Homeless issue

[Guest]

Where is the out cry for the homeless in USA? If you live in California you see camp after camp in big cities like LA But smaller cities also have a huge problem. No more housing is the cry... But what do you think ? 

 

In the 80s ,90s we had malls filled with customer. We had clean air ...  Now we have homeless camps ... And many other types of camps..  what happened? 

[thylacine]

I feel sad about people who are homeless or otherwise living in poverty, but it seems to me that a majority of people just don't give a damn about other people's suffering.  It's this awful selfish society we live in, I guess.

[Hylethilei]

Some people just like being homeless, I honestly have been thinking about just living at a campsite in a really nice tent because I just love love looove nature. I would be 100% happy with that, to be honest!

[RoseGoesToYale]

I shall answer your question with a question... why are there hordes and hordes of empty McMansions just sitting in suburbia while we also have hordes and hordes of homeless?

 

If you sense the essence of rodentia, I do as well.

[Nick2]

2 hours ago, Sir_The_Last said:

Where is the out cry for the homeless in USA? If you live in California you see camp after camp in big cities like LA But smaller cities also have a huge problem. No more housing is the cry... But what do you think ? 

 

In the 80s ,90s we had malls filled with customer. We had clean air ...  Now we have homeless camps ... And many other types of camps..  what happened? 

What happened.  The destruction of the middle class.  As of today, the top 5% in this country control 88% of the wealth.  That leaves 12% of our wealth to divide up between 95% of the people.  You do the math.  Yet we just passed a tax cut bill that increased the wealth take and now the GOP wants to cut more for the 5% by cutting tax on sell of stocks, land, etc.  The Gilded Age part 2.

[Zagadka]

The city I live in had a 87% increase in the homeless population in a year. It is getting bad in LA County in general.

 

Homelessness is a complicated issue. There are short term and long term homeless, for instance. Addiction/drug or alcohol abuse is rampant, but for important reasons (did the addiction cause the homelessness, or did the homelessness lead to substance use?). Mental and physical health (this is the big one, in my life). Racial issues, or even LGBTQ+ issues (both minorities and LGBTQ+ are highly disproportionately frequent in the homeless community) are important. How funding is spent... there are a lot of people who blame laziness, but that is almost never the case.

 

People who have no family support then lose their job and insurance and can't pay rent... just have no recourse. Once you're homeless, you have no address, you have no place to shower, or extra clothes to change into... you can't get another job... can't eat, fall into poor health, have nothing to do all day, leading to substance use... it can be impossible to recover from.

 

Much of the time, people can be homeless after losing a job, but find support and get back out of it, but it isn't uncommon to lose everything. There are a lot of Americans living paycheck to paycheck.

[Sally]

5 hours ago, Sir_The_Last said:

Where is the out cry for the homeless in USA? If you live in California you see camp after camp in big cities like LA But smaller cities also have a huge problem. No more housing is the cry... But what do you think ? 

 

In the 80s ,90s we had malls filled with customer. We had clean air ...  Now we have homeless camps ... And many other types of camps..  what happened? 

What happened is that the federal government during Reagan's administration simply stopped building federal housing, and middle-class living-wage jobs went away.  

[uhtred]

14 hours ago, Sir_The_Last said:

Where is the out cry for the homeless in USA? If you live in California you see camp after camp in big cities like LA But smaller cities also have a huge problem. No more housing is the cry... But what do you think ? 

 

In the 80s ,90s we had malls filled with customer. We had clean air ...  Now we have homeless camps ... And many other types of camps..  what happened? 

I lived in Los Angeles in the 80s. It most certainly didn't have clean air - it was brown.  Much better today.  Homelessness though is much worse.

[uhtred]

Agree with @Zagadka

I think that "homelessness" is actually several very different problems that just look the same from the outside.   In detail though I think there are different populations and completely different things are needed to fix each. 

[Sally]

1 hour ago, uhtred said:

Agree with @Zagadka

I think that "homelessness" is actually several very different problems that just look the same from the outside.   In detail though I think there are different populations and completely different things are needed to fix each. 

Housing is needed to fix all populations.  What's been learned from "housing first" programs is that for people who need help with physical/mental health problems, including addictions, it's much easier to deal with those problems if you're  housed.  It's almost impossible to work on a problem if you're consumed with trying to find food to eac and a place to sleep tonight.  

[uhtred]

5 hours ago, Sally said:

Housing is needed to fix all populations.  What's been learned from "housing first" programs is that for people who need help with physical/mental health problems, including addictions, it's much easier to deal with those problems if you're  housed.  It's almost impossible to work on a problem if you're consumed with trying to find food to eac and a place to sleep tonight.  

One issue is location:  Forr example there are a lot of homeless in San Francisco, which has some of the most expensive real-estate in the world. Many fully employed people in high tech can't afford to live in the city and have to commute for an hour or more each way.     Housing for homeless could be provided at a far lower cost if it were provided well away from the city. 

 

I tend to feel that everyone has the right to shelter, food, clothing, medical care and safety - but that those don't necessarily need to be provided in the most expensive locations. 

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

14 hours ago, uhtred said:

One issue is location:  Forr example there are a lot of homeless in San Francisco, which has some of the most expensive real-estate in the world. Many fully employed people in high tech can't afford to live in the city and have to commute for an hour or more each way.     Housing for homeless could be provided at a far lower cost if it were provided well away from the city. 

 

I tend to feel that everyone has the right to shelter, food, clothing, medical care and safety - but that those don't necessarily need to be provided in the most expensive locations. 

They aren't necessarily where they want to be, I've known of homeless people who travelled a lot, one Romanian guy in London who'd lost a job in northern ireland, one person who bikes between towns in surrey...what's important is finding them houses close to their support network, and if they're disabled it's even more important, there should be assisted living communities built up for them in all locations. This should be there for everyone though, although homeless people need it more. Social housing should be the rule and not the exception because right now being in the housing market is so precarious. Also sorry if I'm being a bit direct/confrontational, I write a lot in reaction to other people and it often comes off this way.

 

You don't necessarily know the reason why they turn up in expensive locations - do the police more actively drive them out in more rural or suburban locations? Are there simply more people there because the population density is greater? But regardless, you have to ask them where they need to live in order to actually be supported. If we had any sense we'd recognise that even getting people into jobs isn't necessarily a good idea - what kind of job sits well with recovering from addiction and such? They should be given a house and supported no matter whether or not they're capable of working. I hate that we always exclude the possibility of not being able to work in conversations, I myself am scared of the prospect of having a regular job.

 

And yeah homelessness is also a big problem in the UK, there are a lot of attempts to criminalise them too.

[uhtred]

10 hours ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

They aren't necessarily where they want to be, I've known of homeless people who travelled a lot, one Romanian guy in London who'd lost a job in northern ireland, one person who bikes between towns in surrey...what's important is finding them houses close to their support network, and if they're disabled it's even more important, there should be assisted living communities built up for them in all locations. This should be there for everyone though, although homeless people need it more. Social housing should be the rule and not the exception because right now being in the housing market is so precarious. Also sorry if I'm being a bit direct/confrontational, I write a lot in reaction to other people and it often comes off this way.

 

You don't necessarily know the reason why they turn up in expensive locations - do the police more actively drive them out in more rural or suburban locations? Are there simply more people there because the population density is greater? But regardless, you have to ask them where they need to live in order to actually be supported. If we had any sense we'd recognise that even getting people into jobs isn't necessarily a good idea - what kind of job sits well with recovering from addiction and such? They should be given a house and supported no matter whether or not they're capable of working. I hate that we always exclude the possibility of not being able to work in conversations, I myself am scared of the prospect of having a regular job.

 

And yeah homelessness is also a big problem in the UK, there are a lot of attempts to criminalise them too.

One problem in the US is that big cities often have better support programs for homeless, so they end up living in the places where its most difficult to support them. I see homelessness as a national problem, not a local one, and I think it needs national level planning.

 

I'm a big fan of having full service communities (shelter, food, clothing, medical etc) well outside of cities, but with transport to and from nearby cities that will allow people to hold jobs if they want to. 

[Joe the Stoic]

Utah, amazingly, guarantees housing to its people.  Turns out, this lowers public costs in the long-run.  Why Republicans did this before Democrats is not an answer I can give.  It is a weird exception to the usual, political narrative.

[Zagadka]

One of the problems we face here is where to put homeless services. In San Francisco Bay, it is just too insanely expensive. In LA, no city wants a homeless camp anywhere near them. The amounts of money we've raised to build housing and food banks have been rejected at most planned sites. The problem we're facing is where to provide support services. Busing the community out of the area isn't feasible, and the sizes of the communities is so large that simply providing housing will not address the things causing homelessness.

[Sally]

3 hours ago, Yangster said:

Utah, amazingly, guarantees housing to its people.  Turns out, this lowers public costs in the long-run.  Why Republicans did this before Democrats is not an answer I can give.  It is a weird exception to the usual, political narrative.

No, unfortunately that's not the case.  There's been a lot of misunderstanding about this in the press.  Salt Lake City has housed its chronically-homeless men because that saved the City quite a bit by getting them out of the revolving door of street-hospital-jail-street.  Chronically homeless means men over 55 who have been homeless for many years.  

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

On 7/2/2019 at 8:19 PM, Sir_The_Last said:

what happened? 

 

Neoliberalism.

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

On 7/2/2019 at 9:28 PM, UnderworldFan1988 said:

Some people just like being homeless, I honestly have been thinking about just living at a campsite in a really nice tent because I just love love looove nature. I would be 100% happy with that, to be honest!

 

What is frustrating is having to pay for space and amenities that one does not need or want.

 

I am a 47-year-old man who lives alone, works 2 near-minimum-wage jobs to support himself, and spends little more time at home than that required to sleep and shower. Yet, I rent a one bedroom apartment with a bathroom bigger than most apartment kitchens. I do not use the bedroom other than for storage of the small amount of possessions I have (and that could just as easily be stored in the living room). I chose the place because of the location and the price ($550 per month, which is about average in this particular market). I am paying about half of my take-home pay every month for a lot of space that I have no use for and am almost never present to use anyway.

 

I would much rather have a studio/efficiency, but there are very few of them in the market, they are in undesirable locations, and they are priced as high or higher than a one bedroom.

 

Compounding the problem is all of the amenities that most rental properties come with but I have no need or use for. I do not want or need a swimming pool. I do not want or need an exercise room. I do not want or need a clubhouse with a bar.

 

It is the same with transportation. Just get me where I need to go on time with shelter from the elements, please. I do not need to own a car, let alone a car with a CD player, television, and other features I do not need. If you are not going to provide reliable mass transit with benches and shelters at most stops and service late every day--if I must own my own vehicle--at least do not make owning a comfortable, enclosed vehicle a major expense. I do not need an SUV. A microcar will do.

 

Alas, if you point out the absurdity of situations like mine you will be told that it is the result of the exceptional logic of markets and that any non-market-oriented adjustment will cause the sky to collapse.

 

It is feast or famine, even if a simple, basic meal is all that you need or want.

[Joe the Stoic]

3 hours ago, Zagadka said:

One of the problems we face here is where to put homeless services. In San Francisco Bay, it is just too insanely expensive. In LA, no city wants a homeless camp anywhere near them. The amounts of money we've raised to build housing and food banks have been rejected at most planned sites. The problem we're facing is where to provide support services. Busing the community out of the area isn't feasible, and the sizes of the communities is so large that simply providing housing will not address the things causing homelessness.

This is true.  What we really need to do is modernize our economic system to address the realities most Americans face.  With new technology erasing jobs and not many popping up in their place, while the wages of the jobs that remain stagnate, this problem is only going to get worse.

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

Anybody who wants to understand the situation of the less-fortunate in the contemporary world should read "Grassroots Post-Modernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures", by Gustavo Esteva and Madhu Suri-Prakash.

 

I read the 1998 edition. I do not know what later editions are like.

 

The authors' thesis--at least the way that I understood it--is that the people they call the "social majority" (usually called the Third World, Global South, etc.) are quietly moving on while the "social minority" (the small percentage of the global population that is affluent, including the U.S. middle class) struggles with the problems, contradictions, etc. of the "progress" of modernity.

 

A postmodern epic is unfolding at the grassroots, a rupture from modern institutions is taking place, and people are regenerating their local natural and cultural spaces, the authors say. Their evidence for this is the stories of the people they have met in their travels. Their biggest evidence is their breathtaking account of the First Intercontinental Encounter for Humanity and Against Neoliberalism.

 

Even if you do not agree with the authors' thesis, the stories that they share about how the people in the world who have suffered the most from global capitalism have coped with it and resisted its encroachment probably offer a lot of useful insights to anybody wanting to understand things like homelessness in the U.S.

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

There are probably a few thinkers in the world who say that the way we have been doing things at least since the Industrial Revolution has not worked, is not working, and cannot be fixed. Trying to fix things the way that they are may be spinning our wheels at best. At worst, trying to fix things the way they are may be complete delusion (see transhumanism). Alas, such thinkers are apparently a tiny minority and difficult to find.

Calling it "homelessness" makes it sound like a personal problem. It obscures the fact that almost everything in the anthrosphere is the result of systems that we have chosen to create and that many, not just "the 1%" continue to celebrate.

The inspiration behind this celebration is often a particular phenomenon: the idea of progress. Most serious thinkers, it seems, say that progress is an Enlightenment myth. Stan Goff, I recently discovered, goes farther: he shows that progress is a myth steeped in racism, sexism and imperialism. See "The P Word": https://medium.com/@stangoff/the-p-word-a-half-assed-political-autobiography-cee0992f3992 .

 

It is probably a tough sell getting people who think that they--with their cell phones, advanced medical care, SUVs, Hawaii vacations--have won the evolutionary lottery to accept that they are part of a dismal complete systemic failure. It has been a difficult sell getting people to accept that if they are male or white they enjoy unearned advantages. It is, therefore, probably a really tough sell getting people to accept that they are the beneficiaries of global institutional inequality. It is an easier sell to get people to blame everything on "the 1%".

 

Karl Marx said that the working class will revolt when their misery becomes unbearable. I say that most people will accept the reality behind things like homelessness in the U.S. only when they can no longer afford the luxury of denial, myths, lies, etc. But there is nothing stopping them from living according to the truth now.

[Skycaptain]

It doesn't help the genuinely fallen on hard times homeless when people abuse the system. We had a middle-aged gent around here for a few months, looked the typical homeless person, unwashed, unshaven tatty charity shop clothes etc, but one day someone followed him when he moved from his "pitch", and he walked to a car park and got into a V-8 Jaguar with a private plate. 

 

That doesn't help the other genuinely only have the clothes they're wearing and sleep in shop doorways homeless at all 

[uhtred]

8 hours ago, Skycaptain said:

It doesn't help the genuinely fallen on hard times homeless when people abuse the system. We had a middle-aged gent around here for a few months, looked the typical homeless person, unwashed, unshaven tatty charity shop clothes etc, but one day someone followed him when he moved from his "pitch", and he walked to a car park and got into a V-8 Jaguar with a private plate. 

 

That doesn't help the other genuinely only have the clothes they're wearing and sleep in shop doorways homeless at all 

This is a huge problem in our area as well.  "professional" panhandlers can make a lot of money because they know how to act in a way that will get sympathy. 

 

 

[uhtred]

9 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

There are probably a few thinkers in the world who say that the way we have been doing things at least since the Industrial Revolution has not worked, is not working, and cannot be fixed. Trying to fix things the way that they are may be spinning our wheels at best. At worst, trying to fix things the way they are may be complete delusion (see transhumanism). Alas, such thinkers are apparently a tiny minority and difficult to find.

Calling it "homelessness" makes it sound like a personal problem. It obscures the fact that almost everything in the anthrosphere is the result of systems that we have chosen to create and that many, not just "the 1%" continue to celebrate.

The inspiration behind this celebration is often a particular phenomenon: the idea of progress. Most serious thinkers, it seems, say that progress is an Enlightenment myth. Stan Goff, I recently discovered, goes farther: he shows that progress is a myth steeped in racism, sexism and imperialism. See "The P Word": https://medium.com/@stangoff/the-p-word-a-half-assed-political-autobiography-cee0992f3992 .

 

It is probably a tough sell getting people who think that they--with their cell phones, advanced medical care, SUVs, Hawaii vacations--have won the evolutionary lottery to accept that they are part of a dismal complete systemic failure. It has been a difficult sell getting people to accept that if they are male or white they enjoy unearned advantages. It is, therefore, probably a really tough sell getting people to accept that they are the beneficiaries of global institutional inequality. It is an easier sell to get people to blame everything on "the 1%".

 

Karl Marx said that the working class will revolt when their misery becomes unbearable. I say that most people will accept the reality behind things like homelessness in the U.S. only when they can no longer afford the luxury of denial, myths, lies, etc. But there is nothing stopping them from living according to the truth now.

I think a first step is figuring out what sort of world we want. What is the goal in 100 years, in 1000.   Do we want galactic empires? Stable low tech societies? 

 

Sometimes I think people underestimate how much the world has improved years.   Despite many really bad problems,  starvation, disease and war are actually a lot less bad than they were decades ago.  The world of the past was a pretty terrible place - there just wasn't social media to tell everyone about it.  

 

 

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

"There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed." -- Mahatma Gandhi.

[Skycaptain]

"The adventure of the man with the twisted lip", Arthur Conan Doyle over a century ago, nothings changed 

[uhtred]

On 7/4/2019 at 8:44 PM, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

 

What is frustrating is having to pay for space and amenities that one does not need or want.

 

I am a 47-year-old man who lives alone, works 2 near-minimum-wage jobs to support himself, and spends little more time at home than that required to sleep and shower. Yet, I rent a one bedroom apartment with a bathroom bigger than most apartment kitchens. I do not use the bedroom other than for storage of the small amount of possessions I have (and that could just as easily be stored in the living room). I chose the place because of the location and the price ($550 per month, which is about average in this particular market). I am paying about half of my take-home pay every month for a lot of space that I have no use for and am almost never present to use anyway.

 

I would much rather have a studio/efficiency, but there are very few of them in the market, they are in undesirable locations, and they are priced as high or higher than a one bedroom.

 

Compounding the problem is all of the amenities that most rental properties come with but I have no need or use for. I do not want or need a swimming pool. I do not want or need an exercise room. I do not want or need a clubhouse with a bar.

 

It is the same with transportation. Just get me where I need to go on time with shelter from the elements, please. I do not need to own a car, let alone a car with a CD player, television, and other features I do not need. If you are not going to provide reliable mass transit with benches and shelters at most stops and service late every day--if I must own my own vehicle--at least do not make owning a comfortable, enclosed vehicle a major expense. I do not need an SUV. A microcar will do.

 

Alas, if you point out the absurdity of situations like mine you will be told that it is the result of the exceptional logic of markets and that any non-market-oriented adjustment will cause the sky to collapse.

 

It is feast or famine, even if a simple, basic meal is all that you need or want.

I'm not in your situation so I don't know.  Are there less expensive places (eg different cities) where you could live where minimum income provides better living conditions?  

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

21 hours ago, uhtred said:

I'm not in your situation so I don't know.  Are there less expensive places (eg different cities) where you could live where minimum income provides better living conditions?  

 

My situation is this:

 

I do not own any home entertainment other than a CD player (no TV); I have never had cable or satellite TV or Netflix; I watch an average of less than one movie per year; I have almost no use for the entertainment industrial complex; I enjoy an occasional low-profile event such as a college baseball game or women's college basketball game; I spend the overwhelming bulk of my leisure time reading, doing research and writing; I have never consumed alcohol or used drugs or tobacco--and I never will; I have no plans to do any traveling except for work; everybody around me intends to contribute as much greenhouse gas emissions to the Earth's atmosphere as they can checking off bucket lists (visit all 50 states; visit Europe; etc.) and/or going to some beach or other destination regularly; I find the latter to be morally repugnant; I want a simple life as free from consumer culture as possible; I have 58 credit hours, want to complete at least a bachelors degree, but am not interested in going to school for a "career"; volunteering has been a big part of my past and in the future I would like for it to be my way of life; I have no interest in ever retiring--I want to work full-time my whole life, for pay, as a volunteer, or some combination of both; I am an INFJ who has little use for the constant laughter that apparently has become a requirement for having a female partner...

 

but to live the way I have and want to, I have to survive.

 

And to survive I have to do wasteful, inefficient things, like paying for space I never use. To survive I have to talk about things that are some of the last things I want to talk about. I'd rather talk about postmodern theory than talk about the National Football League, but guess which one the people I am around are capable of talking about.

 

Having the time and the opportunities to network, meet people, etc. would be nice. Maybe then the oversized apartment would be useful.

 

It is a life of trying to negotiate a culture that I have little use for and that has little use for me.

 

Maybe moving to another city in the U.S. would make a difference. Maybe then I would be surrounded by people who would love to ride the bus with me to join me in my perfectly-sized efficiency apartment to read and discuss the latest issue of "Philosophy Now" without me ever having to hear about their latest carbon-intense trip to the Caribbean or the latest episode of "Big Brother". But I doubt that such a difference can be found anywhere in the U.S.

[Mostly Peaceful Ryan]

The Homeless issue is a multi-level issue with no one simple solution. Some are homeless because they are dealing with mental health issues that make it so they can’t hold a job or even take care of themselves. America has shut down mental health facilities and many have ended up in our jail system or on the street. Jails aren’t really designed to handle these issues and will just get them medicated and those same people will be back on the street not taking their medicine and it turns into an endless cycle. 

 

There is also the opioid crisis going on now. I can tell you majority of the homeless outside of my apartment building are Herion addicts. You can spot it from a mile away. They’ve got that Baltimore lean going on or appear to be nodding off just standing there. It is really sad, but there is little that can be done when they refuses help. Addiction is very hard to fight and I’m not sure there is a good solution. The only thing I can think is targeting the dealers and gangs bringing the drugs to them,  but even the dealers are just a product of the environment they were born into.

 

There are many people that try and take advantage  people’s generosity and are just trying to make more money then they would working. 

 

There really needs to be better system in place to fight these problem but many don’t care and there aren’t easy solutions.

[Sally]

31 minutes ago, ♣Ryan♣ said:

There are many people that try and take advantage  people’s generosity and are just trying to make more money then they would working. 

 

I've been involved in advocacy around homelessness in my city and state for almost 20 years -- meaning I've known a lot  of homeless people during that time -- and I've never -- NEVER -- met anyone who has been able to make more money while  they are homeless than they would while working. That's a really silly thing to say.  In fact, many people who are homeless in my city are working at low-paid jobs, some of  them fulltime, and if you don't think it's difficult to be homeless and try to maintain a job, I invite you to try it.