8 ms·

There is an ambiguity in the term "homeless" that can obscure discussion. I believe the term "homeless" was adopted in part to avoid more pejorative terms like

by geebee 7y ago

There is an ambiguity in the term "homeless" that can obscure discussion. I believe the term "homeless" was adopted in part to avoid more pejorative terms like "bum" or "vagrant". However, there may be some differences. You may not notice the majority of the homeless. They may very well hang out in libraries, coffee shops, and park benches, but these folks may be people with no mental illness or addiction, victims of the economy, or a restrictive housing supply. Alternatively, they may be people with personal health (including mental health) challenges that do severely impede their ability to work (or just cope with the world), but they have no immediate outward appearance of distress or addiction, and they don't pass out on city streets or, worse, intimidate, berate, threaten, stalk, harass, or assault fellow citizens. The term homeless has come in the vernacular to refer to the people I referenced in that last sentence as the "homeless", almost to the point where the word is detached from home and less. It means a severely addicted and mentally ill person who lives on the street. I don't know which one is increasing. I've lived in SF my whole life (SF, not the Bay Area, I took urban muni routes home from middle school), I'm in my late 40s, and I've never seen it so bad. I've always been a big public transportation taker, but I'm less enthusiastic about it now. What were occasional bad moments in the 80s and 90s have become an every other ride experience in some locations, and the lows are starting to get really, really low.

harlanji 7y ago
I'm one of the homeless you speak of, since last year. I came to the BA in 2011 after graduating Uni and worked as a programmer, to SF in 2014, and then had my reputation destroyed in 2016 by a false assault allegation by my old boss to HR--limiting job prospects via black list. I've an uncommon name and rare specialization. I think of "destitute" as the keyword, at various layers of Maslow's hierarchy. The ones you talk about are destitute socially but probably have food and temporary sleeping provisions, seldom rising above the 3rd layer into esteem tho. I have a bit of my old network supporting me, and I sometimes think I'll get off the street. I work as a waiter 30hr/wk in Mountain View at minimum wage, and don't make enough money yet to have housing prospects. Answering interview questions without needs being met sends overwhelmingly negative signals. I have all my professional stuff like books and computers in a storage unit, but rarely have a place to use it. I don't apply for high paying jobs in my field because I know that I lack the basic necessities to make a good impression. I've tried and do entertain opportunities that fall on my lap, but I always make a blunder due to not having the resources I need and they fade away. It feels safter to not try, given domino effects of interviewing poorly (permanent record, data). "Learned helplessness" for sure. I was hired to my current job on the spot, thankfully, and almost didn't get it due to logistic issues that I'm intentionally vague about. Personally I was not a supporter of Prop C and take no government assistance, instead fasting and meditating when I can't earn money and nobody in my network can help me out. We'll get through this. I'm staying strong.
- jimbob45 7y ago
  Thanks for sharing your story. Your contribution greatly illuminates this conversation for the rest of us.
- waveforms 7y ago
  I was just at the Mountain View Walmart last night and I noticed a lot of campers in the parking lot. Maybe that could be an option for you?
  - Hydraulix989 7y ago
    Really?
    - waveforms 7y ago
      Yes, I did this for about three months when I first moved to California. I was flat broke and it gave me a chance to stay dry and save up money.
      - Hydraulix989 7y ago
        There's a huge difference between voluntarily living in a van in the Google parking lot while saving for a downpayment with your engineering salary or lowering your burn rate for your bootstrapped startup -- and actually being homeless [1]. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-employee-lives-in-truck-in-parking-lot-2015-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/google-employee-lives-in-tru...
        waveforms 7y ago
        This is why I rarely post on the internet. So easy to misunderstand tone. I seems as if you are mis-understanding my original post. I was only hoping for the best for Harlanji based upon my personal experience. BTW, I was delivering furniture that first year.
- exabrial 7y ago
natalyarostova 7y ago
I agree. Grouping together "Mentally ill and/or severely drug addicted homeless person dropping syringes and trash across the city" with "Reasonably normal person who has had really bad luck, or has some weaknesses in maintaining employment but is otherwise a functioning adult" does a huge disservice to any conversation on homelessness.
- closeparen 7y ago
  Maybe, but it’s disturbingly easy for the latter to become the former.
  - cududa 7y ago
    Correct. It’s a quick jump from one to the other. I suspect most people disregard that by saying “well I’d never sink that low if I were homeless.”
- Kye 7y ago
  What purpose does this distinction serve? It's not obvious that it's better to set them apart. Homelessness is a spectrum of states people can move between. This distinction makes it easier for people to only care about the "good" homeless and forget about the rest.
  - geebee 7y ago
    I think it’s extremely important to know how many homeless are profoundly addicted and in a state of total collapse vs how many ar employed but at too low a salary to obtain stable housing. I don’t think this disctinction exists purely to judge, not at all.
    - kelnos 7y ago
      Agreed, but I don't think that makes it useless to keep track of the general total.
  - shados 7y ago
kelnos 7y ago
> It means a severely addicted and mentally ill person who lives on the street. To whom? To me, "homeless" is "someone without a home" (I'd also consider someone living in a car to be homeless). It doesn't matter to me how they got there or whether or not they suffer from a mental illness or some ailment that makes it difficult or impossible to find work. Bottom line is that they don't have stable shelter, and that alone is a huge problem. The solution for any individual who is homeless certainly varies based on their physical and mental condition, but I don't see a problem with counting all categories of people together.
- devoply 7y ago
  The problem with counting them altogether is that there are many in that group, even a majority that can be rehabilitated to not being homeless. And lumping them altogether and then labeling solutions which are applied to the entire group as having failed because they did not help those who could not be helped gives us a convenient excuse to not help those that could be helped. Also someone who is initially down on their luck may be helped, but if you let them continue in this situation they may soon become someone beyond help. Immediate intervention is needed if someone becomes homeless to see if you can get them out of it as quickly as possible, before their bad luck multiplies and they become a lost cause. Someone on the street for a month is still employable, someone on the street for 2-3 years much less so.
  - harlanji 7y ago
    Hitting the 1 year mark. So close to being a lost cause. Stopped applying for software engineering jobs early on. Now waiting tables near Google HQ and consider myself unemployable in tech after 19 years, starting at age 15. A shame. Still paying for the CS degree I got mid-career, thinking it was an investment and now it mocks me with default threats. The interview process is no place for a homeless person.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ChuckMcM 7y ago
I certainly agree, what gets lost in the discussion is that people who have no permanent address are a population not a type. That population has many different types of people among it (as does any population). One need only volunteer at a food bank or a shelter to see how widely variable these types are. The discussion for helping different types need different solutions. We need substance abuse clinics and counselling for the folks whose addictions have resulted in them becoming non-functional. We need housing assistance for the under employed who are working but cannot afford to both feed themselves (and often their families) and pay rent for a place to live. We need mental health services for people who are suffering with mental health issues, both genetic and non-genetic (for example someone who is diagnosed schizophrenic needs a different support system than someone suffering from PTSD or TBI. We need to create meaningful and functional communities for people whose challenges or disabilities make it impossible to participate in the existing communities. There isn't "one" fix that we can apply because there isn't "one" type of person associated with the label "homeless." What I have observed, is that people who are opposed to any state assistance of any kind to anyone (and there are people across the political spectrum in this group) will argue against any fix by holding it up against the type of homeless person for which it provides no benefit. They will argue against drug rehab using people who need housing assistance. They will argue against mental health services using people who need drug rehab. They will argue again housing assistance using people who need mental health services. It is sadly easier to get people to say 'no' because the solution is not generalized than it is to get people to agree to move forward because at least it helps someone.
cavisne 7y ago
I still remember the first tram I caught in SF, an elderly asian man boarded the tram and bumped into a homeless person. He apologized profusely, and the man turned around and the punched him directly in the face. No one (including me) did anything or even looked twice. Disgusting place.

by geebee 7y ago

harlanji 7y ago

I'm one of the homeless you speak of, since last year. I came to the BA in 2011 after graduating Uni and worked as a programmer, to SF in 2014, and then had my reputation destroyed in 2016 by a false assault allegation by my old boss to HR--limiting job prospects via black list. I've an uncommon name and rare specialization. I think of "destitute" as the keyword, at various layers of Maslow's hierarchy. The ones you talk about are destitute socially but probably have food and temporary sleeping provisions, seldom rising above the 3rd layer into esteem tho. I have a bit of my old network supporting me, and I sometimes think I'll get off the street. I work as a waiter 30hr/wk in Mountain View at minimum wage, and don't make enough money yet to have housing prospects. Answering interview questions without needs being met sends overwhelmingly negative signals. I have all my professional stuff like books and computers in a storage unit, but rarely have a place to use it. I don't apply for high paying jobs in my field because I know that I lack the basic necessities to make a good impression. I've tried and do entertain opportunities that fall on my lap, but I always make a blunder due to not having the resources I need and they fade away. It feels safter to not try, given domino effects of interviewing poorly (permanent record, data). "Learned helplessness" for sure. I was hired to my current job on the spot, thankfully, and almost didn't get it due to logistic issues that I'm intentionally vague about. Personally I was not a supporter of Prop C and take no government assistance, instead fasting and meditating when I can't earn money and nobody in my network can help me out. We'll get through this. I'm staying strong.

jimbob45 7y ago
Thanks for sharing your story. Your contribution greatly illuminates this conversation for the rest of us.
waveforms 7y ago
I was just at the Mountain View Walmart last night and I noticed a lot of campers in the parking lot. Maybe that could be an option for you?
- Hydraulix989 7y ago
  Really?
  - waveforms 7y ago
    Yes, I did this for about three months when I first moved to California. I was flat broke and it gave me a chance to stay dry and save up money.
    - Hydraulix989 7y ago
      There's a huge difference between voluntarily living in a van in the Google parking lot while saving for a downpayment with your engineering salary or lowering your burn rate for your bootstrapped startup -- and actually being homeless [1]. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-employee-lives-in-truck-in-parking-lot-2015-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/google-employee-lives-in-tru...
      - waveforms 7y ago
        This is why I rarely post on the internet. So easy to misunderstand tone. I seems as if you are mis-understanding my original post. I was only hoping for the best for Harlanji based upon my personal experience. BTW, I was delivering furniture that first year.
exabrial 7y ago

natalyarostova 7y ago

I agree. Grouping together "Mentally ill and/or severely drug addicted homeless person dropping syringes and trash across the city" with "Reasonably normal person who has had really bad luck, or has some weaknesses in maintaining employment but is otherwise a functioning adult" does a huge disservice to any conversation on homelessness.

closeparen 7y ago
Maybe, but it’s disturbingly easy for the latter to become the former.
- cududa 7y ago
  Correct. It’s a quick jump from one to the other. I suspect most people disregard that by saying “well I’d never sink that low if I were homeless.”
Kye 7y ago
What purpose does this distinction serve? It's not obvious that it's better to set them apart. Homelessness is a spectrum of states people can move between. This distinction makes it easier for people to only care about the "good" homeless and forget about the rest.
- geebee 7y ago
  I think it’s extremely important to know how many homeless are profoundly addicted and in a state of total collapse vs how many ar employed but at too low a salary to obtain stable housing. I don’t think this disctinction exists purely to judge, not at all.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    Agreed, but I don't think that makes it useless to keep track of the general total.
- shados 7y ago

kelnos 7y ago

> It means a severely addicted and mentally ill person who lives on the street. To whom? To me, "homeless" is "someone without a home" (I'd also consider someone living in a car to be homeless). It doesn't matter to me how they got there or whether or not they suffer from a mental illness or some ailment that makes it difficult or impossible to find work. Bottom line is that they don't have stable shelter, and that alone is a huge problem. The solution for any individual who is homeless certainly varies based on their physical and mental condition, but I don't see a problem with counting all categories of people together.

devoply 7y ago
The problem with counting them altogether is that there are many in that group, even a majority that can be rehabilitated to not being homeless. And lumping them altogether and then labeling solutions which are applied to the entire group as having failed because they did not help those who could not be helped gives us a convenient excuse to not help those that could be helped. Also someone who is initially down on their luck may be helped, but if you let them continue in this situation they may soon become someone beyond help. Immediate intervention is needed if someone becomes homeless to see if you can get them out of it as quickly as possible, before their bad luck multiplies and they become a lost cause. Someone on the street for a month is still employable, someone on the street for 2-3 years much less so.
- harlanji 7y ago
  Hitting the 1 year mark. So close to being a lost cause. Stopped applying for software engineering jobs early on. Now waiting tables near Google HQ and consider myself unemployable in tech after 19 years, starting at age 15. A shame. Still paying for the CS degree I got mid-career, thinking it was an investment and now it mocks me with default threats. The interview process is no place for a homeless person.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ChuckMcM 7y ago

I certainly agree, what gets lost in the discussion is that people who have no permanent address are a population not a type. That population has many different types of people among it (as does any population). One need only volunteer at a food bank or a shelter to see how widely variable these types are. The discussion for helping different types need different solutions. We need substance abuse clinics and counselling for the folks whose addictions have resulted in them becoming non-functional. We need housing assistance for the under employed who are working but cannot afford to both feed themselves (and often their families) and pay rent for a place to live. We need mental health services for people who are suffering with mental health issues, both genetic and non-genetic (for example someone who is diagnosed schizophrenic needs a different support system than someone suffering from PTSD or TBI. We need to create meaningful and functional communities for people whose challenges or disabilities make it impossible to participate in the existing communities. There isn't "one" fix that we can apply because there isn't "one" type of person associated with the label "homeless." What I have observed, is that people who are opposed to any state assistance of any kind to anyone (and there are people across the political spectrum in this group) will argue against any fix by holding it up against the type of homeless person for which it provides no benefit. They will argue against drug rehab using people who need housing assistance. They will argue against mental health services using people who need drug rehab. They will argue again housing assistance using people who need mental health services. It is sadly easier to get people to say 'no' because the solution is not generalized than it is to get people to agree to move forward because at least it helps someone.

cavisne 7y ago

I still remember the first tram I caught in SF, an elderly asian man boarded the tram and bumped into a homeless person. He apologized profusely, and the man turned around and the punched him directly in the face. No one (including me) did anything or even looked twice. Disgusting place.