6 ms·
Yup, there are lots of services in places like SF and San Jose for them, so they are flocking here.
by mosdl 7y ago
Yup, there are lots of services in places like SF and San Jose for them, so they are flocking here.
- shereadsthenews 7y agoThe vast majority of homeless in SFBA were living here when they became homeless. They are not flocking here.
- b_tterc_p 7y agoDo you have an intuition why? It doesn’t seem rational. If you’re a low end service worker, and economic conditions push you into homelessness, why wouldn’t you go somewhere else? Does perhaps your perception of economic conditions make it feel like it’ll be shit everywhere and so you’re better off with your local social network?
- lazyasciiart 7y agoYour local network and your existing paycheck, instead of significant expenses to relocate and then search for a job, while dealing with everyone in the new place shitting on you for moving to their location to sponge off them.
- b_tterc_p 7y agoWhy would you have serious costs to relocate if you don’t have a home (and thus, stuff that costs money to move)?
- lazyasciiart 7y agoAre you expecting them to live on the streets in the new town while they search for a job?
- b_tterc_p 7y agoI’m getting downvoted for pursuing this line of questioning, but... yes? I really don’t see why this is controversial. Let’s ignore edge cases. You’re a single dude. You’re used to living in a house. Suddenly your local environment is too expensive to live in a house with your current levels of employability. Option 1 is to live on the streets with your current job. Given the derivative of the economy you will not be able to afford housing in the near future. Option 2 is to move and seek a similar low paying job in an area with lower cost of living. Try to find a job, to acquire food and shelter. Option 2 feels to me like it could be much safer. Both require living on the streets, but the second one provides a path to not doing that. I get that both are unpleasant. But why not?
- lazyasciiart 7y agoI’m not sure how much you understand about how people become homeless. I don’t think anyone ever says they became homeless because “suddenly the area is too expensive”. The majority of people who become homeless are actually only homeless for a short time. Their roommate kicked them out, or they were sick and couldn’t make rent once, or or other individual crisis events, and they don’t think “welp that’s it, I can’t make it in this city any more”.
- shereadsthenews 7y agoMoving from one city to another surprisingly enough costs money that homeless people don't happen to have. Many of them have children in schools, and the school is the only place the child is ever warm or fed. Yes, in American society we will let children sleep under bridges. And if you do move to another city that seems to offer more opportunity you'll still be homeless and then 15-year-old Libertarian fuckwits on forums like this one will deride you as someone who "flocked here" for the welfare handouts.