6 ms·

There was a long essay in the New York Review of Books way back in the mid ‘90’s that argued the point. SROs and casual labor are essential to combat homelessne

There was a long essay in the New York Review of Books way back in the mid ‘90’s that argued the point. SROs and casual labor are essential to combat homelessness. We lost SROs but we also lost casual labor. Business are criticized for not providing full time positions with benefits. The idea that someone could walk in and get day work helps folks who really don’t want to or can’t work full time.

novok 7y ago
The new casual labor is the gig economy, slowly being chipped away for the gig economy laborer's 'own good'. Roomates in a SFH / Apartment are the new SROs, but they definitely have higher barriers.
- vkou 7y ago
  Most of the users of the gig economy doesn't want homeless people driving them around, or walking their dog, or cleaning their home. The gig economy is not a good replacement for the full spectrum of casual labour.
  - imtringued 7y ago
    I think the much bigger obstacle is that they don't have a car in the first place. That means no Uber, no Doordash, no cleaning (can't get to the customer, need to transport cleaning equipment).
    - novok 7y ago
      You can do deliveries on bike, rent a car just to do the job with getaround: https://www.uber.com/us/en/drive/vehicle-solutions/getaround/ https://www.uber.com/us/en/drive/vehicle-solutions/getaround... Also cars are typically cheaper than rent, and the gig economy hires you usually on automated & objective criteria with flexible schedules. Vs. having to convince your local mcdonalds manager to hire you and working on shift schedule that is ever shifting.
  - asveikau 7y ago
    > Most of the users of the gig economy doesn't want homeless people driving them around, or walking their dog, or cleaning their home Excuse me? How can you tell it's a homeless person doing it? I am willing to bet all of these is already happening. When the uber driver picks you up you don't ask if they are sleeping in the car. But it's been reported to be pretty common.
    - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
      > Excuse me? How can you tell it's a homeless person doing it? The kind of homeless person who can get clean clothes, a shower, and a shave on a regular basis (let alone a car!) is already doing better than a lot of street people. It's good that those people have options, but catering only to them will not solve the problem, nor will behaving as if the other sort doesn't exist.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - eli_gottlieb 7y ago
        >The kind of homeless person who can get clean clothes, a shower, and a shave on a regular basis (let alone a car!) is already doing better than a lot of street people. In the grim darkness of 2019, the working homeless are privileged.
        PhasmaFelis 7y ago
        I think you're being sarcastic, but I'm not sure why. "Some people are better off than others, even in the lowest levels of society" shouldn't be a controversial assertion.
      - asveikau 7y ago
        I replied to this soon after it was posted, but opted to delete. Now I'll try to rephrase. My primary objection is to the idea that you can tell a book from its cover or anything that might be construed to suggest that there is some immutable lesser category of person. I live in San Francisco and walk its sidewalks every day. I've seen a lot of the category of homeless you're talking about. But it is silly to categorize. And a lot of times, even for those who don't shower, wear the same clothes and don't have a car, you really can't tell sometimes. It's also the case that housed people also have varying amounts of hygiene and behaviors. We are all just people.
Ancalagon 7y ago
I mean, I would argue casual labor should be fazed out because corporations lobbied to make benefits (specifically healthcare) tied to employment. You can't have your cake and eat it too, if we want a flexible workforce then life-necessities cannot be tied to permanent employment.
- ghaff 7y ago
  >corporations lobbied to make benefits (specifically healthcare) tied to employment Unions probably did that more than management given that at least some of it was driven by wage and price controls during certain periods. Though that's still corporations in some sense.
  - daotoad 7y ago
    The real driver of health benefits tied to employment was that businesses were not allowed to give huge wage hikes during World War II. In order to compete for very scarce workers, businesses added a variety of benefits, including health insurance. Around this time, medicine actually started being effective, which has led to an ever increasing set of costs (now we use million dollar machines and whacky drugs by the bucket load, when it the past they just tried to keep you comfortable or stop you from bleeding to death). As the cost of health benefits increased, corporations lobbied for tax-exemptions providing this benefit. Congress gladly obliged because it seemed to be an effective way to get everyone (who mattered) insured. This really cemented our current system in place.
    - Gibbon1 7y ago
      > was that businesses were not allowed to give huge wage hikes during World War II Interestingly war industry wages far as I saw were specified by the government contracts. They were good wages compared to pre WWII. My uncle busted out in WWII because all of his employees left for the shipyards.
- Digory 7y ago
  Life necessities became tied to permanent employment because of income and tax policy, not some corporate desire to control heath-care.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>Business are criticized for not providing full time positions with benefits. That may be a factor but at the low margin "we just need you to have a pulse" end businesses mostly don't care what you think about their benefits package. The problem is in the law. It is very hard to just hire someone off a street corner and comply with labor and tax law. Then there's civil liability. Employers mostly can't afford the risk of just hiring whoever shows up because god knows who they are. If they decide to shoot up half way through the workday and get hurt or hurt someone the employer is gonna wind up footing the bill. Unless you have an army of lawyers who have figured out how to insulate you (e.g. the gig economy) it just isn't worth it to take the risk on someone you can't vet.

novok 7y ago

The new casual labor is the gig economy, slowly being chipped away for the gig economy laborer's 'own good'. Roomates in a SFH / Apartment are the new SROs, but they definitely have higher barriers.

vkou 7y ago
Most of the users of the gig economy doesn't want homeless people driving them around, or walking their dog, or cleaning their home. The gig economy is not a good replacement for the full spectrum of casual labour.
- imtringued 7y ago
  I think the much bigger obstacle is that they don't have a car in the first place. That means no Uber, no Doordash, no cleaning (can't get to the customer, need to transport cleaning equipment).
  - novok 7y ago
    You can do deliveries on bike, rent a car just to do the job with getaround: https://www.uber.com/us/en/drive/vehicle-solutions/getaround/ https://www.uber.com/us/en/drive/vehicle-solutions/getaround... Also cars are typically cheaper than rent, and the gig economy hires you usually on automated & objective criteria with flexible schedules. Vs. having to convince your local mcdonalds manager to hire you and working on shift schedule that is ever shifting.
- asveikau 7y ago
  > Most of the users of the gig economy doesn't want homeless people driving them around, or walking their dog, or cleaning their home Excuse me? How can you tell it's a homeless person doing it? I am willing to bet all of these is already happening. When the uber driver picks you up you don't ask if they are sleeping in the car. But it's been reported to be pretty common.
  - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
    > Excuse me? How can you tell it's a homeless person doing it? The kind of homeless person who can get clean clothes, a shower, and a shave on a regular basis (let alone a car!) is already doing better than a lot of street people. It's good that those people have options, but catering only to them will not solve the problem, nor will behaving as if the other sort doesn't exist.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - eli_gottlieb 7y ago
      >The kind of homeless person who can get clean clothes, a shower, and a shave on a regular basis (let alone a car!) is already doing better than a lot of street people. In the grim darkness of 2019, the working homeless are privileged.
      - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
        I think you're being sarcastic, but I'm not sure why. "Some people are better off than others, even in the lowest levels of society" shouldn't be a controversial assertion.
    - asveikau 7y ago
      I replied to this soon after it was posted, but opted to delete. Now I'll try to rephrase. My primary objection is to the idea that you can tell a book from its cover or anything that might be construed to suggest that there is some immutable lesser category of person. I live in San Francisco and walk its sidewalks every day. I've seen a lot of the category of homeless you're talking about. But it is silly to categorize. And a lot of times, even for those who don't shower, wear the same clothes and don't have a car, you really can't tell sometimes. It's also the case that housed people also have varying amounts of hygiene and behaviors. We are all just people.

Ancalagon 7y ago

I mean, I would argue casual labor should be fazed out because corporations lobbied to make benefits (specifically healthcare) tied to employment. You can't have your cake and eat it too, if we want a flexible workforce then life-necessities cannot be tied to permanent employment.

ghaff 7y ago
>corporations lobbied to make benefits (specifically healthcare) tied to employment Unions probably did that more than management given that at least some of it was driven by wage and price controls during certain periods. Though that's still corporations in some sense.
- daotoad 7y ago
  The real driver of health benefits tied to employment was that businesses were not allowed to give huge wage hikes during World War II. In order to compete for very scarce workers, businesses added a variety of benefits, including health insurance. Around this time, medicine actually started being effective, which has led to an ever increasing set of costs (now we use million dollar machines and whacky drugs by the bucket load, when it the past they just tried to keep you comfortable or stop you from bleeding to death). As the cost of health benefits increased, corporations lobbied for tax-exemptions providing this benefit. Congress gladly obliged because it seemed to be an effective way to get everyone (who mattered) insured. This really cemented our current system in place.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    > was that businesses were not allowed to give huge wage hikes during World War II Interestingly war industry wages far as I saw were specified by the government contracts. They were good wages compared to pre WWII. My uncle busted out in WWII because all of his employees left for the shipyards.
Digory 7y ago
Life necessities became tied to permanent employment because of income and tax policy, not some corporate desire to control heath-care.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

>Business are criticized for not providing full time positions with benefits. That may be a factor but at the low margin "we just need you to have a pulse" end businesses mostly don't care what you think about their benefits package. The problem is in the law. It is very hard to just hire someone off a street corner and comply with labor and tax law. Then there's civil liability. Employers mostly can't afford the risk of just hiring whoever shows up because god knows who they are. If they decide to shoot up half way through the workday and get hurt or hurt someone the employer is gonna wind up footing the bill. Unless you have an army of lawyers who have figured out how to insulate you (e.g. the gig economy) it just isn't worth it to take the risk on someone you can't vet.