12 ms·

Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

131 points by yitchelle 11y ago

Kurtz79 11y ago
Curiously I was reading an article about the state of homelessness in NY this morning on the NYT, which is interesting in its own right. Further reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/nyregion/despite-vow-mayor-de-blasio-struggles-to-stop-surge-in-homelessness.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Hidden&module=inside-nyt-region&region=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/nyregion/despite-vow-mayor...
jzwinck 11y ago
"We live in a city with 1.5m people living below the poverty line - that means we have 1.5m people at risk of being homeless." Not exactly. First, the poverty line is federal and does not move with the ebb and flow of NYC life. Second, a lot of homeless in NYC are that way by choice rather than by direct inability to get a room somewhere. Sometimes this is due to mental issues which are not caused by low income. Third, there are people who make money but spend it all, ending up paying taxes above the poverty line but actually having zero or negative savings. Plenty of people in NYC are in that category.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Yeah right ... while some people love to be nomads and not settle permanently, no one chooses to be shelter-less - sleeping outside with improper gear in November rainy night is mightily miserable experience.
- buro9 11y ago
  > Second, a lot of homeless in NYC are that way by choice rather than by direct inability to get a room somewhere. Sometimes this is due to mental issues which are not caused by low income. I've been homeless, so perhaps you'll forgive me for being biased against thinking like that. I would never class mental illness as a choice, or of poor decisions whilst someone is suffering mental illness as a choice. It sounds to me a lot like victim blaming. That a person may "choose" to be homeless because they have mental illness... isn't that more like a lack of compassion by fellow citizens to help support those who are suffering from mental illness? Would it be different if it were a physical illness? That man is homeless because he chose to be due to having a broken leg. That sounds ridiculous, and frankly that's how your statement sounds to me. I "chose" to be homeless. Sure, my choice. I could've stayed in a violent and sexually abusive environment and living in poverty. But instead it was my "choice" to sleep on the streets to escape it. I didn't even choose hostels - I voluntarily declined a bed to sleep in - because when you've come from a shared sleeping environment in which you were not safe and feared physical abuse nightly, then you may understand my reticence to enter a shared sleeping environment with strangers, some of whom as you pointed out may have mental illness. Perhaps this is all just a mental construct to make you feel better about yourself. If you are able to imagine that these people took responsibility for themselves and this was a free choice, you are able to absolve yourself of any individual part of the responsibility to show compassion and empathy towards fellow humans. If all we've got to offer people as a society, is a "choice" to sleep without shelter, without warmth, without safety... I'm not really seeing how anyone can say that people "choose" this. Edit: Whilst this issue has attention: http://crackandcider.com/ http://crackandcider.com/ I'd urge anyone doing secret santa's, or just feeling flush to go there, and buy things for homeless people. They're good people, taking no profit but covering costs, and just giving this stuff to people who need it.
  - cubancigar11 11y ago
    It is misandry.
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    I'm moved by your story, but wonder what would you propose as a workable alternative for someone in your position? It seems like the requirement that you not share sleeping space makes your situation a very difficult one to address, no? No-cost private hotel rooms seems financially a non-starter.
    - buro9 11y ago
      I read about a scheme in the USA, where they had built single-room accommodation on the edge of some town. These were small huts, no larger than a shed, and held a very small studio/bedsit setup. These were standalone units, basically sheds/huts. The huts were cheap, and being self-contained they were good tools to help someone re-enter the world of housing, of taking care of housing, of cooking for oneself and cleaning, etc. Training grounds for all the skills you need to survive when you finally get somewhere larger, but also large enough not to give you shelter, security. They had other things, like a central place to go and socialise, to get used to humans again, and counsellors and support people... but the key thing is a very small space that is yours. That would be enough... a shed. It need not be permanent, just enough to lift someone from the very lowest point in their life to a point fractionally above that. In effect I did this too. For shelter from snow over Winter I would trespass onto building sites after they had closed and would sleep in the site office. It was shelter, there was generally a heater and a kettle. I could make a bed, I would leave the place tidy. But most of all, it was safe and I always felt confident I would survive the night (something I wasn't sure of the times I lay shivering violently under bushes in Manchester). Little steps, lots of support, understanding. Just giving someone an apartment isn't the answer, it's about supporting people, to help them re-integrate. A home isn't a magic bullet for people not ready to live in one.
      - sokoloff 11y ago
        Informative answer; thank you for that and I wish you the very best in your path to re-integration.
sofaofthedamned 11y ago
I remember hearing on the radio about the UK Government, many years ago doing a census of all the homeless in the UK. They had somebody on the radio who worked with the homeless who was tasked to do it in her area. Her instructions were only to count those on public property - i.e, if they were in a shop doorway or a car park they didn't count. Funnily enough the count showed a large decrease in the number of homeless, congratulations all round etc etc.
- dazc 11y ago
  I've been homeless. Counting people in shop doorways,etc would be a poor measure anyway. And, someone 'who worked with the homeless' would be unlikely to spot the majority of people who were homeless. It's not something you go around advertising unless you're in a certain outlying subset. To my mind, in the UK at least, many of the 'people who work with the homeless' are often part of the problem.
  - noja 11y ago
    > many of the 'people who work with the homeless' are often part of the problem. How so?
    - dazc 11y ago
      They spend much of their time and budget helping people with problems that can not be easily solved. For instance, someone with a dependence on alcohol or drugs gets priority over someone who doesn't. A lot of homeless people could have their lives turned around with a timely and cost effective intervention but they are often ignored at the expense of those who are deemed to be 'more vulnerable'. I was helped by a total stranger who offered me a place to stay. Within a few weeks I was working, back on my feet and paying taxes. Many of the people I saw drinking in the park every day 4 years ago are still there, with the well meaning support of the local homeless charity. When I asked for help I was told there was nothing they could do for me. I'm not saying people with drug and drink issues shouldn't be helped. They should but not under the limited remit and resources of the homelessness agencies.
gloves 11y ago
In this particular case, having read the article, it didn't seem as if the man in question really minded the lifestyle of homelessness. There is a perception that to be without a static home is a terrible, terrible thing, but really, I can imagine for someone who appears to have his life together in many other ways (and free from other issues that plight the homeless community such as addictions) - then it could possibly be quite a liberating lifestyle. I can of course see the other side of the equation where it would also be a prison - having to lie about his home for embarrassment etc. But in this very specific example, he seems to have got on with it and made the most of the situation
- mettamage 11y ago
  I have the same opinion and said the same thing in discussions with some friends. Being powerless is the element that needs to dealt with, by being homeless against your will for example. I could imagine myself being homeless just because I choose to do so. I could also imagine that I'd live in a home and feel imprisoned by obligation. Between those two cases, I'd prefer self-chosen homelessness.
  - gloves 11y ago
    Exactly. I feel, and again only speaking for myself, but the thing I strive most for in life is choice, or options. Having the option to choose whether to live in a home or not. If I was to choose homelessness, I wouldn't see this as a bad thing, but a lifestyle choice. Thinking about it, it's quite a strange concept to return to the same place each day when there is such a big wide world out there full of experiences.
  - gloves 11y ago
    I don't mean to say those who are homeless without choice have it easy by the way, or that people choose homelessness. I appreciate there are a world of reasons why people find themself homeless, most of which are bad. Simply making the point that living in a home is an interesting quirk of society.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
cubancigar11 11y ago
"I never wanted my problem to be someone else's by asking for charity or living on someone's couch for free," he said. Brave. Men don't get anything for free anyway.
- toothbrush 11y ago
  > Brave. Men don't get anything for free anyway. Do you mean that male humans don't get anything for free, or do you mean that as in people? Because in certain societies (ahem large swathes of Europe) there are social safety nets in place to prevent precisely this type of thing from happening. Lose your job? You get a percentage of your old salary for a fixed number of months to allow you to transition to a new job. But i'm not quite sure what you are trying to imply.
  - anon4 11y ago
    Not to mention that sunlight, air and water are pretty much free. Most fruits, vegetables and game are also free (though it requires some effort to take, you're not engaged in a traditional capital transaction with another owner), provided you don't hunt it to extinction. Then again, freezing to death in a snow storm is also free. There's lots of free to go around.
    - chii 11y ago
      > Most fruits, vegetables and game are also free if you owned the property you caught them on. Otherwise, no, i don't believe you are allowed to "live off the land" in these day and age.
      - Alex3917 11y ago
        You're not legally allowed to live off the land in many places, but no one is going to stop you either. Especially if you're not uprooting native plants or whatever. If you go into someone's garden and start eating their hostas then that might be a different story.
      - 11y ago
DanielBMarkham 11y ago
We need to come up some better language for people who could afford a house in another town, but prefer to live in the open in order to be in some particular geographic spot. "Homeless" is much too broad. Are you homeless if you prefer "high-profile but low-profit" jobs, as this man did? Well sure, but being homeless does not always mean that conditions outside of your control have left you with no place to live, which is the way it's commonly used. Sometimes you make choices to do things you want. There was a great story a while back about some guys who came to YC and were living in their car -- they thought that everybody just did it that way. They managed to save, get funded, and graduate YC. They all probably have nice places to live now because they made some choices earlier. Not my thing, and they probably wouldn't make those choices again, but at the time it all worked out for them. People talk about self-driving cars as being the thing that destroys traditional car ownership, but I'm not so sure. If electricity is cheap enough to be almost free, and cars can take themselves from place-to-place without needing any attention, I imagine there would be a lot of folks -- myself included -- who would consider owning a "room that goes places" instead of a traditional home/apartment. Are those people homeless also? Nyah, the word just doesn't work everywhere we try to use it. Need some other term.
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >about some guys who came to YC and were living in their car Outliers, likely in many ways. Young, talented people, wealthy enough to own a car and smart enough to get into and through YC. They probably had family and a home life to return to if they failed. I agree, that isn't "homeless". You can't point at such examples as the model for most people on the streets, though.
- darkr 11y ago
  > I imagine there would be a lot of folks -- myself included -- who would consider owning a "room that goes places" instead of a traditional home/apartment You've heard of a Motorhome or "Recreational Vehicle", right?
- logicchains 11y ago
  >We need to come up some better language for people who could afford a house in another town, but prefer to live in the open in order to be in some particular geographic spot. How about "homefree" for voluntary homelessness? Much as people who deliberately choose not to have children have adopted the term "childfree" to describe their lifestyle, as opposed to "childless".
throwaway13337 11y ago
While food, clothing, tech, even a lot of services have gone way down as a portion of median income, housing has gone disproportionally up. The only thing to compare it to is healthcare costs. Various government intervention that collude together to make this happen - mortgage interest tax deduction, building ordinances for areas, housing bubble bailouts. That is, it's mostly artificial. Innovation in this area seems prime, therefore. This could mean forcing the rules to bend, or by allowing ways to opt out of housing all together as the man described in this article does.
- PythonicAlpha 11y ago
  The reason (or at least one of them) is, that our money in the western countries has lost it's value much more, than we should believe. Costs for food and the like is kept low -- so we get the impression, that we get the same for the dollar as before. But in reality, the devaluation of the money is much higher, because of the masses of money that is pumped into the system since 2008 in the US and also in Europe. The cost for food is kept low, because of different reasons, for example rationalization and also because worker-costs for low-cost work is not rising but falling. But, the discrepancy of our system, where a very small number of people have much much more money has to become manifest somewhere.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  The basic issue is that food, clothing, and technology are treated as consumer goods, if sometimes durable consumer goods. Housing is treated as an investment asset, and the economy currently runs on asset bubbles. Housing won't become affordable until we shift the growth-engine of the economy back to sustainable, wage-driven consumption.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Housing is only an investment asset in certain disfunctional housing markets (e.g., NYC, SF). The problem in these markets is that it's illegal to sell only housing - you can usually only sell housing + weird quasi-property rights (rent control/stabilization, landlord isn't allowed to easily get rid of tenants, etc). In a market of renters who have leases that don't need to be renewed except via mutual consent of both parties, housing is very strictly a consumer good - you are buying X months of housing at a specific location for $Y. Houston has a very functional housing market. Their secrets? No exclusionary zoning, no NIMBYs (Houston issued 64k housing permits in 2014, California issued 83k), no rent control, just build what people want and then sell it under mutually agreeable terms.
PythonicAlpha 11y ago
That are just shocking pictures to me. Well educated (as it seams) and hard working people, that can not afford at least a small regular spot of living. With the last big real estate deal in NY, the problem will be rising. The federal poverty line does not consider the greed of investment companies. It also does not help, to count the number of breads you can (theoretically) buy. Lets face it: Human labor is losing it's value. The reason plainly is, that more and more interest has to be drawn for the "investors". Somebody has to pay the bill for the parties held in the financial districts and for the money, the governments squander on the banks. In the high-payed tech sector, this effect is not so much felt currently, but this will change in the future, when the low-income sector is so much bleed-ed out, that the interest for the big investors has to come from elsewhere.
- amykhar 11y ago
  But isn't most people's response to high rent in NY to commute from NJ and not live on a roof? I can't help but think that this man's choice to live on a roof isn't the one that most people would make.
  - PythonicAlpha 11y ago
    Of course there are different solutions. But is the solution really to travel more? ... and even more, when the rents in the adjacent areas also have gone up?
  - baobabaobab 11y ago
    He didn't have a stable enough income to always maintain a gym membership. I doubt a daily commute and rent would be cheaper.
GPGPU 11y ago
Another issue at play here is that male models make a lot less than their female counterparts. See this article in Forbes about the problem: http://www.forbes.com/sites/vannale/2013/10/08/the-worlds-highest-paid-male-models-2013-oprys-1-5m-still-far-from-giseles-42m/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/vannale/2013/10/08/the-worlds-hi... Sadly, when our President and others talk about income inequality, they really don't want equality. They just want even more wealth funneled to women.
20150327ASG 11y ago
Capitalism is not a victim-less crime.
- maratd 11y ago
  From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?
jlebrech 11y ago
If I couldn't afford both an apartment and office i'd get something like this http://www.podtime.co.uk/ http://www.podtime.co.uk/ That's assuming I was doing IT work which required having a business address.
- DarkTree 11y ago
  According to the FAQs, the pod's internal temperature matches that of its surroundings. So, unfortunately it will still be brutal in the winter, albeit better than exposed directly to the elements. But more importantly, where do you put this thing? If you were living in NYC without an apartment, I can't imagine you could just plop this down in the middle of Central Park.
  - jlebrech 11y ago
    in an office
johnkpush 11y ago
A friend of mine was in a similar situation as Reay. He had no addictions, and no psychological problems, but ended up homeless. He used his remaining 2k to purchase a 1 year membership at Chelsea Piers sports club. It turned out to be the smartest way he could have used that money. Chelsea Piers is an enormous facility with 20 showers, locker room, huge lounge area with Wifi and couches. He hung out there for most of the day, worked out, learned php, took some freelance web development gigs, got enough experience and knowledge to eventually move on to a full time programming job. In a few months he saved enough money for an apartment in Queens.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  Where did your friend sleep?
  - johnkpush 11y ago
    On the street most of the time, and occasionally he'd crash at a friend's house. He'd lock his valuable possessions (laptop, etc) in the locker room.
amyjess 11y ago
Reading this, I'm reminded of the Google employee who lives in his van.

131 points by yitchelle 11y ago

Curiously I was reading an article about the state of homelessness in NY this morning on the NYT, which is interesting in its own right. Further reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/nyregion/despite-vow-mayor-de-blasio-struggles-to-stop-surge-in-homelessness.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Hidden&module=inside-nyt-region&region=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/nyregion/despite-vow-mayor...

jzwinck 11y ago

"We live in a city with 1.5m people living below the poverty line - that means we have 1.5m people at risk of being homeless." Not exactly. First, the poverty line is federal and does not move with the ebb and flow of NYC life. Second, a lot of homeless in NYC are that way by choice rather than by direct inability to get a room somewhere. Sometimes this is due to mental issues which are not caused by low income. Third, there are people who make money but spend it all, ending up paying taxes above the poverty line but actually having zero or negative savings. Plenty of people in NYC are in that category.

venomsnake 11y ago
Yeah right ... while some people love to be nomads and not settle permanently, no one chooses to be shelter-less - sleeping outside with improper gear in November rainy night is mightily miserable experience.
buro9 11y ago
> Second, a lot of homeless in NYC are that way by choice rather than by direct inability to get a room somewhere. Sometimes this is due to mental issues which are not caused by low income. I've been homeless, so perhaps you'll forgive me for being biased against thinking like that. I would never class mental illness as a choice, or of poor decisions whilst someone is suffering mental illness as a choice. It sounds to me a lot like victim blaming. That a person may "choose" to be homeless because they have mental illness... isn't that more like a lack of compassion by fellow citizens to help support those who are suffering from mental illness? Would it be different if it were a physical illness? That man is homeless because he chose to be due to having a broken leg. That sounds ridiculous, and frankly that's how your statement sounds to me. I "chose" to be homeless. Sure, my choice. I could've stayed in a violent and sexually abusive environment and living in poverty. But instead it was my "choice" to sleep on the streets to escape it. I didn't even choose hostels - I voluntarily declined a bed to sleep in - because when you've come from a shared sleeping environment in which you were not safe and feared physical abuse nightly, then you may understand my reticence to enter a shared sleeping environment with strangers, some of whom as you pointed out may have mental illness. Perhaps this is all just a mental construct to make you feel better about yourself. If you are able to imagine that these people took responsibility for themselves and this was a free choice, you are able to absolve yourself of any individual part of the responsibility to show compassion and empathy towards fellow humans. If all we've got to offer people as a society, is a "choice" to sleep without shelter, without warmth, without safety... I'm not really seeing how anyone can say that people "choose" this. Edit: Whilst this issue has attention: http://crackandcider.com/ http://crackandcider.com/ I'd urge anyone doing secret santa's, or just feeling flush to go there, and buy things for homeless people. They're good people, taking no profit but covering costs, and just giving this stuff to people who need it.
- cubancigar11 11y ago
  It is misandry.
- sokoloff 11y ago
  I'm moved by your story, but wonder what would you propose as a workable alternative for someone in your position? It seems like the requirement that you not share sleeping space makes your situation a very difficult one to address, no? No-cost private hotel rooms seems financially a non-starter.
  - buro9 11y ago
    I read about a scheme in the USA, where they had built single-room accommodation on the edge of some town. These were small huts, no larger than a shed, and held a very small studio/bedsit setup. These were standalone units, basically sheds/huts. The huts were cheap, and being self-contained they were good tools to help someone re-enter the world of housing, of taking care of housing, of cooking for oneself and cleaning, etc. Training grounds for all the skills you need to survive when you finally get somewhere larger, but also large enough not to give you shelter, security. They had other things, like a central place to go and socialise, to get used to humans again, and counsellors and support people... but the key thing is a very small space that is yours. That would be enough... a shed. It need not be permanent, just enough to lift someone from the very lowest point in their life to a point fractionally above that. In effect I did this too. For shelter from snow over Winter I would trespass onto building sites after they had closed and would sleep in the site office. It was shelter, there was generally a heater and a kettle. I could make a bed, I would leave the place tidy. But most of all, it was safe and I always felt confident I would survive the night (something I wasn't sure of the times I lay shivering violently under bushes in Manchester). Little steps, lots of support, understanding. Just giving someone an apartment isn't the answer, it's about supporting people, to help them re-integrate. A home isn't a magic bullet for people not ready to live in one.
    - sokoloff 11y ago
      Informative answer; thank you for that and I wish you the very best in your path to re-integration.

sofaofthedamned 11y ago

I remember hearing on the radio about the UK Government, many years ago doing a census of all the homeless in the UK. They had somebody on the radio who worked with the homeless who was tasked to do it in her area. Her instructions were only to count those on public property - i.e, if they were in a shop doorway or a car park they didn't count. Funnily enough the count showed a large decrease in the number of homeless, congratulations all round etc etc.

dazc 11y ago
I've been homeless. Counting people in shop doorways,etc would be a poor measure anyway. And, someone 'who worked with the homeless' would be unlikely to spot the majority of people who were homeless. It's not something you go around advertising unless you're in a certain outlying subset. To my mind, in the UK at least, many of the 'people who work with the homeless' are often part of the problem.
- noja 11y ago
  > many of the 'people who work with the homeless' are often part of the problem. How so?
  - dazc 11y ago
    They spend much of their time and budget helping people with problems that can not be easily solved. For instance, someone with a dependence on alcohol or drugs gets priority over someone who doesn't. A lot of homeless people could have their lives turned around with a timely and cost effective intervention but they are often ignored at the expense of those who are deemed to be 'more vulnerable'. I was helped by a total stranger who offered me a place to stay. Within a few weeks I was working, back on my feet and paying taxes. Many of the people I saw drinking in the park every day 4 years ago are still there, with the well meaning support of the local homeless charity. When I asked for help I was told there was nothing they could do for me. I'm not saying people with drug and drink issues shouldn't be helped. They should but not under the limited remit and resources of the homelessness agencies.

gloves 11y ago

In this particular case, having read the article, it didn't seem as if the man in question really minded the lifestyle of homelessness. There is a perception that to be without a static home is a terrible, terrible thing, but really, I can imagine for someone who appears to have his life together in many other ways (and free from other issues that plight the homeless community such as addictions) - then it could possibly be quite a liberating lifestyle. I can of course see the other side of the equation where it would also be a prison - having to lie about his home for embarrassment etc. But in this very specific example, he seems to have got on with it and made the most of the situation

mettamage 11y ago
I have the same opinion and said the same thing in discussions with some friends. Being powerless is the element that needs to dealt with, by being homeless against your will for example. I could imagine myself being homeless just because I choose to do so. I could also imagine that I'd live in a home and feel imprisoned by obligation. Between those two cases, I'd prefer self-chosen homelessness.
- gloves 11y ago
  Exactly. I feel, and again only speaking for myself, but the thing I strive most for in life is choice, or options. Having the option to choose whether to live in a home or not. If I was to choose homelessness, I wouldn't see this as a bad thing, but a lifestyle choice. Thinking about it, it's quite a strange concept to return to the same place each day when there is such a big wide world out there full of experiences.
- gloves 11y ago
  I don't mean to say those who are homeless without choice have it easy by the way, or that people choose homelessness. I appreciate there are a world of reasons why people find themself homeless, most of which are bad. Simply making the point that living in a home is an interesting quirk of society.
yummyfajitas 11y ago

cubancigar11 11y ago

"I never wanted my problem to be someone else's by asking for charity or living on someone's couch for free," he said. Brave. Men don't get anything for free anyway.

toothbrush 11y ago
> Brave. Men don't get anything for free anyway. Do you mean that male humans don't get anything for free, or do you mean that as in people? Because in certain societies (ahem large swathes of Europe) there are social safety nets in place to prevent precisely this type of thing from happening. Lose your job? You get a percentage of your old salary for a fixed number of months to allow you to transition to a new job. But i'm not quite sure what you are trying to imply.
- anon4 11y ago
  Not to mention that sunlight, air and water are pretty much free. Most fruits, vegetables and game are also free (though it requires some effort to take, you're not engaged in a traditional capital transaction with another owner), provided you don't hunt it to extinction. Then again, freezing to death in a snow storm is also free. There's lots of free to go around.
  - chii 11y ago
    > Most fruits, vegetables and game are also free if you owned the property you caught them on. Otherwise, no, i don't believe you are allowed to "live off the land" in these day and age.
    - Alex3917 11y ago
      You're not legally allowed to live off the land in many places, but no one is going to stop you either. Especially if you're not uprooting native plants or whatever. If you go into someone's garden and start eating their hostas then that might be a different story.
    - 11y ago

DanielBMarkham 11y ago

We need to come up some better language for people who could afford a house in another town, but prefer to live in the open in order to be in some particular geographic spot. "Homeless" is much too broad. Are you homeless if you prefer "high-profile but low-profit" jobs, as this man did? Well sure, but being homeless does not always mean that conditions outside of your control have left you with no place to live, which is the way it's commonly used. Sometimes you make choices to do things you want. There was a great story a while back about some guys who came to YC and were living in their car -- they thought that everybody just did it that way. They managed to save, get funded, and graduate YC. They all probably have nice places to live now because they made some choices earlier. Not my thing, and they probably wouldn't make those choices again, but at the time it all worked out for them. People talk about self-driving cars as being the thing that destroys traditional car ownership, but I'm not so sure. If electricity is cheap enough to be almost free, and cars can take themselves from place-to-place without needing any attention, I imagine there would be a lot of folks -- myself included -- who would consider owning a "room that goes places" instead of a traditional home/apartment. Are those people homeless also? Nyah, the word just doesn't work everywhere we try to use it. Need some other term.

forgetsusername 11y ago
>about some guys who came to YC and were living in their car Outliers, likely in many ways. Young, talented people, wealthy enough to own a car and smart enough to get into and through YC. They probably had family and a home life to return to if they failed. I agree, that isn't "homeless". You can't point at such examples as the model for most people on the streets, though.
darkr 11y ago
> I imagine there would be a lot of folks -- myself included -- who would consider owning a "room that goes places" instead of a traditional home/apartment You've heard of a Motorhome or "Recreational Vehicle", right?
logicchains 11y ago
>We need to come up some better language for people who could afford a house in another town, but prefer to live in the open in order to be in some particular geographic spot. How about "homefree" for voluntary homelessness? Much as people who deliberately choose not to have children have adopted the term "childfree" to describe their lifestyle, as opposed to "childless".

throwaway13337 11y ago

While food, clothing, tech, even a lot of services have gone way down as a portion of median income, housing has gone disproportionally up. The only thing to compare it to is healthcare costs. Various government intervention that collude together to make this happen - mortgage interest tax deduction, building ordinances for areas, housing bubble bailouts. That is, it's mostly artificial. Innovation in this area seems prime, therefore. This could mean forcing the rules to bend, or by allowing ways to opt out of housing all together as the man described in this article does.

PythonicAlpha 11y ago
The reason (or at least one of them) is, that our money in the western countries has lost it's value much more, than we should believe. Costs for food and the like is kept low -- so we get the impression, that we get the same for the dollar as before. But in reality, the devaluation of the money is much higher, because of the masses of money that is pumped into the system since 2008 in the US and also in Europe. The cost for food is kept low, because of different reasons, for example rationalization and also because worker-costs for low-cost work is not rising but falling. But, the discrepancy of our system, where a very small number of people have much much more money has to become manifest somewhere.
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
The basic issue is that food, clothing, and technology are treated as consumer goods, if sometimes durable consumer goods. Housing is treated as an investment asset, and the economy currently runs on asset bubbles. Housing won't become affordable until we shift the growth-engine of the economy back to sustainable, wage-driven consumption.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Housing is only an investment asset in certain disfunctional housing markets (e.g., NYC, SF). The problem in these markets is that it's illegal to sell only housing - you can usually only sell housing + weird quasi-property rights (rent control/stabilization, landlord isn't allowed to easily get rid of tenants, etc). In a market of renters who have leases that don't need to be renewed except via mutual consent of both parties, housing is very strictly a consumer good - you are buying X months of housing at a specific location for $Y. Houston has a very functional housing market. Their secrets? No exclusionary zoning, no NIMBYs (Houston issued 64k housing permits in 2014, California issued 83k), no rent control, just build what people want and then sell it under mutually agreeable terms.

PythonicAlpha 11y ago

That are just shocking pictures to me. Well educated (as it seams) and hard working people, that can not afford at least a small regular spot of living. With the last big real estate deal in NY, the problem will be rising. The federal poverty line does not consider the greed of investment companies. It also does not help, to count the number of breads you can (theoretically) buy. Lets face it: Human labor is losing it's value. The reason plainly is, that more and more interest has to be drawn for the "investors". Somebody has to pay the bill for the parties held in the financial districts and for the money, the governments squander on the banks. In the high-payed tech sector, this effect is not so much felt currently, but this will change in the future, when the low-income sector is so much bleed-ed out, that the interest for the big investors has to come from elsewhere.

amykhar 11y ago
But isn't most people's response to high rent in NY to commute from NJ and not live on a roof? I can't help but think that this man's choice to live on a roof isn't the one that most people would make.
- PythonicAlpha 11y ago
  Of course there are different solutions. But is the solution really to travel more? ... and even more, when the rents in the adjacent areas also have gone up?
- baobabaobab 11y ago
  He didn't have a stable enough income to always maintain a gym membership. I doubt a daily commute and rent would be cheaper.

GPGPU 11y ago

Another issue at play here is that male models make a lot less than their female counterparts. See this article in Forbes about the problem: http://www.forbes.com/sites/vannale/2013/10/08/the-worlds-highest-paid-male-models-2013-oprys-1-5m-still-far-from-giseles-42m/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/vannale/2013/10/08/the-worlds-hi... Sadly, when our President and others talk about income inequality, they really don't want equality. They just want even more wealth funneled to women.

20150327ASG 11y ago

Capitalism is not a victim-less crime.

maratd 11y ago
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

jlebrech 11y ago

If I couldn't afford both an apartment and office i'd get something like this http://www.podtime.co.uk/ http://www.podtime.co.uk/ That's assuming I was doing IT work which required having a business address.

DarkTree 11y ago
According to the FAQs, the pod's internal temperature matches that of its surroundings. So, unfortunately it will still be brutal in the winter, albeit better than exposed directly to the elements. But more importantly, where do you put this thing? If you were living in NYC without an apartment, I can't imagine you could just plop this down in the middle of Central Park.
- jlebrech 11y ago
  in an office

johnkpush 11y ago

A friend of mine was in a similar situation as Reay. He had no addictions, and no psychological problems, but ended up homeless. He used his remaining 2k to purchase a 1 year membership at Chelsea Piers sports club. It turned out to be the smartest way he could have used that money. Chelsea Piers is an enormous facility with 20 showers, locker room, huge lounge area with Wifi and couches. He hung out there for most of the day, worked out, learned php, took some freelance web development gigs, got enough experience and knowledge to eventually move on to a full time programming job. In a few months he saved enough money for an apartment in Queens.

pavel_lishin 11y ago
Where did your friend sleep?
- johnkpush 11y ago
  On the street most of the time, and occasionally he'd crash at a friend's house. He'd lock his valuable possessions (laptop, etc) in the locker room.

amyjess 11y ago

Reading this, I'm reminded of the Google employee who lives in his van.