6 ms·

how can she possibly be in danger of going homeless if her husband gets $1595 a month? it's b/c their rent is 1380. just move to a cheaper apartment. if you're

how can she possibly be in danger of going homeless if her husband gets $1595 a month? it's b/c their rent is 1380. just move to a cheaper apartment. if you're broke with no job prospects and stay in a pricey apartment you can't afford, how is that a sob story that should make us sympathetic to more welfare spending? why should i pay more taxes so she can live in an apartment that costs more than mine?

natrius 17y ago
The article explains part of that. It costs money to move. First/last month's rent, utility activation, and the costs of moving their actual stuff.
- xenophanes 17y ago
  They could have set aside enough money for that when they still had money. Also, you're double counting some things. First month's rent ... you would have paid rent money not to move too for the same month. And last months' rent, well you already paid it where you are, when you move out you skip paying rent for the last month. Basically whether you move or not you pay the same number of months of rent. And you get your security deposit back when you move out and can use that to pay the next one (unless you trashed the place).
  - F_J_H 17y ago
    I'm curious. Do you own or rent?
    - xenophanes 17y ago
      I rent.
  - natrius 17y ago
    Ok, I think I agree. They should move ASAP, but their credit is probably horrible.
  - _delirium 17y ago
    In my experience you don't get back security deposits nearly soon enough to use them to pay the next security deposit, unless you have somewhere to go for a while in between. I've typically gotten the security deposit sent to me about 2-4 weeks after moving out (states vary on the legal requirements; California gives the landlord 3 weeks to return the deposit). Meanwhile, the new place often wants the deposit before moving in, when you sign the lease.
dschobel 17y ago
That's a reasonable position up to a certain point. Not knowing what housing rates are in their area or what restrictions they have (mobility, special care, schools etc etc) it's impossible to just say "go live someplace cheaper". Equally however, the NYT's writer glosses over the issue with the opposite emotional reaction of "how can you ask someone to move from their home?". Neither position is particularly compelling in the absence of more context.
- cabalamat 17y ago
  It's also proably true that areas that are cheaper to rent have less job prospects.
netcan 17y ago
I'm not sure. Where I live (Melbourne, Australia), $1380 is not much above the minimum you could pay for an apartment. It's about what I pay. To get much under that you need to go to fairly far out suburbs. To get under $1200 (1,080 USD) for rent + utilities, you really need to move to a satellite town or further. From what I understand this is a tricky issue. Lower rent areas are also often high unemployment areas. People do worse outside of their normal circle. Moving away from existing support structures is often a negative turning point. It is a principle of social welfare that people in financial distress should avoid substantial moves. On one hand, you want to avoid quick knee-jerks like yours from paying "high" welfare payments. On the other, you want to avoid moving people around. I imagine this sort of thing is even more of a problem in the US then here, with higher variations in costs/income across geographic areas.
- robryan 17y ago
  I don't know what vacancy rates are like over there but here in Melbourne they are very low. There is some real trash being pushed for around that $1380 figure here and they still have plenty of people turning up. Going down to the $1000 figure that you can find a few very average houses in very average areas for and you have over 50 groups turning up to inspect. I've been to a few of those and though, just one of these people has to be a full time 2 income couple and we have already lost being students in casual/freelance work.
  - netcan 17y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean "there," I am in Melbourne. Melbourne is actually not that bad, for Australia. Student isn't the worst situation to be in either. Student usually pay rent and many Universities will guarantee it (BTW, you can ask your Uni to guarantee your rent to make you application look better). Some parts of Australia have homelessness of people that just can't get a rental. They have a bad rental history or seem dodgy for whatever reason (receiving welfare). They literally cannot get
- natrius 17y ago
  In the US, Texas is one of the places with the best employment prospects, and it also has a fairly low cost of living. We spend so much money subsidizing dying Rust Belt cities and expensive housing in coastal cities, when there are plenty of people who should really move to places where they can get better jobs and pay lower costs. Moving is a socially expensive act, but we shouldn't subsidize staying in place much more than we subsidize moving to a more economically reasonable area.
potatolicious 17y ago
It's not quite that simple - the unfortunate truth in most American cities is that cheaper areas also have worse transportation, which is downright necessary both for work and for self-improvement that leads one out of poverty. So yes, you can suck it up and move to a less convenient location, but there's a limit to how far you can take that. At some point your reduction in rent will be made up by increased transportation cost (e.g., need a car, no matter how crappy, instead of a much cheaper public transit pass).
F_J_H 17y ago
You know, I don’t normally get into these types of debates, but the heartlessness of your comment really bothers for some reason. It reminds me of the fable of the ant and grasshopper (circulated by the teabaggers lately), which basically states that the grasshopper, because of poor planning, should be kicked to the curb to die in the cold rather than forcing the industrious ant to lend a hand. (You would love the altered version descibed here: http://www.grist.org/article/the8/ http://www.grist.org/article/the8/) And your comment further down that they should have set aside money for moving when they still had it is completely unhelpful. I once heard of a person who took his Pontiac to a mechanic because of a problem he was having with it. He asked the mechanic "What should I do?" to which the mechanic replied, "Don’t buy a Pontiac". Not really helpful. So, your solution to Ms. Eisen’s problem is that they should simply move to a cheaper apartment? Well, turns out that due to a work injury, her husband is confined to the couch. So, not only would he not be able to help move, but they type of apartment they could get would be restricted by his accessibility requirements. And, their vehicle broke down, so they would have to rent a moving van or rely on friends. Moving does cost money and it may not be an option. Oh right, they "should have thought of that when they had money". Well, setting aside how completely unhelpful that comment is, maybe she didn’t think she would be out of work for 2 years, and now the money they had set aside is gone, and they never thought they would get to the point where they would have to move? Maybe they live near by treatment centers for her husband and the only places with cheaper apartments are too far way? There is not enough information in the article to come to the conclusion that simply moving to a cheaper apartment will solve all of their problems so that you won’t have to "pay more taxes so she can live in an apartment that costs more than mine." So, what would you do if you were standing in front of you? Tell her "Too bad so sad, you should have thought about all this when you had money", and then throw her aside in disgust, but not before handing her a couple of Ayn Rand’s books so she can learn how to pull herself up by her own bootstraps? When society begins to suffer, we all ultimately suffer my friend, no matter whose fault it is.
- natrius 17y ago
  Placing blame is worthwhile when it can inform the future decisions of the audience. If you neutralize all mistakes, more people will make mistakes. Someone living in a relatively expensive apartment shouldn't have their housing costs subsidized. Subsidizing moving costs would be something I could get behind, and I'd rather do it through a nonprofit than through taxes.

natrius 17y ago

The article explains part of that. It costs money to move. First/last month's rent, utility activation, and the costs of moving their actual stuff.

xenophanes 17y ago
They could have set aside enough money for that when they still had money. Also, you're double counting some things. First month's rent ... you would have paid rent money not to move too for the same month. And last months' rent, well you already paid it where you are, when you move out you skip paying rent for the last month. Basically whether you move or not you pay the same number of months of rent. And you get your security deposit back when you move out and can use that to pay the next one (unless you trashed the place).
- F_J_H 17y ago
  I'm curious. Do you own or rent?
  - xenophanes 17y ago
    I rent.
- natrius 17y ago
  Ok, I think I agree. They should move ASAP, but their credit is probably horrible.
- _delirium 17y ago
  In my experience you don't get back security deposits nearly soon enough to use them to pay the next security deposit, unless you have somewhere to go for a while in between. I've typically gotten the security deposit sent to me about 2-4 weeks after moving out (states vary on the legal requirements; California gives the landlord 3 weeks to return the deposit). Meanwhile, the new place often wants the deposit before moving in, when you sign the lease.

dschobel 17y ago

That's a reasonable position up to a certain point. Not knowing what housing rates are in their area or what restrictions they have (mobility, special care, schools etc etc) it's impossible to just say "go live someplace cheaper". Equally however, the NYT's writer glosses over the issue with the opposite emotional reaction of "how can you ask someone to move from their home?". Neither position is particularly compelling in the absence of more context.

cabalamat 17y ago
It's also proably true that areas that are cheaper to rent have less job prospects.

netcan 17y ago

I'm not sure. Where I live (Melbourne, Australia), $1380 is not much above the minimum you could pay for an apartment. It's about what I pay. To get much under that you need to go to fairly far out suburbs. To get under $1200 (1,080 USD) for rent + utilities, you really need to move to a satellite town or further. From what I understand this is a tricky issue. Lower rent areas are also often high unemployment areas. People do worse outside of their normal circle. Moving away from existing support structures is often a negative turning point. It is a principle of social welfare that people in financial distress should avoid substantial moves. On one hand, you want to avoid quick knee-jerks like yours from paying "high" welfare payments. On the other, you want to avoid moving people around. I imagine this sort of thing is even more of a problem in the US then here, with higher variations in costs/income across geographic areas.

robryan 17y ago
I don't know what vacancy rates are like over there but here in Melbourne they are very low. There is some real trash being pushed for around that $1380 figure here and they still have plenty of people turning up. Going down to the $1000 figure that you can find a few very average houses in very average areas for and you have over 50 groups turning up to inspect. I've been to a few of those and though, just one of these people has to be a full time 2 income couple and we have already lost being students in casual/freelance work.
- netcan 17y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean "there," I am in Melbourne. Melbourne is actually not that bad, for Australia. Student isn't the worst situation to be in either. Student usually pay rent and many Universities will guarantee it (BTW, you can ask your Uni to guarantee your rent to make you application look better). Some parts of Australia have homelessness of people that just can't get a rental. They have a bad rental history or seem dodgy for whatever reason (receiving welfare). They literally cannot get
natrius 17y ago
In the US, Texas is one of the places with the best employment prospects, and it also has a fairly low cost of living. We spend so much money subsidizing dying Rust Belt cities and expensive housing in coastal cities, when there are plenty of people who should really move to places where they can get better jobs and pay lower costs. Moving is a socially expensive act, but we shouldn't subsidize staying in place much more than we subsidize moving to a more economically reasonable area.

potatolicious 17y ago

It's not quite that simple - the unfortunate truth in most American cities is that cheaper areas also have worse transportation, which is downright necessary both for work and for self-improvement that leads one out of poverty. So yes, you can suck it up and move to a less convenient location, but there's a limit to how far you can take that. At some point your reduction in rent will be made up by increased transportation cost (e.g., need a car, no matter how crappy, instead of a much cheaper public transit pass).

F_J_H 17y ago

You know, I don’t normally get into these types of debates, but the heartlessness of your comment really bothers for some reason. It reminds me of the fable of the ant and grasshopper (circulated by the teabaggers lately), which basically states that the grasshopper, because of poor planning, should be kicked to the curb to die in the cold rather than forcing the industrious ant to lend a hand. (You would love the altered version descibed here: http://www.grist.org/article/the8/ http://www.grist.org/article/the8/) And your comment further down that they should have set aside money for moving when they still had it is completely unhelpful. I once heard of a person who took his Pontiac to a mechanic because of a problem he was having with it. He asked the mechanic "What should I do?" to which the mechanic replied, "Don’t buy a Pontiac". Not really helpful. So, your solution to Ms. Eisen’s problem is that they should simply move to a cheaper apartment? Well, turns out that due to a work injury, her husband is confined to the couch. So, not only would he not be able to help move, but they type of apartment they could get would be restricted by his accessibility requirements. And, their vehicle broke down, so they would have to rent a moving van or rely on friends. Moving does cost money and it may not be an option. Oh right, they "should have thought of that when they had money". Well, setting aside how completely unhelpful that comment is, maybe she didn’t think she would be out of work for 2 years, and now the money they had set aside is gone, and they never thought they would get to the point where they would have to move? Maybe they live near by treatment centers for her husband and the only places with cheaper apartments are too far way? There is not enough information in the article to come to the conclusion that simply moving to a cheaper apartment will solve all of their problems so that you won’t have to "pay more taxes so she can live in an apartment that costs more than mine." So, what would you do if you were standing in front of you? Tell her "Too bad so sad, you should have thought about all this when you had money", and then throw her aside in disgust, but not before handing her a couple of Ayn Rand’s books so she can learn how to pull herself up by her own bootstraps? When society begins to suffer, we all ultimately suffer my friend, no matter whose fault it is.

natrius 17y ago
Placing blame is worthwhile when it can inform the future decisions of the audience. If you neutralize all mistakes, more people will make mistakes. Someone living in a relatively expensive apartment shouldn't have their housing costs subsidized. Subsidizing moving costs would be something I could get behind, and I'd rather do it through a nonprofit than through taxes.