5 ms·

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 c

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
    > In theory, the rich place should offer more job opportunities than poor places elsewhere. Which theory? Because trickle down doesn't have much support in terms of evidence. Often it's actually the wealth that causes the homelessness. As wealthy people move into an area and rents skyrocket, people who once could afford to live there end up on the street. And where are homeless people getting all this money to relocate a thousand miles away based on the hopes that they might get a job in a city with a much higher cost of living? None of this even passes a quick common sense test.
    - timeeater 6y ago
      Is there any evidence for people becoming homeless because of skyrocketing rents? Are there no renter protections in the USA, anyway? The theory is simple that where the area is rich, there are more jobs - catering to the rich people, but also the jobs that make the rich people rich. As for relocating, in the old days, you could hitchhike or jump on trains.
      - tchaffee 6y ago
        > Is there any evidence for people becoming homeless because of skyrocketing rents? Plenty of it, it is one of the primary causes. But just to put it in concrete terms that should scare anyone, the average rent in San Francisco in 1994 was about $1000. By 2001 the average rent was $2300. [1] Consider that other living costs go up along with rent. > Are there no renter protections in the USA, anyway? Sometimes. But what happens when you lose your job, and then lose your apartment as a result? How are you going to afford the much higher rents now at a new apartment even if you can find a new job? At minimum wage? If you ever decide to work with homeless people (you should) you'll hear two types of stories over and over: 1. Diseases such as mental illness and addiction. 2. People who are pretty much just like you and me. And then something unexpected happened. These stories are humbling, because after hearing enough of them you realize that a lot of what's keeping a roof over your own head is luck. Add medical bankruptcy to the mix and you've got the USA. > The theory is simple that where the area is rich, there are more jobs - catering to the rich people. So your theory is that rich people hire homeless people off the street to cater to them? NYC has loads of rich people - the most in the world [2]. NYC also has a huge homelessness problem. Maybe that will get solved when and if NYC gets just a few more billionaires? NY state itself has the highest per capita homelessness rate in the USA [3]. Trickle down doesn't work. > but also the jobs that make the rich people rich. This is along the lines of saying "stop being poor, just get one of those jobs that the rich people have". I would encourage you just read up on the subject instead of inventing theories that sound good to you. Homelessness is a well researched topic, and there is no lack of studies and data around it. [1] https://johnmacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Rents_Avg-SF_by-year.jpg https://johnmacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Rents_Avg-S... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2020/04/07/worlds-richest-cities-the-top-10-cities-where-most-billionaires-call-home-2020/?sh=7f17c8ef3101 https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2020/04/07/world... [3] https://psydprograms.org/the-places-with-the-most-and-least-homelessness-in-america/ https://psydprograms.org/the-places-with-the-most-and-least-...

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
  > In theory, the rich place should offer more job opportunities than poor places elsewhere. Which theory? Because trickle down doesn't have much support in terms of evidence. Often it's actually the wealth that causes the homelessness. As wealthy people move into an area and rents skyrocket, people who once could afford to live there end up on the street. And where are homeless people getting all this money to relocate a thousand miles away based on the hopes that they might get a job in a city with a much higher cost of living? None of this even passes a quick common sense test.
  - timeeater 6y ago
    Is there any evidence for people becoming homeless because of skyrocketing rents? Are there no renter protections in the USA, anyway? The theory is simple that where the area is rich, there are more jobs - catering to the rich people, but also the jobs that make the rich people rich. As for relocating, in the old days, you could hitchhike or jump on trains.
    - tchaffee 6y ago
      > Is there any evidence for people becoming homeless because of skyrocketing rents? Plenty of it, it is one of the primary causes. But just to put it in concrete terms that should scare anyone, the average rent in San Francisco in 1994 was about $1000. By 2001 the average rent was $2300. [1] Consider that other living costs go up along with rent. > Are there no renter protections in the USA, anyway? Sometimes. But what happens when you lose your job, and then lose your apartment as a result? How are you going to afford the much higher rents now at a new apartment even if you can find a new job? At minimum wage? If you ever decide to work with homeless people (you should) you'll hear two types of stories over and over: 1. Diseases such as mental illness and addiction. 2. People who are pretty much just like you and me. And then something unexpected happened. These stories are humbling, because after hearing enough of them you realize that a lot of what's keeping a roof over your own head is luck. Add medical bankruptcy to the mix and you've got the USA. > The theory is simple that where the area is rich, there are more jobs - catering to the rich people. So your theory is that rich people hire homeless people off the street to cater to them? NYC has loads of rich people - the most in the world [2]. NYC also has a huge homelessness problem. Maybe that will get solved when and if NYC gets just a few more billionaires? NY state itself has the highest per capita homelessness rate in the USA [3]. Trickle down doesn't work. > but also the jobs that make the rich people rich. This is along the lines of saying "stop being poor, just get one of those jobs that the rich people have". I would encourage you just read up on the subject instead of inventing theories that sound good to you. Homelessness is a well researched topic, and there is no lack of studies and data around it. [1] https://johnmacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Rents_Avg-SF_by-year.jpg https://johnmacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Rents_Avg-S... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2020/04/07/worlds-richest-cities-the-top-10-cities-where-most-billionaires-call-home-2020/?sh=7f17c8ef3101 https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2020/04/07/world... [3] https://psydprograms.org/the-places-with-the-most-and-least-homelessness-in-america/ https://psydprograms.org/the-places-with-the-most-and-least-...