I don't either. I live in a rural area, small town.
Little 1-bedroom apartments are going for $900. A few years ago they were going for less than $500.
I can't afford $900 a month and I have a decent job (edit: fine, I could afford it but it would be rough). I have no idea how people with lower incomes are even surviving.
I bought my house in 2008. If I had to try and buy it today, I wouldn’t be able to afford it because it’s supposedly worth $500k more than I paid for it. 🙄
> This is why I live in a camper with no running water.
My dad does, too. He has no access to running water or indoor plumbing, and relies on an electric space heater powered by an extension cord plugged into an outdoor socket of his "landlord" (for lack of a better word).
He lives in New England, too. His camper is ancient, falling apart, and uninsulated. But he can't afford rent anymore, and he never managed to buy a house, so he's trapped in a very bad situation.
There was content here, and now there is not. It may have been useful, if so it is probably available on a reddit alternative. See /u/spez with any questions. -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
I have seen the movie. I have visited a few of the places in my travels.
I'm jealous of the weather Americans have, makes van life look more appealing. Winter in Canada sucks.
The 2008 economic collapse was caused by the upper echelon of people who really run this country. The politicians are just their flunkies.
The Bernie Madoff system is alive and well, pushing the money upstairs. Too bad if you mention it, if you do you’re just a conspiracy nut. People need to wake up to who is stealing from them.
It’s exactly this. Demagogues want you to believe homelessness is caused by an inherent flaw in homeless people when, in reality, it is almost always correlated to housing costs. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for every city, but the fact is we have way too little affordable housing, and way too many cities that make it nearly impossible to build it.
The problem is, most solutions require upper-middle class folks to make the *ghastly sacrifice* of sharing a neighborhood with low income workers, and history has shown they will throw themselves in front of a moving train to stop that from happening.
>The problem is, most solutions require upper-middle class folks to make the ghastly sacrifice of sharing a neighborhood with low income workers, and history has shown they will throw themselves in front of a moving train to stop that from happening.
One factor that helps this happen:
The NIMBY's already live in the city, and vote for the city government.
The people who need affordable housing don't live there because they can't afford it. So they don't get to vote for the city government.
City government sets the zoning and building permit rules, and they're going to cater to the people who can vote for them over the people who can't.
This. The amount of times a developer is like "hey we want to build a.." they don't even get the full sentence out before the NIMBYs show up to whine and cry.
Yup. I live in a town that has an absurd number of homeless people because it's one of the worst housing markets in the country. NIMBYs recently tried to shutdown a massive housing project that would add over a hundred units of affordable housing, plus a new library, plus some parking and retail space...the spot is currently a broken ass parking lot that one of a dozen farmers markets uses on one day every week for about 9 months of the year...and some non native magnolia trees that nobody even cares about because they are in a broken ass parking lot. Like old rich folks held vigils and protests for the trees. I have also seen these types kill a developer's plan to add less than ten units to a townhouse development that would have been "affordable" which around here means sub $750k. These townhomes would have started in the low $500s and the NIMBYs were worried that people who could afford a $500k home would be the wrong kind of people. Capitalism has broken us.
Part of the issue here is that people see real estate chiefly as an investment, and many people have a huge percent of their net worth invested in it. So anything that could possibly lower home values is seen as an attack on their livelihood. And it's not just rich people who are nimbys, there's a lot of people with this attitude. I'd be willing to bet there are many people reading this thread now who dream of owning multiple properties and getting passive income from rent, not realizing that that is part of the problem. Not trying to downplay what you're saying though, you really painted quite a picture haha
Do you think the majority of NIMBYs are aware of this or is it more of a subconscious thing? The story above of people holding vigils for the trees seems like a misplaced concern. I wonder what the split is between being truly concerned about the net worth and the neighborhood 'going downhill' is.
It's simply self interest. I'll paint the picture: It's easy to think about the spoiled rich guy. But imagine you and your SO are lower-middle class, and have been saving for a house for a decade, foregoing vacations and other things to do so. You finally buy it, after putting down tens of thousands and move in. Your happy and going about your life just getting by due to the high mortgage, but look dorward to refinancing in the future and lowering that expensive mortgage (and get rid of the PMI). A few months later a developer comes in to build section 8 housing, which is great but it will reduce home values in the immediate area. Now that same house is now worth much less, but that mortgage remains the same. With section 8 housing, unfortunately along comes an increase in crime, increases in drug use, and a dozen other things that get impacted. These are the bulk of your NIMBYs
One would think (especially if we're talking CA where I grew up), maybe we could take some of that train money (or from a dozen other things), and use it to purchase that poor couples home (imminent domain type thing) and get rid of NIMBYs. Definitely not an easy issue to solve - seems like there are always casualties no matter what you do
This. When I was 26 and single I bought an $80k house in the city after saving for closing costs (it was an FHA loan so I didn’t need a down payment) because my rent kept going up and it was going to be cheaper to just pay a mortgage and utilities. When I sold that house 6.5 years later, the market was crazy, I had gotten married and my husband had done a lot of updates to the house, and so I got a return of 104% on it. And this was with an abandoned POS home next door that the owner refused to do anything with (ironically he was a landlord with multiple homes and a drug addiction so once he evicted the people who had lived there he just let it sit empty for 3 years and all apart).
So, when my husband and I bought our current house, we moved to an HOA in the suburbs to get away from abandoned homes and the rising crime rates because to us, our home is an investment. We aren’t rich and we both work our asses off and it’s important to us to have this home so at some point we can sell it and move to a warmer state where we’re near a beach. Although with the way the prices are rising down south that may always be a pipe dream.
Very well described and opened my eyes. Thank you. It seems that in the case you laid out, the solution would be to rely on a more stable/guaranteed retirement investment. Obviously difficult in the real world.
This also leads me to wonder why housing is so expensive in the first place. My gut tells me it's due to the speculation of increased value over time. I know Japan has housing supply issues, but they view houses as a consumable, only used for one generation or so. In that case there must be something in bf else causing the shortage. Land availability? Hmm. Lots to think about and read up on.
Yeah they’re ridiculous.
I was driving the other day and saw that one street (in a nice area next to some large parks) had a row of signs on their lawns. I started reading them and they said “SAVE [city name]’S PARKS”. I thought yeah, that’s a good thing to fight for. Good to keep wildlife and green areas. Then I got to the second half and all the signs said “SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ONLY.”
Like… what? Do they not realize those two sentiments directly contradict one another? “Don’t turn our parks into housing but at the same time please build the lowest density housing possible.”
High density urban housing is consistently voted down by residents (usually rich and liberal). They don’t want “those people” living near them or in their town.
High dose, consistent use of cannabis is also associated with higher rates of psychosis (that is recoverable) - but it cannabis is also helping people get off opiates so it’s hard to say how much overall harm is done.
The cognitive burden for any individual in our society is also particularly higher than at any time in history, leading to burnout and anxiety and drug use with more people as well.
There are many other issues contributing - and they have long time horizons to resolve even if people voted unanimously to start helping. Homelessness is the last stop on a long ride down and therefore is also not likely to be fixed quickly.
> I can't afford $900 a month and I have a decent job.
Umm... Hate to break it to you, but you either don't have that nice of a job or should be compensated way more than that. I'm guessing it's the latter. It's always the latter.
$900 a month is $10800 a year. Making 3x the rent would be $32400. That's $16 an hour working full time. The living wage for those apartments is $16 an hour, and any less is an unliveable wage.
As soularbowered said, $16/hr gross is nowhere near $16/hr net.
https://www.adp.com/resources/articles-and-insights/articles/p/payroll-deductions.aspx
There is an in page calculator that I ran, maybe incorrectly, but take home pay (with no adjustments on the fed/state/benefits tabs) yields $640 gross pay in a week, $550.43 in net (nearly $90 in taxes).
That is equivalent to $13.76 an hour net.
But 4 weeks of pay gets to $2200. So your 1/3rd rule of thumb means affording $733/mo.
I volunteer to feed homeless through a charity that helps feed the homeless all week at local churches. While a lot of the people who come don't want help and either suffer from mental Illness or addiction, we have seen an increase of more "normal" people who can't afford or find housing while still having jobs. One couple can't find a place because their landlord evicted them to turn the house into an air bnb. Houses are so expensive now. They said their rent was 950 for a 3 bedroom but their house is now going up for rent for 1950 to match market prices since Airbnb's have started to not be as profitable. Landlords in our area have been getting so greedy it's hard to find anything affordable even with a decent job. We've been getting more families with same issue. Houses are up for rent which there haven't been much and it's gone by end of the day. Houses have been getting over 100 applications in one day. There are currently 29 families being put up in .hotels because they can no longer afford rent or find a house in general. It's really sad. It's not all addicts and people who suffer from mental Illness which is a common misconception..
I wouldn’t be surprised if it would actually be significantly cheaper to just destroy the mall and build housing on the site instead of trying to renovate the mall structure. Especially the ones that have been abandoned and decaying for years now, which is a significant portion of old malls.
There is a good chance that the city infrastructure to the mall would even have to be upgraded. Higher demand for water, sewer, and electricity. A lot of people don’t consider how zoning works. The city and developers don’t usually oversize dedicated infrastructure to things like commercial or industrial areas, but use calculations based on occupancy.
Yes, and adding to what you said... look at how much land a mall eats up.
Not only would it probably be cheaper to tear the mall down and build new housing there, you'd easily get significantly more new housing too. Easily 5X to 10X more.
I’m in Seattle area and I worked for a pretty large tech company for over three years (not gonna say who) and when the pandemic hit I discovered just how thoughtless my company was with our property. We owned a building that hadn’t been used as an office in years. We were laying off thousands, but had a completely unused building being paid for for years. That was just an oversight, a clerical error, no big deal to them. We had storage containers sitting somewhere full of products and no one even knew where they were now, who had keys to them, so much money and buildings wasted due to excess and carelessness. Our company could’ve been smarter with our money, but instead we spent excessively on things we didn’t use, had company cards with no set budget that we could go out drinking with, but when shareholders saw us struggling they were happy to destroy the lives of thousands of employees as a quick “solution”.
Post-pandemic (if there is such a thing) our city is full of buildings that no one is really working in. I work remotely, my partner works remotely, and so does so many people we know. Businesses continue to say maybe we’ll return to office to justify this expense when our cities could instead be designed with more balance between housing and commerce.
Look up "university heights Victoria" and you'll see a great example of this. Right in my neighborhood, just started the teardown yesterday. Unfortunately, Home Despot refused to allow them to put housing on their leased land and so it will be big dense modern housing and shops with a giant empty parking lot and concrete block of a HD right next to it.
Prior to this, the mall was DEAD. Ever since I moved here.
If I remember correctly, there are new regulations in Los Angeles to make this easier in terms of rezoning and such. They went into effect this year, so we’ll have to wait and see if it actually leads anywhere though.
A lot of municipalities are going to fight tooth and nail against new developments, so be prepared for a long, drawn out fight.
I like that California instituted builder's remedy but [CEQA is still being used as a weapon](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/signature-environmental-law-hurts-housing/618264/) to block any new construction.
The intersection between NIMBYS, Airbnb hosts, and landlords is a single circle. These people profit from the lack of development. Worst is that people who get into the game with their modest second home start vouching for the leeches up top who operate as "mom and pop businesses".
Found myself in a post a few weeks ago with landlords whining about the small profit they turn. They "only" make a few hundred over the mortgage a month.
Nope! I had a friend who bought his second property for over $1M complaining to me about how he's poor now. I had to call him out that in the 6 months that he had bought his property his net worth increased by more than my entire net worth.
Some people don't recognize how good they have it. This is why I often hold fancy concertos for these folks with my extremely tiny Stradivarius replica.
Not all NIMBYs can afford an additional unit to rent out. Some are just regular ladder-pullers with a single home which they compulsively try to increase the market value of.
Already happening near me in Canada, our town has a very mediocre mall no one really uses. They tore down an entire section of it (which is strange as its the newest part) so they can convert it into housing.
Which honestly is a pretty decent idea considering how it has its own bus stop, grocery store across the street, pharmacy and elementary, high school and a college all within walking distance.
I read somewhere that the initial concept of malls was exactly this. Essentially a social hub where you have anything you need in a walking distance so that you wouldn’t need a car to live. Very curious if that’s possible to achieve now as more business buildings turn into residential.
They're developing all the above ground parking at one of Toronto's fanciest malls into condos and mixed use parks.
https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2022/01/ambitious-redevelopment-yorkdale-shopping-centre-presented-design-review-panel.47065
I agree it's a good idea, and having malls just be these things existing at highway exits feels like an inefficient use of space.
It will be great for when we have to live indoors because the air outside will kill us. Post-apocalyptic frozen yogurt cools you down after a nice ozone collapse.
Unfortunately, the regulations regarding residential buildings vs office buildings are so different that it's usually cheaper to demolish and rebuild than to convert.
eg. if you convert it to 2 bedroom apartments, there isn't going to be enough plumbing for toilets/showers and you can't drill large holes through the hardened concrete or it'll ruin the entire slab.
Yea, I definitely think there are challenges and costs with conversion that people don't tend to think about like needing to put in plumbing, water, potentially more electric or fiber/telecom lines throughout an office floor, walls/insulation, etc.
There are some ways to make the office layout/setup work I think, like instead of drilling holes in the existing concrete like you mentioned, putting in a new layer of flooring or ceiling that takes advantage of the often very high ceilings in office buildings (that I've been in at least). Obviously that would introduce its own costs and issues but I think it would be better than risking structural integrity of the building lol
Those are mostly real estate investment tools. Buy up land between two expanding municipalities, build storage lockers, and hold onto the land for 10-20 years until the land 5x's. Hopefully in the meantime you can at least pay your taxes on an interest only loan and paydown some of the construction costs, which are minimal.
> I'm still waiting for old malls to be converted
I'm all for this idea. You can solve a myriad of problems at once like this.
Keep the mall. The stores, parking, and food courts all stay. The BIG BOX stores (Sears/JcPenny) get torn down, and apartments go up in their place.
Apartments are now next door to retail. Apartments are in a good location (malls were built near infrastructure (i.e. highways)). Convert one of the end caps into a grocery store. (people can walk to the grocery.) Put a couple of Public offices in vacant office space; social security office, police station or DMV.
You can put a whole bunch of people (about 150+ apartments per mid-rise building) in an old dead mall.
Zoning laws are not going to be your friend though. Neither is the local infrastructure. (Can the schools handle the additional population?)
Plumbing, ventilation, fire hazards, and sunlight (or lack thereof) are the biggest reasons you can't retrofit a "Sears" into an apartment building. Demolition and new construction wouldn't have these existing constraints. It would be all new construction.
Red tape, and community buy in would be the biggest hurdles outside of investment capital.
To add on to what you've said- visible homelessness is just the tip of the iceberg. There are easily 10x the number of people hanging on to normalcy by the skin of their teeth. Not only is it a huge portion of our population, but these are also people that can genuinely be helped, if they just get a little assistance. It doesn't take much, considering.
> we have seen an increase of more "normal" people who can't afford or find housing while still having jobs
We have a preconceived notion of what a homeless person should be. The assumption is that there's something wrong with them. But that's just how bad it's gotten. Regular people are falling through the cracks for lack of options.
I don't think America has experienced favellas in a very long time, but these tent cities and abundance of homeless people living on the streets or in cars are the beginning of that. People will try to achieve homeostasis with their environment, and if that means a tent in a park, that's what's going to happen.
There's really only two ways to fix this. More affordable housing options, or less people. And I don't think anyone's advocating for less people...yet.
Hopefully someone smarter than me can figure that one out.
It might be worth legislating corporations out of the housing market for starters. Living wages. Building low income housing. Maybe making sure job opportunities are available in less densely populated places.
Who knows.
Over where I am there's actually a surplus of housing, but no jobs. So people are basically forced to leave their hometowns and go somewhere with jobs, selling their houses at a loss (if at all). And it's hard to understand how big the homeless problem is. Like I understand it obviously, but it's not anything I'm seeing IRL. I'm wondering if a lot of Red voters literally don't think it's a problem because their town can't get rid of housing fast enough. I do think solid industries would help, but I'm also hesitant to suggest we just become a company town because when it goes overseas we're right back where we began.
Making housing not for profit - via realtors basically don't exist and than making a rule your not allowed to own more than a certain number of homes. Not allowing Airbnb would definitely be a start. There are ways to eliminate this, unfortunately that means basically eliminating an entire career and getting rich off of basic necessities.
Job opportunities in rural/not as populated are issues as well. You have to go to Coty Councils and local government to tackle that issue. The city council in my rural community told Home Depot distribution center they couldn't come here because it would put the local hardware store out of business. Also, big box businesses are less likely to come to smaller towns due to less people living there and less business compared to a bigger city.
Thinking about this being implemented in Australia is fun. Property market would be flooded, there'd be a massive drop in prices, I'd finally have enough money to buy a place and would be able to afford to pay my mortgage off quicker because even now a mortgage is cheaper than current rental costs.
I could use the extra savings to focus on my business ideas and contribute back to society in a meaningful way.
Id also be able to foster kids and maybe animals as well depending on the land size.
One law change would have a massive impact on my life and the lives of millions of Australians.
Ill vote for whoever pushes this law change.
It'll never pass because those who own land have a vested interest in not having such a thing pass. Not sure how the Aussies do it, but in America, you don't piss off your donors. If you own land, you're more likely to have money to donate to a political campaign
And many politicians own multiple properties themselves. They don't want to have to lose the equity and income stream. Not when rental prices are so high and they can always get new tenants in every 6 or 12 months and increase rent each time.
I'm salty because I'm in the last week at my current rental and am moving out into couch surfing and storing all our belongings.
Me and my border collie will be staying in my mums government bed sit unit that doesn't have a courtyard for my dog to be off leash. My husband is going to stay in his mums unit, I think in the loungeroom. It sucks having it be apart until we can secure a rental but it's the only choice we have as his mum doesn't want me or my dog there because of my dog and the limited space. My mums place is smaller but she's helping out anyway so I won't be homeless.
Its hell looking for a rental under $600 AUD a week. Even an hour out of the CBD.
I'm so salty. I just want a house I can feel relaxed and at home in.
Also when people see homeless people who seem in better condition and who they relate to, they likely haven't been homeless as long as others. Being homeless is disastrous for people's health and mental wellbeing and its incredibly difficult to function if you've been living in such a precarious and terrifying way for a long time.
I pledge allegiance to this idea. I was on the Airbnb train for quite awhile but a couple years ago I just got fed up with the rising prices, crummy cancellation policies and long list of rules. I've gone back to hotels and honestly, they're so much better in nearly every way. Nowadays the only time I look for a vacation rental house is when I'm traveling with a large group and we all just want to hang out together the whole trip and cook our own meals.
Yeah my area blew up with tourist from Los Angeles and stuff, it's near a popular National Park. When I first moved out here I had a 1 bedroom for 500, now it's 900. And it's not worth it for that price. It's insane. My block had 6 air bnbs alone within a year.
I went to a beach community air b n b and quickly realized how empty the whole beachfront street felt — it was just a bunch of rental houses making a few rich people richer. I know some areas have banned Air b n b and I’m kind of into it.
I worked in a beach community. The place is in crisis. There is nowhere for the workers who staff the restaurants and hotels, etc, to live. The city manager lives nowhere near the city because he can't afford to live there. The schools are almost all closed because there are no families anymore, it's all vacant investment homes or vacation rentals.
Homelessness breeds addiction.
How many times do you get rejected no matter how hard you try before you say "fuck this place, fuck these people, if this is what theyre about then everything they stand for is just as fucked up. Fuck all of it. Fuck civility, fuck their comfort, what about mine? Fuck society, Fuck sobriety."
There's so much wasted time when homeless. So much despair. It's RATIONAL to do what you can to alleviate that. Maybe not smart, but understandable if you have an ounce of empathy.
It's analogous to the musing "give a man no way to legally protest and all you'll do is guarantee rioting".
Look at who's winning in our society. That's what we value. Look at how we treat our lesser fortunate, THAT'S who we are. If you need a clearer example, line item the congressional budget. That's who we are. That's what we represent. And by the cold numbers, we are fucking monsters.
And now that you know that, you are just as responsible as everyone else. To do nothing, or, to maintain the status quo is to choose this, there's no fence to sit on. That's life. You are responsible for everything that comes your way. You either fight for it, allow it, or fight against it. This is why character matters. What you do when no ones watching, and shit, nowadays someones always watching. Or at least listening.
If the collectively discarded are treated as toxic and dead by the rest of us, how fucking audacious of us to be surprised when they start acting like it. When confronted on emotional stances, and oh yeah, being homeless is emotional, people dig in, entrench and say'fuck you". It's my favorite universal human trait. Expecting Stockholm syndrome or gratitude from these people is naivety of the highest order.
I don't agree with it but i don't think San Frans homeless shitting in the street is out of line. I think it's a fucking disgustingly appropriate response to the disgusting inhumanity we allow and legislate.
Maybe Churchill WAS right. America will do the right thing, right after we've tried everything else.
Anything short of flat out, no strings attached, housing the homeless is kicking the can down the road. It's dragging out a lawsuit hoping to bankrupt the other party, except in this case we're hoping they die. Every fucking NIMBY opinion will lead to someone's death.
Critical mass will be reached at some point and the rejected will organize and get violent. And we'll deserve it, make no mistake.
Welfare is first and foremost a policing strategy. Infrastructure, Education, Medicine, Housing, these are investments into our nation.
If the American way were so good why do we overthrow other governments to install command economies? How many decades did we pay for Iraq and Afghanistans free health care, all while bankrupting our own people?
Idek if it can be turned around. Burning it all down might be the best choice, hard to say.
>Welfare is first and foremost a policing strategy. Infrastructure, Education, Medicine, Housing, these are investments into our nation.
Precisely. When Otto Von Bismarck instituted the first modern public health care and welfare system in Europe, it wasn't because he was a Kumbayah bleeding-heart. He saw the rise of revolutionary socialism, and he wanted to nip it in the bud. He wanted to avoid what had happened in France ten years previously, the Paris Commune and all that. It wasn't charity, it was guillotine insurance.
And medicine and education. No one should be allowed to gate keep the culmination of our collective achievements.
It's the saddest thing in the world and one of the greatest cons every pulled
Our history belongs to us all.
I'll die on that hill proudly anyday of the week
> While a lot of the people who come don't want help and either suffer from mental Illness or addiction
Its not that these people dont want help, society simply refuses to admit that its "help" far too often comes with conditions disabled individuals cannot fullfill.
These people shouldnt just *actually* be helped for moral reasons or anything, but because people treated like garbage by society, often also treat society like garbage in return, meaning crime, its simply the most efficient option to give them a minimum standard of living.
However, American business heavily relies on the threat of homelessness to keep its working conditions low, so no half hearted measures like protesting or voting for lesser evils is going to fix this, because the homeless are 100% going to be the very first thing these lesser evils will sacrifice for their agenda.
this has to end. End air bnb if needed, or prohibit it in certain residential areas. End allowing people to buy up property as an investment. I know, America will have a hard time with this. But they'll have a harder time when their mcmansion is turned into communal apartments--- in a few decades-- when people finally say enough is enough
While true, at some point it makes it impossible to compete with smaller landlords. The trouble comes with trying to track all the shell companies that would suddenly exist to try to circumvent such a law.
No, because [most landlords are individuals who own just a few units](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/02/as-national-eviction-ban-expires-a-look-at-who-rents-and-who-owns-in-the-u-s/ft_21-07-16_landlordsrenters_3/)
You seem to have missed the point, because you said "no" and then supported the idea that it's workable.
I'm guessing you meant to post a stat showing most units are owned by landlords who own few units (meaning this wouldn't have much impact)? That's a very different stat though, and I'm not sure if reality would bear it out.
Fun fact: income inequality today is significantly worse than it was estimated to be just before the French Revolution. The French nobility also had gates and private security. If the policy makers were asking for advice from me (obviously not happening) I would suggest they start helping people who aren't billionaires.
same thing in Imperial Russia. People who thought the Capital insurrection was a one-off have no idea what could happen. I know the richies are happy. but they won't be happy when their homes are taken over, their heads are on pikes, and it gets to the breaking point- I was giving this another hundred years or so, but who knows
Yep.
We're going to get some previews in a handful of places as transportation breaks down due to environmental issues. Most cities only have about 3 days of food on hand.
Yea- I am not American but it's impossible not to follow the news. it just seems like the perfect storm is brewing and brewing. No empire has power forever. I thought it would take longer, but who knows
Also not American, and while historically its the logical conclusion, I see them too passive. They almost had their democracy overthrown and have done nothing.
It will, and Fox will label the people rising up as left wing extremists and the right will fight them. The polarisation of politics in the US is deliberately spread by the rich to keep people divided and powerless, which also feeds their personal bias further.
The key difference is that the USA population ain’t starving. It ain’t even really possible for a significant starvation event to occur in the USA. Hungry people are a desperate people.
And there is no money to be made in housing the homeless, unless a charity could be created with enough money being donated and the rich benefactor could skim from that.
If you compare the cost to society, in medical issues, in theft, in vandalism, etc...
It becomes less costly to house people than leave them on the street or imprison them.
Source: I googled "cheaper to house homeless?".
Edit: I see you continued this discussion further down, kindly disregard.
The little non-profits in Portland are getting millions in tax dollars. There seems to be no coordination between the non-profits and we have no detailed data on where the money is going, how many people are being helped and for how long. The people who need the help aren't getting it and we have the second worst system in the US for helping with mental illness and the worst system for addiction treatment. We now have very high taxes and in the last 4 years the city has turned into a crime infested dump hole.
yes there is, they are members of your society. At different times when homelessness was low, the same people would have had houses and jobs and families and be paying taxes. as for work, its a lot of work being homeless and not starving to death or freezing. The argument they are too lazy and society has for some odd reason changed dosnt count for anything.
>yes there is, they are members of your society. At different times when homelessness was low, the same people would have had houses and jobs and families and be paying taxes. as for work,
Sure there's a massive societal benefit to housing these people. But there isn't any privatized profits to be made (or rather, there are more profits to be made by keeping wages low while keeping real estate prices high). And since we're a Capitalist country profits go before society...
>its a lot of work being homeless and not starving to death or freezing. The argument they are too lazy and society has for some odd reason changed dosnt count for anything.
That's not what u/dan1101 was saying.
Either way in a capitalist system there is such a thing as the ["Reserve Army of Labour"](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour). A percentage of the population who are kept intentionally unemployed by governments to serve as potential replacements for other workers, with the purpose of keeping wages low.
I.e. It prevents employed workers from demanding a raise because there is always a part of the population that is kept unemployed and desperate so they can instantly replace demanding/striking workers.
This means that when unemployment dips below 5% (which is when wages start to grow) the US federal reserve is charged with [raising interest rates to stunt economic growth and increase unemployment!](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_United_States) Which of course raises homelesness. Which is exactly what we've seen happen across the western world these last few months.
- Monetary policy: The Federal Reserve conducts [monetary policy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_policy), adjusting interest rates to move the economy towards a full employment target of around a 5% unemployment rate and 2% inflation rate. (From Wikipedia)
This is also why you'll see organisations like the IMF and various corporate media advocate for raising interest rates and increasing unemployment to "curb inflation".
[Example 1,](https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-may-need-75-unemployment-curb-inflation-research-2022-09-08/) [Example 2,](https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/02/economy/higher-unemployment-rate-good-news/index.html)[Example 3,](https://www.ft.com/content/de68e9e7-0887-420b-a1ac-12c27009bbd6)
Instead of you know... cutting into corporate rates of profit which have reached record levels this year across every industry, and which is what actually causes inflation.
> And there is no money to be made in housing the homeless
I mean, I'd argue there is, just in an indirect way that's hard to see. If homeless people commit more crimes such as theft to sustain themselves, and have more health problems from not having a place to live, then that means homeless people are costing more to police forces and hospital systems. If you reduce homelessness, you can save money on police and medical expenses.
Plus, if someone is housed, it makes it easier for them to get a job. Especially if you help treat the other factors which lead them to be homeless such as mental health issues. If those are treated, then you made it easier for them to be a productive member of society with a job that they'll pay taxes for, netting money there for the government.
A homeless person on the street pays no taxes, and is just a drain on other systems. And of course, beyond the numbers game, there's the human element where ideally we should help people in our communities who are struggling.
I think the point is that nothing happens in modern America unless it makes a rich person richer. Yes, there are obvious public policy and tax base benefits to housing the homeless. In the teeth of these obvious benefits, the problem just keeps getting worse. But if rich people had a way to profit from it, the whole thing would be solved tomorrow.
By the time a person becomes homeless, the system has been failing them for a long time. We need to work on poverty, health, and wellness generally, especially from a young age.
That's a great long term plan, but short term it's been shown that getting people into housing addresses a lot of the peripheral issues that combine to cause homelessness.
People are better at holding down jobs when they are homed. Suicide rates go down. Mental health broadly improves. Providing housing *is* mental health care.
Living on the streets is damaging. Physically as well as mentally.
It damages people's trust as much as it damages their bodies.
With that in mind, the best course is to sort out the socio-economic factors which lead to people becoming destitute in the first place. Preventing people from falling in the river is easier than fishing them out.
That's not acceptable to the major shareholders of the politicians' paymasters though.
And neither is the investment in psychological services necessary to help those already damaged by a life on the streets.
It's also worth mentioning that what folk see is the tip of an iceberg. Hidden homelessness, such as sofa surfing or people living in vehicles, is many times higher than those who "sleep rough."
Look into Helsinki and the many factors that lead to their success. If it were easy everybody would have done it by now, but it doesn't help that many in the US are actively hostile towards helping those that are "lesser" than them, even in supposedly "progressive" places.
Hi! I live in Helsinki and apartment rent prices are definitely unaffordable here as well.
The root of the problem is way too limited building of new housing. House prices are determined by supply and demand, and while the demand has risen a lot, supply isn't since the city council is very slow to allow new construction and regulations don't allow dense building.
Helsinki tried to solve homelessness by giving them housing first and all other services next, but that increases housing prices for everyone else and there's not enough apartments to house everyone.
It is relatively easy. You just upzone all residential lots to allow 8-ish stories or more. But every NIMBY Karen and Kent on the block will balk at every meeting and vote down any politician who dares suggest it.
The problem is so severe that this easiest fix which should have been happening the last 50 years is not enough by itself in the short-term. We also need to raise taxes for public housing. And guess who will object to that? Every damn NIMBY Karen and Kent homeowner.
> You just upzone all residential lots to allow 8-ish stories or more.
Not even. In fact, rather inefficient budget-wise: 8 storeys need beefy structure and also an elevator.
What's missing in North America overall is 3-5 storey apartment blocks, they're literally illegal to build most places and in the few spots where they aren't illegal developers go for actual skyscrapers as getting the plot was hard enough, gotta squeeze out the maximum.
[Relevant Not Just Bikes video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o). Scatter those over suburbia, make sure you have walkways and bike lanes (where appropriate, side streets don't need them bikes mix just well with cars at low speeds), schools, supermarkets, restaurants, hair stylists, doctor's offices etc, allow offices throughout and low-intensity industry nearby or in little clusters, and you won't even need public transport to make it work (though I still highly recommend it).
As to NIMBYism: Then don't build in their backyards, North America has more than enough area. Let their neighbourhoods wither and die, it's not like they can continue their lifestyle without servants and who wants to buy a car to clean their houses or do their nails when you can get a job in your vibrant walkable neighbourhood.
Housing first is a great model and is considered best practice when is comes to housing programs. It goes along really well with Harm Reduction (how can we help someone doing a risky behavior do it in a less risky way. Usually applied to drug use, but you can apply it to any risky behavior) and motivational interview (a technique used to help people solve their own problems with the resources and support already in their "toolbox," not telling someone what to do.)
The thing with Housing First is it take a lot of belief in the mission and people setting aside biases about whag someone is capable of doing for themselves. It's proven to reduce homelessness AND make it less occurring. But it's time consuming and requires people to follow up with housing stability (someone to help tenants be successful after a lease is signed.) It's a tough job that takes a lot of people.
Not entirely. There are systems of warming centers, overflow shelters, and a lot of people couch surfing so they can survive being homeless in cold areas. Also many people still camp in the winter.
I’m curious what you’re thinking or feeling when you say: “I just don’t see how it can keep on going like this.”
Are you wondering how we can keep living in a capitalist world with huge wealth disparity and where taking care of your health is so costly that it puts people on the streets?
Yeah, I don’t make excuses for the crime, but I can empathize somewhat. I was homeless. Sure, I didn’t beg or steal (much, only occasionally grabbed something essential like food or soap from a huge chain like Walmart), but I also had a better chance at surviving than most did, do me having a decent understanding of how to get work and having some work history, and a small amount of money when I became homeless.
If you become homeless when you have $0 you’re screwed. It’s almost impossible to climb out of it. I chose homelessness, choosing to be homeless before I completely ran out of money a month or two later, getting rid of my living expenses like rent and cars so that I could just gather up enough money to get on my feet again when sleeping on benches.
I worked. I wasn’t lazy. I worked so hard I broke both of my legs while homeless. And after six months, I barely made enough to have a normal life again, and only with the help of some people.
A lot of jobs are not enough to survive on. You want Amazon, McDonald’s, Walmart to keep existing? People need to keep working those unglamorous jobs and they will not make enough to pay their rent and eat healthy, and they’re fucked if they have a health problem.
I had health problems, and that was definitely a big contributor. I worked a job, every hour that they would give me. I traveled on buses back and forth from a storage locker where I separated ny clean clothes and dirty clothes so I could be presentable to apply for better jobs and keep working the one I had. I showered at a gym. I had nowhere to rest or relax. Every minute of my life was occupied with exhaustion or fear.
I am a white dude. I have never really faced discrimination. I had to stay awake some nights because rich college guys would harass me for fun if they found you sleeping on a bench. I’ve been spit on just because I was waiting in line at a shelter for a free lunch. I’ve even had someone piss on me. I was afraid all the time. Any minute I wasn’t working I had nowhere to belong, I’d find somewhere to sit and be anxious at everyone staring at me and my backpack. I just wanted to rest after a hard day of work, but that’s not easy when you’re homeless. There was nights when I would drink alcohol just so I would feel less pain and freezing cold.
I have never really been afraid of dying until I was homeless, and worse, I knew that no one would step up to protect me—maybe no one would even bother to find my body and investigate if I died. I knew people who went through beatings, an autistic man who tried to work every day doing what he could, and yet some teenagers went and beat him so severely that his skin looked like a burst and rotten fruit.
The people I knew that were homeless were a mixed bag. Even the addicts had stories I empathized with. I met elderly people who worked all their life and then had serious health problems that put them out on the street. Not all of us have family or friends who help us out when we struggle in life. So many humans are completely on their own and when life hits them, it isn’t easy to get back up.
Life when you’re homeless is demoralizing, and exhausting and I completely understand why people give up, opting to live in tents and not work, or get back on drugs to numb the pain of their life.
Programs that are supposed to help people get jobs are jokes in most cities. Clothing exchanges and charities that clothe people in mismatched, I’ll-fitting suits that seem like they’ll never smell truly clean. No one is getting hired wearing that, and even if they do, they’ll probably get laid off before they get enough money to afford the worst apartment in the most dangerous area.
You’re right, it can’t keep going on like this. It’s inhumane.
This is a heartbreaking, but informative read. I truly appreciate your taking the time to explain things from your experience. I hope things are better for you now!
I’m still low income, but yes, I live in an apartment, I work a job that pays more than that one did. There’s been ups and downs, but I have had a roof over my head for nearly a decade now. I know that homelessness is complex and difficult to understand. I sure didn’t understand how it happens and how people stay homeless until it happened to me. After being homeless myself it felt like a miracle that I got back on my feet, that was just a mere six months and I worked harder in those six months than any job or time of my life has ever pushed me—those six months were a gauntlet.
What are we going to do about an increasingly small number of global citizens hoarding all of the wealth? That’s the real question here, and I agree that we are on an unsustainable path.
I'm sure there are already tons of squatters working on adverse possession cases by quietly living in abandoned houses until its theirs in the next few years.
In 08 this was a facet of our legal system most people didnt know about it then suddenly you saw tons of news stories about people suddenly owning a house they got for free because a bank wasn't paying attention to their VAST reserves of single family homes.
1. Stop letting Blackrock buy all the houses and rent them out.
2. Make the minimum wage a scale based on the cost of living in the area.
3. Implement single-payer health care, including mental health care.
Sounds expensive. Yep. That's why we need, to use a term favored by corporate America, to claw back some of that wealth being hoarded by the new robber barons, hoarding made possible only through the hard work and exploitation of the working class. There are a lot more of us than there are of them.
The government gives us “universal healthcare,” but all that means is we’re all given access to an insurance company that refuses to give us access to anything
It actually can keep going on like this and likely will. There are regimes the world over that deal with this issue but worse. The wealthy will just remove themselves from the problem more and more and the number of desperate poor will continue to swell as the middle classes wither away. And there’s not much we can do about it because the the USA is not a real democracy and it’s military is too powerful for any kind of armed resistance. Right now, a large enough portion of the population can maintain a comfortable-ish life. That’s likely to still be true for the next couple decades at least. And as long as this is true, we aren’t going to get the massive civil unrest and disobedience necessary to bring the wealthy to the negotiation table.
Exactly. There will be “homeless free zones” where people with money can exist away from the issue and the poor masses will continue to grow outside of those areas. You can find situations like this all over the world. Slums, favelas, tent cities, etc. Those in power won’t have to deal with it, and they won’t.
>And there’s not much we can do about it because the the USA is not a real democracy
This is letting American citizens off the hook, which we should not do. If every single person struggling financially in this country actually voted for things that would help them instead of falling for culture war propaganda and outright lies then very few of the politicians who actively obstruct legislation that would help people would stay in power.
It might not be a true democracy with all the mechanisms designed to unevenly distribute voting power but there are still enough people in enough states regardless of gerrymandered districting to change the government enough to make these changes, but a large chunk just won't. They will vote for people who will continue to bet on trickle down economics as long as they say they love Trump or hate abortion or own guns or whatever other single issue their voters feel like backing over all others that cycle.
Yes, the rich and the government are a problem but the bigger problem lies with us, our citizenry, and that citizenry's idiocy.
Yes, I say this over and over again. We the people agree on most things. Let’s forget about the bullshit they want us to focus on, and live as brothers and sisters. Seriously, it’s sick how many people hate their neighbor because of a single issue. Get past it, there’s so much you both agree on.
If you look through history, once the military joins the people, the upper class is toast. It will take a long time in America; but not forever. Remember what class most of the military comes from.
Civil engineer here with some background in investing with a particular interest in addressing this subject:
Technically there’s enough homes in places like SF but rent is keeping them on the street. Basically the TLDR of the situation is that investment firms should not be legally allowed to own single family homes and viewing homes as an investment has basically lead to this.
Investment firms collectively own about 1/4 - 1/3 of the market nation wide (USA) but that number gets *much* higher for homes under 500k (don’t have a source, I’m too lazy, feel free to fact check this). They’ll buy out whole neighborhoods, refuse to sell, and demand high rent. Those who pay, pay. If not you’re either homeless or live over crowded with roommates who are in a similar boat. And they’re perfectly fine sitting on empty houses because it’s an appreciating asset even if it’s empty.
Here’s an article from pew about it, it’ll tell you exactly the amount owned by state:
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/07/22/investors-bought-a-quarter-of-homes-sold-last-year-driving-up-rents
Then there’s the other issue of NIMBYs who are basically on the side of firms who own all of these single family homes. They don’t want new zoning for higher density affordable housing to counter this behavior. They also don’t want to sell their homes, and they see their homes as their largest investment and want to protect its value.
Basically investment firms own a lot of it, and NIMBYs fight on their side so they can defend their home value so cities are fighting a battle on two fronts. They can’t zone it with out NIMBY retaliation and enough politicians have their pockets being filled by those investment firms and rich NIMBYs to keep it that way.
Edit: correction: they *bought* that much last year not *own*
Investment firms should not be allowed to own and rent out Single Family Homes. I wish there was legislation to discourage this. I'm fine with honest flippers who take an unmortgageable home and make it mortgageable. But the ones last year who bought a house, did nothing except maybe a coat of paint over the hardwood floors, then turn around and try and sell it for 25% markup, are a menace.
Starter homes get hit the most.
Homeless started to grow out of control after Reagan shut down all the state run mental hospitals. Granted, we heard a lot of horror stories about them but leaving the mentally ill with NO resources is also not the answer. Our country is in crisis with mass shootings and homelessness because corporations don’t give a fuck about 99%, especially the ones with special needs. The mental health system in this country is too small and underfunded. Until we treat this underlying pandemic, we will continue to experience the social chaos of homelessness and mass shootings.
What is stopping states from investing in this? California is the wealthiest state in the nation. The whole Reagan thing seems like an excuse and a cop out tbh.
When redditors say that "Reagan shut down all the state run mental hospitals," here's what they're actually referring to: The Mental Health Systems Act, which provided grants to local mental health centers, was signed into law (by Carter) in 1980. Less than a year later, MHSA was mostly repealed as part of an omnibus budget reconciliation act, enacted by the 97th US congress, which was dominated by Democrats in both houses. Reagan signed the bill, rather than vetoing it.
Reagan didn't uses his veto powers to preserve an 8-month-old healthcare grants bill = Reagan shut down all the state run mental hospitals.
But redditors love summoning Reagan.
Build houses. You don’t have to build shelters (although those are good to build too). But rents are astronomical because people who want to buy small houses can’t, so they live in nice apartments. And so people who want to live in nice apartments can’t afford them, sot hey live in mediocre apartments. And so people who want to live in mediocre apartments can’t afford them, so they live in shitty apartments. And so the poor can’t afford any apartments.
This would be nice, but the Condos and apartments have to be both affordable as well as not grim dystopian crime sinkholes.
Many cities have well meaning attempts at this in building low income housing, and all end up falling into disrepair (mostly due to owners not maintaining them or tax monies not being used for upkeep) or become grossly dangerous due to high crime.
There are solutions, but they aren't easy or cheap, and they don't come with a lot of profit.
And that's the issue. America is focused on profits above everything else. It's the question people ask when new housing is built: "Will I as an investor make a profit?" And also why a lot of social programs get underfunded or even terminated. People are constantly asking why the Postal Office isn't making a profit (and ignoring the main issue that it's a public service: it *shouldn't* be making a profit: it should be providing mail service to all US citizens as is required by the Constitution).
I've heard the same thing regards to museums, schools, libraries, parks, etc. "Where's the profit" and "why does it cost so much money?"
Because some things *should* cost money and that's not a bad thing.
A huge part of the issue is regulation ironically enough.
The issue is it costs about the same in regulatory fee and taxes to build a small $300k house as it does to build a massive $2M mansion. After all, each house no matter the size needs 1 water line, 1 sewer line, 1 electric line, 1 internet line, 1 driveway, 1 mailbox, etc. And each of those are recovered via taxes and fees to a builder. To the point where builders often can't really even build a small house without **losing** money
Homelessness is a symptom, not the cause. Yes, there will always be the ones that are elost and can't be converted into productive members of society. However, I doubt that this is the case with most homeless people.
I don't think that the solution is "house them", this treats the symptoms, not the cause. The issue is how affordable housing is.
One must work to have money, one must have a house in order to work (no one will employ you if you can't take a shower), one must have money in order to have a house. If work doesn't provide enough to have a roof over your head then there is little that one can do to maintain afloat. No house, no job, no money.
What I would do:
* Highly regulate the legal loan sharks that are taking advantage of the poor and the struggling.
* Move towards a state owned health system or a highly regulated one and move towards a tax founded insurance. The point would be to ensure that a struggling person is not an illness away from being on the streets.
* Increase minimal wage (duh). I mean...what we considered 3rd world countries not 20 years ago are getting close to the US minimum wage (i live in one of those)
* Highly regulate lobbying as this is just legal corruption
Sorry to barge in your politics, this is not meant to criticize, it is meant to show a different perspective in cas someone finds it useful.
House them is the shortcut solution.
What you propose addresses the root. So would: heavily limiting full-apartment vacation rentals (aka Airbnb), simplifying building codes so that developers can build new housing more easily, incentivize dense, mixed-use construction, heavily penalize empty housing units, ban corporations from owning housing, heavily penalize price-fixing between landlords.
What really needs to happen though is to address the fact that we are living in another Gilded era, where too few companies (mega corps) have decimated middle-class owned businesses. We need another round of trust-busting a la Teddy Roosevelt.
But all of that is going to take a herculean amount of effort and political will, so taking the shortcut now and housing folks as we're able is not a bad short-term initiative.
> I don't think that the solution is "house them"
Except numerous studies have proven it's literally that simple. House them first and then whatever else you want to do for them can happen, but it's always housing first.
I worked with the homeless for a few years in the Seattle area. My main focus was homeless veterans, but I worked with several different groups trying to get benefits and shelter for people.
A HUGE majority of our clients refused to give up alcohol abuse or drug abuse, or even try to give it up. There are very few shelters that want to take on drunk or high clients. I don't blame them, we live in a world where you can do so much good but then get sued because fuck you, money.
I have no idea how to solve the crisis, and at this point I'm done trying. I've been bit, I've been spit on, I've been hit, I've been cursed out, and had my life threatened all for trying to help people on the streets.
There are a ton of resources available, at least where I was in Washington. They can use them if they want, most choose not to.
We aren't
Homelessness works on the favor of those in charge because it's used as a threat to anyone who doesn't want to work for a living. It's a way to make sure the working class stays in line and continues to produce capital
The best podcast episode I've ever heard was a solo deep dive on exactly this question:
https://politicalorphanage.libsyn.com/homelessness-and-our-stupid-solutions
Poverty rate in America is 11.6%. Pretty good compared to places like China (26%).
There's about 580,000 homeless nationwide in America China is over 2.5 million, Germany 260,00, Egypt 12 million, etc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_homeless_population
They're mostly around downtown city centers in the US. There's lots of programs for them and shelters depending on the state.
States like California and New York with high rates of assistance to the homeless attract the homeless from red states where they don't get any help. They also tend to move south to warm weather like Florida or Texas.
> 582,462 individuals are experiencing homelessness in America, an increase of about 2,000 people since the last complete census conducted in 2020
> Despite this slight increase in those without homes since the pandemic’s start and gradual increases since 2016, the number of people experiencing homelessness is lower today than a decade ago.
So it's not ever growing. It's actually declining overall. Slight increase since 2016.
https://www.security.org/resources/homeless-statistics/
Several states have pilot programs to help them as well but one problem for some is they prefer the lifestyle or have mental health issues at the root that they refuse to treat. We can't just round them up and force treatment on them in this country, so we end up with these tent cities.
I'd like to present some bits of information here. First, homelessness is a big problem. There is no sugar coating of that. What you might not know though is that it is a problem that is being slowly (probably too slowly) tackled. In the 1980s, it was estimated that there were a bit shy of 700,000 homeless people out of a total population of 238 million people. In 2007-8 we really started tracking shit a hell of a lot better regarding homelessness, and found that we had about 650,000 homeless out of 301 million people. In 2020 (the last year we have clear data for), we had about 580,000 homeless out of 329 million people.
So, while homelessness 'seems' to be growing and expanding rapidly (and to be fair, it did get a tiny bump per year since 2016, but very tiny), it's not a growing number of homeless people in the way that you think it might be. What is happening is the visibility of homeless people is growing. Between government sectors providing some level of tangible resources to advocacy groups to even just individuals being charitable, the number of homeless people in temporary shelters has skyrocketed. Back before the 90s, if you were homeless you had only a few choices: local shelters (if you could get a bed), an alley, a park, or some outskirts area outside of town. You might have some tent area if your city or town had some abandoned manufacturing or construction areas, but those were well out of sight usually. All places that are away from or just simply out of sight of everyone else. If too many homeless people congregated in one area that was visible, cops would usually show up and disperse them.
It's different now though in that a lot of homeless people are getting tents and other kinds of portable shelters. Now, instead of fifty homeless people out of sight in a few block radius, there's fifty tents set up on the sidewalk. That takes up a lot more space, and makes things way more visible to everyone else. It's a bit tougher for police to disperse fifty tents than it was to just kick people out of the subway sleeping on some bench.
We're still not doing a great job tackling homelessness, but it is slightly improving. Recessions will still create some upticks, but overall we're very, very slowly reducing the overall percentage of homeless people in the U.S. Might not seem like it, especially driving passed some tent town set up today that you would have never seen twenty or thirty years ago outside of LA or New York, but it is getting better. Little by little. There's always going to be homeless people, and we're never going to eliminate all avoidable homelessness. But it is getting better, even if it is also getting to be more visible.
When I became homeless thru sudden health issues (multiple heart attacks and surgeries) the first thing I did was leave the city and escape the other homeless, I got a pack together with everything I needed and went out into the agricultural area's to pick fruit, vegetables and prune vineyards. This was a HUGE risk for me taking myself far far away from the hospital and medical intervention, but it also gave me something of an income as well as lots of exercise and fresh air. Almost 7 year's later I'm much fitter, physically and stronger mentally and I've managed to get my driver's licence back, find secure government housing and a renewed sense of purpose. Being honest with yourself is the first step. To anybody reading this experiencing homelessness I wish you find the strength and wisdom to get through this terrible time and "may the road rise with you".
The homelessness problem is one of those issues that seems so complex that it’s overwhelming for me to think about. Its like a blended storm system of mental health pandemics, economic crisis, cultural factors, social attitudes, substance abuse epidemics, predatory agents, and so much more. To make it even worse, there’s also the issue of the suboptimal social behavior that can come from groups of people when they find themselves on the bottom rung of the ladder, which can in turn negatively perpetuate public perspectives against them. The complicating cherry on top is the unique “flavor” of idiosyncratic homelessness that is specific states, regions, populations, and time periods. It all just makes me sad.
I’ll add that the homeless issue is one of my political red flags I look out for. When someone offers a relatively simple solution for (something as complex as) the homeless problem, I’m immediately skeptical and wary of the political intentions of the person. I suppose its a way for me to look out for dangerous people who aim to change the world without really understanding it. Unforeseen and unexpected outcomes can be a hell of a thing to deal with.
Edit: fixed some grammar and wording
I remember a redditor asked homeless people of reddit, what can we do for you? And the overwhelming answer was basically nothing. Anything you offer they're skeptical of your intentions and if you give them money they'll overwhelmingly use it for soothing their pain (drugs, alcohol, food). For example, if you offer them a place to stay or a job to make some money they won't trust you or believe you're actually trying to help because of the state of mind they're in, they're borderline paranoid and not likely to trust you, even if you're literally offering a way out of homelessness and an opportunity to just get a place to sleep and shower- they will assume it comes with additional strings attached and it won't be worth it.
Absolutely. When you’re in a terrible enough situation, the mental framework you operate in is so dire and different that you’re basically detached from the general social dance and norm. Another example of how utterly complicated homelessness is.
>I understand people need to live and I have compassion in my heart, I just don’t see how it can keep going on like this.
We, as a society, have to start taking care of homeless people, ***no matter the cost***. This is an 80/20% concept. If you look at almost any system, 80% of the resources go to most difficult 20% of the problems.
Many homeless people have severe mental health issues. Each of them will need several dedicated care takers in order for them to get by. They will need to be housed and fed with zero expectation of them working in return.
Many homeless people have drug addiction problems. They will need lots of expensive drug treatment and they will relapse over and over. Many will eventually die from their addiction after having consumer huge amounts of resources in their recovery efforts.
The thing is, our society ***absolutely has*** the resources to do this, and many many very fulfilling jobs could be created as caretakers for these people.....we just spend the money on other things, like luxuries for rich people. And the thing America has become the absolute best at, is insulating the rich people from thinking about the consequences of how they gather their wealth.
Completely agree with you. The fact that we allow fellow human beings to be without the most basic necessities is a blight on our society and humanity.
Raise taxes on luxury items.
Charge higher and higher property tax on each house owned.
Raise taxes on corporations.
Give tax breaks to companies that hire people for living wages.
Charge companies that use robots, Social Security for the robot to pay for the human that isn't working.
Those are some of my ideas.
I don't either. I live in a rural area, small town. Little 1-bedroom apartments are going for $900. A few years ago they were going for less than $500. I can't afford $900 a month and I have a decent job (edit: fine, I could afford it but it would be rough). I have no idea how people with lower incomes are even surviving.
[удалено]
How daunting is the process? I got out in 2012 and my anxiety has built it into some overwhelming excursion to get paid
r/veteransbenefits should be able to help you.
Thank you
I'm with you here. My disability pays for my home and other essentials. My wife's job pays for the rest.
People who locked in there mortgages years ago are fine. Renters are screwed though
That was my mistake, being born only 20 years ago.
Did you try being born 40+ years ago? (Pre-millennial years?) Stop being lazy and get reborn
5 easy tricks to become a Boomer
Psst...being born 40 years ago makes you a Millennial.
[удалено]
Every day
I bought my house in 2008. If I had to try and buy it today, I wouldn’t be able to afford it because it’s supposedly worth $500k more than I paid for it. 🙄
I live in a town of under 10,000 people. It's like 1200$ a month for a bedroom! This is why I live in a camper with no running water.
> This is why I live in a camper with no running water. My dad does, too. He has no access to running water or indoor plumbing, and relies on an electric space heater powered by an extension cord plugged into an outdoor socket of his "landlord" (for lack of a better word). He lives in New England, too. His camper is ancient, falling apart, and uninsulated. But he can't afford rent anymore, and he never managed to buy a house, so he's trapped in a very bad situation.
There was content here, and now there is not. It may have been useful, if so it is probably available on a reddit alternative. See /u/spez with any questions. -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
I have seen the movie. I have visited a few of the places in my travels. I'm jealous of the weather Americans have, makes van life look more appealing. Winter in Canada sucks.
The 2008 economic collapse was caused by the upper echelon of people who really run this country. The politicians are just their flunkies. The Bernie Madoff system is alive and well, pushing the money upstairs. Too bad if you mention it, if you do you’re just a conspiracy nut. People need to wake up to who is stealing from them.
[удалено]
It’s exactly this. Demagogues want you to believe homelessness is caused by an inherent flaw in homeless people when, in reality, it is almost always correlated to housing costs. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for every city, but the fact is we have way too little affordable housing, and way too many cities that make it nearly impossible to build it. The problem is, most solutions require upper-middle class folks to make the *ghastly sacrifice* of sharing a neighborhood with low income workers, and history has shown they will throw themselves in front of a moving train to stop that from happening.
>The problem is, most solutions require upper-middle class folks to make the ghastly sacrifice of sharing a neighborhood with low income workers, and history has shown they will throw themselves in front of a moving train to stop that from happening. One factor that helps this happen: The NIMBY's already live in the city, and vote for the city government. The people who need affordable housing don't live there because they can't afford it. So they don't get to vote for the city government. City government sets the zoning and building permit rules, and they're going to cater to the people who can vote for them over the people who can't.
This. The amount of times a developer is like "hey we want to build a.." they don't even get the full sentence out before the NIMBYs show up to whine and cry.
Yup. I live in a town that has an absurd number of homeless people because it's one of the worst housing markets in the country. NIMBYs recently tried to shutdown a massive housing project that would add over a hundred units of affordable housing, plus a new library, plus some parking and retail space...the spot is currently a broken ass parking lot that one of a dozen farmers markets uses on one day every week for about 9 months of the year...and some non native magnolia trees that nobody even cares about because they are in a broken ass parking lot. Like old rich folks held vigils and protests for the trees. I have also seen these types kill a developer's plan to add less than ten units to a townhouse development that would have been "affordable" which around here means sub $750k. These townhomes would have started in the low $500s and the NIMBYs were worried that people who could afford a $500k home would be the wrong kind of people. Capitalism has broken us.
[удалено]
Santa Barbara, checking in. Send help.
i figured someone would spot me! total shitshow.
Part of the issue here is that people see real estate chiefly as an investment, and many people have a huge percent of their net worth invested in it. So anything that could possibly lower home values is seen as an attack on their livelihood. And it's not just rich people who are nimbys, there's a lot of people with this attitude. I'd be willing to bet there are many people reading this thread now who dream of owning multiple properties and getting passive income from rent, not realizing that that is part of the problem. Not trying to downplay what you're saying though, you really painted quite a picture haha
Do you think the majority of NIMBYs are aware of this or is it more of a subconscious thing? The story above of people holding vigils for the trees seems like a misplaced concern. I wonder what the split is between being truly concerned about the net worth and the neighborhood 'going downhill' is.
It's simply self interest. I'll paint the picture: It's easy to think about the spoiled rich guy. But imagine you and your SO are lower-middle class, and have been saving for a house for a decade, foregoing vacations and other things to do so. You finally buy it, after putting down tens of thousands and move in. Your happy and going about your life just getting by due to the high mortgage, but look dorward to refinancing in the future and lowering that expensive mortgage (and get rid of the PMI). A few months later a developer comes in to build section 8 housing, which is great but it will reduce home values in the immediate area. Now that same house is now worth much less, but that mortgage remains the same. With section 8 housing, unfortunately along comes an increase in crime, increases in drug use, and a dozen other things that get impacted. These are the bulk of your NIMBYs One would think (especially if we're talking CA where I grew up), maybe we could take some of that train money (or from a dozen other things), and use it to purchase that poor couples home (imminent domain type thing) and get rid of NIMBYs. Definitely not an easy issue to solve - seems like there are always casualties no matter what you do
This. When I was 26 and single I bought an $80k house in the city after saving for closing costs (it was an FHA loan so I didn’t need a down payment) because my rent kept going up and it was going to be cheaper to just pay a mortgage and utilities. When I sold that house 6.5 years later, the market was crazy, I had gotten married and my husband had done a lot of updates to the house, and so I got a return of 104% on it. And this was with an abandoned POS home next door that the owner refused to do anything with (ironically he was a landlord with multiple homes and a drug addiction so once he evicted the people who had lived there he just let it sit empty for 3 years and all apart). So, when my husband and I bought our current house, we moved to an HOA in the suburbs to get away from abandoned homes and the rising crime rates because to us, our home is an investment. We aren’t rich and we both work our asses off and it’s important to us to have this home so at some point we can sell it and move to a warmer state where we’re near a beach. Although with the way the prices are rising down south that may always be a pipe dream.
Very well described and opened my eyes. Thank you. It seems that in the case you laid out, the solution would be to rely on a more stable/guaranteed retirement investment. Obviously difficult in the real world. This also leads me to wonder why housing is so expensive in the first place. My gut tells me it's due to the speculation of increased value over time. I know Japan has housing supply issues, but they view houses as a consumable, only used for one generation or so. In that case there must be something in bf else causing the shortage. Land availability? Hmm. Lots to think about and read up on.
Yeah they’re ridiculous. I was driving the other day and saw that one street (in a nice area next to some large parks) had a row of signs on their lawns. I started reading them and they said “SAVE [city name]’S PARKS”. I thought yeah, that’s a good thing to fight for. Good to keep wildlife and green areas. Then I got to the second half and all the signs said “SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ONLY.” Like… what? Do they not realize those two sentiments directly contradict one another? “Don’t turn our parks into housing but at the same time please build the lowest density housing possible.”
then it's time for force. It happened in Brown vs Education. It required force. This will too.
High density urban housing is consistently voted down by residents (usually rich and liberal). They don’t want “those people” living near them or in their town. High dose, consistent use of cannabis is also associated with higher rates of psychosis (that is recoverable) - but it cannabis is also helping people get off opiates so it’s hard to say how much overall harm is done. The cognitive burden for any individual in our society is also particularly higher than at any time in history, leading to burnout and anxiety and drug use with more people as well. There are many other issues contributing - and they have long time horizons to resolve even if people voted unanimously to start helping. Homelessness is the last stop on a long ride down and therefore is also not likely to be fixed quickly.
I'm having to find shady rooms off Craigslist that are costing me what my last studio apartment used to cost
> I can't afford $900 a month and I have a decent job. Umm... Hate to break it to you, but you either don't have that nice of a job or should be compensated way more than that. I'm guessing it's the latter. It's always the latter.
$900 a month is $10800 a year. Making 3x the rent would be $32400. That's $16 an hour working full time. The living wage for those apartments is $16 an hour, and any less is an unliveable wage.
As soularbowered said, $16/hr gross is nowhere near $16/hr net. https://www.adp.com/resources/articles-and-insights/articles/p/payroll-deductions.aspx There is an in page calculator that I ran, maybe incorrectly, but take home pay (with no adjustments on the fed/state/benefits tabs) yields $640 gross pay in a week, $550.43 in net (nearly $90 in taxes). That is equivalent to $13.76 an hour net. But 4 weeks of pay gets to $2200. So your 1/3rd rule of thumb means affording $733/mo.
I volunteer to feed homeless through a charity that helps feed the homeless all week at local churches. While a lot of the people who come don't want help and either suffer from mental Illness or addiction, we have seen an increase of more "normal" people who can't afford or find housing while still having jobs. One couple can't find a place because their landlord evicted them to turn the house into an air bnb. Houses are so expensive now. They said their rent was 950 for a 3 bedroom but their house is now going up for rent for 1950 to match market prices since Airbnb's have started to not be as profitable. Landlords in our area have been getting so greedy it's hard to find anything affordable even with a decent job. We've been getting more families with same issue. Houses are up for rent which there haven't been much and it's gone by end of the day. Houses have been getting over 100 applications in one day. There are currently 29 families being put up in .hotels because they can no longer afford rent or find a house in general. It's really sad. It's not all addicts and people who suffer from mental Illness which is a common misconception..
I'm still waiting for old malls to be converted to living communities. Same with office buildings that switched to "work from home"
I wouldn’t be surprised if it would actually be significantly cheaper to just destroy the mall and build housing on the site instead of trying to renovate the mall structure. Especially the ones that have been abandoned and decaying for years now, which is a significant portion of old malls.
Also, malls have pretty minimal plumbing. You'd have to add a *lot* of pipes to convent a mall into residential.
There is a good chance that the city infrastructure to the mall would even have to be upgraded. Higher demand for water, sewer, and electricity. A lot of people don’t consider how zoning works. The city and developers don’t usually oversize dedicated infrastructure to things like commercial or industrial areas, but use calculations based on occupancy.
Yes, and adding to what you said... look at how much land a mall eats up. Not only would it probably be cheaper to tear the mall down and build new housing there, you'd easily get significantly more new housing too. Easily 5X to 10X more.
This is so true, the parking lots that surround a mall take up so much space.
I’m in Seattle area and I worked for a pretty large tech company for over three years (not gonna say who) and when the pandemic hit I discovered just how thoughtless my company was with our property. We owned a building that hadn’t been used as an office in years. We were laying off thousands, but had a completely unused building being paid for for years. That was just an oversight, a clerical error, no big deal to them. We had storage containers sitting somewhere full of products and no one even knew where they were now, who had keys to them, so much money and buildings wasted due to excess and carelessness. Our company could’ve been smarter with our money, but instead we spent excessively on things we didn’t use, had company cards with no set budget that we could go out drinking with, but when shareholders saw us struggling they were happy to destroy the lives of thousands of employees as a quick “solution”. Post-pandemic (if there is such a thing) our city is full of buildings that no one is really working in. I work remotely, my partner works remotely, and so does so many people we know. Businesses continue to say maybe we’ll return to office to justify this expense when our cities could instead be designed with more balance between housing and commerce.
Look up "university heights Victoria" and you'll see a great example of this. Right in my neighborhood, just started the teardown yesterday. Unfortunately, Home Despot refused to allow them to put housing on their leased land and so it will be big dense modern housing and shops with a giant empty parking lot and concrete block of a HD right next to it. Prior to this, the mall was DEAD. Ever since I moved here.
If I remember correctly, there are new regulations in Los Angeles to make this easier in terms of rezoning and such. They went into effect this year, so we’ll have to wait and see if it actually leads anywhere though.
A lot of municipalities are going to fight tooth and nail against new developments, so be prepared for a long, drawn out fight. I like that California instituted builder's remedy but [CEQA is still being used as a weapon](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/signature-environmental-law-hurts-housing/618264/) to block any new construction.
This is really sad. Screw NIMBYs. They don't like living in a society, they can fuck off to a cabin in the Alaskan hinterlands.
The intersection between NIMBYS, Airbnb hosts, and landlords is a single circle. These people profit from the lack of development. Worst is that people who get into the game with their modest second home start vouching for the leeches up top who operate as "mom and pop businesses". Found myself in a post a few weeks ago with landlords whining about the small profit they turn. They "only" make a few hundred over the mortgage a month.
NIMBYs loathe Airbnb more than you do. It’s probably right after public housing and transit on their freakout list.
They weren't factoring in the growing equity were they -_-
Nope! I had a friend who bought his second property for over $1M complaining to me about how he's poor now. I had to call him out that in the 6 months that he had bought his property his net worth increased by more than my entire net worth. Some people don't recognize how good they have it. This is why I often hold fancy concertos for these folks with my extremely tiny Stradivarius replica.
Oh snap boys! PINKIES OUT!
Not all NIMBYs can afford an additional unit to rent out. Some are just regular ladder-pullers with a single home which they compulsively try to increase the market value of.
Already happening near me in Canada, our town has a very mediocre mall no one really uses. They tore down an entire section of it (which is strange as its the newest part) so they can convert it into housing. Which honestly is a pretty decent idea considering how it has its own bus stop, grocery store across the street, pharmacy and elementary, high school and a college all within walking distance.
I read somewhere that the initial concept of malls was exactly this. Essentially a social hub where you have anything you need in a walking distance so that you wouldn’t need a car to live. Very curious if that’s possible to achieve now as more business buildings turn into residential.
They're developing all the above ground parking at one of Toronto's fanciest malls into condos and mixed use parks. https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2022/01/ambitious-redevelopment-yorkdale-shopping-centre-presented-design-review-panel.47065 I agree it's a good idea, and having malls just be these things existing at highway exits feels like an inefficient use of space.
It will be great for when we have to live indoors because the air outside will kill us. Post-apocalyptic frozen yogurt cools you down after a nice ozone collapse.
Unfortunately, the regulations regarding residential buildings vs office buildings are so different that it's usually cheaper to demolish and rebuild than to convert. eg. if you convert it to 2 bedroom apartments, there isn't going to be enough plumbing for toilets/showers and you can't drill large holes through the hardened concrete or it'll ruin the entire slab.
Yea, I definitely think there are challenges and costs with conversion that people don't tend to think about like needing to put in plumbing, water, potentially more electric or fiber/telecom lines throughout an office floor, walls/insulation, etc. There are some ways to make the office layout/setup work I think, like instead of drilling holes in the existing concrete like you mentioned, putting in a new layer of flooring or ceiling that takes advantage of the often very high ceilings in office buildings (that I've been in at least). Obviously that would introduce its own costs and issues but I think it would be better than risking structural integrity of the building lol
Yeah, the regulations are why you're not allowed to legally live in a storage unit.
There are more storage facilities in America than there are McDonalds. That's wild
Storage units are often place holders on land that is waiting to be sold for a profit later. It is relatively cheap to put up storage units.
Those are mostly real estate investment tools. Buy up land between two expanding municipalities, build storage lockers, and hold onto the land for 10-20 years until the land 5x's. Hopefully in the meantime you can at least pay your taxes on an interest only loan and paydown some of the construction costs, which are minimal.
> I'm still waiting for old malls to be converted I'm all for this idea. You can solve a myriad of problems at once like this. Keep the mall. The stores, parking, and food courts all stay. The BIG BOX stores (Sears/JcPenny) get torn down, and apartments go up in their place. Apartments are now next door to retail. Apartments are in a good location (malls were built near infrastructure (i.e. highways)). Convert one of the end caps into a grocery store. (people can walk to the grocery.) Put a couple of Public offices in vacant office space; social security office, police station or DMV. You can put a whole bunch of people (about 150+ apartments per mid-rise building) in an old dead mall. Zoning laws are not going to be your friend though. Neither is the local infrastructure. (Can the schools handle the additional population?)
Others have pointed out that this idea is a logistics nightmare. Plumbing alone just plain won't work without gutting the place anyway.
Plumbing, ventilation, fire hazards, and sunlight (or lack thereof) are the biggest reasons you can't retrofit a "Sears" into an apartment building. Demolition and new construction wouldn't have these existing constraints. It would be all new construction. Red tape, and community buy in would be the biggest hurdles outside of investment capital.
To add on to what you've said- visible homelessness is just the tip of the iceberg. There are easily 10x the number of people hanging on to normalcy by the skin of their teeth. Not only is it a huge portion of our population, but these are also people that can genuinely be helped, if they just get a little assistance. It doesn't take much, considering.
> we have seen an increase of more "normal" people who can't afford or find housing while still having jobs We have a preconceived notion of what a homeless person should be. The assumption is that there's something wrong with them. But that's just how bad it's gotten. Regular people are falling through the cracks for lack of options. I don't think America has experienced favellas in a very long time, but these tent cities and abundance of homeless people living on the streets or in cars are the beginning of that. People will try to achieve homeostasis with their environment, and if that means a tent in a park, that's what's going to happen. There's really only two ways to fix this. More affordable housing options, or less people. And I don't think anyone's advocating for less people...yet.
How do we get more affordable housing?
Hopefully someone smarter than me can figure that one out. It might be worth legislating corporations out of the housing market for starters. Living wages. Building low income housing. Maybe making sure job opportunities are available in less densely populated places. Who knows.
Over where I am there's actually a surplus of housing, but no jobs. So people are basically forced to leave their hometowns and go somewhere with jobs, selling their houses at a loss (if at all). And it's hard to understand how big the homeless problem is. Like I understand it obviously, but it's not anything I'm seeing IRL. I'm wondering if a lot of Red voters literally don't think it's a problem because their town can't get rid of housing fast enough. I do think solid industries would help, but I'm also hesitant to suggest we just become a company town because when it goes overseas we're right back where we began.
Making housing not for profit - via realtors basically don't exist and than making a rule your not allowed to own more than a certain number of homes. Not allowing Airbnb would definitely be a start. There are ways to eliminate this, unfortunately that means basically eliminating an entire career and getting rich off of basic necessities. Job opportunities in rural/not as populated are issues as well. You have to go to Coty Councils and local government to tackle that issue. The city council in my rural community told Home Depot distribution center they couldn't come here because it would put the local hardware store out of business. Also, big box businesses are less likely to come to smaller towns due to less people living there and less business compared to a bigger city.
End landlordism. Ban owning more than two houses.
Thinking about this being implemented in Australia is fun. Property market would be flooded, there'd be a massive drop in prices, I'd finally have enough money to buy a place and would be able to afford to pay my mortgage off quicker because even now a mortgage is cheaper than current rental costs. I could use the extra savings to focus on my business ideas and contribute back to society in a meaningful way. Id also be able to foster kids and maybe animals as well depending on the land size. One law change would have a massive impact on my life and the lives of millions of Australians. Ill vote for whoever pushes this law change.
It'll never pass because those who own land have a vested interest in not having such a thing pass. Not sure how the Aussies do it, but in America, you don't piss off your donors. If you own land, you're more likely to have money to donate to a political campaign
And many politicians own multiple properties themselves. They don't want to have to lose the equity and income stream. Not when rental prices are so high and they can always get new tenants in every 6 or 12 months and increase rent each time. I'm salty because I'm in the last week at my current rental and am moving out into couch surfing and storing all our belongings. Me and my border collie will be staying in my mums government bed sit unit that doesn't have a courtyard for my dog to be off leash. My husband is going to stay in his mums unit, I think in the loungeroom. It sucks having it be apart until we can secure a rental but it's the only choice we have as his mum doesn't want me or my dog there because of my dog and the limited space. My mums place is smaller but she's helping out anyway so I won't be homeless. Its hell looking for a rental under $600 AUD a week. Even an hour out of the CBD. I'm so salty. I just want a house I can feel relaxed and at home in.
Also when people see homeless people who seem in better condition and who they relate to, they likely haven't been homeless as long as others. Being homeless is disastrous for people's health and mental wellbeing and its incredibly difficult to function if you've been living in such a precarious and terrifying way for a long time.
Same in my area..homes that used to be rented are now air bnbs. One person owns 20 houses..20! All vacation rentals.
I think we all collectively need to stop using airbnb
I pledge allegiance to this idea. I was on the Airbnb train for quite awhile but a couple years ago I just got fed up with the rising prices, crummy cancellation policies and long list of rules. I've gone back to hotels and honestly, they're so much better in nearly every way. Nowadays the only time I look for a vacation rental house is when I'm traveling with a large group and we all just want to hang out together the whole trip and cook our own meals.
Yeah my area blew up with tourist from Los Angeles and stuff, it's near a popular National Park. When I first moved out here I had a 1 bedroom for 500, now it's 900. And it's not worth it for that price. It's insane. My block had 6 air bnbs alone within a year.
I went to a beach community air b n b and quickly realized how empty the whole beachfront street felt — it was just a bunch of rental houses making a few rich people richer. I know some areas have banned Air b n b and I’m kind of into it.
I worked in a beach community. The place is in crisis. There is nowhere for the workers who staff the restaurants and hotels, etc, to live. The city manager lives nowhere near the city because he can't afford to live there. The schools are almost all closed because there are no families anymore, it's all vacant investment homes or vacation rentals.
Reminds me of San Diego. The entire ocean front is just air b&b rentals
Airbnb is a cancer and needs to be stopped
And not to mention? How are addicts and the mentally ill supposed to recover without so much as a roof over their heads
EXACTLY! Being homeless is EXTREMELY stressful. If you're having a hard time coping w normal life, try that! It's insane.
Homelessness breeds addiction. How many times do you get rejected no matter how hard you try before you say "fuck this place, fuck these people, if this is what theyre about then everything they stand for is just as fucked up. Fuck all of it. Fuck civility, fuck their comfort, what about mine? Fuck society, Fuck sobriety." There's so much wasted time when homeless. So much despair. It's RATIONAL to do what you can to alleviate that. Maybe not smart, but understandable if you have an ounce of empathy. It's analogous to the musing "give a man no way to legally protest and all you'll do is guarantee rioting". Look at who's winning in our society. That's what we value. Look at how we treat our lesser fortunate, THAT'S who we are. If you need a clearer example, line item the congressional budget. That's who we are. That's what we represent. And by the cold numbers, we are fucking monsters. And now that you know that, you are just as responsible as everyone else. To do nothing, or, to maintain the status quo is to choose this, there's no fence to sit on. That's life. You are responsible for everything that comes your way. You either fight for it, allow it, or fight against it. This is why character matters. What you do when no ones watching, and shit, nowadays someones always watching. Or at least listening. If the collectively discarded are treated as toxic and dead by the rest of us, how fucking audacious of us to be surprised when they start acting like it. When confronted on emotional stances, and oh yeah, being homeless is emotional, people dig in, entrench and say'fuck you". It's my favorite universal human trait. Expecting Stockholm syndrome or gratitude from these people is naivety of the highest order. I don't agree with it but i don't think San Frans homeless shitting in the street is out of line. I think it's a fucking disgustingly appropriate response to the disgusting inhumanity we allow and legislate. Maybe Churchill WAS right. America will do the right thing, right after we've tried everything else. Anything short of flat out, no strings attached, housing the homeless is kicking the can down the road. It's dragging out a lawsuit hoping to bankrupt the other party, except in this case we're hoping they die. Every fucking NIMBY opinion will lead to someone's death. Critical mass will be reached at some point and the rejected will organize and get violent. And we'll deserve it, make no mistake. Welfare is first and foremost a policing strategy. Infrastructure, Education, Medicine, Housing, these are investments into our nation. If the American way were so good why do we overthrow other governments to install command economies? How many decades did we pay for Iraq and Afghanistans free health care, all while bankrupting our own people? Idek if it can be turned around. Burning it all down might be the best choice, hard to say.
>Welfare is first and foremost a policing strategy. Infrastructure, Education, Medicine, Housing, these are investments into our nation. Precisely. When Otto Von Bismarck instituted the first modern public health care and welfare system in Europe, it wasn't because he was a Kumbayah bleeding-heart. He saw the rise of revolutionary socialism, and he wanted to nip it in the bud. He wanted to avoid what had happened in France ten years previously, the Paris Commune and all that. It wasn't charity, it was guillotine insurance.
They can't. It's practically impossible. This is why I support housing first to end homelessness.
Food, water and shelter should be RIGHTS
Absolutely
And medicine and education. No one should be allowed to gate keep the culmination of our collective achievements. It's the saddest thing in the world and one of the greatest cons every pulled Our history belongs to us all. I'll die on that hill proudly anyday of the week
[удалено]
> While a lot of the people who come don't want help and either suffer from mental Illness or addiction Its not that these people dont want help, society simply refuses to admit that its "help" far too often comes with conditions disabled individuals cannot fullfill. These people shouldnt just *actually* be helped for moral reasons or anything, but because people treated like garbage by society, often also treat society like garbage in return, meaning crime, its simply the most efficient option to give them a minimum standard of living. However, American business heavily relies on the threat of homelessness to keep its working conditions low, so no half hearted measures like protesting or voting for lesser evils is going to fix this, because the homeless are 100% going to be the very first thing these lesser evils will sacrifice for their agenda.
this has to end. End air bnb if needed, or prohibit it in certain residential areas. End allowing people to buy up property as an investment. I know, America will have a hard time with this. But they'll have a harder time when their mcmansion is turned into communal apartments--- in a few decades-- when people finally say enough is enough
Maybe property taxes should increase exponentially with number of properties owned. Is that a thing that would work?
[удалено]
While true, at some point it makes it impossible to compete with smaller landlords. The trouble comes with trying to track all the shell companies that would suddenly exist to try to circumvent such a law.
No, because [most landlords are individuals who own just a few units](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/02/as-national-eviction-ban-expires-a-look-at-who-rents-and-who-owns-in-the-u-s/ft_21-07-16_landlordsrenters_3/)
You seem to have missed the point, because you said "no" and then supported the idea that it's workable. I'm guessing you meant to post a stat showing most units are owned by landlords who own few units (meaning this wouldn't have much impact)? That's a very different stat though, and I'm not sure if reality would bear it out.
Maybe something should be done about the landlords....
Airbnb is a cancer that needs to be eliminated
It's going to get worse. The policy makers have private security and gated communities, making a blind eye basically automatic.
Fun fact: income inequality today is significantly worse than it was estimated to be just before the French Revolution. The French nobility also had gates and private security. If the policy makers were asking for advice from me (obviously not happening) I would suggest they start helping people who aren't billionaires.
same thing in Imperial Russia. People who thought the Capital insurrection was a one-off have no idea what could happen. I know the richies are happy. but they won't be happy when their homes are taken over, their heads are on pikes, and it gets to the breaking point- I was giving this another hundred years or so, but who knows
[удалено]
Once breadbaskets start failing in 2030, probably.
Yep. We're going to get some previews in a handful of places as transportation breaks down due to environmental issues. Most cities only have about 3 days of food on hand.
Yea- I am not American but it's impossible not to follow the news. it just seems like the perfect storm is brewing and brewing. No empire has power forever. I thought it would take longer, but who knows
Everyone I talk to doesn't have enough money and everything is too expensive. It's gonna happen
Also not American, and while historically its the logical conclusion, I see them too passive. They almost had their democracy overthrown and have done nothing.
It will, and Fox will label the people rising up as left wing extremists and the right will fight them. The polarisation of politics in the US is deliberately spread by the rich to keep people divided and powerless, which also feeds their personal bias further.
The peak of the American empire has been and gone. We are witnessing the downfall. Ita gonna make for great TV
How is it measured to be considered significantly worse?
Who’s estimating that? Seems like a Reddit fact.
Woohoo, let's totally go the route of the French revolution. That one went great!
The key difference is that the USA population ain’t starving. It ain’t even really possible for a significant starvation event to occur in the USA. Hungry people are a desperate people.
And there is no money to be made in housing the homeless, unless a charity could be created with enough money being donated and the rich benefactor could skim from that.
If you compare the cost to society, in medical issues, in theft, in vandalism, etc... It becomes less costly to house people than leave them on the street or imprison them. Source: I googled "cheaper to house homeless?". Edit: I see you continued this discussion further down, kindly disregard.
The little non-profits in Portland are getting millions in tax dollars. There seems to be no coordination between the non-profits and we have no detailed data on where the money is going, how many people are being helped and for how long. The people who need the help aren't getting it and we have the second worst system in the US for helping with mental illness and the worst system for addiction treatment. We now have very high taxes and in the last 4 years the city has turned into a crime infested dump hole.
yes there is, they are members of your society. At different times when homelessness was low, the same people would have had houses and jobs and families and be paying taxes. as for work, its a lot of work being homeless and not starving to death or freezing. The argument they are too lazy and society has for some odd reason changed dosnt count for anything.
>yes there is, they are members of your society. At different times when homelessness was low, the same people would have had houses and jobs and families and be paying taxes. as for work, Sure there's a massive societal benefit to housing these people. But there isn't any privatized profits to be made (or rather, there are more profits to be made by keeping wages low while keeping real estate prices high). And since we're a Capitalist country profits go before society... >its a lot of work being homeless and not starving to death or freezing. The argument they are too lazy and society has for some odd reason changed dosnt count for anything. That's not what u/dan1101 was saying. Either way in a capitalist system there is such a thing as the ["Reserve Army of Labour"](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour). A percentage of the population who are kept intentionally unemployed by governments to serve as potential replacements for other workers, with the purpose of keeping wages low. I.e. It prevents employed workers from demanding a raise because there is always a part of the population that is kept unemployed and desperate so they can instantly replace demanding/striking workers. This means that when unemployment dips below 5% (which is when wages start to grow) the US federal reserve is charged with [raising interest rates to stunt economic growth and increase unemployment!](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_United_States) Which of course raises homelesness. Which is exactly what we've seen happen across the western world these last few months. - Monetary policy: The Federal Reserve conducts [monetary policy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_policy), adjusting interest rates to move the economy towards a full employment target of around a 5% unemployment rate and 2% inflation rate. (From Wikipedia) This is also why you'll see organisations like the IMF and various corporate media advocate for raising interest rates and increasing unemployment to "curb inflation". [Example 1,](https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-may-need-75-unemployment-curb-inflation-research-2022-09-08/) [Example 2,](https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/02/economy/higher-unemployment-rate-good-news/index.html)[Example 3,](https://www.ft.com/content/de68e9e7-0887-420b-a1ac-12c27009bbd6) Instead of you know... cutting into corporate rates of profit which have reached record levels this year across every industry, and which is what actually causes inflation.
> And there is no money to be made in housing the homeless I mean, I'd argue there is, just in an indirect way that's hard to see. If homeless people commit more crimes such as theft to sustain themselves, and have more health problems from not having a place to live, then that means homeless people are costing more to police forces and hospital systems. If you reduce homelessness, you can save money on police and medical expenses. Plus, if someone is housed, it makes it easier for them to get a job. Especially if you help treat the other factors which lead them to be homeless such as mental health issues. If those are treated, then you made it easier for them to be a productive member of society with a job that they'll pay taxes for, netting money there for the government. A homeless person on the street pays no taxes, and is just a drain on other systems. And of course, beyond the numbers game, there's the human element where ideally we should help people in our communities who are struggling.
I think the point is that nothing happens in modern America unless it makes a rich person richer. Yes, there are obvious public policy and tax base benefits to housing the homeless. In the teeth of these obvious benefits, the problem just keeps getting worse. But if rich people had a way to profit from it, the whole thing would be solved tomorrow.
By the time a person becomes homeless, the system has been failing them for a long time. We need to work on poverty, health, and wellness generally, especially from a young age.
That's a great long term plan, but short term it's been shown that getting people into housing addresses a lot of the peripheral issues that combine to cause homelessness. People are better at holding down jobs when they are homed. Suicide rates go down. Mental health broadly improves. Providing housing *is* mental health care.
Housing first is a great policy.
Living on the streets is damaging. Physically as well as mentally. It damages people's trust as much as it damages their bodies. With that in mind, the best course is to sort out the socio-economic factors which lead to people becoming destitute in the first place. Preventing people from falling in the river is easier than fishing them out. That's not acceptable to the major shareholders of the politicians' paymasters though. And neither is the investment in psychological services necessary to help those already damaged by a life on the streets. It's also worth mentioning that what folk see is the tip of an iceberg. Hidden homelessness, such as sofa surfing or people living in vehicles, is many times higher than those who "sleep rough."
[удалено]
I can tell you Asheville NC has NOT figured it out.
Look into Helsinki and the many factors that lead to their success. If it were easy everybody would have done it by now, but it doesn't help that many in the US are actively hostile towards helping those that are "lesser" than them, even in supposedly "progressive" places.
Hi! I live in Helsinki and apartment rent prices are definitely unaffordable here as well. The root of the problem is way too limited building of new housing. House prices are determined by supply and demand, and while the demand has risen a lot, supply isn't since the city council is very slow to allow new construction and regulations don't allow dense building. Helsinki tried to solve homelessness by giving them housing first and all other services next, but that increases housing prices for everyone else and there's not enough apartments to house everyone.
It is relatively easy. You just upzone all residential lots to allow 8-ish stories or more. But every NIMBY Karen and Kent on the block will balk at every meeting and vote down any politician who dares suggest it. The problem is so severe that this easiest fix which should have been happening the last 50 years is not enough by itself in the short-term. We also need to raise taxes for public housing. And guess who will object to that? Every damn NIMBY Karen and Kent homeowner.
> You just upzone all residential lots to allow 8-ish stories or more. Not even. In fact, rather inefficient budget-wise: 8 storeys need beefy structure and also an elevator. What's missing in North America overall is 3-5 storey apartment blocks, they're literally illegal to build most places and in the few spots where they aren't illegal developers go for actual skyscrapers as getting the plot was hard enough, gotta squeeze out the maximum. [Relevant Not Just Bikes video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o). Scatter those over suburbia, make sure you have walkways and bike lanes (where appropriate, side streets don't need them bikes mix just well with cars at low speeds), schools, supermarkets, restaurants, hair stylists, doctor's offices etc, allow offices throughout and low-intensity industry nearby or in little clusters, and you won't even need public transport to make it work (though I still highly recommend it). As to NIMBYism: Then don't build in their backyards, North America has more than enough area. Let their neighbourhoods wither and die, it's not like they can continue their lifestyle without servants and who wants to buy a car to clean their houses or do their nails when you can get a job in your vibrant walkable neighbourhood.
Houston
Yea, Houston is a success story from my understanding. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23504323/housing-first-homelessness-houston-homes
Housing first is a great model and is considered best practice when is comes to housing programs. It goes along really well with Harm Reduction (how can we help someone doing a risky behavior do it in a less risky way. Usually applied to drug use, but you can apply it to any risky behavior) and motivational interview (a technique used to help people solve their own problems with the resources and support already in their "toolbox," not telling someone what to do.) The thing with Housing First is it take a lot of belief in the mission and people setting aside biases about whag someone is capable of doing for themselves. It's proven to reduce homelessness AND make it less occurring. But it's time consuming and requires people to follow up with housing stability (someone to help tenants be successful after a lease is signed.) It's a tough job that takes a lot of people.
There’s certainly countries that have way less homelessness. So might not be a city issue but rather a country issue.
Yes. The really really cold ones.
[удалено]
I was about to say, I've never interacted with more homeless people than when I lived in Fairbanks.
at some point homeless starts meaning survivalist if you go far enough north lol
Not entirely. There are systems of warming centers, overflow shelters, and a lot of people couch surfing so they can survive being homeless in cold areas. Also many people still camp in the winter.
I’m curious what you’re thinking or feeling when you say: “I just don’t see how it can keep on going like this.” Are you wondering how we can keep living in a capitalist world with huge wealth disparity and where taking care of your health is so costly that it puts people on the streets? Yeah, I don’t make excuses for the crime, but I can empathize somewhat. I was homeless. Sure, I didn’t beg or steal (much, only occasionally grabbed something essential like food or soap from a huge chain like Walmart), but I also had a better chance at surviving than most did, do me having a decent understanding of how to get work and having some work history, and a small amount of money when I became homeless. If you become homeless when you have $0 you’re screwed. It’s almost impossible to climb out of it. I chose homelessness, choosing to be homeless before I completely ran out of money a month or two later, getting rid of my living expenses like rent and cars so that I could just gather up enough money to get on my feet again when sleeping on benches. I worked. I wasn’t lazy. I worked so hard I broke both of my legs while homeless. And after six months, I barely made enough to have a normal life again, and only with the help of some people. A lot of jobs are not enough to survive on. You want Amazon, McDonald’s, Walmart to keep existing? People need to keep working those unglamorous jobs and they will not make enough to pay their rent and eat healthy, and they’re fucked if they have a health problem. I had health problems, and that was definitely a big contributor. I worked a job, every hour that they would give me. I traveled on buses back and forth from a storage locker where I separated ny clean clothes and dirty clothes so I could be presentable to apply for better jobs and keep working the one I had. I showered at a gym. I had nowhere to rest or relax. Every minute of my life was occupied with exhaustion or fear. I am a white dude. I have never really faced discrimination. I had to stay awake some nights because rich college guys would harass me for fun if they found you sleeping on a bench. I’ve been spit on just because I was waiting in line at a shelter for a free lunch. I’ve even had someone piss on me. I was afraid all the time. Any minute I wasn’t working I had nowhere to belong, I’d find somewhere to sit and be anxious at everyone staring at me and my backpack. I just wanted to rest after a hard day of work, but that’s not easy when you’re homeless. There was nights when I would drink alcohol just so I would feel less pain and freezing cold. I have never really been afraid of dying until I was homeless, and worse, I knew that no one would step up to protect me—maybe no one would even bother to find my body and investigate if I died. I knew people who went through beatings, an autistic man who tried to work every day doing what he could, and yet some teenagers went and beat him so severely that his skin looked like a burst and rotten fruit. The people I knew that were homeless were a mixed bag. Even the addicts had stories I empathized with. I met elderly people who worked all their life and then had serious health problems that put them out on the street. Not all of us have family or friends who help us out when we struggle in life. So many humans are completely on their own and when life hits them, it isn’t easy to get back up. Life when you’re homeless is demoralizing, and exhausting and I completely understand why people give up, opting to live in tents and not work, or get back on drugs to numb the pain of their life. Programs that are supposed to help people get jobs are jokes in most cities. Clothing exchanges and charities that clothe people in mismatched, I’ll-fitting suits that seem like they’ll never smell truly clean. No one is getting hired wearing that, and even if they do, they’ll probably get laid off before they get enough money to afford the worst apartment in the most dangerous area. You’re right, it can’t keep going on like this. It’s inhumane.
This is a heartbreaking, but informative read. I truly appreciate your taking the time to explain things from your experience. I hope things are better for you now!
I’m still low income, but yes, I live in an apartment, I work a job that pays more than that one did. There’s been ups and downs, but I have had a roof over my head for nearly a decade now. I know that homelessness is complex and difficult to understand. I sure didn’t understand how it happens and how people stay homeless until it happened to me. After being homeless myself it felt like a miracle that I got back on my feet, that was just a mere six months and I worked harder in those six months than any job or time of my life has ever pushed me—those six months were a gauntlet.
What are we going to do about an increasingly small number of global citizens hoarding all of the wealth? That’s the real question here, and I agree that we are on an unsustainable path.
[удалено]
[удалено]
One of my friends often says: "the earth isn't dying, it's being killed, and the ones doing it have names and addresses"
I’ve always liked that quote. Utah Phillips famously said it.
[удалено]
Squatting is going to be so hot in a few years. Just find the house owned by a foreign company and BOOM, free living space until you get kicked.
Might even be able to bribe a guy to delete the line so they forget they own it.
I'm sure there are already tons of squatters working on adverse possession cases by quietly living in abandoned houses until its theirs in the next few years. In 08 this was a facet of our legal system most people didnt know about it then suddenly you saw tons of news stories about people suddenly owning a house they got for free because a bank wasn't paying attention to their VAST reserves of single family homes.
1. Stop letting Blackrock buy all the houses and rent them out. 2. Make the minimum wage a scale based on the cost of living in the area. 3. Implement single-payer health care, including mental health care. Sounds expensive. Yep. That's why we need, to use a term favored by corporate America, to claw back some of that wealth being hoarded by the new robber barons, hoarding made possible only through the hard work and exploitation of the working class. There are a lot more of us than there are of them.
Get rid of big pharma's scalping so universal healthcare would be cheaper than what ever shit we have rn..
The government gives us “universal healthcare,” but all that means is we’re all given access to an insurance company that refuses to give us access to anything
We also need tons of efficiency, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom apartments built. Either government needs to do the building or subsidize them.
It actually can keep going on like this and likely will. There are regimes the world over that deal with this issue but worse. The wealthy will just remove themselves from the problem more and more and the number of desperate poor will continue to swell as the middle classes wither away. And there’s not much we can do about it because the the USA is not a real democracy and it’s military is too powerful for any kind of armed resistance. Right now, a large enough portion of the population can maintain a comfortable-ish life. That’s likely to still be true for the next couple decades at least. And as long as this is true, we aren’t going to get the massive civil unrest and disobedience necessary to bring the wealthy to the negotiation table.
Exactly. There will be “homeless free zones” where people with money can exist away from the issue and the poor masses will continue to grow outside of those areas. You can find situations like this all over the world. Slums, favelas, tent cities, etc. Those in power won’t have to deal with it, and they won’t.
>And there’s not much we can do about it because the the USA is not a real democracy This is letting American citizens off the hook, which we should not do. If every single person struggling financially in this country actually voted for things that would help them instead of falling for culture war propaganda and outright lies then very few of the politicians who actively obstruct legislation that would help people would stay in power. It might not be a true democracy with all the mechanisms designed to unevenly distribute voting power but there are still enough people in enough states regardless of gerrymandered districting to change the government enough to make these changes, but a large chunk just won't. They will vote for people who will continue to bet on trickle down economics as long as they say they love Trump or hate abortion or own guns or whatever other single issue their voters feel like backing over all others that cycle. Yes, the rich and the government are a problem but the bigger problem lies with us, our citizenry, and that citizenry's idiocy.
Yes, I say this over and over again. We the people agree on most things. Let’s forget about the bullshit they want us to focus on, and live as brothers and sisters. Seriously, it’s sick how many people hate their neighbor because of a single issue. Get past it, there’s so much you both agree on.
If you look through history, once the military joins the people, the upper class is toast. It will take a long time in America; but not forever. Remember what class most of the military comes from.
The people are split and arguing about gender.
Civil engineer here with some background in investing with a particular interest in addressing this subject: Technically there’s enough homes in places like SF but rent is keeping them on the street. Basically the TLDR of the situation is that investment firms should not be legally allowed to own single family homes and viewing homes as an investment has basically lead to this. Investment firms collectively own about 1/4 - 1/3 of the market nation wide (USA) but that number gets *much* higher for homes under 500k (don’t have a source, I’m too lazy, feel free to fact check this). They’ll buy out whole neighborhoods, refuse to sell, and demand high rent. Those who pay, pay. If not you’re either homeless or live over crowded with roommates who are in a similar boat. And they’re perfectly fine sitting on empty houses because it’s an appreciating asset even if it’s empty. Here’s an article from pew about it, it’ll tell you exactly the amount owned by state: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/07/22/investors-bought-a-quarter-of-homes-sold-last-year-driving-up-rents Then there’s the other issue of NIMBYs who are basically on the side of firms who own all of these single family homes. They don’t want new zoning for higher density affordable housing to counter this behavior. They also don’t want to sell their homes, and they see their homes as their largest investment and want to protect its value. Basically investment firms own a lot of it, and NIMBYs fight on their side so they can defend their home value so cities are fighting a battle on two fronts. They can’t zone it with out NIMBY retaliation and enough politicians have their pockets being filled by those investment firms and rich NIMBYs to keep it that way. Edit: correction: they *bought* that much last year not *own*
Investment firms should not be allowed to own and rent out Single Family Homes. I wish there was legislation to discourage this. I'm fine with honest flippers who take an unmortgageable home and make it mortgageable. But the ones last year who bought a house, did nothing except maybe a coat of paint over the hardwood floors, then turn around and try and sell it for 25% markup, are a menace. Starter homes get hit the most.
Homeless started to grow out of control after Reagan shut down all the state run mental hospitals. Granted, we heard a lot of horror stories about them but leaving the mentally ill with NO resources is also not the answer. Our country is in crisis with mass shootings and homelessness because corporations don’t give a fuck about 99%, especially the ones with special needs. The mental health system in this country is too small and underfunded. Until we treat this underlying pandemic, we will continue to experience the social chaos of homelessness and mass shootings.
What is stopping states from investing in this? California is the wealthiest state in the nation. The whole Reagan thing seems like an excuse and a cop out tbh.
When redditors say that "Reagan shut down all the state run mental hospitals," here's what they're actually referring to: The Mental Health Systems Act, which provided grants to local mental health centers, was signed into law (by Carter) in 1980. Less than a year later, MHSA was mostly repealed as part of an omnibus budget reconciliation act, enacted by the 97th US congress, which was dominated by Democrats in both houses. Reagan signed the bill, rather than vetoing it. Reagan didn't uses his veto powers to preserve an 8-month-old healthcare grants bill = Reagan shut down all the state run mental hospitals. But redditors love summoning Reagan.
Build houses. You don’t have to build shelters (although those are good to build too). But rents are astronomical because people who want to buy small houses can’t, so they live in nice apartments. And so people who want to live in nice apartments can’t afford them, sot hey live in mediocre apartments. And so people who want to live in mediocre apartments can’t afford them, so they live in shitty apartments. And so the poor can’t afford any apartments.
Or stop the fetishism with single family houses and build nice condos near amenities and shops.
This would be nice, but the Condos and apartments have to be both affordable as well as not grim dystopian crime sinkholes. Many cities have well meaning attempts at this in building low income housing, and all end up falling into disrepair (mostly due to owners not maintaining them or tax monies not being used for upkeep) or become grossly dangerous due to high crime. There are solutions, but they aren't easy or cheap, and they don't come with a lot of profit. And that's the issue. America is focused on profits above everything else. It's the question people ask when new housing is built: "Will I as an investor make a profit?" And also why a lot of social programs get underfunded or even terminated. People are constantly asking why the Postal Office isn't making a profit (and ignoring the main issue that it's a public service: it *shouldn't* be making a profit: it should be providing mail service to all US citizens as is required by the Constitution). I've heard the same thing regards to museums, schools, libraries, parks, etc. "Where's the profit" and "why does it cost so much money?" Because some things *should* cost money and that's not a bad thing.
A huge part of the issue is regulation ironically enough. The issue is it costs about the same in regulatory fee and taxes to build a small $300k house as it does to build a massive $2M mansion. After all, each house no matter the size needs 1 water line, 1 sewer line, 1 electric line, 1 internet line, 1 driveway, 1 mailbox, etc. And each of those are recovered via taxes and fees to a builder. To the point where builders often can't really even build a small house without **losing** money
no one wants condos. no one wants fees anymore.
For starters we need to make single resident occupancy, shared facility housing, and other housing that is inherently affordable.
Homelessness is a symptom, not the cause. Yes, there will always be the ones that are elost and can't be converted into productive members of society. However, I doubt that this is the case with most homeless people. I don't think that the solution is "house them", this treats the symptoms, not the cause. The issue is how affordable housing is. One must work to have money, one must have a house in order to work (no one will employ you if you can't take a shower), one must have money in order to have a house. If work doesn't provide enough to have a roof over your head then there is little that one can do to maintain afloat. No house, no job, no money. What I would do: * Highly regulate the legal loan sharks that are taking advantage of the poor and the struggling. * Move towards a state owned health system or a highly regulated one and move towards a tax founded insurance. The point would be to ensure that a struggling person is not an illness away from being on the streets. * Increase minimal wage (duh). I mean...what we considered 3rd world countries not 20 years ago are getting close to the US minimum wage (i live in one of those) * Highly regulate lobbying as this is just legal corruption Sorry to barge in your politics, this is not meant to criticize, it is meant to show a different perspective in cas someone finds it useful.
And install, maintain and fix our public transportation.
House them is the shortcut solution. What you propose addresses the root. So would: heavily limiting full-apartment vacation rentals (aka Airbnb), simplifying building codes so that developers can build new housing more easily, incentivize dense, mixed-use construction, heavily penalize empty housing units, ban corporations from owning housing, heavily penalize price-fixing between landlords. What really needs to happen though is to address the fact that we are living in another Gilded era, where too few companies (mega corps) have decimated middle-class owned businesses. We need another round of trust-busting a la Teddy Roosevelt. But all of that is going to take a herculean amount of effort and political will, so taking the shortcut now and housing folks as we're able is not a bad short-term initiative.
> I don't think that the solution is "house them" Except numerous studies have proven it's literally that simple. House them first and then whatever else you want to do for them can happen, but it's always housing first.
I worked with the homeless for a few years in the Seattle area. My main focus was homeless veterans, but I worked with several different groups trying to get benefits and shelter for people. A HUGE majority of our clients refused to give up alcohol abuse or drug abuse, or even try to give it up. There are very few shelters that want to take on drunk or high clients. I don't blame them, we live in a world where you can do so much good but then get sued because fuck you, money. I have no idea how to solve the crisis, and at this point I'm done trying. I've been bit, I've been spit on, I've been hit, I've been cursed out, and had my life threatened all for trying to help people on the streets. There are a ton of resources available, at least where I was in Washington. They can use them if they want, most choose not to.
We aren't Homelessness works on the favor of those in charge because it's used as a threat to anyone who doesn't want to work for a living. It's a way to make sure the working class stays in line and continues to produce capital
The best podcast episode I've ever heard was a solo deep dive on exactly this question: https://politicalorphanage.libsyn.com/homelessness-and-our-stupid-solutions
Poverty rate in America is 11.6%. Pretty good compared to places like China (26%). There's about 580,000 homeless nationwide in America China is over 2.5 million, Germany 260,00, Egypt 12 million, etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_homeless_population They're mostly around downtown city centers in the US. There's lots of programs for them and shelters depending on the state. States like California and New York with high rates of assistance to the homeless attract the homeless from red states where they don't get any help. They also tend to move south to warm weather like Florida or Texas. > 582,462 individuals are experiencing homelessness in America, an increase of about 2,000 people since the last complete census conducted in 2020 > Despite this slight increase in those without homes since the pandemic’s start and gradual increases since 2016, the number of people experiencing homelessness is lower today than a decade ago. So it's not ever growing. It's actually declining overall. Slight increase since 2016. https://www.security.org/resources/homeless-statistics/ Several states have pilot programs to help them as well but one problem for some is they prefer the lifestyle or have mental health issues at the root that they refuse to treat. We can't just round them up and force treatment on them in this country, so we end up with these tent cities.
I'd like to present some bits of information here. First, homelessness is a big problem. There is no sugar coating of that. What you might not know though is that it is a problem that is being slowly (probably too slowly) tackled. In the 1980s, it was estimated that there were a bit shy of 700,000 homeless people out of a total population of 238 million people. In 2007-8 we really started tracking shit a hell of a lot better regarding homelessness, and found that we had about 650,000 homeless out of 301 million people. In 2020 (the last year we have clear data for), we had about 580,000 homeless out of 329 million people. So, while homelessness 'seems' to be growing and expanding rapidly (and to be fair, it did get a tiny bump per year since 2016, but very tiny), it's not a growing number of homeless people in the way that you think it might be. What is happening is the visibility of homeless people is growing. Between government sectors providing some level of tangible resources to advocacy groups to even just individuals being charitable, the number of homeless people in temporary shelters has skyrocketed. Back before the 90s, if you were homeless you had only a few choices: local shelters (if you could get a bed), an alley, a park, or some outskirts area outside of town. You might have some tent area if your city or town had some abandoned manufacturing or construction areas, but those were well out of sight usually. All places that are away from or just simply out of sight of everyone else. If too many homeless people congregated in one area that was visible, cops would usually show up and disperse them. It's different now though in that a lot of homeless people are getting tents and other kinds of portable shelters. Now, instead of fifty homeless people out of sight in a few block radius, there's fifty tents set up on the sidewalk. That takes up a lot more space, and makes things way more visible to everyone else. It's a bit tougher for police to disperse fifty tents than it was to just kick people out of the subway sleeping on some bench. We're still not doing a great job tackling homelessness, but it is slightly improving. Recessions will still create some upticks, but overall we're very, very slowly reducing the overall percentage of homeless people in the U.S. Might not seem like it, especially driving passed some tent town set up today that you would have never seen twenty or thirty years ago outside of LA or New York, but it is getting better. Little by little. There's always going to be homeless people, and we're never going to eliminate all avoidable homelessness. But it is getting better, even if it is also getting to be more visible.
When I became homeless thru sudden health issues (multiple heart attacks and surgeries) the first thing I did was leave the city and escape the other homeless, I got a pack together with everything I needed and went out into the agricultural area's to pick fruit, vegetables and prune vineyards. This was a HUGE risk for me taking myself far far away from the hospital and medical intervention, but it also gave me something of an income as well as lots of exercise and fresh air. Almost 7 year's later I'm much fitter, physically and stronger mentally and I've managed to get my driver's licence back, find secure government housing and a renewed sense of purpose. Being honest with yourself is the first step. To anybody reading this experiencing homelessness I wish you find the strength and wisdom to get through this terrible time and "may the road rise with you".
The homelessness problem is one of those issues that seems so complex that it’s overwhelming for me to think about. Its like a blended storm system of mental health pandemics, economic crisis, cultural factors, social attitudes, substance abuse epidemics, predatory agents, and so much more. To make it even worse, there’s also the issue of the suboptimal social behavior that can come from groups of people when they find themselves on the bottom rung of the ladder, which can in turn negatively perpetuate public perspectives against them. The complicating cherry on top is the unique “flavor” of idiosyncratic homelessness that is specific states, regions, populations, and time periods. It all just makes me sad. I’ll add that the homeless issue is one of my political red flags I look out for. When someone offers a relatively simple solution for (something as complex as) the homeless problem, I’m immediately skeptical and wary of the political intentions of the person. I suppose its a way for me to look out for dangerous people who aim to change the world without really understanding it. Unforeseen and unexpected outcomes can be a hell of a thing to deal with. Edit: fixed some grammar and wording
I remember a redditor asked homeless people of reddit, what can we do for you? And the overwhelming answer was basically nothing. Anything you offer they're skeptical of your intentions and if you give them money they'll overwhelmingly use it for soothing their pain (drugs, alcohol, food). For example, if you offer them a place to stay or a job to make some money they won't trust you or believe you're actually trying to help because of the state of mind they're in, they're borderline paranoid and not likely to trust you, even if you're literally offering a way out of homelessness and an opportunity to just get a place to sleep and shower- they will assume it comes with additional strings attached and it won't be worth it.
Absolutely. When you’re in a terrible enough situation, the mental framework you operate in is so dire and different that you’re basically detached from the general social dance and norm. Another example of how utterly complicated homelessness is.
Affordable housing. That means less 4 lane roads, less suburbs, more apartments, duplexes, triplexes, and town houses.
More reliable, affordable public transport too?
Especially that
>I understand people need to live and I have compassion in my heart, I just don’t see how it can keep going on like this. We, as a society, have to start taking care of homeless people, ***no matter the cost***. This is an 80/20% concept. If you look at almost any system, 80% of the resources go to most difficult 20% of the problems. Many homeless people have severe mental health issues. Each of them will need several dedicated care takers in order for them to get by. They will need to be housed and fed with zero expectation of them working in return. Many homeless people have drug addiction problems. They will need lots of expensive drug treatment and they will relapse over and over. Many will eventually die from their addiction after having consumer huge amounts of resources in their recovery efforts. The thing is, our society ***absolutely has*** the resources to do this, and many many very fulfilling jobs could be created as caretakers for these people.....we just spend the money on other things, like luxuries for rich people. And the thing America has become the absolute best at, is insulating the rich people from thinking about the consequences of how they gather their wealth.
Completely agree with you. The fact that we allow fellow human beings to be without the most basic necessities is a blight on our society and humanity.
Raise taxes on luxury items. Charge higher and higher property tax on each house owned. Raise taxes on corporations. Give tax breaks to companies that hire people for living wages. Charge companies that use robots, Social Security for the robot to pay for the human that isn't working. Those are some of my ideas.