3 ms·

Would she still be making $1300 a month if she moved?

by oddity 8y ago

todd3834 8y ago
I think they are suggesting that they could commute
colordrops 8y ago
I think the suggestion is to commute.
jeremyt 8y ago
The story says she’s making $1300 a month from Social Security disability. She doesn’t need to commute, she gets the money even if she stays home all day and doesn’t do anything.
- oddity 8y ago
  Fair enough, but I think my broader point was that you also need to factor in things like the support network that would need to be rebuilt and the cost of whatever services happen to be cheaper because of location. Moving is an inherently costly proposition both from a financial and mental perspective, and people who aren't in the best state for any of those things will probably not. Living in a Walmart parking lot, as bad as it is, is stable and predictable. Moving isn't.
  - jeremyt 8y ago
    I don’t know. It still seems to me that there are options here, and this woman has chosen not to pursue them, for whatever reason. I would also take issue with your assertion that living in a car in a Walmart parking lot is stable or predictable. This looks less like involuntary homelessness and more like a lifestyle choice.
    - oddity 8y ago
      You're right about her probably having options, but I think the important part here is the risk. For homeless people living in the middle of a city, there's a higher density of essential services. In her case, that would be things like the microwaves or the bathrooms that she absolutely needs without an even greater inconvenience to her lifestyle. These are unreliable. They can fail from overuse or they can get taken away or locked behind paywalls because store owners don't like the fact that they attract homeless people. In a city, the density of these services makes it so that she probably knows where the next nearest one is if one of them is unavailable. It's risky, sure, but to her, it's a known risk she's adapted to live with. She could move to somewhere cheaper, but "somewhere cheaper" is inevitably somewhere with either a lower density of people and money (and therefore fewer microwaves/bathrooms/whatever else she needs... I'm just going to refer to these as microwaves/bathrooms from here on), has less opportunity for work (not as much of a factor in her case, as you pointed out), or has some social/political aspect that makes it undesirable (like a higher rate of crime, which translates into less money or a much lower quality of life). Plus, you have to factor in the immediate cost of buying the microwaves or affording the apartment with a bathroom which she was avoiding previously. She could try and save or otherwise micromanage her money to cover the cost somehow, but when you're living paycheck to paycheck (as is usually the case), this means a few months, or even years of a worse quality of life for a life that isn't necessarily or apparently much better in the long run. Then you have to consider intangibles like the support network, the knowledge of the area, or the environment. All of these can have a positive effect on a person's mental state, and if it's not the reason for staying in the area itself, giving it up for the unknown can easily be a reason not to leave. The cost vs benefit is a total mystery and varies per person, and it's even harder to figure out when you're dealing with stress from your living condition.
      - jeremyt 8y ago
        I don't buy this for a second. I'm suggesting that she moves so that she won't be homeless. If she were to move, she wouldn't need a dense concentration of microwaves and bathrooms. She doesn't work, so opportunities to work are irrelevant, though, I wonder why a well educated person with a Masters degree couldn't possibly figure out how to make a few dollars here and there with online or remote work. And several people in this thread have already explained how she could afford an apartment on her income, so pretending that doing so would be difficult doesn't make any sense. Finally, I don't see the argument that living in an apartment in the suburbs would be a "worse quality of life" than living in an SUV in a Walmart parking lot and surfing the neighborhood for free microwaves and bathrooms.
    - jadedhacker 8y ago
      Would she have made that choice if she had more money or housing was cheaper? If she is making the best of a bad situation, maybe that's a failing on our part not on hers.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        It's completely a failing on her part. If she is on disability, why should the government give her more money to live in an expensive place. $1300 a month isn't a lot, but it is enough to live in many parts of the US. Why is it the taxpayers responsibility to make sure that she doesn't have to move from Seattle?
        jadedhacker 8y ago
        Mainly because forced migration is something an enemy does to a people in a war. I also take issue with the parasitic landlord class.
        scarface74 8y ago
        So a landlord should charge less rent than it takes to cover expenses? Are you going to tell small town America to pay for people to live in Seattle that can't afford it?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Would she still be making $1300 a month if she moved?

by oddity 8y ago

Would she still be making $1300 a month if she moved?

todd3834 8y ago

I think they are suggesting that they could commute

colordrops 8y ago

I think the suggestion is to commute.

jeremyt 8y ago

The story says she’s making $1300 a month from Social Security disability. She doesn’t need to commute, she gets the money even if she stays home all day and doesn’t do anything.

oddity 8y ago
Fair enough, but I think my broader point was that you also need to factor in things like the support network that would need to be rebuilt and the cost of whatever services happen to be cheaper because of location. Moving is an inherently costly proposition both from a financial and mental perspective, and people who aren't in the best state for any of those things will probably not. Living in a Walmart parking lot, as bad as it is, is stable and predictable. Moving isn't.
- jeremyt 8y ago
  I don’t know. It still seems to me that there are options here, and this woman has chosen not to pursue them, for whatever reason. I would also take issue with your assertion that living in a car in a Walmart parking lot is stable or predictable. This looks less like involuntary homelessness and more like a lifestyle choice.
  - oddity 8y ago
    You're right about her probably having options, but I think the important part here is the risk. For homeless people living in the middle of a city, there's a higher density of essential services. In her case, that would be things like the microwaves or the bathrooms that she absolutely needs without an even greater inconvenience to her lifestyle. These are unreliable. They can fail from overuse or they can get taken away or locked behind paywalls because store owners don't like the fact that they attract homeless people. In a city, the density of these services makes it so that she probably knows where the next nearest one is if one of them is unavailable. It's risky, sure, but to her, it's a known risk she's adapted to live with. She could move to somewhere cheaper, but "somewhere cheaper" is inevitably somewhere with either a lower density of people and money (and therefore fewer microwaves/bathrooms/whatever else she needs... I'm just going to refer to these as microwaves/bathrooms from here on), has less opportunity for work (not as much of a factor in her case, as you pointed out), or has some social/political aspect that makes it undesirable (like a higher rate of crime, which translates into less money or a much lower quality of life). Plus, you have to factor in the immediate cost of buying the microwaves or affording the apartment with a bathroom which she was avoiding previously. She could try and save or otherwise micromanage her money to cover the cost somehow, but when you're living paycheck to paycheck (as is usually the case), this means a few months, or even years of a worse quality of life for a life that isn't necessarily or apparently much better in the long run. Then you have to consider intangibles like the support network, the knowledge of the area, or the environment. All of these can have a positive effect on a person's mental state, and if it's not the reason for staying in the area itself, giving it up for the unknown can easily be a reason not to leave. The cost vs benefit is a total mystery and varies per person, and it's even harder to figure out when you're dealing with stress from your living condition.
    - jeremyt 8y ago
      I don't buy this for a second. I'm suggesting that she moves so that she won't be homeless. If she were to move, she wouldn't need a dense concentration of microwaves and bathrooms. She doesn't work, so opportunities to work are irrelevant, though, I wonder why a well educated person with a Masters degree couldn't possibly figure out how to make a few dollars here and there with online or remote work. And several people in this thread have already explained how she could afford an apartment on her income, so pretending that doing so would be difficult doesn't make any sense. Finally, I don't see the argument that living in an apartment in the suburbs would be a "worse quality of life" than living in an SUV in a Walmart parking lot and surfing the neighborhood for free microwaves and bathrooms.
  - jadedhacker 8y ago
    Would she have made that choice if she had more money or housing was cheaper? If she is making the best of a bad situation, maybe that's a failing on our part not on hers.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      It's completely a failing on her part. If she is on disability, why should the government give her more money to live in an expensive place. $1300 a month isn't a lot, but it is enough to live in many parts of the US. Why is it the taxpayers responsibility to make sure that she doesn't have to move from Seattle?
      - jadedhacker 8y ago
        Mainly because forced migration is something an enemy does to a people in a war. I also take issue with the parasitic landlord class.
        scarface74 8y ago
        So a landlord should charge less rent than it takes to cover expenses? Are you going to tell small town America to pay for people to live in Seattle that can't afford it?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]