4 ms·

> preserving the "right" of the homeless to keep doing what they're doing Seriously? Does anyone want to live that way - there was a guy who said he liked livi

> preserving the "right" of the homeless to keep doing what they're doing Seriously? Does anyone want to live that way - there was a guy who said he liked living that way many years ago I remember, he was the local homeless guy, he'd make the papers now and then and even saw an interview with him now and then. He said he had money and just liked living that way, I'm fairly sure he was the exception. This just seems to be more "framing" to me.

vanniv 7y ago
Yes. Lots of homeless people are "happy" with their drugged-out life. Shelters that require people to stop doing drugs or require even the most bare minimum amount of being willing to not act like an animal are often mostly empty -- the only services people will take are ones that let them continue to drug themselves into oblivion
- chadcmulligan 7y ago
  But what is the situation that got them to their drugged out life? I'd suggest you're seeing the end point of a lot of systems failures along the way. Like one possible scenario - kids have some mental health issues in their teens, but because their parents aren't at home because they're working 2 jobs to live and medical treatment is unaffordable they dont get treatment. So they self medicate, and they drop out of school, then they live on the streets, then they're so drugged out they dont know any other life and they say they're happy living on the streets, because they really dont know any better. Children who aren't raised become animals - e.g. the children raised by wolves of English history fame. Then of course these children grow up and have children of their own, which are just totally animal. I'd suggest you're seeing the end results of 50 years of systems failures. recovery from this is expensive.
  - vanniv 7y ago
    Recovery is expensive -- but we are already spending a fortune (about $18,000/homeless person/year in LA). The problem is that the current plan is all about enabling the animals to continue being animals. Letting them have permanent camps/drug dens, and just giving them the resources to make their situation stable. That helps nobody, it just breeds more animals.
caconym_ 7y ago
I don't know, but I'm sure a lot of them would say yes, if asked. Personally, "chemicals" is the best explanation I have for the fact that I get up every morning to face the day rather than just lying there until I die, so I can definitely understand how somebody could get trapped in homelessness to the point that it becomes their normal. It's not a matter of choice, or preference. IMO, such concepts applied broadly at the level of who we are and our places in the world aren't as useful as people often seem to think. Anyway, I think the usual framing from people with the viewpoint I mentioned is that most of the homeless don't have a choice, and that efforts to "ban homelessness" are a further victimization of the vulnerable and powerless. And in some cases, they're right—harsh crackdowns without offering actual solutions will make their bad situations worse. But on the other hand, I think efforts to improve the situation are often branded as insensitive, dehumanizing, and so on, with the implication being that we should just leave them alone to live their lives. Personally I disagree with both—having the homeless around is bad, and being homeless is bad. As a society it's our duty to solve both problems, because we're all in this together.
aeturnum 7y ago
> Seriously? Does anyone want to live that way "Want" is not the right word, but a lot of folks who have lost housing security are in the situation that was most appealing out of a limited set of options. There are programs that will help people (though they often fall off quite harshly so their efficacy is pretty poor [1]), but they often insist on stringent behavior restrictions. This might seem like a small price to pay, but I think it's easier to understand if you understand the life that's just on the other side of being unhoused. Often, if you're currently unhoused, getting housed is going to massively increase the amount of money you need each month (you can't get anything now, ofc, but you're insolvent so people can't get much from you). Likely your only option for work (due to both stigma and the fact that having low social capital makes you more likely to lose housing) is to do relatively boring low-paid work for many hours a week (often more than 40). Doing that will get you a room and food and not a ton else - the working poor have hard lives in the US (and other places ofc). For lots of people who don't have stable housing, this doesn't feel like a trade off they want to make. Now, all of this gets even harder when you add in common histories of people who have lost housings (multiple diagnoses, chronic conditions, hectic personal lives). There is a large (and growing) population of people who don't have stable housing as such, but have strong enough social safety nets to stay off the streets. Those people aren't often seen as "homeless" largely because their personal medical situation is less severe. So maybe this all seems like people protesting too much. Lots of people view the loss of housing to be a moral failing on the part of the person who "lost" it (an agentic claim I'm skeptical of). If that's how you feel, I'd ask you to consider how many more hours a week you would work to make your life twice as comfortable (food is 'better,' clothes are 'better,' but you have less time to do anything but work). I think that the choices that unhoused folks make to remain unhoused are similar to choices that upper-middle class folks make all the time. The upper classes are just viewed as having the agency to make those choices. [1] Even the cato institute thinks so! https://www.cato.org/blog/new-study-finds-more-evidence-poverty-traps-welfare-system https://www.cato.org/blog/new-study-finds-more-evidence-pove...
- chadcmulligan 7y ago
  So it all comes down to paying people enough money to live?
leetcrew 7y ago
I'm sure most homeless people would prefer not to live that way if they were presented with a viable way out. there are certainly exceptions though. one of my good friends from high school developed schizophrenia halfway through college. his parents eventually kicked him out because he would do stuff like open all the doors and windows of the house in the middle of the night (not cool in the city), and he refused to put in any effort towards treatment. his parents are quite well off, and he has a standing offer to get set up with an apartment and spending money any time he's willing to start treatment. instead, he's been living on the streets for the last four or five years. he won't even stay in a shelter because he doesn't want to follow the rules (he doesn't do drugs; he just doesn't like standing in line to check in and stuff like that). at the end of the day, he isn't violent and he doesn't leave trash lying around. the worst thing he does is smell bad. I don't think it would be just to lock him away in an asylum until he gets better.

vanniv 7y ago

Yes. Lots of homeless people are "happy" with their drugged-out life. Shelters that require people to stop doing drugs or require even the most bare minimum amount of being willing to not act like an animal are often mostly empty -- the only services people will take are ones that let them continue to drug themselves into oblivion

chadcmulligan 7y ago
But what is the situation that got them to their drugged out life? I'd suggest you're seeing the end point of a lot of systems failures along the way. Like one possible scenario - kids have some mental health issues in their teens, but because their parents aren't at home because they're working 2 jobs to live and medical treatment is unaffordable they dont get treatment. So they self medicate, and they drop out of school, then they live on the streets, then they're so drugged out they dont know any other life and they say they're happy living on the streets, because they really dont know any better. Children who aren't raised become animals - e.g. the children raised by wolves of English history fame. Then of course these children grow up and have children of their own, which are just totally animal. I'd suggest you're seeing the end results of 50 years of systems failures. recovery from this is expensive.
- vanniv 7y ago
  Recovery is expensive -- but we are already spending a fortune (about $18,000/homeless person/year in LA). The problem is that the current plan is all about enabling the animals to continue being animals. Letting them have permanent camps/drug dens, and just giving them the resources to make their situation stable. That helps nobody, it just breeds more animals.

caconym_ 7y ago

I don't know, but I'm sure a lot of them would say yes, if asked. Personally, "chemicals" is the best explanation I have for the fact that I get up every morning to face the day rather than just lying there until I die, so I can definitely understand how somebody could get trapped in homelessness to the point that it becomes their normal. It's not a matter of choice, or preference. IMO, such concepts applied broadly at the level of who we are and our places in the world aren't as useful as people often seem to think. Anyway, I think the usual framing from people with the viewpoint I mentioned is that most of the homeless don't have a choice, and that efforts to "ban homelessness" are a further victimization of the vulnerable and powerless. And in some cases, they're right—harsh crackdowns without offering actual solutions will make their bad situations worse. But on the other hand, I think efforts to improve the situation are often branded as insensitive, dehumanizing, and so on, with the implication being that we should just leave them alone to live their lives. Personally I disagree with both—having the homeless around is bad, and being homeless is bad. As a society it's our duty to solve both problems, because we're all in this together.

aeturnum 7y ago

> Seriously? Does anyone want to live that way "Want" is not the right word, but a lot of folks who have lost housing security are in the situation that was most appealing out of a limited set of options. There are programs that will help people (though they often fall off quite harshly so their efficacy is pretty poor [1]), but they often insist on stringent behavior restrictions. This might seem like a small price to pay, but I think it's easier to understand if you understand the life that's just on the other side of being unhoused. Often, if you're currently unhoused, getting housed is going to massively increase the amount of money you need each month (you can't get anything now, ofc, but you're insolvent so people can't get much from you). Likely your only option for work (due to both stigma and the fact that having low social capital makes you more likely to lose housing) is to do relatively boring low-paid work for many hours a week (often more than 40). Doing that will get you a room and food and not a ton else - the working poor have hard lives in the US (and other places ofc). For lots of people who don't have stable housing, this doesn't feel like a trade off they want to make. Now, all of this gets even harder when you add in common histories of people who have lost housings (multiple diagnoses, chronic conditions, hectic personal lives). There is a large (and growing) population of people who don't have stable housing as such, but have strong enough social safety nets to stay off the streets. Those people aren't often seen as "homeless" largely because their personal medical situation is less severe. So maybe this all seems like people protesting too much. Lots of people view the loss of housing to be a moral failing on the part of the person who "lost" it (an agentic claim I'm skeptical of). If that's how you feel, I'd ask you to consider how many more hours a week you would work to make your life twice as comfortable (food is 'better,' clothes are 'better,' but you have less time to do anything but work). I think that the choices that unhoused folks make to remain unhoused are similar to choices that upper-middle class folks make all the time. The upper classes are just viewed as having the agency to make those choices. [1] Even the cato institute thinks so! https://www.cato.org/blog/new-study-finds-more-evidence-poverty-traps-welfare-system https://www.cato.org/blog/new-study-finds-more-evidence-pove...

chadcmulligan 7y ago
So it all comes down to paying people enough money to live?

leetcrew 7y ago

I'm sure most homeless people would prefer not to live that way if they were presented with a viable way out. there are certainly exceptions though. one of my good friends from high school developed schizophrenia halfway through college. his parents eventually kicked him out because he would do stuff like open all the doors and windows of the house in the middle of the night (not cool in the city), and he refused to put in any effort towards treatment. his parents are quite well off, and he has a standing offer to get set up with an apartment and spending money any time he's willing to start treatment. instead, he's been living on the streets for the last four or five years. he won't even stay in a shelter because he doesn't want to follow the rules (he doesn't do drugs; he just doesn't like standing in line to check in and stuff like that). at the end of the day, he isn't violent and he doesn't leave trash lying around. the worst thing he does is smell bad. I don't think it would be just to lock him away in an asylum until he gets better.