. Why would it? Recovery is an active process that cannot be forced onto someone.
Absolutely false. It has worked 100% of the time I have seen it forced upon my clients (in every case because as their legal guardian I made that decision for them).
Every single one of my clients was happy that they were forced into treatment. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Because they didn't want to be mentally ill, but when their illness surfaced they couldn't make the decision to take their medications or go in for treatment. And the addicts abjectly refused to voluntarily get treatment because they were absolutely terrified of the effects of withdrawal, which in almost every case required hospital settings to manage.
But once they were sane/sober again, they were glad that I made the decision for them, because they absolutely preferred sanity and sobriety over the alternatives but couldn't get their on their own.
Housing first isn't a magical spell, it just works better, at a lower cost, with less authoritarianism than the alternatives.
This is false. LA County spends many multiples on its housing first strategy than it does when it simply commits someone to a mental hospital. Not surprisingly, mental hospitals are cheaper and more effective than housing first.
And critically, you ignore a very crucial thing about your housing first mantra: it only works for those individuals whose addictions or mental illnesses are mild enough that they can handle their own rehabilitation or medication, or in other words, a very small minority of the mentally ill and homeless in LA County.
It's very cavalier of you to suggest other people's human rights are "theoretical concerns".
When someone is so far gone that they're shitting themselves in the middle of a busy downtown street, their "human rights" are purely theoretical given the likelihood that they will die very shortly.
Thank goodness for people like me who ignore the theoretical human rights concerns so that these homeless/addicts can get the treatment they need and actually survive long enough, and be sober/sane enough, for their human rights to actually matter to them.
> all you're worried about his how it's an aesthetic inconvenience
Stolen property, burglary/robbery, biohazard in the form of feces on sidewalks, and potential unprovoked violence are hardly just "an aesthetic inconvenience" in minds of most people.
I have never seen an emaciated homeless person. I do not excuse “stealing to eat” when soup kitchens, food banks, and food stamps are available as alternatives to crime.
You cannot talk me or GP out of disgust. Once you see an obviously insane person sitting in a puddle of their own pee, on the front step of a recently closed shop you used to go to, you see the problem as a problem.
There are only so many times you can step over a potentially dead person on a running trail. Only to have them get up and run away when you look closely even from a distance.
There's only so many times you can watch a huge person crawl out from the canals and start following people around the neighborhood before you consider moving your wife and kids away forever. Don't get me started on the actual assaults and threats that he's made.
Or how about the guy who was standing beside my car with a can of gas, just looking at it swaying back and forth when we were leaving the beach. Where do my kids go when I go confront him and try to retrieve our ride?
How many times can you shrug off a break in to the mail room where all the mail is just ransacked.
That's only a couple years.
You can have empathy in abstract. But when you're in the middle of it, the 99% sob stories don't matter, the lack of public safety does. And what's most infuriating is that it's not a 'place'. these problems drift like garbage on waves, collecting in random locations, esp 'safe' neighborhoods, until they are scattered away again, usually not by police because God forbid they risk actual protests from people who don't live in the affected area. (see echo Park protests).
as automation continues improving life and we become less dependent on jobs life will become more hedonistic. a homeless dude sits on the beach and drinks beer cause he got nothing better to do everyone freaks but a millionaire doing same thing nobody bats an eye lash. just saying i been on both sides. something gotta be done at least everyone agrees theres a problem! i think if we just had basic toilets and showers and designated camp areas with bus stops would go a long ways and wouldnt cost $100k/head. kowloon city!
> I'm just observing the common framing of these two issues and the contradiction therein.
You are just stating the left-wing version of the common and tired right-wing "but protesters were spreading covid, despite caring about covid" trope.
Exact same type of a "i just observed an interesting contradiction" statement, just a different theme/reason used as a justification for the dismissal.
Both are rather pointless, as they bring nothing valuable to the discussion and just derail the conversation into a flamewar on those topics used in the "observations", rather than the actual topic at hand. Seen it way too many times in covid-related threads last year on HN.
> You are just stating the left-wing version of the common and tired right-wing "but protesters were spreading covid, despite caring about covid" trope.
Yeah, you're right. I think it's time for me to turn on "noprocrast" and get back to work.
> walking around maskless and unvaccinated in a pandemic is freedom
I mean, I am double-vaxxed with a booster, and I never threw a hissy fit when establishments required masks, I wore them. So yeah, you are making a rather strong assumption about me there.
> never mind how many well-off pet owners leave their dog's poop on sidewalks
I would be extremely delighted if there was more enforcement regarding this one as well, so I don't know why you are saying this as if it was some "gotcha" moment.
Rather curious why you ended up hyperfocusing on the "biohazard" aspect of my comment, as opposed to the rest of the "aesthetic inconveniences" (which, to a lot of people, would be a bit more problematic than the "biohazard" one).
Apologies. I tried phrasing that in the least accusatory, most general way possible but clearly failed to get my intention across.
Whenever I see discussions of the unhoused brought up online poop is frequently mentioned (and often called a hazard or biohazard). I just find that this is ironic given the gnashing of teeth that happened over mask and vaccine mandates over the past 2 years. That's why I focused on the biohazard aspect - it seems as though we as a society have decided we're ok with endangering each other with airborne viruses, why the double standard for the unhoused?
Kind of an unproductive response, I'd point you to the site guidelines about reading charitably.
As someone who spent some time homeless during the peak of a past heroin addiction, I can tell you that the comment you replied to comes across a lot more grounded than yours.
From my point of view, seeing you harass and troll people in this thread by constructing uncharitable straw men, then hawking an overpriced product, makes it seem like you’re trying to drum up anger, then profit off of it.
I think you're overloading 'dealt with' with your own assumptions. Providing support for these people so they don't need to be there is a valid way to deal with the problem
If you read the comment in good faith, which you should, I don't think they are saying they are the victim. I think they're saying that it's a problem on both sides, which is true. Having empathy for one side doesn't detract from the other.
For those of use who live close to these camps, "deal with" is the correct phrasing. As much as I want to be empathetic to people who need treatment for addiction or mental health support, there's a point where the camps begin to severely damage the community.
Examples I've dealt with personally: human shit on the front steps of my building, almost daily. Kids can't play outside because there are needles on the ground. Multiple neighbors' catalytic converters stolen, sometimes multiple times. Stolen cars without license plates. Entire encampments catching on fire. Bikes stolen from locked garages. Neighbors threatened with guns.
Where I live, there's a large part of the homeless population who refuses help from social services and won't go to shelters. I get it, shelters are shitty, but these people prefer to do drugs. I'm not the type of person who wants to call for forced institutionalization, but that almost feels like it would be more humane than the conditions these people are living in today.
This isn't a NIMBY issue, and until you've experienced it right outside your own house, you may not understand how bad the conditions can be.
No, my point is that these encampments are so bad that they shouldn't be allowed anywhere. (I'm talking about the big encampments with 5+ tents or RVs, not 1 dude with a sleeping bag.)
Have you ever thought that maybe it’s what you do that causes homelessness? That your protected safe exclusionary and prestigious places cause the problems you don’t want to face? if there was affordable living then there wouldn’t be encampments and if there were affordable places for them to camp in more humane conditions that would work too but we don’t want that - we want our prestigious places..
Expensive housing did not cause the person in the article to decide to move to California with no job and no money. Some people just can't be helped and they think their disruptive behavior should be tolerated by society.
My uncle recently talked with a homeless person... learned that his dad killed his mom when he was a child. I don't know how challenging it'd be to be a healthy contributing member of society with this sort of background. It's not always just laziness.
i volunteer with homeless weekly and my wife runs a homeless support facility where they try and help people get benefits such as social security, recover IDs and get food stamps and such.
most “work” a lot flying signs out in the heat to make a few bucks, some drink it all away.. some use it to try and get the hell out of town. some are just so into survival mode they don’t know any better
but what i find the most interesting is how most are just nice people.
you wouldn’t know that by reading this thread.
most homeless people just want to talk, share their stories and have a friend. They’re tired of being arrested for sleeping. They’re tired of their stuff being stolen - a lot of their mental issues stem from lack of sleep and filling that void with drugs and booze..
it’s unfortunate how people get treated and this thread is no exception to people perpetuating their high and mighty views of a world they know nothing about - merely to protect their world view that dehumanizes these people.
if being without a home is decriminalized and we work to build systems that support these people they wouldn’t be under bridges and in parks.. they sometimes get pushed into camps but those camps rarely give glimpses of hope and service but rather make them feel like outcasts. and everyone is a NIMBY when it comes to this - the OP being no exception to it.
They don’t care about people, they care about appearances and property values and thus nothing will ever change or happen.
There's an interesting Ted talk about an effort to reduce the number of people on death row in Texas. Turns out the cheapest and simplest way is to support them as children so they never commit the crime in the first place. Has the benefit of the crime not happening too.
His example is someone who's mother tried to kill him.
> And I said to him, "I know the story. I've read the records. I know that she tried to kill you." I said, "But I've always wondered whether you really actually remember that." I said, "I don't remember anything from when I was five years old. Maybe you just remember somebody telling you."
16:46
> And he looked at me and he leaned forward, and he said, "Professor," -- he'd known me for 12 years, he still called me Professor. He said, "Professor, I don't mean any disrespect by this, but when your mama picks up a butcher knife that looks bigger than you are, and chases you through the house screaming she's going to kill you, and you have to lock yourself in the bathroom and lean against the door and holler for help until the police get there," he looked at me and he said, "that's something you don't forget."
There is no law that says you need a job and money to move to California so qualifying it like this is absurd. People still have freedom without proof of income.
everyone can be helped, you just don’t want to be bothered. Some people need professional help but again, why start the discussion off with jobs and money when those people with severe mental issues probably don’t have either?
what’s interesting is they views your behavior as disruptive. Go watch a hobo or homeless youtube channel and they will describe you to the T - slave to wages, kids with problems and bills and credit card statements to look forward to but instead of breaking fee of that we do more to protect it.
ahh well.. i’ll never change your mind.. but you can go change it yourself by volunteering and fining things out first hand instead of assuming.
It's common courtesy to your fellow citizens to not move to a place just to become homeless because you intentionally moved without a job lined up or money saved.
> they views your behavior as disruptive
That's great, but they are not the majority and I and many others will continue to vote for policies and politicians that remove people like them from our cities. For example, many cities in SoCal empower their police to actively remove homeless. I have a feeling the 2022 election will only strengthen these initiatives.
> slave to wages
Some of us actually enjoy our jobs - what a concept!
Yes, I think about that every day. Maybe homelessness is a standing protest against late stage capitalism, questioning the very idea that we should allocate nice places to live based on productivity and that wealth is a good proxy for productivity.
And maybe homeless encampments are the absolute worst place for someone struggling with mental health or drug issues, heightening the risk of every injury and surrounding them with enablers.
Yeah but those people are functional members of society and act relatively rational when compared to untreated severely mentally ill homeless people. Even if you happen to walk by a rapist/murderer/pedo, they're not likely to do anything in broad daylight on a public sidewalk to random passerbys with tons of other people around. The same cannot be said for some homeless.
It's also easy to dehumanize by assuming there are 'archetypes' that can be reasonably applied to people just because they're poor or living on the street.
I recommend the YouTube channel 'Invisible People' if you are interested in hearing homeless people's stories. Each video is unedited; you get it as they tell it.
The worst part of that are the demagogues who then paint California as some post-apocalyptic hell-hole. There's no doubt cities have problems with homeless, encampments, etc... but for many good old boys to paint this as a blue state, liberal city problem is such a bad faith argument.
I don't think so - there are huge meth and oxy problems in the middle of the country and the people who can sustain it either have money or are leveraging relationships. Those that make it out to the coasts are no different in their abuse, they just have no one else to turn to.
I wonder if there are some folks within the city council or whatever governmental group that essentially allows people to camp / live in this area that want this to be a public eye sore to get public support to do something about it? Because if you take at face value what these folks say, they like the fact that the location is beautiful and it’s convenient for them in various ways. The same reasons members of the public would also enjoy coming to the same area but are not able to enjoy it because the area is an eye sore / does not feel safe. Caring about the homeless and allowing them to live in a gorgeous public park seems like really the only goal to allow it is to want to generate public discussion since it is so obviously unfair to people who live nearby, people who want to visit it and enjoy it, and businesses in the area that are impacted by the homeless needing bathrooms / leaving trash / causing problems (likely a small minority who cause problems but still the problems do exist let’s be real).
You know what's even more unfair than you having to deal with this "eye sore"? That these people are homeless. Have some empathy. They are people, too.
They don't compare. One group has their homes "impacted" (they are inconvenienced by the sight of poverty), the other group doesn't have a freaking home.
I'm assuming that you have the privilege of never living near a large homeless encampment. It really does become an all-encompassing matter for people in the area. You're reminded of it every time you breathe in air that smells like diesel and burnt aluminum foil. When you see tents at the very intersection in this article, while the bridge housing 2 blocks away has 50+ empty units due to lack of interest. Every time you go to the library and there's someone in a trenchcoat furiously masturbating. When you're followed on a bike ride by someone who runs a chop shop, looking to see if you're an easy mark. When you're walking down the street and someone screams racial slurs and threatens to kill you.
Rationally you can think "that's just the mental illness or addiction causing someone to behave that way". But over time, even if you rationalize the behavior it wears down on your empathy.
1. The limitations of the oppressed vs. oppressor view of the world, which is very popular at the moment. It takes a comfort with cognitive dissonance to accept that some haves aren’t necessarily oppressors, but it’s easy to assume that they are. See also: the scorn heaped upon small time landlords.
2. Accepting that some people will take advantage of a given situation, even homelessness, for their own gain is a very disconcerting thought if you tend towards empathy for homeless people. I struggle with accepting this myself, even though I can see it happening in front of me.
3. The bifurcation of all political ideology into Republican vs. Democrat, and the suspicion of crypto-Republicanism that is now levied at ideas outside the acceptable Overton window.
4. Bitter jealousy towards people who have managed to secure property in a desirable area that others feel locked out of due to rising costs. I used to feel this quite intensely myself.
You know what would be great? A park with more bathrooms and safe grills in the same area for people to live in. maybe even areas where it's easy to set up a sleeping arrangement and get a little privacy. Hell, why not add some doors and walls to these little areas, and some indoor plumbing to make it sanitary. you could even go so far as to make part of the park for living, and part of it a shared recreational space for them and members of the community to comingle.
I'm not sure why criticizing politicians who are weaponizing homeless populations against local residents to sway public opinion is lacking empathy. If anything, it's dignifying them as people who should not be used as pawns for a political agenda.
Then just look at the distribution in the USA: Among the states with most homelessness per capita are: District of Columbia, New York, Oregon, Washington State, Alaska. Yes, also Californa, but California has most of everything, including housed people.
Aside from D.C. and New York, these are all states within the ninth circuit court’s jurisdiction, and therefore are bound to the Martin v. Boise ruling, which allows public camping if there is not adequate shelter space available. If one part of the country allows that while the rest doesn’t, you’d expect that the homeless population will migrate over time to the more permissive area, which seems to be borne out in the growth of the homeless population on the West Coast since the ruling went into effect. Of course, we also mint plenty of new homeless ourselves with our astronomical housing costs, but I see a lot of people with out-of-state plates on the RVs they live in here in Oregon.
Cultural factors like ethics that entail helping people and educating everyone that anyone could end up in a vulnerable situation and then dedicating resources to make sure everyone has a safety net in case they lose their job, have a mental illness, addiction or something else unexpected?
That's not how it works here at all. First, universal insurance isn't "freeloading." Then, drug addiction is treated like an illness like anything else and everyone is entitled to help for it. Drug use is entirely illegal.
> Why shouldn't individual suffer the consequences of their actions?
The consequences of being laid off? Getting cancer? Having schizophrenia? Being an addict? They do suffer the consequences of all those things, none of which they caused and they get help with them.
Help is fundamentally a voluntary action - you ask for it and the helper decides what help to give and how to give it. In other words, charity. This isn't what you're describing, you're describing compulsion and entitlement. If you need help, you should ask for it, and if others want to help you, they will. Otherwise, your misfortunes and your failures are entirely your own to deal with.
Insurance is also voluntary - you can opt in/out and shop around. We have that too. I think you're proposing some mandatory "I make bad decisions" insurance that we all have to pay into. No thanks, I'll opt out.
Insurance can be voluntary or not. In any case, it is voluntary here. We're a democracy and chose this because it's good for us. We can also shop around. In contrast to the US though, ours is affordable for every resident.
I think that's a matter of perspective. You can slap a mental illness label on anyone who's failing to thrive, for any reason. It doesn't somehow invalidate the idea that we all make decisions about our lives that have long-term consequences. It's no secret that drugs are viciously harmful to health. Why try them, even once, knowing this?
Other countries use nonvoluntary methods for dealing with their addicts or mentally ill and have substantial treatment programs and public asylums. That's the big issue with a lot of these homeless populations here. Case workers reach out, offer care, offer shelter, the person out of their mind with a necrotic leg from their intravenous drug habit says no, and in a few months they die on the street. Maybe they luck out and get a 72 hour hold and are able to actually get the medication they need in that span, find some clarity, and decide to take up these offers of help, but most just end up back where they started. We gutted the public institutions we used to have for these issues, now we are dealing with decades of a failure to treat public mental health and addiction.
> Other countries use nonvoluntary methods for dealing with their addicts or mentally ill and have substantial treatment programs and public asylums.
What other countries do you mean? In northern Europe, you can't nonvoluntarily do anything to anyone that isn't imminently a danger to themselves or others. Everyone gets help that needs it, no excuses, and we have virtually no homeless people at all.
It's complicated, so that could be the case for some specific situations (or maybe not? I don't really know) but in general drug use is decriminalized (for possession of less than a ten day supply of drugs) in Portugal. You can even get a waiver for use if addicted and clean substitutes. They have persuasion therapy and treatment that is covered by healthcare. Although one can be summoned to a dissuasion committee periodically, they can't mandate compulsory treatment.
My (admittedly limited) understanding is that its sort of an escalating series of interventions, run by a panel of social workers and medical professionals. The penalties seem to ratchet up as a person’s addiction becomes more and more problematic or impactful on the community, which makes a lot of sense to me.
In my home state, Oregon, we voted to decriminalize all “personal use” amounts of all drugs back in 2020. However, the folks who crafted the ballot measure left out a lot of the “stick” parts that have made Portugal’s efforts more successful. That has not worked well. At a time when meth use was already skyrocketing, it has enabled dealers to proliferate rapidly. They simply have to make sure they only carry a personal use amount on them at any given time. I’d really like to see us implement some of the more persuasive elements of Portugal’s model to curb some of the downsides we’re now dealing with.
And yet, there is a labour shortage across the country. Also I'm not looking down on anyone, merely observing that given the options, many homeless people are in the only niche they can find in our society that will accomodate their lifestyle.
Put at least a tiny amount of thought into this. You can't get a job without a shower, without clothes, without an address, without a phone number and for many, without health care.
I'm living it. My family were immigrants from the Soviet Union without a penny to their name. My grandfather worked construction into his 70s supporting us. They didn't have anything at all besides grit. You skipped the part where work ethic and sobriety are all you need to get started.
As to why millions live in misery, I suspect it is due to a failure to embrace work and suffering as the only constants in life.
I never said it's easy, only that it's simple. Much like weight loss - very simple - just eat less. Not easy though. I don't need personal experience with obesity to make this observation either.
There is a qualified labor shortage. Go to a home depot in socal and come out with a can of paint and you will be hounded by people asking you if you need under the table labor done. A dozen workers will stand on the corner of the parking lot saying "labor labor labor!" If it were so easy to find work these days, then why are these seemingly qualified handimen begging for jobs outside home depot? Probably because its not actually so easy to find work these days if there are certain circumstances, perhaps your immigration status, that make it difficult to find work you'd be otherwise qualified to perform.
There's tons of qualified people that are unable to find work simply because of their immigration status. Having work permission in the US is a massive economic advantage so it makes the situation of Americans who throw away that gift they were born into that much more jarring and hard to sympathize with.
Anecdotally, a friend of mine has attempted to hire homeless people on multiple occasions to help him in residential demolition projects (no clean clothes, resume, or shower necessary). In one instance, he scheduled work for the following day and zero out of 8 people showed up. I'm sure there's homeless people that would like to work their way of the situation, but I don't think they are in the majority. Any solutions to this problem need to be more realistic about the motivations and intentions of the group they're trying to assist.
The other side of the "not showing up" story has merit too. I had a (former) friend that did the same, and asked why people hadn't shown up.
The pay is terrible. In his case, it was below minimum wage. He argued he could get better labor for minimum wage, so they could either take it or be replaced.
He was also renting them the same place they were renovating. It was a slum, and he was using their labor to improve it so he could kick them out and replace them with someone that would pay. Not exactly a thrilling proposal.
There was no safety equipment provided. It was an old building, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was full of asbestos (and maybe why he didn't hire a reputable company in the first place).
The place was filthy. Human feces in a bucket kind of filthy.
> Any solutions to this problem need to be more realistic about the motivations and intentions of the group they're trying to assist.
There's a grain of truth here. My phrasing would be "Any solution provided needs to be better than panhandling." Doing difficult physical labor for below minimum wage doesn't meet that criteria. Even at minimum wage, I don't know if it's better.
To elaborate, it seems that for most of human history the value proposition for most people, as imposed by nature, was "work hard or starve". Somehow, sometime, we've decided that this value proposition was unethical. So now it's "work hard, or live in the social safety net, such as it is". This is much more palatable for many more people, despite the downsides, so many more people take the offer.
I assure you many people on earth would enthusiastically clean the worst filth in order to feed their families. This should not be regarded as degradation, but rather strength and triumph.
> it seems that for most of human history the value proposition for most people, as imposed by nature, was "work hard or starve".
Many people and cultures have celebrated and promoted leisure. The US strain of the Protestant work ethic is not most of human history, most people, or imposed by nature.
> This should not be regarded as degradation, but rather strength and triumph.
It can be an individual triumph over circumstance, but the circumstances are still degrading.
You can celebrate and promote leisure only to the degree that it allows you survive. In tropical areas where food is plentiful year-round, there tends to be more leisure. In harsh climates that require hard work and careful planning to avoid starvation, there is less.
The protestant work ethic has led to the most successful economy on earth. Other economies competing for the title work just as hard. There is an ongoing competitive/evolutionary process of culture and ideas, and "work hard" is winning.
> the circumstances are still degrading
Why do you say that? What is degrading about destitution, exactly? I'm not sure those who live it, and especially those who choose it, would agree that they exist in a degraded state. I don't think degradation exists in nature, it is a condition imposed by one group of people on another. Destitution however is encountered frequently in the natural world, and in itself does not imply a moral condition.
I think you and I have a different set of core beliefs, but I can expand on my side as well.
> To elaborate, it seems that for most of human history the value proposition for most people, as imposed by nature, was "work hard or starve". Somehow, sometime, we've decided that this value proposition was unethical.
For myself, that turning point is when food ceased to be a scarce good. When food is scarce, somebody has to starve and allocating by contribution is a reasonable way to do it. When food is so plentiful that we inefficiently convert it to crappy gasoline because we have so much (corn) and cram caves full of it (cheese), letting someone starve is more of a conscious decision than an incredibly unfortunate situation.
In other words, being unable to share essential goods is very different from refusing to share essential goods.
I'm willing to sacrifice a portion of my efforts so that people don't starve. The "work hard or starve" mantra has a nasty implication that people who can't work should just starve. If you're going to provide for the disabled, it's no longer "work hard or starve", and you need a new justification for why people who can work but don't deserve to starve. It becomes very morally murky and arbitrary.
> I assure you many people on earth would enthusiastically clean the worst filth in order to feed their families.
Many people on earth would also enthusiastically kill each other to feed their families. That doesn't make it a noble pursuit.
> This should not be regarded as degradation, but rather strength and triumph.
I don't see any triumph here, so you might have to expand on that thought. I guess they're triumphing over starvation, but that's not really a show of strength in a country with 1.4 billion pounds of cheese stashed in a cave. It seems like calling breathing a triumph over asphyxiation.
If they were paid enough to live a remotely decent life, that would be a triumph. Enough to afford somewhere to live, food, a little leftover to pursue a passion.
Working hard and foul jobs so your boss can pay you so little that you're almost jealous of barn animals, so they can then use the money they saved to throw you out seems very degrading to me.
Most people take better care of their household pets than we afford the homeless. Most dogs do nothing but emotional support, yet we feed them, take them to the vet, make sure they come inside when it's hot/cold. Cats don't even do emotional support, they're mostly a walking curiosity. Everybody's happy with that arrangement, but the homeless wanting a semblance of fair pay for shitty work is a step too far?
For all of agrarian history resources have been unequally distributed - hoarded by few at the expense of many others. This is also true in nature - animals will viciously defend as much territory as they can, and not limit themselves to what they "need". Furthermore, having secured the best territory, food, and mating opportunities, they (whether as individuals or in groups) will spend their free time harassing their competitors. This is optimal behavior in a Darwinian environment - take as much as you can, and pull the proverbial ladder up behind you.
"Civilization" hasn't really changed the realities which give rise to these optima. It only defines the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. It doesn't change the rules of the game, as it were. We've not suddenly become a colony of ants, selflessly behaving as a single organism. Nor do I think it reasonable to carry the expectation that we suddenly will. Nor do I consider it particularly virtuous to compel us by force to emulate the ants.
Indeed we do have an excess of calories in our society, but that's not really the problem the parent post describes. It describes homelessness - often correlated with drug addiction and mental illness. When I see a homeless person, they don't seem much different to me than the similarly destitute animals sometimes depicted in nature documentaries. Those animals who, by failure or misfortune, have found themselves unable to compete with their peers and unable to carve out a niche for themselves. They wander listlessly, with ever decreasing energy and opportunity, until they finally succumb to their fate.
None of this strikes me as particularly "wrong" or "degrading" or really having any moral character at all. It is just an inevitable, inescapable, fact of life. To suppose otherwise is to think that human beings are somehow more special, or more intrinsically valuable than other animals. Given your comparisons to household pets, this clearly doesn't hold any water. In the scheme of things, we're just a hair more clever than our ape ancestors, and that has pushed us past a tipping point into civilization. I don't see how this makes us any "better" or more worthy.
Personally, given all of the above, I think it's best to embrace reality. We live in a world where optimal behaviour is self-interested and the cost of failure is total. This isn't a statement of values, it's an observation of fact. The only question that remains is how comfortable are you using force/authority to compel cooperation? I myself don't want to force anyone to do anything (and rather resent being forced myself). Authority should be used to ensure our coexistence is peaceful, and that we resolve disputes via due process. Beyond that however, I'm not very comfortable telling other people how they should behave, or whom they should help. I would rather die destitute than pry greedily into the pocket of an unwilling and uncharitable stranger.
> This is also true in nature - animals will viciously defend as much territory as they can, and not limit themselves to what they "need".
This is very much not true. It doesn't even make sense from an evolutionary perspective; why would an animal risk their life and waste energy to protect something they don't need? Some animals do take a sizable territory. Typically carnivores, who need a crazy amount of space to get enough meat. Most animals aren't even territorial.
> Furthermore, having secured the best territory, food, and mating opportunities, they (whether as individuals or in groups) will spend their free time harassing their competitors.
Again, this isn't true. Why would they do that? It's a risk and an energy expenditure for no gain. They'll fight over territory if they have to, but I have never heard of an animal going out of it's way to harass each other for the sake of it.
> It doesn't change the rules of the game, as it were. We've not suddenly become a colony of ants, selflessly behaving as a single organism. Nor do I think it reasonable to carry the expectation that we suddenly will. Nor do I consider it particularly virtuous to compel us by force to emulate the ants.
I think you're basing this on a flawed understanding of nature and how we fit into it. The only way humans are a dominant species is through cooperation. Not every person all the time, but in aggregate.
Humans are not particularly strong. Humans are not particularly fast. We are smart, but that's only helpful insofar as it improves our fitness, and can be a weakness due to increased caloric needs. As individuals, we are not particularly high on the food chain. What puts us high on the food chain is the ability to collaborate. We invented farming, giving us a caloric surplus. Then we created societies, allowing us to use that surplus to have people dedicated to research. We then use that research and some caloric surplus to have people create things like guns and concrete and ships that make us highly adaptable and deadly to the rest of the food chain.
Without that collaboration, we go back to being the middle of the foodchain and jumping at every shadow at night.
> We live in a world where optimal behaviour is self-interested and the cost of failure is total.
Self-interested behavior is too local of a maxima to be useful as a species. Evolution encourages the survival of the species, not the survival of the individual. A purely self-interested view would see the optimal solution being to take from others, leading to a collapse of the species. It takes a lot less energy to kill the farmers and take their crop than it does to actually grow the crop.
> Authority should be used to ensure our coexistence is peaceful, and that we resolve disputes via due process.
And this is the logical (rather than moral) reason why we take care of the less fortunate. Starving animals tend to become very aggressive, and humans are no exception. During the Soviet famines, people killed and ate each other. You can't tell someone starving to death that they need to peacefully coexist; it won't happen.
It is dramatically cheaper and easier to prevent that by just preventing starvation.
> why would an animal risk their life and waste energy to protect something they don't need?
To displace its competition and further secure its dominance of the local area. Too much is always better than not enough. Even animals who occupy enormous territories will seek to expand them further at any opportunity. Bands of chimps will murder neighbouring bands over territory, despite neither group being remotely close to starving. Coalitions of male lions will seek to take possession of a pride of females by killing the existing males and all of their juvenile offspring. Many groups of human hunter-gatherers, ignorant of the modern world, will kill strangers in their territories on sight.
Nature evolves these behaviours simply because animals who display them have a greater chance of passing on their genes. Anything but hostility to direct competition is usually suboptimal.
Human dominance evolved through cooperation in small familial groups numbering less than 100. That is what our social biology is equipped to handle. There are many examples of company culture fragmenting past ~150 headcount. Past that group size, we're no longer able to cooperate based on shared in-group status and mutual trust. The mechanism of civilization is bureaucracy, but the interactions are still between small tribes of people each competing for their own interests, and in practice totally apathetic to outcomes outside their group.
We've managed to put some rails around the process, but legal and corporate interactions are the civilized equivalent to war. The same language is even used. We're still the same apes, with the same limitations regarding, frankly, how many other people we are capable of giving a damn about.
> It takes a lot less energy to kill the farmers and take their crop than it does to actually grow the crop.
Not really sustainable over a generation though, is it? Your strategy has function long enough for your offspring to reach maturity, and their offspring, etc. The winning strategy is to take as much from the farmers as they will tolerate and funnel it into extravagant displays of power and social status that further cement your position. All we've done is put some rules around the taking, mandating (in civil society) that it be voluntary and not under the threat of violence. This way, you invent iPhones, sell them at huge margins to all the farmers, become absurdly wealthy, and no one need die. It's a winning system.
> It is dramatically cheaper and easier to prevent that by just preventing starvation.
I'm not actually sure that's true. Shocking escalation of violence is also effective, and very cheap. In places where amputation is a common punishment for theft, wouldn't you know it, people don't steal as much. In places where punishment for crimes is severe, and police are effective, crime rates are low. Japan being a great example.
empathy means realizing that these conditions they live in under the status quo is harmful and does not come from a place of care. I'm sure the people living in the camp think its an eyesore too and would prefer better circumstances than a nylon tent that anyone with bad intentions and a buck knife can break into.
So invite a homeless person to live in your house with you. I bet you have a spare room or even a couch they could crash on. If everyone who accused people who complain about homeless encampments of lacking empathy did this simple thing, there would be no more homeless encampments.
There's really no conspiracy, this is the cheapest thing to do. You kick people out of the parks, they just move around and you still have basically the same problem next week.
In order to permanently get people to leave you need to build semi-permanent camps. But these camps do need to be in somewhat desirable areas because the people in the camps need to live near where they can find work (many don't have cars.) You put them out in the boonies they're just going to come camp in the city because there's no jobs in the boonies and they are mostly normal people who want to find work and not have to camp in tents.
Obtaining land and permitting such camps is hard. The more expensive option is building permanent housing. The most expensive option is prison.
Check out what happened in Austin, TX.
The city government proclaimed the same thing you are saying: there is no way to get rid of homeless so they allowed "city camping" in 2019. By 2020 the city of Austin had encampments under every overpass, in parks and on some major streets.
But a PAC against this has been established and passed a ballot measure in 2021. The city government first ignored it (they've made up a 4-stage plan to implement it where each stage consisted of asking homeless not to camp) but the PAC stuck around and kept engaging the city in the courts and pushing other measures on the ballot. This caused a real fear of losing for the current mayor and city council so suddenly they've found a way to get rid of all the camps.
Where there is a will (to stay in office) there is always a way.
My parents were up in Austin last week and complained about the camps, so they must have figured out how to get those camps out really quick. I'll be there myself in the next couple weeks for some datacenter work, so I can take a look firsthand.
I wonder where they went - I assume the Republicans would be happy to woodchip them or whatever. This time of year, I'd probably take a ticket north for the summer, which would probably be a bit better for optics.
What Republicans have to do with Austin? The city government is as Republican as San Francisco or Seattle. I've read the city is putting them into former hotels that it bought some time ago for that purpose but could not figure how to use them. Also they might have some areas outside downtown designated for encampments, last time I've read about it few were protested but there is plenty of land in Austin and the city owns thousands of acres.
Greg Abbott's house is there (I've been, but it was Rick Perry's house at the time.) along with some famous Republicans like Alex Jones, and most recently Elon Musk and maybe Joe Rogan. It seems like the hip place for famous conservatives these days.
But yeah, I try to avoid downtown if I can, but I've seen the camps off I-35 for years, just haven't been by in a month or two myself.
Right, plenty of Republicans live there but the city and county governments are Democrat just like any other big city in the US. I take I-35 to/from downtown all the time and don't see any camps. There used to be a few tents on every exit and a giant camp under the elevated part of it, right across the APD HQ. Those are gone.
Out of sight out of mind perhaps. It's possible that they got housed somewhere but that would be unusual in my experience. Like I said I'll go take a look for myself in a week or two - despite its problems, there's still some stuff I like to go do in Austin, and some occasional work too. Perhaps I'll remember this thread and reply back.
Exactly. Most people's problem is not that somebody is "experiencing homelessness" as they say. Most people are bothered by people littering, blocking public right of way, consuming drugs and alcohol, exposing themselves in public, assaulting passersby, stealing and trespassing on the private property etc. We don't care if they have no place to live or are eccentric billionaires who actually have 10 houses each, we are bothered by the antisocial behavior. Prevent this behavior as the law tells you to do and you can keep your seat in the city council and legalize whatever crazy ideas you have. Protect trees, emancipate armadillo, dig a subway, etc - nobody really cares enough to vote you out.
If you like this kind of thing, then you'll love Soft White Underbelly [1][2] which is a collection of hundreds of intimate, colorful and brutal interviews done by Mark Laita with people from Skid Row (and elsewhere.)
Then there's also Invisible People which has been interviewing homeless people for even longer. [3][4][5]
Is this a representative sample? The article/title certainly suggests this, but the cynic in me thinks that only the interesting stories get published.
According to a cursory search "More than 66,400 people were experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles County at the start of 2020". From that population it doesn't seem too hard to cherrypick 1000 interesting/sympathetic people to interview. Without at least an affirmative statement from them (ie. "we randomly pick interviewees and publish every interview that we conduct") it's hard to be sure.
I'm not questioning the interviewing process (ie. misrepresenting what was said in the interview), I'm questioning the publication/selection process itself (ie. conducting interviews but only choosing to publish the sympathetic interviewees, or deliberately profiling potential interviewees to select for the most sympathetic ones). I looked at the two youtube channels you linked, and while they might have unedited interviews, there isn't obvious indication that the interview candidates were selected at random or otherwise free of bias (ie. an continuous hour long video interviewing people one after the other).
I understand, selection bias. I mean I don't know how Mark chooses his interviewees (he never says and he's never shown on the street) but many of them are extremely unsympathetic (certain pimps, for example), a couple are simultaneously likeable but clearly evil, and some are super boring, so I don't think there's any kind of intentional bias.
As far as IP, they just walk up to random people, which you can see in some of the videos. They definitely want to help people, but it's not like they hide drug addiction or anything like that if that's what you're worried about [1].
The first link is clearly in a studio environment, with extensive effort at production. That’s a lot more than “just walking up” to people and not editing.
My dad works with people to help them find housing and while peoples’ stories are similar with a broad brush, each one is uniquely complex.
There are many steps involved to qualify for housing or to apply for disability benefits and it can be pretty overwhelming to navigate.
One person needed a birth certificate to get ID, they born in a state on the other side of the country, you had to mail forms to apply for the new birth certificate and then you needed an address where it could be sent, and there was a fee for a new one.
My dad’s approach is to not worry about solving Homelessness, but instead to partner with someone and help them solve homelessness in their situation.
Has he had a high success rate with this approach? If so, maybe we should considering employing a few people with the city or state government to do this professionally.
I want to say he’s helped ~ 30 people over the past few years, but can only work with a few clients at a time.
Another example was someone who wasn’t homeless (friend of friend), but was facing thousands in monthly medical treatment bills.
He came to meet with the person and noticed a military bumper sticker and it ended up that the person was a veteran and likely qualified for VA benefits meaning it would basically be covered. They had some bad VA experiences in the past and had written them off.
But that person very well could have ended up on the street with such large medical bills piling up.
there was a homeless woman living in a cocoon of bushes/trees in one of the yards of an apartment building in my neighborhood. she was very tidy, quiet, and had a pet cat. friendly but not quite put together, she was nevertheless a normal part of our neighborhood. one day, some contractors for the owner came and kicked her out of her makeshift home, and put a fence up to keep her out. she was then forced onto the sidewalk/parkway area where she was less safe and secure. about a year later, she was found dead there.
I have the assumption you think that this is a witty retort meant to "own the" person you're replying to, but how about this for a genuine answer:
Because there are often laws or rules against that sort of thing. Taking in a long-term boarding guest who is unrelated to you is against city ordinance in many smaller jurisdictions, and if someone rents (like many do) their leases often prohibit such arrangements.
So now instead of one person looking for housing, you have two or more.
(Note that my reply omits all of the other arguments about how individual action for collective problems is very unlikely to solve the problem in a meaningful way and this is why we have societies and governments, and so on.)
It's not a gotcha statement. I believe in individual action, even for global problems. And I believe you're a hypocrite if you accuse others of lacking empathy for the problem while both parties external behavior is exactly the same. It's literally thinking "thoughts and prayers" for homeless people will help them, and deriving some kind of smug moral superiority for that.
You say there are "often" laws against what I proposed, which is having someone sleep in a spare bedroom.
What percent of Americans do you think are subject to those laws?
What is the homeless population? Something like 0.1% of Americans. How many Americans have bleeding hearts when thinking about the homeless? I dunno, maybe 5%?
So even if 50% of people lived in restrictive housing locations where they couldn't implement it, you'd still only need 4% of the remaining bleeding hearts to take in a single homeless person to solve the problem.
> What percent of Americans do you think are subject to those laws?
Well, as with many things in life, it depends on the location. The odds of there being a non-familial occupancy limit are a lot lower in Loving County, Texas than they likely are in Harris County, Texas, simply because more population tends to beget more situations where society has decided we need more rules.
While overall percentages are likely low, the percentages in the areas where homelessness is most acute are almost certainly higher. For example, San Francisco's occupancy ordinance says that, in general, the upper limit is two people of occupancy per bedroom. While San Francisco has repealed its rules about non-familial cohabitation, Dallas still has some limits (though they are sparsely enforced).
Further, areas where homelessness is most acute also tend to have a higher percentage of people who rent, since the barriers to building any kind of housing make all but the most expensive kind of housing--rental units with long-term ROI built for "luxury"--the only kind that get built. According to media reports in 2021, people who rent make up 65% of San Francisco's households. Same for Seattle, where 50.3% of households rent their dwellings. It is likely the case that not all of these rental agreements have restrictions on who can move in and at what time, I would bet one months' rent that the overwhelming majority do.
> It's literally thinking "thoughts and prayers" for homeless people will help them, and deriving some kind of smug moral superiority for that.
I agree that simply having empathy but not backing with efforts is the most hollow of gestures. However, simply saying "well, why don't they live with you" isn't helpful. For another reason beyond what we've discussed, why is it automatically the case that someone who is unhoused would want to live with a stranger? There are myriad justified complaints about congregate shelters and short-term transient housing. The answer isn't "find roommates for everyone," it's "build housing at the rate and income levels needed to house people." But for the howling NIMBYs of the group, we could probably do this. So would it not be more effective to get many of the BS rules blocking housing out of the way?
It's not a short-term fix, but we already know what other short term fixes are that aren't people taking in roommates: buying hotels and converting them, for one; tiny house villages with proper doors and sanitary facilities are another. Not sweeping people from one "unsanctioned" campsite to another with nowhere to go is a third.
You stated the answer is to "build housing at the rate and income levels needed to house people" however that's clearly ignoring important aspects of the issues and is not a long term solution.
Housing is complex, takes effort. To build and pay for, and then also to maintain and keep livable and operational.
Many of those homeless have observed inability to take care of things consistently over times. Probably related to impulse control. It's a continual effort/challenge to keep one's life on the 'straight and narrow' to keep the many aspects working. It's hard for the average person - they work at it continually.
Whether, and HOW it's possible, for which percentage of the homeless population, to be able to keep on the 'straight and narrow' and look after a home they have been gifted from others hard work is an important part of the 'the answer' that you talked about.
Otherwise you get the situation of the workers building the homeless expensive buildings that are not treated with respect as homes but instead neglected or actively destroyed over time.
So 'the answer' you proposed isn't realistic. The closest thing to what you said that may actually work is to first build them a home, then maintain it for them financially as well as operationally, and then continually repair that home when the damage gets too bad.
In other words a house with ongoing service agreement. And of course food and healthcare as well. Oh and internet and entertainment, and support when the drugs has caused another problem.
Meanwhile this is like 'retirement' that the hardworking part of the population strives and works their ass off to get to as a 'goal'.
If I understand your proposal of taking lifes major goals for the productive and just giving it to those who don't take accountability for themselves, I wonder if your solution would be fundamentally destructive to society because then why would productive people work, if instead they can get high regularly while other people work for them?
You don't really know anything about his situation, the mental history of the woman or anything else to be able to make what appears to be a very glib and slightly judgmental statement.
It's far less risky from a personal standpoint to be able to donate and pursue effective altruism that it is to individually (versus a proper social collective) shoulder the responsibility for an entire human being.
And even though this isn't an argument against what you're saying, ask yourself, do you currently shelter a homeless person in your house? Even if you don't know a homeless person, you own a car don't you? Surely you have a moral obligation to go and drive through your city, locate a homeless person and shelter them until they're back on their feet.
Are these profiles or just a reporter transcribing people pitching the best version of themselves? I don't mean any snark, I have a huge amount of sympathy and empathy for the plight of the homeless and more should be done for them, a lot more. However, these 'profiles' seems to smooth out a lot of the complexities involved. To boot, there are only 3 people profiled.
You hit the nail on the head I think. You meet a lot of these types when you spend time doing volunteer work. Eloquent, relatively intelligent, very street smart, and pathologically unable to take accountability for anything in their lives. I suspect it comes from years of taking advantage of the kindness of others, usually due to a history of drug addiction.
I don't mean to paint with broad strokes here: there are many kind, honest homeless people who really just need help finding a way to live. There are also a lot of shucksters who will tell you exactly what you want to hear.
This is the state of reporting (generally speaking) in 2022.
I mean the guy Coconut looks like he's holding a meth pipe - and personally I wouldn't believe a thing he says. Tells you his ex RAN away with the kids, that his daughter wants nothing to do with him along with his sisters who send him money. He also likes to play games where he lies to people and sees what they'll believe. Seems to take zero responsibility and tells grand stories of the things he's done...
Still sad about the others, but yes some actual journalism would be nice!
There's a law school dropout/hippie/merchant mariner/retired writer with the NY Daily News and The Village Voice who lives in Los Gatos, Campbell, and Los Gatos. His memory is sharp enough that he could win at Jeopardy.
I've been working in Venice Beach for the past 4 years. 2 blocks from that library.
Right across the street, someone camped on the empty lot at the intersection. They chose this spot because of the outlet that powered the christmas lights. Few days later, the whole thing caught on fire, including the tent. Few weeks later, the city cleaned it up and installed plants and a fence so no one could live there. Well, someone moved on the other side of the road and ran a daisy chained outlet that went over the intersection and into the plug... It also caught on fire.
I was there when the police came in the middle of covid and destroyed all the tents and kicked everyone out. It took a long time, but eventually someone installed a single tent by the library. Then someone else joined. Now there is an entire community that lives there.
Venice is the most confusing place in the world, it has million dollar homes with homeless people tents surrounding them. It's really hard to decide what is the right thing to do.
There was a man that slept right in front of the door of our building. Sometimes when I'm leaving work in a hurry, I'd stumble on him. I got used to it and didn't report him or anything. But then, he started pooping on the stairs. As terrible as that is, it's not my building. But, the owners have found a cruel and effective solution. They installed sprinklers on the stairs and in the parking lot.
These stories resonate with me because those are the people I see outside right now. When you struck a conversation, this is what you hear. Someone who has lived a whole life just to end up here. Young men that look like surfers living the life, they are stuck here. Young ladies wearing fancy clothe and make up, but live in a honda fit. You don't need a mental illness to be homeless here. You can't afford anything anyway.
These seem cherry picked and it smells of propaganda.
Now, don't get me wrong, it looks awful and I don't want unnecessary suffering. And most of all I bet a lot of those people could slot into housed productive lives if there was a smart and well funded platform for them. That's what I'd love...
But I want to see a survey of :
Criminal status. Health issues. Drug use. Mental Health. Education. Age. Sex. Gender. Marital Status. And then aptitude tests in English and Math. Maybe even an IQ test. But most of all a Big 5 personality test.
Many of those answers could lead towards to matching a person with substitutes or hopefully even a job.
My fear is that a majority can never be self sufficient. Who would that be? Low intelligence and low agreeableness. With or without attendant health issues those two dimensions make for a life of pure misery without a rich support network.
Just because someone's not self sufficient doesn't mean they have to be homeless. Nobody has to be homeless. It's called falling through the cracks. It's a tragedy.
Sorry, your comment got in my craw. But maybe that was your intention.
Are you willing to work with someone that's stupid and mean? Are you willing to employ them? Leave them with delicate equipment? Are you willing to live with them while they don't pay rent, don't clean up after themselves, don't do any errands or chores, and watch them slowly self destruct and set flame to the rest of their relationships? I'm not. Most people aren't.
The fate of those with low intelligence and low agreeableness makes me weep if I think about it too much. It's awful and there's almost nothing save continual heroic sacrifices from others that can keep them in the same comfort, safety, and dignity that most of us take for granted. They need a strong support network. Be that friends, family, or culture.
Show me a modern and productive culture without homelessness and I'll sign up. We should all sign up.
I can't recommend the 99% spinoff podcast "According To Need" enough, really illustrates the situation well & humanizes the problem in a way that isnt done enough. https://99percentinvisible.org/need/
Not a great podcast. It cherry picks the stories to highlight the 1% of homeless who people can empathize with, and leaves out the drug addicts, alcoholics, and dangerously mentally ill that they can't.
I'm reminded of the article the Seattle Times did on a local homeless encampment that was in the Ballard Commons park for over a year. They did their best to make it sympathetic to the people living in the park, but it was hard to take it too seriously when the cover picture chosen had a visible crack pipe in it. Even in the linked article, "Coconut" has a crack pipe in his hand.
It's a complex issue, and people tend to talk about different things when discussing the homeless problem. As far as I can tell, there are two groups of people - able people who have been displaced due to financial, medical, job-related reasons and are now homeless, who need social support (in the form of cash) to get out of the poverty hole and not fall back in.
And then there's the second group, for whom living on the streets is preferable to entering shelters or rehab facilities due to a crippling drug dependency. This is the group that makes the headlines, mainly because they're the ones making public spaces unsafe (there's a headline every day about an assault in Seattle where somebody gets attacked unprovoked by someone in this second group of people).
What do you do with the repeat offenders who refuse to go to rehab and stay clean? Public spaces should be usable by all.
These narrative approaches are maybe designed to 'humanize' the homeless for the benefit of the readers of the LA Times and I suppose that's fine, but a more statistical approach is what you'd want if you actually wanted to solve the problem. As far as solutions:
1. Triage first. There's a small fraction of the homeless population incapable of caring for themselves because they've got serious mental issues, and probably need institutional care. Mixing these people in with everyone else is a recipe for disaster.
2. Housing second. Putting people in even minimal housing, like tiny homes, where they can keep their pets too, and have a little bit of privacy and access to bathrooms (shower, toilet) and kitchens (sink, stove, fridge), means they can start getting their lives in order.
3. Jobs third. Once you've got a place to live, you can likely get a job of some kind. This really improves mental well-being, you're part of something else. Doesn't really matter what it is: you have a place to show up to and something useful to do and if you can keep that together, that's a huge help.
Now, even with this there will be failures. Some people will be drug addicts and alcoholics (same thing, really) and won't be able to keep down jobs or keep their places in a livable condition. They probably need health care intervention of some kind.
As far as the plausibility of all this, well, look at every other country will this kind of basic safety net for their citizens which prevents them from falling below a certain line. They don't have the homeless encampments in every city in their country, do they?
But sure, keep on with the tax cuts for the wealthy and the CEOs who make 50X what the entry level workers do and the expensive private health care, and the situation will stay as bad as it is or even get worse. It'll look a lot like Cuba under Batista in the early 1950s, or like Germany's Weimar Republic, and then you'll get either fascist or communist authoritarianism, fun times.
Steve Lopez (LA Times columnist who also wrote The Soloist) talked with local homeless people in Hollywood a few years ago. I can't find the links now, but some were similar to TFA - local people who ended up on the street owing to a confluence of factors including eviction, injury, addiction, and bad luck.
But there were a number of profiles involving people, usually outsiders, who made decision to come to southern California because they wanted to live near the beach (on a $600/month social security check) or they wanted to break into show business or the music industry.
One young couple from Detroit had a friend of a friend of a friend who was a producer, bought a one-way ticket to LA and when that connection didn't pan out were stuck on the street. Even Lopez, who has done a lot to document the human tragedy on the streets of LA, seemed a little exasperated by these cases which had their origins in unrealistic assumptions about making it big or leading some sort of dream life in LA ... and the burden put on the already overwhelmed system to help people in need.
I also recommend viewing some of the "Invisible People" interviews all over North America and sometimes Europe:
I live in West Los Angeles and have been by this encampment, as well as many others throughout West LA. The article portrays the encampment as some sort of "community" where people who have made a few bad decisions or caught a few bad breaks have come to "get back on their feet".
The reality is this encampment, like many others, is pretty close to hell on earth. It's a site of abject misery, squalor, and violence. People regularly get stabbed, beaten, and raped there. The people in the camp set fires, scream wildly at all hours of the day and night, fight with the fire department, consume hard drugs openly (i.e. meth and fentanyl), and destroy the surrounding environment with an astounding amount of trash and human waste. The park they occupy as well as the nearby library are now unusable by the general public.
The response to these types of articles always reminds me of that video about the purported ex-KGB agent talking about "demoralization"--even when shown "facts" in front of their very eyes, the demoralized are unwilling to believe.
An example of similar journalism--here's a cover story from the Madison, WI local paper "painting a picture" of the "troubled" life of a "local activist" after his arrest went semi-viral a few years ago: https://isthmus.com/news/cover-story/in-his-name/
For some reason, "empathy for the unfortunate" has turned into "a complete inability to prescribe moral judgements against anyone who meets a certain set of criteria".
What I have learned from watching lots of interviews with drug addicts and homeless is that some people are so broken by life that it is impossible to fix them. No amount of resources spent on “fixing” them will work. All we can do is to minimise the number of kids who get broken in early childhood by parents/family/neighbourhood, giving them a chance to avoid the same destiny. Having said that, helping does work for the maybe 80% who hasn’t yet become completely broken.
320 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 336 ms ] thread- Section 8 housing takes forever.
- Work programs are for menial jobs that don't pay anywhere close to livable wages.
- Cash assistance amounts to $5 per day.
- Food assistance amounts to $7 per day (without a means of refrigeration).
- Medic-aid is barely accepted by any doctors except random ones. Medicare with SSDI takes years to get.
- Make just enough to try to get ahead, then you can't afford medications. Working severely penalizes the destitute into even more impossible situations.
- Everything takes longer and is more difficult and more expensive: laundry, showering, and transportation.
- Social workers don't go outdoors in most of America. They sit at desks, fill out paperwork, and randomly stop benefits based on errors, assumptions, and their lack of communication.
What makes you think any sort of government intervention will solve this? If you implement universal healthcare these doctors will still have revenue streams from rich people and won't need to take poor patients. You can't force doctors to treat people they don't want to.
There used to be some "abuse" (according to the national health insurance administration) where people would, supposedly, try to see specialists for no reason. So they figured that everyone should have a "family doctor" and, with a few exceptions (dentist, eyes, maybe others) you always have to go through this doctor first.
Now most of these doctors are "full" and won't take any new clients. You don't need to be poor, they don't even ask your situation. If you call them up, they'll ask you if the doc knows you. If not, they hang up. And even if they're your family doctor, you better hope your cough isn't anything too urgent, 'cause they're in no hurry to see you.
Of course, there are doctors who will see you, but usually they charge extra, so they're not fully covered by the "free" healthcare, if at all.
Every private insurer I've ever had in the US has the exact same requirement.
The scenario you're described had the opportunity to be borne out in dozens of countries and generally didn't.
The only way it would get struck down is if there were activist judges and if there was no political will to repair the Supreme Court. I would assume that in a world where the US political system manages to fix itself enough to pass universal healthcare that would be dealt with or fixable, because those are more urgent issues.
The Democrats could have done this of their own volition in Obama's first term, during periods where the Senate had a filibuster-proof majority. Instead, they came up with the ACA.
How much more than the ACA (a campaign promise) and stimulus did you expect them to get done in the 4 months of the first term that they had a filibuster-proof majority?
https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2012/09/09/when-oba...
They could have done universal healthcare instead of ACA and with much simpler legislation and less regulatory authoring burden.
> Lieberman, 67, used his deciding vote in Congress to help strip out a provision for government-run medical insurance, intended to set up competition to the abuses of private companies, by threatening to filibuster the legislation.
> Senate leaders agreed to drop the public option for all in favour of allowing people over 55 to buy into an existing government-run scheme for the elderly. In September, Lieberman supported the measure, as he had when he was Al Gore's running mate. But just as it seemed that a deal was done, Lieberman scuppered it by announcing that he had changed his mind and would block any bill that expanded government insurance coverage. Obama gave way.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/16/joe-lieberman-...
Most actual universal healthcare does not ban private insurance.
>Basically, every single country with universal coverage also has private insurance,” says Gerard Anderson, a professor at Johns Hopkins University who studies international health systems. “I don’t think there is a model in the world that allows you to go without it.”
https://www.vox.com/health-care/2019/2/12/18215430/single-pa...
You're conflating private insurance and duplicate private insurance, and ending up on a very mistaken conclusion because of it.
There are other countries with a system between complementary and duplicate where private insurance may also pay for duplicate care, but you still aren't allowed to not subscribe to the public healthcare plan.
Duplicate healthcare insurance is deeply toxic and
You left out Germany and Switzerland, probably others. Hardly "developing countries".
So you agree that universal healthcare systems do not almost always ban duplicate coverage, and you agree that there is no "worldwide standard" of banning duplicate coverage though private insurance.
You're just in favor of banning private insurance and are willing to engage in sweeping hyperbole toward that end.
Wanting better coverage - lower wait times, higher quality doctors - is deeply toxic? Getting higher quality doctors who don't want to get paid pennies by the public system is toxic? (for example Medicare pays substantially less than most private insurance in the US today to care providers, which is one of the biggest reasons why many doctors don't take Medicare patients)
I don't see how being able to have a private plan isn't a win-win for doctors and patients. Doctors get paid more by private insurance, and patients get better care. If you want to use the public system you have the option of doing that.
What happens in the long run if you force doctors to exclusively get paid public system rates? Doctors make less and less smart people want to become doctors. Why do you think the federal government can't hire top tier software talent? It's because they pay pennies on the dollar compared to private companies. You can't regulate your way out of a market. The Soviet Union found that out the hard way.
It's probably more cynical than the reality warrants, but it's visibly closer to the truth than the current "let's poll the money and hire some people to help the ones in need".
UBI switches the question : "we think the people themselves would do a much better job if they just had the money". It's gonna be true in some cases. And completely wrong in many others.
2. the other possibility is that for the very mentally ill, they actually do need 2x the median income to survive, eg. because of mental illness counseling costs.
also the load time is wack, and the stats aren't backed up, im confused
India has slums, and Brazil has favelas. They aren't good but they are better than the street. US used to have rooming houses. Now, if you cant afford an apartment, and can't get an expensive one gifted from the state, you have to live in the street. (Not in your car; that's usually illegal too.)
A minimum wage job will get you at least $900 a month.
You can get an apartment for $500. Health Insurance is $30, utilities $200. You can get a minimum of $50 per week in food stamps. You will get about $1000 in EITC each year.
That is with bare-bones, $7.25 an hour minimum wage and the lowest level of assistance.
With a tiny bit of advancement you can afford much more.
>>You can get an apartment for $500. Health Insurance is $30, utilities $200
Right off the bat, you're not "getting an apartment for $500." MAYBE you can find someone trustworthy who can rent you a bedroom for $500/month in some cities but:
As of 2020, monthly rent averaged $1,164 nationwide; median rent is $1,104.
-- https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/renting-statistics
Only 7% of US counties have 1-bedroom apartments affordable on the prevailing minimum wage.
-- https://reports.nlihc.org/oor
Also, you need first month's rent ($500), security deposit ($500-$1000), utility deposit ($50 - $500), and sometimes last month's rent ($500).
So now we're talking a few grand. Better hope you spent the past three months working that guaranteed-40-hours/week minimum wage job without spending a single penny of your wages!
I also hope that your job is very close to your new apartment because you're going to need to spend a LOT of time chasing all the benefits that you seem to think are easily handed out and you don't have money for transit. Nope, you can't afford to take a whole day off work to wait in line for a free transit pass -- after all, you're going to spend $700 of this month's $900 income on housing and utilities!
At least make up numbers from this century if you're going to pull this Horatio Alger stuff :-)
Example 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/nyregion/overcrowding-wor...
Example 2: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/23/nyregion/base...
>Check Zillow
There's literally zero matches for rents under $500 in LA County.
But...don't live in LA county... Or even California, the options are not either be homeless or live in the most expensive place in the US.
Why? I thought charitable work/donations were a libertarian talking point against social welfare and related programs
For what it's worth, I'd be completely incapable of handling a minimum wage job.
(Genuine Q) if someone were to provide a home, would they be able to keep that?
I'm struggling to find an article I read years ago (feel sure it was somewhere at theguardian.com) in which it was proposed that just providing houses wouldn't all by itself "fix" homelessness.
In the Bay Area or L.A.; not the other 90% of CA.
Probably possible with a roommate. Still possible without, but rarer. I’ve seen dirt cheap one rooms available (think like $350/m) in middle of nowhere Utah. In certain cities, you can even live in the city, for maybe a little more than $500. I’ve seen them for example, in Des Moines.
I wouldn’t necessarily blanket any region, as as you drill down, you find that some places where’s you’d expect cheaper housing don’t have it because of whatever local bureaucracy is preventing it.
In New York City: Example 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/nyregion/overcrowding-wor... Example 2: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/23/nyregion/base...
I grew up poor in Eastern Europe. When I came to the US in one of those work&travel programs, I was shocked people were sooo bad with their finances. I had a lot of financial responsibility because I grew up poor but most people did not have such a thing over there.
[1]https://rwoodall.com/
The first person is an addict who chops up stolen bikes. The second person has untreated mental health issues. The third person came to LA with no money or employment because the weather was nicer.
They've all had struggles and we need better support for all of them, but nothing surprising here. It is nice to get a more individualized and personal background on each, it's easy to dehumanize when you're walking by and afraid of who is the 1-in-100 that's dangerous.
I think the top comment up the chain has already mentioned one approach, which is "chop up stolen bikes". There are plenty of other options, but that one would be a solid start. Given the typical price of the kind of bikes that get stolen and chopped, that's a pretty solid income for drugs.
Seattle's local news station had an interesting coverage last year on the topic of stolen bikes specifically[0]. Take a look at the following quote:
> “So we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 bikes all reported stolen in the Seattle area,” says Hance. “Not all of them have prices. This one does. It’s $5,000 bucks. This one’s $1,500. This one’s $5,000. This one’s $900.”
Obviously the stolen ones will be selling for cheaper than the prices you see above. But even if we say that the stolen price is only 25% of the real cost (totally guessing, as i have no idea for the price conversion of stolen to clean), that's still quite plenty for drug money.
0. https://www.kiro7.com/news/jesse-jones/stolen-bikes-can-be-a...
There's also the factor that it is a nation-wide problem. Once city can't solve it, if they did everyone would just go there.
How does an inner city lefty being against such a law (which just seems to be criminalizing extreme poverty), put them in league with the people who don't want a social safety net and so are placing people in that very situation?
Isn't it cheaper to give them food than to lock them in prison ... and then give them food?
More specifically, supporting the mentally ill to refuse treatment. Later (as you allude), they will vocally support not enforcing various quality of life laws that have been broken. Logically, these two things are in conflict. Either the mentally ill are competent to make decisions, or they aren't... pick one.
This, combined with lack of funding are the primary hurdles to helping these folks get into places to care for them. I would also support other subsets of the homeless population to be helped. But, a lot of people prefer them just where they are apparently. The results of their actions speak louder than words.
You can call or email Lourdes Morales in the non-partisan CA LAO if you're truly interested.
Note that nearly 1/4 of the entire United States homeless population currently resides in California. The state deals with homelessness at a scale/complexity that makes advice like "we should have better government" and "people should be accountable" not very helpful.
Anyway, housing first is a proven method for resolving the cycle of homelessness[0]. Rather than placing restrictions on people (get sober, get a job, etc) to access shelter, putting people in a stable home environment right off the bat has greater success at keeping people housed long-term.
I learned about a study on housing first and one of the primary champions of the initiative in a fantastic podcast series called According to Need, by the 99% Invisible crew. It's an eye-opening look at the beuracracy that keeps people unhoused when they seek help[1]. Bonus points that it's reported on in the Bay Area, where the problem is completely out of control. Episode three deals with housing first, but I'd really recommend listening to the entire series if you have the time.
"However, for the chronically homeless population, which represents about 10 percent of the homeless population, research has shown, and our experience has been, that when these individuals have a place of their own where they can be safe, the drinking and drug use decreases. Also, with effective case management support, we have found a positive supportive community is created in the single site locations."[2]
[0] https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Housing-First-Research... [1] https://99percentinvisible.org/need/ [2] https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/07/1...
I'd expect something like: You get 1 year of "housing-first"-style free housing with no requirements, then you get 1 year of "tough love" free housing with sobriety and job-search requirements, then you get kicked out.
People with complex issues have variable amount of time to resolve it. Can't put a time on it. But you can figure what cost you more and how much you value human dignity within that cost framework.
So an arbitrary time limit in this case does not make sense as a government public welfare policy.
Sounds cheaper as well compared to the policing and emergency hospital bills needed to deal with them as well.
I honestly think the drug problem is more powerful and detrimental than homelessness itself. The drug trade definitely feeds on homelessness, but it would likely still find a vulnerable population if homeless people were eliminated.
It’s still probably the best idea we have going, but it’s not without significant downsides. Where I live, many small time landlords who have agreed to participate in programs like this with the city have had to evict the tenants placed with them because they made the entire property unlivable for other people through actions like smoking meth in their apartments, letting their dealers move in with them, or in one case, piling all their belongings into the bathtub and lighting them on fire in a state of meth induced psychosis.
In Portland, there is a large housing complex called Bud Clark Commons that provides low barrier housing to the homeless. Since it was constructed, the area around it has become far more dangerous than it was before. There are hundreds of tents surrounding it, meth dealers operating openly from RVs, and trash strewn all around the area. But what’s really interesting about Bud Clark Commons is that the staff actually struggles to keep people there. People cycle in and out, often leaving to return to the streets voluntarily.
It’s really depressing to consider, but it seems clear that some of the people living on our streets have been fundamentally changed in such a way that will make it extremely difficult for them to find their way back into society again. Especially for addicts, the call of euphoric oblivion right outside the door seems very hard to resist in the long term.
Housing first doesn't work, shelter first probably does.
In LA 3 times more homeless people died than in NYC.
https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/three-times-more...
Until you actually implement it and discover that the problem isn't housing, it's drug use and mental health. After all, homeless individuals have "stable" housing in their encampments (which is why they form in the first place).
And then you realize that the problem isn't solved until you can force the individual into rehab or into treatment, which you can't do because the homeless advocates will fight you in court to prevent treatment and cite stories like the above, but these homeless advocates are the reason why the bureaucracy doesn't work.
Mental health care or substance use treatment just cannot be very effective if a person doesn't have a safe, climate-controlled place to be and keep their stuff. If policy insists that the mental health or substance use must be addressed prior to housing support, then money is being wasted. More importantly, people who could have gotten better under a housing first system are being denied the chance to do so.
Homeless advocates are not the reason for the failures of housing policy. There's barely any of them and they have basically no power. It seems strange to blame them when all they do is ensure that people's rights are upheld, and clearly there are much larger forces at play.
As someone who works in human services, forced treament almost always leaves the person being subjected to it worse off; it's used to satisfy the needs/biases of providers. Once someone is isolated from their supports, that's when they are most vulnerable. Providers treat people as objects to fulfill their own incentives; abuse runs rampant.
The idea that we could fix homelessness if we just canceled the human and legal rights of people who are homeless is a terrifying take. If this ethical stance is unconvincing, please know that it would cost more and be even less effective in helping people.
You know what the most effective way of treating homeless drug addicts is? Forcing them into rehab, while incarcerated.
You know what the most effective way of treating mental illness is? Forcing them into mental hospitals where they are forcibly medicated.
You know what the least effective way of treating mental illness and addiction is (of the ways where some sort of action is taken)? Housing first. Because it focuses on the wrong problem: it focuses on the symptom (homelessness) and not the cause of the homelessness (drug addiction or mental illness).
If housing first worked, then permanent shelter assignments would be the quick and easy fix to the homeless problem.
The idea that we could fix homelessness if we just canceled the human and legal rights of people who are homeless is a terrifying take. If this ethical stance is unconvincing, please know that it would cost more and be even less effective in helping people.
This is the kind of silly belief that keeps the mentally ill and the addicted on the streets, shitting themselves and being eaten by rats and preyed on by rapists and drug dealers. Human rights are an theoretical concern for the homeless, not a tangible one.
Since you are appealing to your authority: I have worked with the homeless. I have also been homeless. I know firsthand what works and what doesn't. You are wrong.
> You know what the most effective way of treating homeless drug addicts is? Forcing them into rehab, while incarcerated.
> You know what the most effective way of treating mental illness is? Forcing them into mental hospitals where they are forcibly medicated.
Both of these are absolutely false, both in my experience and according to every study I've ever come across. Involuntary treatment, whether physically forced or coerced by denying certain benefits, almost never has successful outcomes. Why would it? Recovery is an active process that cannot be forced onto someone.
> You know what the least effective way of treating mental illness and addiction is (of the ways where some sort of action is taken)? Housing first. Because it focuses on the wrong problem: it focuses on the symptom (homelessness) and not the cause of the homelessness (drug addiction or mental illness).
You're now arguing with a strawman. Housing first claims to be neither mental health care, nor substance use treatment. It just makes those things dramatically easier. As I said in my first comment, housing first programs always offer mental health and subsrance use support in addition to the housing.
It should be self-evident that navigating treatment is easier when you have a safe, consistent place to live. It's easier to get mail fron Medicaid and other supports (and you should know that you can lose your benefits if you don't respond to certain pieces of mail!). It's easier to have providers arrange transportation to and from appointments. You have a physical boundary you can set with people who are triggers for unhealthy behavior. And it just takes off a massive cognitive load so you can focus mental energy on recovery.
> If housing first worked, then permanent shelter assignments would be the quick and easy fix to the homeless problem.
Be consistent. Don't compare it to "quick and easy". Give an honest, apples-to-apples comparison to your suggested alternative.
If we take all the permanent housing assignments after forced treatment, are those "quick and easy solutions"? No, long-term success rates are abysmal.
Housing first isn't a magical spell, it just works better, at a lower cost, with less authoritarianism than the alternatives.
> This is the kind of silly belief that keeps the mentally ill and the addicted on the streets, shitting themselves and being eaten by rats and preyed on by rapists and drug dealers. Human rights are an theoretical concern for the homeless, not a tangible one.
No, it's the hardass mindset which you're advocating that prevents sufficient funding toward evidence based approaches. Having safe, stable housing one controls reduces the chances that someone will be "eaten by rats" or "raped". We've tried what you're proposing and it was a human rights disaster.
During my time in the system, I avoided seeking help at times because I knew I might get psychiatrically locked up and lose my job. That's my human rights being a tangible concern.
It's very cavalier of you to suggest other people's human rights are "theoretical concerns". Thank goodness our (including anyone who is homeless, me, and you) human rights are legal, and not subject to what you deem "theoretical". They matter to me, and to the people who I support in my work.
Involuntary treatment, whether physically forced or coerced by denying certain benefits, almost never has successful outcomes. Why would it? Recovery is an active process that cannot be forced onto someone.
Absolutely false. It has worked 100% of the time I have seen it forced upon my clients (in every case because as their legal guardian I made that decision for them).
Every single one of my clients was happy that they were forced into treatment. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Because they didn't want to be mentally ill, but when their illness surfaced they couldn't make the decision to take their medications or go in for treatment. And the addicts abjectly refused to voluntarily get treatment because they were absolutely terrified of the effects of withdrawal, which in almost every case required hospital settings to manage.
But once they were sane/sober again, they were glad that I made the decision for them, because they absolutely preferred sanity and sobriety over the alternatives but couldn't get their on their own.
Housing first isn't a magical spell, it just works better, at a lower cost, with less authoritarianism than the alternatives.
This is false. LA County spends many multiples on its housing first strategy than it does when it simply commits someone to a mental hospital. Not surprisingly, mental hospitals are cheaper and more effective than housing first.
And critically, you ignore a very crucial thing about your housing first mantra: it only works for those individuals whose addictions or mental illnesses are mild enough that they can handle their own rehabilitation or medication, or in other words, a very small minority of the mentally ill and homeless in LA County.
It's very cavalier of you to suggest other people's human rights are "theoretical concerns".
When someone is so far gone that they're shitting themselves in the middle of a busy downtown street, their "human rights" are purely theoretical given the likelihood that they will die very shortly.
Thank goodness for people like me who ignore the theoretical human rights concerns so that these homeless/addicts can get the treatment they need and actually survive long enough, and be sober/sane enough, for their human rights to actually matter to them.
A lot of rampant predatory quackery involved when forcing therapy and medication on those with no means of recourse, too.
Stolen property, burglary/robbery, biohazard in the form of feces on sidewalks, and potential unprovoked violence are hardly just "an aesthetic inconvenience" in minds of most people.
I have never seen an emaciated homeless person. I do not excuse “stealing to eat” when soup kitchens, food banks, and food stamps are available as alternatives to crime.
There are only so many times you can step over a potentially dead person on a running trail. Only to have them get up and run away when you look closely even from a distance.
There's only so many times you can watch a huge person crawl out from the canals and start following people around the neighborhood before you consider moving your wife and kids away forever. Don't get me started on the actual assaults and threats that he's made.
Or how about the guy who was standing beside my car with a can of gas, just looking at it swaying back and forth when we were leaving the beach. Where do my kids go when I go confront him and try to retrieve our ride?
How many times can you shrug off a break in to the mail room where all the mail is just ransacked.
That's only a couple years.
You can have empathy in abstract. But when you're in the middle of it, the 99% sob stories don't matter, the lack of public safety does. And what's most infuriating is that it's not a 'place'. these problems drift like garbage on waves, collecting in random locations, esp 'safe' neighborhoods, until they are scattered away again, usually not by police because God forbid they risk actual protests from people who don't live in the affected area. (see echo Park protests).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City
You are just stating the left-wing version of the common and tired right-wing "but protesters were spreading covid, despite caring about covid" trope.
Exact same type of a "i just observed an interesting contradiction" statement, just a different theme/reason used as a justification for the dismissal.
Both are rather pointless, as they bring nothing valuable to the discussion and just derail the conversation into a flamewar on those topics used in the "observations", rather than the actual topic at hand. Seen it way too many times in covid-related threads last year on HN.
Yeah, you're right. I think it's time for me to turn on "noprocrast" and get back to work.
I mean, I am double-vaxxed with a booster, and I never threw a hissy fit when establishments required masks, I wore them. So yeah, you are making a rather strong assumption about me there.
> never mind how many well-off pet owners leave their dog's poop on sidewalks
I would be extremely delighted if there was more enforcement regarding this one as well, so I don't know why you are saying this as if it was some "gotcha" moment.
Rather curious why you ended up hyperfocusing on the "biohazard" aspect of my comment, as opposed to the rest of the "aesthetic inconveniences" (which, to a lot of people, would be a bit more problematic than the "biohazard" one).
Whenever I see discussions of the unhoused brought up online poop is frequently mentioned (and often called a hazard or biohazard). I just find that this is ironic given the gnashing of teeth that happened over mask and vaccine mandates over the past 2 years. That's why I focused on the biohazard aspect - it seems as though we as a society have decided we're ok with endangering each other with airborne viruses, why the double standard for the unhoused?
I think your other points are, overall, stronger.
As someone who spent some time homeless during the peak of a past heroin addiction, I can tell you that the comment you replied to comes across a lot more grounded than yours.
Examples I've dealt with personally: human shit on the front steps of my building, almost daily. Kids can't play outside because there are needles on the ground. Multiple neighbors' catalytic converters stolen, sometimes multiple times. Stolen cars without license plates. Entire encampments catching on fire. Bikes stolen from locked garages. Neighbors threatened with guns.
Where I live, there's a large part of the homeless population who refuses help from social services and won't go to shelters. I get it, shelters are shitty, but these people prefer to do drugs. I'm not the type of person who wants to call for forced institutionalization, but that almost feels like it would be more humane than the conditions these people are living in today.
This isn't a NIMBY issue, and until you've experienced it right outside your own house, you may not understand how bad the conditions can be.
most “work” a lot flying signs out in the heat to make a few bucks, some drink it all away.. some use it to try and get the hell out of town. some are just so into survival mode they don’t know any better
but what i find the most interesting is how most are just nice people.
you wouldn’t know that by reading this thread.
most homeless people just want to talk, share their stories and have a friend. They’re tired of being arrested for sleeping. They’re tired of their stuff being stolen - a lot of their mental issues stem from lack of sleep and filling that void with drugs and booze..
it’s unfortunate how people get treated and this thread is no exception to people perpetuating their high and mighty views of a world they know nothing about - merely to protect their world view that dehumanizes these people.
if being without a home is decriminalized and we work to build systems that support these people they wouldn’t be under bridges and in parks.. they sometimes get pushed into camps but those camps rarely give glimpses of hope and service but rather make them feel like outcasts. and everyone is a NIMBY when it comes to this - the OP being no exception to it.
They don’t care about people, they care about appearances and property values and thus nothing will ever change or happen.
This is my experience too. Which is a testament to the human spirit, given how shunned they are.
> a lot of their mental issues stem from lack of sleep
I lose it after a few nights of bad sleep in my comfy bed, in my warm secure bedroom. I'd be such a wreck on the cold hard concrete.
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_r_dow_lessons_from_death_row...
His example is someone who's mother tried to kill him.
> And I said to him, "I know the story. I've read the records. I know that she tried to kill you." I said, "But I've always wondered whether you really actually remember that." I said, "I don't remember anything from when I was five years old. Maybe you just remember somebody telling you."
16:46 > And he looked at me and he leaned forward, and he said, "Professor," -- he'd known me for 12 years, he still called me Professor. He said, "Professor, I don't mean any disrespect by this, but when your mama picks up a butcher knife that looks bigger than you are, and chases you through the house screaming she's going to kill you, and you have to lock yourself in the bathroom and lean against the door and holler for help until the police get there," he looked at me and he said, "that's something you don't forget."
everyone can be helped, you just don’t want to be bothered. Some people need professional help but again, why start the discussion off with jobs and money when those people with severe mental issues probably don’t have either?
what’s interesting is they views your behavior as disruptive. Go watch a hobo or homeless youtube channel and they will describe you to the T - slave to wages, kids with problems and bills and credit card statements to look forward to but instead of breaking fee of that we do more to protect it.
ahh well.. i’ll never change your mind.. but you can go change it yourself by volunteering and fining things out first hand instead of assuming.
> they views your behavior as disruptive
That's great, but they are not the majority and I and many others will continue to vote for policies and politicians that remove people like them from our cities. For example, many cities in SoCal empower their police to actively remove homeless. I have a feeling the 2022 election will only strengthen these initiatives.
> slave to wages
Some of us actually enjoy our jobs - what a concept!
And maybe homeless encampments are the absolute worst place for someone struggling with mental health or drug issues, heightening the risk of every injury and surrounding them with enablers.
I don't blame people for keeping their distance. "only 1 in 100 is dangerous" is very cold comfort when you encounter hundreds every week.
Forty percent chance of a dangerous encounter/week is too much imho
You probably walk past rapists, pedophiles and murderers all the time without putting yourself at any serious risk.
Homelessness is a national problem that manifests itself in places where we take care of the homeless.
It's simply more visible in California because we don't try to brush our problems under the rug and pretend they don't exist.
Or, you know, wake up to find shit on their driveways, smashed windows on their cars, needles thrown on the street, etc.
Rationally you can think "that's just the mental illness or addiction causing someone to behave that way". But over time, even if you rationalize the behavior it wears down on your empathy.
1. The limitations of the oppressed vs. oppressor view of the world, which is very popular at the moment. It takes a comfort with cognitive dissonance to accept that some haves aren’t necessarily oppressors, but it’s easy to assume that they are. See also: the scorn heaped upon small time landlords.
2. Accepting that some people will take advantage of a given situation, even homelessness, for their own gain is a very disconcerting thought if you tend towards empathy for homeless people. I struggle with accepting this myself, even though I can see it happening in front of me.
3. The bifurcation of all political ideology into Republican vs. Democrat, and the suspicion of crypto-Republicanism that is now levied at ideas outside the acceptable Overton window.
4. Bitter jealousy towards people who have managed to secure property in a desirable area that others feel locked out of due to rising costs. I used to feel this quite intensely myself.
1) How many homeless people are interested in a productive life, with the work/sobriety expectations (and the housing/benefits) that implies?
2) How many of those are actively working towards this goal?
It sure seems to me that there are lots of people who want to live irresponsibly, and prey on our sympathy to facilitate that lifestyle.
Almost all, as becomes evident if you compare the drastically different homelessness rates in other countries.
> Why shouldn't individual suffer the consequences of their actions?
The consequences of being laid off? Getting cancer? Having schizophrenia? Being an addict? They do suffer the consequences of all those things, none of which they caused and they get help with them.
You have a deficient understanding of substance use disorders, which mostly have nothing to do with personal failings.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#Risk_factors
What other countries do you mean? In northern Europe, you can't nonvoluntarily do anything to anyone that isn't imminently a danger to themselves or others. Everyone gets help that needs it, no excuses, and we have virtually no homeless people at all.
In my home state, Oregon, we voted to decriminalize all “personal use” amounts of all drugs back in 2020. However, the folks who crafted the ballot measure left out a lot of the “stick” parts that have made Portugal’s efforts more successful. That has not worked well. At a time when meth use was already skyrocketing, it has enabled dealers to proliferate rapidly. They simply have to make sure they only carry a personal use amount on them at any given time. I’d really like to see us implement some of the more persuasive elements of Portugal’s model to curb some of the downsides we’re now dealing with.
> If you can be clean and presentable
Which they can't.
Also, I forgot, you also have to be able to sleep and not be constantly robbed.
> From there the world is your oyster.
Yeah, it's easy. That's why millions live in misery.
> No excuses.
This is so disgusting. I think you should try it. Then I'll listen to you.
As to why millions live in misery, I suspect it is due to a failure to embrace work and suffering as the only constants in life.
Anecdotally, a friend of mine has attempted to hire homeless people on multiple occasions to help him in residential demolition projects (no clean clothes, resume, or shower necessary). In one instance, he scheduled work for the following day and zero out of 8 people showed up. I'm sure there's homeless people that would like to work their way of the situation, but I don't think they are in the majority. Any solutions to this problem need to be more realistic about the motivations and intentions of the group they're trying to assist.
The pay is terrible. In his case, it was below minimum wage. He argued he could get better labor for minimum wage, so they could either take it or be replaced.
He was also renting them the same place they were renovating. It was a slum, and he was using their labor to improve it so he could kick them out and replace them with someone that would pay. Not exactly a thrilling proposal.
There was no safety equipment provided. It was an old building, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was full of asbestos (and maybe why he didn't hire a reputable company in the first place).
The place was filthy. Human feces in a bucket kind of filthy.
> Any solutions to this problem need to be more realistic about the motivations and intentions of the group they're trying to assist.
There's a grain of truth here. My phrasing would be "Any solution provided needs to be better than panhandling." Doing difficult physical labor for below minimum wage doesn't meet that criteria. Even at minimum wage, I don't know if it's better.
I assure you many people on earth would enthusiastically clean the worst filth in order to feed their families. This should not be regarded as degradation, but rather strength and triumph.
Many people and cultures have celebrated and promoted leisure. The US strain of the Protestant work ethic is not most of human history, most people, or imposed by nature.
> This should not be regarded as degradation, but rather strength and triumph.
It can be an individual triumph over circumstance, but the circumstances are still degrading.
The protestant work ethic has led to the most successful economy on earth. Other economies competing for the title work just as hard. There is an ongoing competitive/evolutionary process of culture and ideas, and "work hard" is winning.
> the circumstances are still degrading
Why do you say that? What is degrading about destitution, exactly? I'm not sure those who live it, and especially those who choose it, would agree that they exist in a degraded state. I don't think degradation exists in nature, it is a condition imposed by one group of people on another. Destitution however is encountered frequently in the natural world, and in itself does not imply a moral condition.
> To elaborate, it seems that for most of human history the value proposition for most people, as imposed by nature, was "work hard or starve". Somehow, sometime, we've decided that this value proposition was unethical.
For myself, that turning point is when food ceased to be a scarce good. When food is scarce, somebody has to starve and allocating by contribution is a reasonable way to do it. When food is so plentiful that we inefficiently convert it to crappy gasoline because we have so much (corn) and cram caves full of it (cheese), letting someone starve is more of a conscious decision than an incredibly unfortunate situation.
In other words, being unable to share essential goods is very different from refusing to share essential goods.
I'm willing to sacrifice a portion of my efforts so that people don't starve. The "work hard or starve" mantra has a nasty implication that people who can't work should just starve. If you're going to provide for the disabled, it's no longer "work hard or starve", and you need a new justification for why people who can work but don't deserve to starve. It becomes very morally murky and arbitrary.
> I assure you many people on earth would enthusiastically clean the worst filth in order to feed their families.
Many people on earth would also enthusiastically kill each other to feed their families. That doesn't make it a noble pursuit.
> This should not be regarded as degradation, but rather strength and triumph.
I don't see any triumph here, so you might have to expand on that thought. I guess they're triumphing over starvation, but that's not really a show of strength in a country with 1.4 billion pounds of cheese stashed in a cave. It seems like calling breathing a triumph over asphyxiation.
If they were paid enough to live a remotely decent life, that would be a triumph. Enough to afford somewhere to live, food, a little leftover to pursue a passion.
Working hard and foul jobs so your boss can pay you so little that you're almost jealous of barn animals, so they can then use the money they saved to throw you out seems very degrading to me.
Most people take better care of their household pets than we afford the homeless. Most dogs do nothing but emotional support, yet we feed them, take them to the vet, make sure they come inside when it's hot/cold. Cats don't even do emotional support, they're mostly a walking curiosity. Everybody's happy with that arrangement, but the homeless wanting a semblance of fair pay for shitty work is a step too far?
"Civilization" hasn't really changed the realities which give rise to these optima. It only defines the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. It doesn't change the rules of the game, as it were. We've not suddenly become a colony of ants, selflessly behaving as a single organism. Nor do I think it reasonable to carry the expectation that we suddenly will. Nor do I consider it particularly virtuous to compel us by force to emulate the ants.
Indeed we do have an excess of calories in our society, but that's not really the problem the parent post describes. It describes homelessness - often correlated with drug addiction and mental illness. When I see a homeless person, they don't seem much different to me than the similarly destitute animals sometimes depicted in nature documentaries. Those animals who, by failure or misfortune, have found themselves unable to compete with their peers and unable to carve out a niche for themselves. They wander listlessly, with ever decreasing energy and opportunity, until they finally succumb to their fate.
None of this strikes me as particularly "wrong" or "degrading" or really having any moral character at all. It is just an inevitable, inescapable, fact of life. To suppose otherwise is to think that human beings are somehow more special, or more intrinsically valuable than other animals. Given your comparisons to household pets, this clearly doesn't hold any water. In the scheme of things, we're just a hair more clever than our ape ancestors, and that has pushed us past a tipping point into civilization. I don't see how this makes us any "better" or more worthy.
Personally, given all of the above, I think it's best to embrace reality. We live in a world where optimal behaviour is self-interested and the cost of failure is total. This isn't a statement of values, it's an observation of fact. The only question that remains is how comfortable are you using force/authority to compel cooperation? I myself don't want to force anyone to do anything (and rather resent being forced myself). Authority should be used to ensure our coexistence is peaceful, and that we resolve disputes via due process. Beyond that however, I'm not very comfortable telling other people how they should behave, or whom they should help. I would rather die destitute than pry greedily into the pocket of an unwilling and uncharitable stranger.
This is very much not true. It doesn't even make sense from an evolutionary perspective; why would an animal risk their life and waste energy to protect something they don't need? Some animals do take a sizable territory. Typically carnivores, who need a crazy amount of space to get enough meat. Most animals aren't even territorial.
> Furthermore, having secured the best territory, food, and mating opportunities, they (whether as individuals or in groups) will spend their free time harassing their competitors.
Again, this isn't true. Why would they do that? It's a risk and an energy expenditure for no gain. They'll fight over territory if they have to, but I have never heard of an animal going out of it's way to harass each other for the sake of it.
> It doesn't change the rules of the game, as it were. We've not suddenly become a colony of ants, selflessly behaving as a single organism. Nor do I think it reasonable to carry the expectation that we suddenly will. Nor do I consider it particularly virtuous to compel us by force to emulate the ants.
I think you're basing this on a flawed understanding of nature and how we fit into it. The only way humans are a dominant species is through cooperation. Not every person all the time, but in aggregate.
Humans are not particularly strong. Humans are not particularly fast. We are smart, but that's only helpful insofar as it improves our fitness, and can be a weakness due to increased caloric needs. As individuals, we are not particularly high on the food chain. What puts us high on the food chain is the ability to collaborate. We invented farming, giving us a caloric surplus. Then we created societies, allowing us to use that surplus to have people dedicated to research. We then use that research and some caloric surplus to have people create things like guns and concrete and ships that make us highly adaptable and deadly to the rest of the food chain.
Without that collaboration, we go back to being the middle of the foodchain and jumping at every shadow at night.
> We live in a world where optimal behaviour is self-interested and the cost of failure is total.
Self-interested behavior is too local of a maxima to be useful as a species. Evolution encourages the survival of the species, not the survival of the individual. A purely self-interested view would see the optimal solution being to take from others, leading to a collapse of the species. It takes a lot less energy to kill the farmers and take their crop than it does to actually grow the crop.
> Authority should be used to ensure our coexistence is peaceful, and that we resolve disputes via due process.
And this is the logical (rather than moral) reason why we take care of the less fortunate. Starving animals tend to become very aggressive, and humans are no exception. During the Soviet famines, people killed and ate each other. You can't tell someone starving to death that they need to peacefully coexist; it won't happen.
It is dramatically cheaper and easier to prevent that by just preventing starvation.
To displace its competition and further secure its dominance of the local area. Too much is always better than not enough. Even animals who occupy enormous territories will seek to expand them further at any opportunity. Bands of chimps will murder neighbouring bands over territory, despite neither group being remotely close to starving. Coalitions of male lions will seek to take possession of a pride of females by killing the existing males and all of their juvenile offspring. Many groups of human hunter-gatherers, ignorant of the modern world, will kill strangers in their territories on sight.
Nature evolves these behaviours simply because animals who display them have a greater chance of passing on their genes. Anything but hostility to direct competition is usually suboptimal.
Human dominance evolved through cooperation in small familial groups numbering less than 100. That is what our social biology is equipped to handle. There are many examples of company culture fragmenting past ~150 headcount. Past that group size, we're no longer able to cooperate based on shared in-group status and mutual trust. The mechanism of civilization is bureaucracy, but the interactions are still between small tribes of people each competing for their own interests, and in practice totally apathetic to outcomes outside their group.
We've managed to put some rails around the process, but legal and corporate interactions are the civilized equivalent to war. The same language is even used. We're still the same apes, with the same limitations regarding, frankly, how many other people we are capable of giving a damn about.
> It takes a lot less energy to kill the farmers and take their crop than it does to actually grow the crop.
Not really sustainable over a generation though, is it? Your strategy has function long enough for your offspring to reach maturity, and their offspring, etc. The winning strategy is to take as much from the farmers as they will tolerate and funnel it into extravagant displays of power and social status that further cement your position. All we've done is put some rules around the taking, mandating (in civil society) that it be voluntary and not under the threat of violence. This way, you invent iPhones, sell them at huge margins to all the farmers, become absurdly wealthy, and no one need die. It's a winning system.
> It is dramatically cheaper and easier to prevent that by just preventing starvation.
I'm not actually sure that's true. Shocking escalation of violence is also effective, and very cheap. In places where amputation is a common punishment for theft, wouldn't you know it, people don't steal as much. In places where punishment for crimes is severe, and police are effective, crime rates are low. Japan being a great example.
Have some empathy please.
In order to permanently get people to leave you need to build semi-permanent camps. But these camps do need to be in somewhat desirable areas because the people in the camps need to live near where they can find work (many don't have cars.) You put them out in the boonies they're just going to come camp in the city because there's no jobs in the boonies and they are mostly normal people who want to find work and not have to camp in tents.
Obtaining land and permitting such camps is hard. The more expensive option is building permanent housing. The most expensive option is prison.
Or... housing.
But a PAC against this has been established and passed a ballot measure in 2021. The city government first ignored it (they've made up a 4-stage plan to implement it where each stage consisted of asking homeless not to camp) but the PAC stuck around and kept engaging the city in the courts and pushing other measures on the ballot. This caused a real fear of losing for the current mayor and city council so suddenly they've found a way to get rid of all the camps.
Where there is a will (to stay in office) there is always a way.
But yeah, I try to avoid downtown if I can, but I've seen the camps off I-35 for years, just haven't been by in a month or two myself.
Then there's also Invisible People which has been interviewing homeless people for even longer. [3][4][5]
1. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCvcd0FYi58LwyTQP9LITpA/vid...
2. https://www.softwhiteunderbelly.com/
3. https://www.youtube.com/c/InvisiblePeople
4. https://invisiblepeople.tv/
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_People_(organization...
>$197.95 a month after 7-day free trial
Holy cr*p! I mean, it's a free market, but that's steep.
Edit: Oh, it's $197.95 on the local currency, thought it was USD. Thanks to others who pointed out it's $10USD.
> $10 a month after 7-day free trial
Is this a representative sample? The article/title certainly suggests this, but the cynic in me thinks that only the interesting stories get published.
I want to see a real survey, not a pile of picked cherries.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31561597
1. https://www.youtube.com/c/InvisiblePeople/search?query=drugs
There are many steps involved to qualify for housing or to apply for disability benefits and it can be pretty overwhelming to navigate.
One person needed a birth certificate to get ID, they born in a state on the other side of the country, you had to mail forms to apply for the new birth certificate and then you needed an address where it could be sent, and there was a fee for a new one.
My dad’s approach is to not worry about solving Homelessness, but instead to partner with someone and help them solve homelessness in their situation.
Another example was someone who wasn’t homeless (friend of friend), but was facing thousands in monthly medical treatment bills.
He came to meet with the person and noticed a military bumper sticker and it ended up that the person was a veteran and likely qualified for VA benefits meaning it would basically be covered. They had some bad VA experiences in the past and had written them off.
But that person very well could have ended up on the street with such large medical bills piling up.
Oh god think of the property values /s
Because there are often laws or rules against that sort of thing. Taking in a long-term boarding guest who is unrelated to you is against city ordinance in many smaller jurisdictions, and if someone rents (like many do) their leases often prohibit such arrangements.
So now instead of one person looking for housing, you have two or more.
(Note that my reply omits all of the other arguments about how individual action for collective problems is very unlikely to solve the problem in a meaningful way and this is why we have societies and governments, and so on.)
You say there are "often" laws against what I proposed, which is having someone sleep in a spare bedroom.
What percent of Americans do you think are subject to those laws?
What is the homeless population? Something like 0.1% of Americans. How many Americans have bleeding hearts when thinking about the homeless? I dunno, maybe 5%?
So even if 50% of people lived in restrictive housing locations where they couldn't implement it, you'd still only need 4% of the remaining bleeding hearts to take in a single homeless person to solve the problem.
Well, as with many things in life, it depends on the location. The odds of there being a non-familial occupancy limit are a lot lower in Loving County, Texas than they likely are in Harris County, Texas, simply because more population tends to beget more situations where society has decided we need more rules.
While overall percentages are likely low, the percentages in the areas where homelessness is most acute are almost certainly higher. For example, San Francisco's occupancy ordinance says that, in general, the upper limit is two people of occupancy per bedroom. While San Francisco has repealed its rules about non-familial cohabitation, Dallas still has some limits (though they are sparsely enforced).
Further, areas where homelessness is most acute also tend to have a higher percentage of people who rent, since the barriers to building any kind of housing make all but the most expensive kind of housing--rental units with long-term ROI built for "luxury"--the only kind that get built. According to media reports in 2021, people who rent make up 65% of San Francisco's households. Same for Seattle, where 50.3% of households rent their dwellings. It is likely the case that not all of these rental agreements have restrictions on who can move in and at what time, I would bet one months' rent that the overwhelming majority do.
> It's literally thinking "thoughts and prayers" for homeless people will help them, and deriving some kind of smug moral superiority for that.
I agree that simply having empathy but not backing with efforts is the most hollow of gestures. However, simply saying "well, why don't they live with you" isn't helpful. For another reason beyond what we've discussed, why is it automatically the case that someone who is unhoused would want to live with a stranger? There are myriad justified complaints about congregate shelters and short-term transient housing. The answer isn't "find roommates for everyone," it's "build housing at the rate and income levels needed to house people." But for the howling NIMBYs of the group, we could probably do this. So would it not be more effective to get many of the BS rules blocking housing out of the way?
It's not a short-term fix, but we already know what other short term fixes are that aren't people taking in roommates: buying hotels and converting them, for one; tiny house villages with proper doors and sanitary facilities are another. Not sweeping people from one "unsanctioned" campsite to another with nowhere to go is a third.
Housing is complex, takes effort. To build and pay for, and then also to maintain and keep livable and operational.
Many of those homeless have observed inability to take care of things consistently over times. Probably related to impulse control. It's a continual effort/challenge to keep one's life on the 'straight and narrow' to keep the many aspects working. It's hard for the average person - they work at it continually.
Whether, and HOW it's possible, for which percentage of the homeless population, to be able to keep on the 'straight and narrow' and look after a home they have been gifted from others hard work is an important part of the 'the answer' that you talked about.
Otherwise you get the situation of the workers building the homeless expensive buildings that are not treated with respect as homes but instead neglected or actively destroyed over time.
So 'the answer' you proposed isn't realistic. The closest thing to what you said that may actually work is to first build them a home, then maintain it for them financially as well as operationally, and then continually repair that home when the damage gets too bad.
In other words a house with ongoing service agreement. And of course food and healthcare as well. Oh and internet and entertainment, and support when the drugs has caused another problem.
Meanwhile this is like 'retirement' that the hardworking part of the population strives and works their ass off to get to as a 'goal'.
If I understand your proposal of taking lifes major goals for the productive and just giving it to those who don't take accountability for themselves, I wonder if your solution would be fundamentally destructive to society because then why would productive people work, if instead they can get high regularly while other people work for them?
It's far less risky from a personal standpoint to be able to donate and pursue effective altruism that it is to individually (versus a proper social collective) shoulder the responsibility for an entire human being.
And even though this isn't an argument against what you're saying, ask yourself, do you currently shelter a homeless person in your house? Even if you don't know a homeless person, you own a car don't you? Surely you have a moral obligation to go and drive through your city, locate a homeless person and shelter them until they're back on their feet.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31561597
I don't mean to paint with broad strokes here: there are many kind, honest homeless people who really just need help finding a way to live. There are also a lot of shucksters who will tell you exactly what you want to hear.
I mean the guy Coconut looks like he's holding a meth pipe - and personally I wouldn't believe a thing he says. Tells you his ex RAN away with the kids, that his daughter wants nothing to do with him along with his sisters who send him money. He also likes to play games where he lies to people and sees what they'll believe. Seems to take zero responsibility and tells grand stories of the things he's done...
Still sad about the others, but yes some actual journalism would be nice!
> If I had to do it again, I wouldn’t have moved to Texas because things there started taking a turn for the worse.
A few sentences earlier, he said
> After Michelle, I met my second wife, Kristy, in rehab.
I'm not making light of his situation or addiction, but things had taken a turn for the worse long before Texas.
> How do I get money to pay the dues? I build electric bikes and choppers. I get parts from different places.
"Different places." Smoothed-out, indeed. It makes me suspicious of profiles that weren't published.
Right across the street, someone camped on the empty lot at the intersection. They chose this spot because of the outlet that powered the christmas lights. Few days later, the whole thing caught on fire, including the tent. Few weeks later, the city cleaned it up and installed plants and a fence so no one could live there. Well, someone moved on the other side of the road and ran a daisy chained outlet that went over the intersection and into the plug... It also caught on fire.
I was there when the police came in the middle of covid and destroyed all the tents and kicked everyone out. It took a long time, but eventually someone installed a single tent by the library. Then someone else joined. Now there is an entire community that lives there.
Venice is the most confusing place in the world, it has million dollar homes with homeless people tents surrounding them. It's really hard to decide what is the right thing to do.
There was a man that slept right in front of the door of our building. Sometimes when I'm leaving work in a hurry, I'd stumble on him. I got used to it and didn't report him or anything. But then, he started pooping on the stairs. As terrible as that is, it's not my building. But, the owners have found a cruel and effective solution. They installed sprinklers on the stairs and in the parking lot.
These stories resonate with me because those are the people I see outside right now. When you struck a conversation, this is what you hear. Someone who has lived a whole life just to end up here. Young men that look like surfers living the life, they are stuck here. Young ladies wearing fancy clothe and make up, but live in a honda fit. You don't need a mental illness to be homeless here. You can't afford anything anyway.
Now, don't get me wrong, it looks awful and I don't want unnecessary suffering. And most of all I bet a lot of those people could slot into housed productive lives if there was a smart and well funded platform for them. That's what I'd love...
But I want to see a survey of :
Criminal status. Health issues. Drug use. Mental Health. Education. Age. Sex. Gender. Marital Status. And then aptitude tests in English and Math. Maybe even an IQ test. But most of all a Big 5 personality test.
Many of those answers could lead towards to matching a person with substitutes or hopefully even a job.
My fear is that a majority can never be self sufficient. Who would that be? Low intelligence and low agreeableness. With or without attendant health issues those two dimensions make for a life of pure misery without a rich support network.
Just because someone's not self sufficient doesn't mean they have to be homeless. Nobody has to be homeless. It's called falling through the cracks. It's a tragedy.
Are you willing to work with someone that's stupid and mean? Are you willing to employ them? Leave them with delicate equipment? Are you willing to live with them while they don't pay rent, don't clean up after themselves, don't do any errands or chores, and watch them slowly self destruct and set flame to the rest of their relationships? I'm not. Most people aren't.
The fate of those with low intelligence and low agreeableness makes me weep if I think about it too much. It's awful and there's almost nothing save continual heroic sacrifices from others that can keep them in the same comfort, safety, and dignity that most of us take for granted. They need a strong support network. Be that friends, family, or culture.
Show me a modern and productive culture without homelessness and I'll sign up. We should all sign up.
It's a complex issue, and people tend to talk about different things when discussing the homeless problem. As far as I can tell, there are two groups of people - able people who have been displaced due to financial, medical, job-related reasons and are now homeless, who need social support (in the form of cash) to get out of the poverty hole and not fall back in.
And then there's the second group, for whom living on the streets is preferable to entering shelters or rehab facilities due to a crippling drug dependency. This is the group that makes the headlines, mainly because they're the ones making public spaces unsafe (there's a headline every day about an assault in Seattle where somebody gets attacked unprovoked by someone in this second group of people).
What do you do with the repeat offenders who refuse to go to rehab and stay clean? Public spaces should be usable by all.
"Public spaces should be usable by all."
1. Triage first. There's a small fraction of the homeless population incapable of caring for themselves because they've got serious mental issues, and probably need institutional care. Mixing these people in with everyone else is a recipe for disaster.
2. Housing second. Putting people in even minimal housing, like tiny homes, where they can keep their pets too, and have a little bit of privacy and access to bathrooms (shower, toilet) and kitchens (sink, stove, fridge), means they can start getting their lives in order.
3. Jobs third. Once you've got a place to live, you can likely get a job of some kind. This really improves mental well-being, you're part of something else. Doesn't really matter what it is: you have a place to show up to and something useful to do and if you can keep that together, that's a huge help.
Now, even with this there will be failures. Some people will be drug addicts and alcoholics (same thing, really) and won't be able to keep down jobs or keep their places in a livable condition. They probably need health care intervention of some kind.
As far as the plausibility of all this, well, look at every other country will this kind of basic safety net for their citizens which prevents them from falling below a certain line. They don't have the homeless encampments in every city in their country, do they?
But sure, keep on with the tax cuts for the wealthy and the CEOs who make 50X what the entry level workers do and the expensive private health care, and the situation will stay as bad as it is or even get worse. It'll look a lot like Cuba under Batista in the early 1950s, or like Germany's Weimar Republic, and then you'll get either fascist or communist authoritarianism, fun times.
But there were a number of profiles involving people, usually outsiders, who made decision to come to southern California because they wanted to live near the beach (on a $600/month social security check) or they wanted to break into show business or the music industry.
One young couple from Detroit had a friend of a friend of a friend who was a producer, bought a one-way ticket to LA and when that connection didn't pan out were stuck on the street. Even Lopez, who has done a lot to document the human tragedy on the streets of LA, seemed a little exasperated by these cases which had their origins in unrealistic assumptions about making it big or leading some sort of dream life in LA ... and the burden put on the already overwhelmed system to help people in need.
I also recommend viewing some of the "Invisible People" interviews all over North America and sometimes Europe:
https://www.youtube.com/c/InvisiblePeople/videos
The reality is this encampment, like many others, is pretty close to hell on earth. It's a site of abject misery, squalor, and violence. People regularly get stabbed, beaten, and raped there. The people in the camp set fires, scream wildly at all hours of the day and night, fight with the fire department, consume hard drugs openly (i.e. meth and fentanyl), and destroy the surrounding environment with an astounding amount of trash and human waste. The park they occupy as well as the nearby library are now unusable by the general public.
An example of similar journalism--here's a cover story from the Madison, WI local paper "painting a picture" of the "troubled" life of a "local activist" after his arrest went semi-viral a few years ago: https://isthmus.com/news/cover-story/in-his-name/
For some reason, "empathy for the unfortunate" has turned into "a complete inability to prescribe moral judgements against anyone who meets a certain set of criteria".
They don’t say it directly, but woven throughout all these sad stories is a lifetime of abuse.