6 ms·

I've lived and worked in many different countries (including America and Germany), and there seem to be two main causes of homelessness: economic hardship and m

I've lived and worked in many different countries (including America and Germany), and there seem to be two main causes of homelessness: economic hardship and mental illness. In Germany, I've only seen homelessness due to mental illness, because the bureaucracy in the social programs causes too much friction for them to use it with decent success. There are organizations that help people navigate the mazes and paperwork, but it's still too much friction. In America, it's both, but primarily economic. The levels of economic inequality in America is something I'd only seen in third world countries before. TBH I'm surprised at how low the corruption level in government jobs is given how dire peoples circumstances have become. It is much worse than in other first world countries, but not as bad as in places like Mexico or India. The higher the inequality, the more the proportion pushed towards mental illness in the homeless people living there. San Francisco was particularly bleak... In Japan, it's also primarily economic, but I suspect that's mainly due to their tendency to hide mental illness away since it's a source of shame. The "tent cities" in the parks were a sight to behold...

timeeater 6y ago
I think in places in San Francisco, it might not just be "inequality", but also homeless people flocking to places with spare money and mild climate. Why else would you choose to be homeless in one of the most expensive places on earth?
- cmrx64 6y ago
  https://www.kqed.org/news/11721460/why-do-these-4-myths-about-homelessness-persist https://www.kqed.org/news/11721460/why-do-these-4-myths-abou... this myth gets repeated and has no basis in reality. people in every city that offer any kind of service for the poor think that this attracts poor people. i guess it’s easier to believe that people are choosing to cheat society than society failed to provide for them
  - timeeater 6y ago
    I said nothing about "choosing to cheat society". Perhaps check your own biases? I also didn't say anything about "offering services". From the charts in your article it still doesn't seem unlikely that many homeless people migrated there for the jobs, a ka money - 30% in the "1 to 4 years" bracket, 48% if you go to "up to 9 years". In my city (Berlin) it certainly seems to be the case that it is often immigrants who end up homeless, presumably because the social net for citizens doesn't fully apply to them.
- tchaffee 6y ago
  > choose to be homeless... That's a poor choice of words that betrays your lack of knowledge on the subject. Instead of guesses about what is happening backed up with with "why else" reasoning, why not just do a little research on your own first? Or at least start with a question instead of a claim?
  - timeeater 6y ago
    I literally asked a question. And I meant choose San Francisco as the place to be homeless in, not choosing homelessness. If you would apply the principle of charity, you would have been able to read my comment correctly.
    - tchaffee 6y ago
      Here is your claim: > homeless people flock to places with spare money and mild climate. Here is what it would look like as a question: Do homeless people move to places with spare money and mild climate? The "why else" construction is not a literal question. It's rhetoric device used to make a claim about reasoning. It implies that you've thought through all the possible reasons and you've come up with the obvious answer. But if you were really making a sincere question, the answer to "why else" is: that is where they lived when they became homeless.
      - timeeater 6y ago
        I wrote the reason MIGHT be spare money and mild climate, and in that context my question is an actual question, not rhetoric. "It implies that you've thought through all the possible reasons and you've come up with the obvious answer." No, me writing "MIGHT" literally implies the opposite of that. It is also an aspect to consider, in any case - it is a valid question of why there are many homeless in a rich place. Merely claiming "inequality" is not actually an answer. In theory, the rich place should offer more job opportunities than poor places elsewhere.
        tchaffee 6y ago
pjc50 6y ago
> The levels of economic inequality in America is something I'd only seen in third world countries before I've concluded that the best way to understand America is as the top first world country and a Latin American third world country still struggling with the effects of colonization - in the same physical location. You can see bits of both next to each other, and the ugly coexistence of pretending not to see the problems. Trump surprised a lot of people by suddenly manifesting the politics of the Latin American country - he's a lot more like Peron than GWB. He's a sort of "business generalissimo": rather than going around in a uniform with a bunch of unearned medals, he talks about his business "successes" (inherited or bankrupt) endlessly.

timeeater 6y ago

I think in places in San Francisco, it might not just be "inequality", but also homeless people flocking to places with spare money and mild climate. Why else would you choose to be homeless in one of the most expensive places on earth?

cmrx64 6y ago
https://www.kqed.org/news/11721460/why-do-these-4-myths-about-homelessness-persist https://www.kqed.org/news/11721460/why-do-these-4-myths-abou... this myth gets repeated and has no basis in reality. people in every city that offer any kind of service for the poor think that this attracts poor people. i guess it’s easier to believe that people are choosing to cheat society than society failed to provide for them
- timeeater 6y ago
  I said nothing about "choosing to cheat society". Perhaps check your own biases? I also didn't say anything about "offering services". From the charts in your article it still doesn't seem unlikely that many homeless people migrated there for the jobs, a ka money - 30% in the "1 to 4 years" bracket, 48% if you go to "up to 9 years". In my city (Berlin) it certainly seems to be the case that it is often immigrants who end up homeless, presumably because the social net for citizens doesn't fully apply to them.
tchaffee 6y ago
> choose to be homeless... That's a poor choice of words that betrays your lack of knowledge on the subject. Instead of guesses about what is happening backed up with with "why else" reasoning, why not just do a little research on your own first? Or at least start with a question instead of a claim?
- timeeater 6y ago
  I literally asked a question. And I meant choose San Francisco as the place to be homeless in, not choosing homelessness. If you would apply the principle of charity, you would have been able to read my comment correctly.
  - tchaffee 6y ago
    Here is your claim: > homeless people flock to places with spare money and mild climate. Here is what it would look like as a question: Do homeless people move to places with spare money and mild climate? The "why else" construction is not a literal question. It's rhetoric device used to make a claim about reasoning. It implies that you've thought through all the possible reasons and you've come up with the obvious answer. But if you were really making a sincere question, the answer to "why else" is: that is where they lived when they became homeless.
    - timeeater 6y ago
      I wrote the reason MIGHT be spare money and mild climate, and in that context my question is an actual question, not rhetoric. "It implies that you've thought through all the possible reasons and you've come up with the obvious answer." No, me writing "MIGHT" literally implies the opposite of that. It is also an aspect to consider, in any case - it is a valid question of why there are many homeless in a rich place. Merely claiming "inequality" is not actually an answer. In theory, the rich place should offer more job opportunities than poor places elsewhere.
      - tchaffee 6y ago

pjc50 6y ago

> The levels of economic inequality in America is something I'd only seen in third world countries before I've concluded that the best way to understand America is as the top first world country and a Latin American third world country still struggling with the effects of colonization - in the same physical location. You can see bits of both next to each other, and the ugly coexistence of pretending not to see the problems. Trump surprised a lot of people by suddenly manifesting the politics of the Latin American country - he's a lot more like Peron than GWB. He's a sort of "business generalissimo": rather than going around in a uniform with a bunch of unearned medals, he talks about his business "successes" (inherited or bankrupt) endlessly.