4 ms·

Taboo question: What is an acceptable homeless population? What is your reference point? Obviously, poverty will always exist in some form, but how much can we

Taboo question: What is an acceptable homeless population? What is your reference point? Obviously, poverty will always exist in some form, but how much can we realistically improve it?

dqpb 9y ago
"Obviously, poverty will always exist in some form" It's not obvious to me why that should be true. What is your logic?
- Xylakant 9y ago
  It sort of depends on the definition of poverty. Poverty is currently often defined as percentage of the median income and that would make it "exist" unless all income would be close to the median. It's possible to conceive a society that distributes wealth in such a manner, but I'd currently regard that as implausible.
  - nr23 9y ago
    What you describe is "relative poverty". Statistics indeed says this will always exist. This is about inequality. That's not very relevant here. When talking about homelessness, you're talking about "absolute poverty": the lack of means necessary to meet your basic needs (food, clothing, shelter). In this case, by definition, you can't meet at least the need for shelter. There's no reason that homelessness (or even absolute poverty) should always exist.
    - Xylakant 9y ago
      Homelessness is a problem related to poverty, but it's cause is not always poverty alone. Homelessness exists in Berlin, where most of the homeless are covered by basic social security and have a right that the state provides a home. It's still there. It's often related to a mental health problem, though the initial cause and effect are muddied. I'd advocate for treating homelessness as a (public) health issue (with associated funding, ...) Absolute poverty should not exist in germany at all, but relative poverty is still a major issue: no access to a lot of the public life, less access to education, these are still problematic, even if the basic survival is ensured.
    - Swizec 9y ago
      I doubt many homeless people in the US live in absolute poverty as it's officially defined: > In 2008, "extreme poverty" widely refers to earning below the international poverty line of $1.25/day (in 2005 prices), set by the World Bank. This measure is the equivalent to earning $1.00 a day in 1996 US prices, hence the widely used expression, living on "less than a dollar a day."[3] The vast majority of those in extreme poverty – 96% – reside in South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, The West Indies, East Asia and the Pacific; nearly half live in India and China alone. Surely most homeless scrounge together at least $1 per day? I bet just begging gets you more than that on average. Sure that $1 won't get you very far in the US, but it brings you out of absolute poverty and into relative poverty.
- Banthum 9y ago
  There are some people who, if they are free (as in not institutionalized), will waste, misuse, or destroy any amount or kind of help given to them. Mostly such people have mental illnesses. (No, I'm not saying it's their fault or that they deserve to suffer. Just making a positive, not normative statement.)
  - andirk 9y ago
    I agree that there is a portion of our society who are mentally ill and expected to achieve a level of success in our society by themselves somehow. We seem to understand that children should not have to fend for themselves because they are not mentally equipped, but many mentally ill people have the mind of a child yet still expected to act above their ability.
    - Banthum 9y ago
      True. It's also notable that the gradient between fully functional people and the mentally ill people you describe is entirely smooth. The clear medical distinction between "mentally ill" and "not mentally ill" is an artificial construction that makes the situation easier to describe by throwing away most of the information. In truth, there is no clear line where one goes from "needs institutionalization" to "self-managing adult". It's all a matter of degree, which makes the whole discussion really difficult. What happens to the people who aren't medically diagnosible as mentally ill, but do have personalities, habits, or traits that make them take decisions that always destroy any opportunities or resources available to them? This group gets ignored a lot, often (I think) because it's uncomfortable to think about how such people exist, because in some moral systems there is no solution that doesn't hurt somehow.
marvin 9y ago
Norway has practically zero homelessness, since everyone who are incapable of providing for themselves are paid a living wage by the state (and are also provided free housing). There are probably a few people who fall between the cracks in the system, e.g. illegal immigrants who are on the run from the authorities or people who are mentally ill and actively resist medical care or help from the government. But there are practically zero people who are involuntarily homeless, for some fuzzy definition of the term involuntary.
- Swizec 9y ago
  > But there are practically zero people who are involuntarily homeless, for some fuzzy definition of the term involuntary. For curiosity's sake, how hard would it be to survive a Norwegian winter as a homeless person? Could that impact how much pressure the government feels in solving the problem? My impression from living in San Francisco is that nobody really wants to solve homelessness. Sure there's a lot of virtue signaling and a lot of volunteering and donating and stuff, but when it comes right down to it, nobody really cares enough to do anything about it. It's just sort of a part of SF culture/charm that it's full of crazy homeless people who shout at their demons in the street and sometimes drop their pants and masturbate or take a dump on Muni. Everybody shrugs and goes on with their day. Sometimes they update the latest "poop map" app with their sighting or make a "OMG SF is so weird" post on social media. But would they pay more taxes to build more homeless shelters? To make mental health care available to everyone? To have a livable basic income for the unemployed? Hell no, that's where you've gone too far from virtue signaling towards solving the problem. Wouldn't want that
- Shivetya 9y ago
  practically zero is 1.4 per 1000, the US is only at 1.7 per 1000. Norway might be able to lay claim to practically zero because the nations population is so small. A smaller number does not indicate it is solved, the per 1000 is the number to watch. the majority of conditions you give for people falling through the cracks applies to the vast majority of Western countries. The world has a need to better mental health treatment. Cities in the US spend tens of millions and more to combat homelessness but it is not a simple problem. there were stories about banning begging in Norway, I guess hiding a problem makes it go away. Don't fret, it is a practice many big American cities use as well, especially when large number of visitors are in town. hence the problem, we want to pretend it doesn't exist so we hide it

Taboo question: What is an acceptable homeless population? What is your reference point? Obviously, poverty will always exist in some form, but how much can we realistically improve it?

dqpb 9y ago

"Obviously, poverty will always exist in some form" It's not obvious to me why that should be true. What is your logic?

Xylakant 9y ago
It sort of depends on the definition of poverty. Poverty is currently often defined as percentage of the median income and that would make it "exist" unless all income would be close to the median. It's possible to conceive a society that distributes wealth in such a manner, but I'd currently regard that as implausible.
- nr23 9y ago
  What you describe is "relative poverty". Statistics indeed says this will always exist. This is about inequality. That's not very relevant here. When talking about homelessness, you're talking about "absolute poverty": the lack of means necessary to meet your basic needs (food, clothing, shelter). In this case, by definition, you can't meet at least the need for shelter. There's no reason that homelessness (or even absolute poverty) should always exist.
  - Xylakant 9y ago
    Homelessness is a problem related to poverty, but it's cause is not always poverty alone. Homelessness exists in Berlin, where most of the homeless are covered by basic social security and have a right that the state provides a home. It's still there. It's often related to a mental health problem, though the initial cause and effect are muddied. I'd advocate for treating homelessness as a (public) health issue (with associated funding, ...) Absolute poverty should not exist in germany at all, but relative poverty is still a major issue: no access to a lot of the public life, less access to education, these are still problematic, even if the basic survival is ensured.
  - Swizec 9y ago
    I doubt many homeless people in the US live in absolute poverty as it's officially defined: > In 2008, "extreme poverty" widely refers to earning below the international poverty line of $1.25/day (in 2005 prices), set by the World Bank. This measure is the equivalent to earning $1.00 a day in 1996 US prices, hence the widely used expression, living on "less than a dollar a day."[3] The vast majority of those in extreme poverty – 96% – reside in South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, The West Indies, East Asia and the Pacific; nearly half live in India and China alone. Surely most homeless scrounge together at least $1 per day? I bet just begging gets you more than that on average. Sure that $1 won't get you very far in the US, but it brings you out of absolute poverty and into relative poverty.
Banthum 9y ago
There are some people who, if they are free (as in not institutionalized), will waste, misuse, or destroy any amount or kind of help given to them. Mostly such people have mental illnesses. (No, I'm not saying it's their fault or that they deserve to suffer. Just making a positive, not normative statement.)
- andirk 9y ago
  I agree that there is a portion of our society who are mentally ill and expected to achieve a level of success in our society by themselves somehow. We seem to understand that children should not have to fend for themselves because they are not mentally equipped, but many mentally ill people have the mind of a child yet still expected to act above their ability.
  - Banthum 9y ago
    True. It's also notable that the gradient between fully functional people and the mentally ill people you describe is entirely smooth. The clear medical distinction between "mentally ill" and "not mentally ill" is an artificial construction that makes the situation easier to describe by throwing away most of the information. In truth, there is no clear line where one goes from "needs institutionalization" to "self-managing adult". It's all a matter of degree, which makes the whole discussion really difficult. What happens to the people who aren't medically diagnosible as mentally ill, but do have personalities, habits, or traits that make them take decisions that always destroy any opportunities or resources available to them? This group gets ignored a lot, often (I think) because it's uncomfortable to think about how such people exist, because in some moral systems there is no solution that doesn't hurt somehow.

marvin 9y ago

Norway has practically zero homelessness, since everyone who are incapable of providing for themselves are paid a living wage by the state (and are also provided free housing). There are probably a few people who fall between the cracks in the system, e.g. illegal immigrants who are on the run from the authorities or people who are mentally ill and actively resist medical care or help from the government. But there are practically zero people who are involuntarily homeless, for some fuzzy definition of the term involuntary.

Swizec 9y ago
> But there are practically zero people who are involuntarily homeless, for some fuzzy definition of the term involuntary. For curiosity's sake, how hard would it be to survive a Norwegian winter as a homeless person? Could that impact how much pressure the government feels in solving the problem? My impression from living in San Francisco is that nobody really wants to solve homelessness. Sure there's a lot of virtue signaling and a lot of volunteering and donating and stuff, but when it comes right down to it, nobody really cares enough to do anything about it. It's just sort of a part of SF culture/charm that it's full of crazy homeless people who shout at their demons in the street and sometimes drop their pants and masturbate or take a dump on Muni. Everybody shrugs and goes on with their day. Sometimes they update the latest "poop map" app with their sighting or make a "OMG SF is so weird" post on social media. But would they pay more taxes to build more homeless shelters? To make mental health care available to everyone? To have a livable basic income for the unemployed? Hell no, that's where you've gone too far from virtue signaling towards solving the problem. Wouldn't want that
Shivetya 9y ago
practically zero is 1.4 per 1000, the US is only at 1.7 per 1000. Norway might be able to lay claim to practically zero because the nations population is so small. A smaller number does not indicate it is solved, the per 1000 is the number to watch. the majority of conditions you give for people falling through the cracks applies to the vast majority of Western countries. The world has a need to better mental health treatment. Cities in the US spend tens of millions and more to combat homelessness but it is not a simple problem. there were stories about banning begging in Norway, I guess hiding a problem makes it go away. Don't fret, it is a practice many big American cities use as well, especially when large number of visitors are in town. hence the problem, we want to pretend it doesn't exist so we hide it