12 ms·

Aside: having a little first and close secondhand experience of homelessness and hostel provision, it seems to me that many people think drugs and mental health

Aside: having a little first and close secondhand experience of homelessness and hostel provision, it seems to me that many people think drugs and mental health issues are the key causes. This is untrue. I'd say there is a "core problem" of those issues, which would be very difficult to solve, but it is a minority. I also wonder how much those problems are secondary symptoms rather than causes. Live on the street long enough and you'll be wanting an escape, for example. In London my experience was that a large number (majority?) sleeping on the streets were there because of benefit sanctions, i.e. they simply could not afford to live in a house as the government had removed their social welfare. Some people were waiting to be housed etc. It only takes a moment's thought to notice (a) the difference in prevalence of homelessness between countries, (b) the difference in prevalence over short time periods within the same country, to see that it is government policy that large determines the extent of homelessness. When governments don't provide good welfare nets, social housing, and social services to help people, homelessness is higher.

3dee 5y ago
Maybe it depends on the country. But after working with homeless people in the Netherlands I completely agree with you. I helped homeless people who had a job but could not afford a house anymore for different reasons. Most were helped with housing after some time. But if that time is long the temptation to take more alcohol than you should is right around the corner.
- MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  The Netherlands has a pretty effective social housing program. Not flawless but millions of people have a roof over their head thanks to government assistance.
  - LaurensBER 5y ago
    The effectiveness unfortunately has eroded over the past years. There's a huge supply gap in almost all major cities. Moving people to the other side of the country for a house might not always be a bad things (it could help them break away from a toxic social circle) but it also tears them away from family, their job and their support system. With the forecast being that the housing crisis will last until 2030 I'm not sure how much longer it will be effective.
  - tremon 5y ago
    Recently published [1]: the waiting time for social housing has risen to over 7 years in large parts of the country. when applying for social housing in Apeldoorn, there's on average 123 applicants for each home [1] https://nos.nl/op3/artikel/2377995-sociale-huurwoning-in-zeker-een-kwart-van-de-gemeenten-wacht-je-meer-dan-7-jaar.html https://nos.nl/op3/artikel/2377995-sociale-huurwoning-in-zek...
s17n 5y ago
People aren't worried about homelessness per se, they are worried about the impact on their own quality of life, which is primarily from people with drug and mental health issues.
- watt 5y ago
  I am not sure why it's relevant to point this out. Actually I think it's rather heartless. Don't you have some ideals to strive for? Coming from Berlin (which has sizable population of homeless) it was shocking to see many people sleeping on the street in Belfast. There's a lot of homeless in Berlin but I guess they can go to shelter at night. Not so in Belfast.
  - rualca 5y ago
    > I am not sure why it's relevant to point this out. Actually I think it's rather heartless. Don't you have some ideals to strive for? It seems you're talking past the parent comment. The fact that some people are down on their luck does not cause crime and insecurity per se. However, mental illness and drug abuse does have a considerable link with safety problems. Let's put it this way: if you grant housing to someone who suffers from drug addiction or mental illness, those person's problems and the negative impact they have on society won't go magically away. In fact, think about it for a minute: why are homeless shelters and drug clinics notorious hotspots of insecurity?
    - lazyasciiart 5y ago
      A lot of them will magically go away, is the thing. Even more of them will magically go away if you give them actual healthcare and social workers along with the housing.
      - austincheney 5y ago
        Let’s also give them transportation, nice clothing, and fast internet so that they can apply for great jobs. Sometimes jobs are hard to get so we should also give them employment workshops and education. Even still they would be better off with an advanced degree so we should give them enrollment at a major local university. We should also give them watches, writing utensils, and brief cases so that they are prepared to take notes and be on time. We should also give them a cellphone and cell service so that they can better reach potential employers. We should also give them athletic equipment, shoes, and workout clothes because working out is necessary for optimum health. We should also give them tax exclusions because taxes are oppressive. We should also give them nice laptops in order to write their resumes and track their potential application status. We should also give them education in entrepreneurship so they can attain wealth ahead of their peers and thereby never return to homelessness. We should also purge the entirety of their criminal histories as that is a major employment discriminator. Dating is hard and loneliness is an epidemic so we should also provide exclusive access to a dating service. Then after we have given every homeless person a bunch of stuff homelessness will entirely disappear never to return right? There is no reason to think this. It makes me want to be homeless. Instead a better option is to make homelessness less attractive and less available. Homelessness is less a choice when there is nothing to enable it. How high is the homeless rate in rural North Dakota, northern Wyoming, or west Texas for example?
barrkel 5y ago
There are a lot more crazy people on US streets. Crazy as in stereotypical ranting at strangers.
mft_ 5y ago
It is something that could be dealt with, if a country chose to do so. In Switzerland I don’t think I ever saw someone living in the street. AIUI this is because every citizen has the right to housing - and because the state is compassionate/efficient/wealthy enough this is what happens.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  I lived in Lausanne and used the youth hostel when I first moved there. There was a homeless drunk guy that the police would put in the hostel every night, he smelled horrible. It wasn’t a great experience for me but at least he wasn’t sleeping on the street. Lausanne also had a lot of squatters, mostly young foreigners, but that was a completely different subculture. I never figured out why the police didn’t come down hard on them, they did on everything else.
roenxi 5y ago
The article is talking about Toronto. You're talking about London. Both of these cities have the distinction of making various lists with titles like "The 11 most expensive cities to live in around the world in 2020" [0]. So while I don't disagree that that far tail of people probably do need some welfare to get a house, I do want to state that if someone is going to get welfare so that they can live in a house, it should not be a house in London. It should be a house somewhere somewhat cheaper than London. If someone honest to goodness can't keep a roof over their heads, they deserve help but really shouldn't be trying to make it work in one of the worlds most expensive cities. [0] https://www.insider.com/most-expensive-cities-to-live-in-2020-1 https://www.insider.com/most-expensive-cities-to-live-in-202...
- joshjdr 5y ago
  The article is talking about tiny temporary shelters, not giving away houses, or expensive flats.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    I live in one of the cities listed and if I were allowed to build my own shelter in the middle of one of it's public parks, I too would jump at the opportunity. This is some of the worlds most desirable real estate here. This isn't even a case of bad government policy, which I would usually arc up about. The article is homeless people taking over public land for private use without doing anything to justify that privilege. That isn't fair, if it is up for grabs I want it and I'd be behind a long queue of other people who want it. The right to use that land is worth a fortune. Being homeless, while sad, is not actually something that should be rewarded with free space in the centre of a metropolis. If we are going to support them, we can support them to live somewhere less desirable.
    - joshjdr 5y ago
      Consider that often these situations are temporary. And consider that cities are where support services are. And consider that if you can’t afford a home you probably can’t afford a car. I just don’t think anybody is homeless in Toronto or London or any other city for the same reasons that rich people make them expensive cities. I’m pretty sure many homeless, if offered a home in the countryside, would happily oblige.
VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
Possibly depends on the country and region. But I worked very closely with the homeless population in Seattle from 2001-2010 and the key issues prevalent in almost every case was chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, and mental illness. I left Seattle in 2010 and went back a couple years ago to visit and it looked like the homeless population had doubled in the time since. Seattle has an enormous problem that they have no idea how to solve.
- DennisP 5y ago
  Were they addicted or mentally ill before they became homeless?
  - bregma 5y ago
    My wife is a welfare case worker and freely shares her experience with this sort of thing at the end of her day. It is her observation that mental illness tends to precede everything. It tends to be what leads to addiction, though self-medication. It tends to lead to homelessness through a lack of cooperation with the housing providers, with the welfare providers who would pay for housing, or with the ability to live in a closed space. Even if your rent is paid by the state the landlord will kick you out for destroying property. When the leprechaun tells you to burn things, don't light a fire on your bed. There are the generationally poor, the people whose luck took a turn for the worse, and refugees from violence but those populations don't usually end up living rough unless they also develop mental illness.
Aerroon 5y ago
>When governments don't provide good welfare nets, social housing, and social services to help people, homelessness is higher. It's not just about what they provide, but also how they provide it. If the bureaucracy to take advantage of these housing benefits is too thick, then the people that need it the most won't be able to get them. This is one thing where individuals trying to help are likely going to do better. An individual isn't going to have a bureaucratic mess that you need to navigate to get help. The government might have such a mess though.
paganel 5y ago
> (a) the difference in prevalence of homelessness between countries, This is not repeated as often as it should. I live in an Eastern European country, not a poor one but definitely not a rich one, and only recently I have learned about LA's Skid Row. Because I was curious I went on Google StreetView and what I saw there [1] literally shocked me, I didn't honestly think scenes like that were possible in a developed country. We certainly don't have them here in my country, we do have our share of people living rough [2] and the like but not on the same scale as I saw in those photos. This is a failure for the US society as a whole, I am really surprised it's not a bigger discussion topic in the US mainstream media (at least I wasn't able to see it). [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0437952,-118.2431811,3a,48.9y,186.5h,84.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0P17yV0-3vt6UBlfiH5kAg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0437952,-118.2431811,3a,48.9... [2] https://www.scena9.ro/article/segregare-romi-pata-rat-cluj https://www.scena9.ro/article/segregare-romi-pata-rat-cluj
- Mediterraneo10 5y ago
  Romania has its plethora of (mainly Roma) shantytowns across the country, like Pata Rât which you link. But reasons why no one resorts to tents on a sidewalk are e.g. 1) weather in Romania is more or less the same across the country, unlike California which draws homeless from across the country for its clement weather, and 2) the Romanian authorities are more hands-off with enforcing building codes in Roma settlements, so you can erect actual buildings. Also, perhaps emigration to Western Europe has served as a safety valve for homelessness. Some down-and-out Romanians can move to Italy or Spain and immediately improve their prospects. Down-and-out Americans, on the other hand, have nowhere to go so easily.
  - BoardsOfCanada 5y ago
    Actually only a small minority of California's homeless come from another state. "L.A.H.S.A.’s 2019 homeless count found that 64 percent of the 58,936 Los Angeles County residents experiencing homelessness had lived in the city for more than 10 years. Less than a fifth (18 percent) said they had lived out of state before becoming homeless." http://homelessperspective.com/2019/11/08/where-does-californias-homeless-population-come-from/ http://homelessperspective.com/2019/11/08/where-does-califor...
throwaway189262 5y ago
It's housing costs entertwined with mental problems and drug use. In many countries you can afford a shack with US equivalent of $100 a month. In rich countries such shacks are illegal and all the regulation and land cost raises minimum rent far above that. At least 2/3 of homeless are addicted or mentally ill. The fraction that isn't typically doesn't live on the streets for more than a few months. In my experience you don't see many homeless in poorer countries because housing is cheap relatively speaking.
- foobarian 5y ago
  > In my experience you don't see many homeless in poorer countries because housing is cheap relatively speaking. I also wonder how much more likely certain countries are to quietly move mental health cases into clinics. This implies a whole lot of things about freedoms and due process.
- skissane 5y ago
  > In my experience you don't see many homeless in poorer countries because housing is cheap relatively speaking. India has well over a million homeless people, including (by some accounts) over 100,000 in the capital Delhi. I personally remember seeing quite a few people who appeared homeless in Delhi, including families squatting in historical sites (the Old Fort). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_India
  - throwaway189262 5y ago
    Big cities in places like India and China are an exception. In these places average salary can be 10X higher than rural areas of the same province. Because the big cities are much father along towards being developed country than outskirts. So housing here is expensive and has the same result. There are people making $2000 a year living in heated somewhat comfortable homes. Homeless in the US make more than that just in welfare benefits but they live in tents on the streets
- randomsearch 5y ago
  > In many countries you can afford a shack with US equivalent of $100 a month. Not in Western Europe, which shows that it is a problem with the US.
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
In my city in the states, easy homelessness cases are easy to treat so they get treated, and plucked from the pool of visible homeless rather quickly as they obtain and maintain transitional housing. That leaves behind a lot of chronic cases that aren’t easy to just throw some resources at, the ones where drugs and mental illness are involved. Also, the more successful anyone city treats its problem, the worse it becomes if the larger context it exists in doesn’t treat it as well. For example, I read a story about an ex-con who is released from a prison in Texas, is given a bus ticket to go anywhere, and picks Seattle (not having ever been there) because they hear that is the place to be right now (they might have picked LA before). So the problem is influenced by regional and National governments as well, one city or even metro can’t work alone its way out of the problem. I imagine it’s similar in the UK, just maybe on a smaller case (our problem over here has exploded in the last decade).
bradleyjg 5y ago
(b) the difference in prevalence over short time periods within the same country, to see that it is government policy that large determines the extent of homelessness. In NYC that difference in policy was not anything to do with social welfare payments. It was a reduction in arrests for quality of life crimes. Fewer people in jail, more on the streets. At least in the medium term—-in the decades’ long view the larger change was closing the big mental institutions in favor of “community treatment”. It’s worth noting that NYC is legally obligated to provide a bed for everyone. The people on the street don’t want to use the shelter system for a mixture of reasons.
marksbrown 5y ago
Precisely. Due to the pandemic we now know two things in the UK. First that there are 9 times as many homeless as stats claim and second that all people can be housed. This is due to the fact that this was accomplished during the first lockdown. There just has to be political will.
diogenescynic 5y ago
I’m all for helping the homeless who are mentally ill or due to being working poor, but in America we see a lot who just don’t want to obey rules or follow society’s laws and homelessness is a lifestyle choice. They’d rather just steal bikes and do meth in the park. I’m sick of those scumbags and wish we’d actually arrest them for all the damage they cause. They are causing massive environmental damage and we just shrug it off. Can’t even go to a lot of parks without feeling unsafe. Beaches have needles in the sand in LA. It’s just disgusting what we are allowing such a small percent of the population do to the rest. I don’t think society should have to bend over backwards for people who refuse to help themselves and only negatively impact society. The homeless gutter punks with pit bulls on Haight and Ashbury shouldn’t be getting government support just because they want to be a loser.
redis_mlc 5y ago
> it seems to me that many people think drugs and mental health issues are the key causes. This is untrue. In the US it is true. Men are not eligible for welfare in he US, and police dedicated to homeless areas report 100% are on drugs.
BackBlast 5y ago
> When governments don't provide good welfare nets, social housing, and social services to help people, homelessness is higher. Such social services are, themselves, often chains that bind people down. The requirements to receive them often lead people away from incremental work that would allow them to dip their toes in and potentially get back on their feet. Minimum wage laws increase the barriers further for the down and out. Additionally, there is a kind of depression that hits when you are not providing for yourself. Especially for men. It's my opinion it's the barriers we build that's the root cause of the cost minimums. The tight and restrictive zoning laws are more to blame for homelessness. Restrictive zoning cause the minimum income level to get housing to be quite elevated, and if you find yourself below that level - you are homeless. Minimum wage barriers to work stem from pricing caused by the zoning. If a society is able to lower that minimum income level significantly, then there will be a lot fewer on the streets. I always fancied allowing for parking lots that let people live out of their cars, or a tent if you can't manage a car. The lots could charge for rent and provide basic amenities such as bathrooms, wifi, communal kitchen, and maybe power for a heated blanket. Then pretty much any down and out commercial property could be turned into such a lot without much work. Here the minimum rent is about $1000/mo, if you're willing to be a roommate you can get that down to about $500/mo. A car-turned-home-lot at local real estate prices could support rents as low as $75-100/mo per slot and be quite profitable for the lot owner. If done as a non-profit it could be $40-50/mo at current interest rates. An order of magnitude lower. Such options give people the dignity and self respect of caring for themselves. And accomplish it at a much much lower cost point. Remove the minimum wage barrier and an individual with no skills but a willingness to work could support himself in a reasonably healthy lifestyle at $4/hr. This would, IMHO, go much further to solving these issues.
- boston_clone 5y ago
  It sounds like you’re advocating for a $4 minimum wage and a living situation that requires a vehicle, while only providing anecdata and opinion in attempt to contradict the very qualitative and well-studied benefits of social programs. Is that accurate? I think it’s fair to say that quality of life can reach far and beyond the kind of conditions you’re describing, especially given the surplus of wealth that goes towards other government services. As a taxpayer with representation, I would prefer to see more of my dollars go toward raising the lowest standard, not rationalizing poverty for the sake of an impressive military.

3dee 5y ago

Maybe it depends on the country. But after working with homeless people in the Netherlands I completely agree with you. I helped homeless people who had a job but could not afford a house anymore for different reasons. Most were helped with housing after some time. But if that time is long the temptation to take more alcohol than you should is right around the corner.

MomoXenosaga 5y ago
The Netherlands has a pretty effective social housing program. Not flawless but millions of people have a roof over their head thanks to government assistance.
- LaurensBER 5y ago
  The effectiveness unfortunately has eroded over the past years. There's a huge supply gap in almost all major cities. Moving people to the other side of the country for a house might not always be a bad things (it could help them break away from a toxic social circle) but it also tears them away from family, their job and their support system. With the forecast being that the housing crisis will last until 2030 I'm not sure how much longer it will be effective.
- tremon 5y ago
  Recently published [1]: the waiting time for social housing has risen to over 7 years in large parts of the country. when applying for social housing in Apeldoorn, there's on average 123 applicants for each home [1] https://nos.nl/op3/artikel/2377995-sociale-huurwoning-in-zeker-een-kwart-van-de-gemeenten-wacht-je-meer-dan-7-jaar.html https://nos.nl/op3/artikel/2377995-sociale-huurwoning-in-zek...

s17n 5y ago

People aren't worried about homelessness per se, they are worried about the impact on their own quality of life, which is primarily from people with drug and mental health issues.

watt 5y ago
I am not sure why it's relevant to point this out. Actually I think it's rather heartless. Don't you have some ideals to strive for? Coming from Berlin (which has sizable population of homeless) it was shocking to see many people sleeping on the street in Belfast. There's a lot of homeless in Berlin but I guess they can go to shelter at night. Not so in Belfast.
- rualca 5y ago
  > I am not sure why it's relevant to point this out. Actually I think it's rather heartless. Don't you have some ideals to strive for? It seems you're talking past the parent comment. The fact that some people are down on their luck does not cause crime and insecurity per se. However, mental illness and drug abuse does have a considerable link with safety problems. Let's put it this way: if you grant housing to someone who suffers from drug addiction or mental illness, those person's problems and the negative impact they have on society won't go magically away. In fact, think about it for a minute: why are homeless shelters and drug clinics notorious hotspots of insecurity?
  - lazyasciiart 5y ago
    A lot of them will magically go away, is the thing. Even more of them will magically go away if you give them actual healthcare and social workers along with the housing.
    - austincheney 5y ago
      Let’s also give them transportation, nice clothing, and fast internet so that they can apply for great jobs. Sometimes jobs are hard to get so we should also give them employment workshops and education. Even still they would be better off with an advanced degree so we should give them enrollment at a major local university. We should also give them watches, writing utensils, and brief cases so that they are prepared to take notes and be on time. We should also give them a cellphone and cell service so that they can better reach potential employers. We should also give them athletic equipment, shoes, and workout clothes because working out is necessary for optimum health. We should also give them tax exclusions because taxes are oppressive. We should also give them nice laptops in order to write their resumes and track their potential application status. We should also give them education in entrepreneurship so they can attain wealth ahead of their peers and thereby never return to homelessness. We should also purge the entirety of their criminal histories as that is a major employment discriminator. Dating is hard and loneliness is an epidemic so we should also provide exclusive access to a dating service. Then after we have given every homeless person a bunch of stuff homelessness will entirely disappear never to return right? There is no reason to think this. It makes me want to be homeless. Instead a better option is to make homelessness less attractive and less available. Homelessness is less a choice when there is nothing to enable it. How high is the homeless rate in rural North Dakota, northern Wyoming, or west Texas for example?

barrkel 5y ago

There are a lot more crazy people on US streets. Crazy as in stereotypical ranting at strangers.

mft_ 5y ago

It is something that could be dealt with, if a country chose to do so. In Switzerland I don’t think I ever saw someone living in the street. AIUI this is because every citizen has the right to housing - and because the state is compassionate/efficient/wealthy enough this is what happens.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
I lived in Lausanne and used the youth hostel when I first moved there. There was a homeless drunk guy that the police would put in the hostel every night, he smelled horrible. It wasn’t a great experience for me but at least he wasn’t sleeping on the street. Lausanne also had a lot of squatters, mostly young foreigners, but that was a completely different subculture. I never figured out why the police didn’t come down hard on them, they did on everything else.

roenxi 5y ago

The article is talking about Toronto. You're talking about London. Both of these cities have the distinction of making various lists with titles like "The 11 most expensive cities to live in around the world in 2020" [0]. So while I don't disagree that that far tail of people probably do need some welfare to get a house, I do want to state that if someone is going to get welfare so that they can live in a house, it should not be a house in London. It should be a house somewhere somewhat cheaper than London. If someone honest to goodness can't keep a roof over their heads, they deserve help but really shouldn't be trying to make it work in one of the worlds most expensive cities. [0] https://www.insider.com/most-expensive-cities-to-live-in-2020-1 https://www.insider.com/most-expensive-cities-to-live-in-202...

joshjdr 5y ago
The article is talking about tiny temporary shelters, not giving away houses, or expensive flats.
- roenxi 5y ago
  I live in one of the cities listed and if I were allowed to build my own shelter in the middle of one of it's public parks, I too would jump at the opportunity. This is some of the worlds most desirable real estate here. This isn't even a case of bad government policy, which I would usually arc up about. The article is homeless people taking over public land for private use without doing anything to justify that privilege. That isn't fair, if it is up for grabs I want it and I'd be behind a long queue of other people who want it. The right to use that land is worth a fortune. Being homeless, while sad, is not actually something that should be rewarded with free space in the centre of a metropolis. If we are going to support them, we can support them to live somewhere less desirable.
  - joshjdr 5y ago
    Consider that often these situations are temporary. And consider that cities are where support services are. And consider that if you can’t afford a home you probably can’t afford a car. I just don’t think anybody is homeless in Toronto or London or any other city for the same reasons that rich people make them expensive cities. I’m pretty sure many homeless, if offered a home in the countryside, would happily oblige.

VWWHFSfQ 5y ago

Possibly depends on the country and region. But I worked very closely with the homeless population in Seattle from 2001-2010 and the key issues prevalent in almost every case was chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, and mental illness. I left Seattle in 2010 and went back a couple years ago to visit and it looked like the homeless population had doubled in the time since. Seattle has an enormous problem that they have no idea how to solve.

DennisP 5y ago
Were they addicted or mentally ill before they became homeless?
- bregma 5y ago
  My wife is a welfare case worker and freely shares her experience with this sort of thing at the end of her day. It is her observation that mental illness tends to precede everything. It tends to be what leads to addiction, though self-medication. It tends to lead to homelessness through a lack of cooperation with the housing providers, with the welfare providers who would pay for housing, or with the ability to live in a closed space. Even if your rent is paid by the state the landlord will kick you out for destroying property. When the leprechaun tells you to burn things, don't light a fire on your bed. There are the generationally poor, the people whose luck took a turn for the worse, and refugees from violence but those populations don't usually end up living rough unless they also develop mental illness.

Aerroon 5y ago

>When governments don't provide good welfare nets, social housing, and social services to help people, homelessness is higher. It's not just about what they provide, but also how they provide it. If the bureaucracy to take advantage of these housing benefits is too thick, then the people that need it the most won't be able to get them. This is one thing where individuals trying to help are likely going to do better. An individual isn't going to have a bureaucratic mess that you need to navigate to get help. The government might have such a mess though.

paganel 5y ago

> (a) the difference in prevalence of homelessness between countries, This is not repeated as often as it should. I live in an Eastern European country, not a poor one but definitely not a rich one, and only recently I have learned about LA's Skid Row. Because I was curious I went on Google StreetView and what I saw there [1] literally shocked me, I didn't honestly think scenes like that were possible in a developed country. We certainly don't have them here in my country, we do have our share of people living rough [2] and the like but not on the same scale as I saw in those photos. This is a failure for the US society as a whole, I am really surprised it's not a bigger discussion topic in the US mainstream media (at least I wasn't able to see it). [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0437952,-118.2431811,3a,48.9y,186.5h,84.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0P17yV0-3vt6UBlfiH5kAg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0437952,-118.2431811,3a,48.9... [2] https://www.scena9.ro/article/segregare-romi-pata-rat-cluj https://www.scena9.ro/article/segregare-romi-pata-rat-cluj

Mediterraneo10 5y ago
Romania has its plethora of (mainly Roma) shantytowns across the country, like Pata Rât which you link. But reasons why no one resorts to tents on a sidewalk are e.g. 1) weather in Romania is more or less the same across the country, unlike California which draws homeless from across the country for its clement weather, and 2) the Romanian authorities are more hands-off with enforcing building codes in Roma settlements, so you can erect actual buildings. Also, perhaps emigration to Western Europe has served as a safety valve for homelessness. Some down-and-out Romanians can move to Italy or Spain and immediately improve their prospects. Down-and-out Americans, on the other hand, have nowhere to go so easily.
- BoardsOfCanada 5y ago
  Actually only a small minority of California's homeless come from another state. "L.A.H.S.A.’s 2019 homeless count found that 64 percent of the 58,936 Los Angeles County residents experiencing homelessness had lived in the city for more than 10 years. Less than a fifth (18 percent) said they had lived out of state before becoming homeless." http://homelessperspective.com/2019/11/08/where-does-californias-homeless-population-come-from/ http://homelessperspective.com/2019/11/08/where-does-califor...

throwaway189262 5y ago

It's housing costs entertwined with mental problems and drug use. In many countries you can afford a shack with US equivalent of $100 a month. In rich countries such shacks are illegal and all the regulation and land cost raises minimum rent far above that. At least 2/3 of homeless are addicted or mentally ill. The fraction that isn't typically doesn't live on the streets for more than a few months. In my experience you don't see many homeless in poorer countries because housing is cheap relatively speaking.

foobarian 5y ago
> In my experience you don't see many homeless in poorer countries because housing is cheap relatively speaking. I also wonder how much more likely certain countries are to quietly move mental health cases into clinics. This implies a whole lot of things about freedoms and due process.
skissane 5y ago
> In my experience you don't see many homeless in poorer countries because housing is cheap relatively speaking. India has well over a million homeless people, including (by some accounts) over 100,000 in the capital Delhi. I personally remember seeing quite a few people who appeared homeless in Delhi, including families squatting in historical sites (the Old Fort). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_India
- throwaway189262 5y ago
  Big cities in places like India and China are an exception. In these places average salary can be 10X higher than rural areas of the same province. Because the big cities are much father along towards being developed country than outskirts. So housing here is expensive and has the same result. There are people making $2000 a year living in heated somewhat comfortable homes. Homeless in the US make more than that just in welfare benefits but they live in tents on the streets
randomsearch 5y ago
> In many countries you can afford a shack with US equivalent of $100 a month. Not in Western Europe, which shows that it is a problem with the US.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

In my city in the states, easy homelessness cases are easy to treat so they get treated, and plucked from the pool of visible homeless rather quickly as they obtain and maintain transitional housing. That leaves behind a lot of chronic cases that aren’t easy to just throw some resources at, the ones where drugs and mental illness are involved. Also, the more successful anyone city treats its problem, the worse it becomes if the larger context it exists in doesn’t treat it as well. For example, I read a story about an ex-con who is released from a prison in Texas, is given a bus ticket to go anywhere, and picks Seattle (not having ever been there) because they hear that is the place to be right now (they might have picked LA before). So the problem is influenced by regional and National governments as well, one city or even metro can’t work alone its way out of the problem. I imagine it’s similar in the UK, just maybe on a smaller case (our problem over here has exploded in the last decade).

bradleyjg 5y ago

(b) the difference in prevalence over short time periods within the same country, to see that it is government policy that large determines the extent of homelessness. In NYC that difference in policy was not anything to do with social welfare payments. It was a reduction in arrests for quality of life crimes. Fewer people in jail, more on the streets. At least in the medium term—-in the decades’ long view the larger change was closing the big mental institutions in favor of “community treatment”. It’s worth noting that NYC is legally obligated to provide a bed for everyone. The people on the street don’t want to use the shelter system for a mixture of reasons.

marksbrown 5y ago

Precisely. Due to the pandemic we now know two things in the UK. First that there are 9 times as many homeless as stats claim and second that all people can be housed. This is due to the fact that this was accomplished during the first lockdown. There just has to be political will.

diogenescynic 5y ago

I’m all for helping the homeless who are mentally ill or due to being working poor, but in America we see a lot who just don’t want to obey rules or follow society’s laws and homelessness is a lifestyle choice. They’d rather just steal bikes and do meth in the park. I’m sick of those scumbags and wish we’d actually arrest them for all the damage they cause. They are causing massive environmental damage and we just shrug it off. Can’t even go to a lot of parks without feeling unsafe. Beaches have needles in the sand in LA. It’s just disgusting what we are allowing such a small percent of the population do to the rest. I don’t think society should have to bend over backwards for people who refuse to help themselves and only negatively impact society. The homeless gutter punks with pit bulls on Haight and Ashbury shouldn’t be getting government support just because they want to be a loser.

redis_mlc 5y ago

> it seems to me that many people think drugs and mental health issues are the key causes. This is untrue. In the US it is true. Men are not eligible for welfare in he US, and police dedicated to homeless areas report 100% are on drugs.

BackBlast 5y ago

> When governments don't provide good welfare nets, social housing, and social services to help people, homelessness is higher. Such social services are, themselves, often chains that bind people down. The requirements to receive them often lead people away from incremental work that would allow them to dip their toes in and potentially get back on their feet. Minimum wage laws increase the barriers further for the down and out. Additionally, there is a kind of depression that hits when you are not providing for yourself. Especially for men. It's my opinion it's the barriers we build that's the root cause of the cost minimums. The tight and restrictive zoning laws are more to blame for homelessness. Restrictive zoning cause the minimum income level to get housing to be quite elevated, and if you find yourself below that level - you are homeless. Minimum wage barriers to work stem from pricing caused by the zoning. If a society is able to lower that minimum income level significantly, then there will be a lot fewer on the streets. I always fancied allowing for parking lots that let people live out of their cars, or a tent if you can't manage a car. The lots could charge for rent and provide basic amenities such as bathrooms, wifi, communal kitchen, and maybe power for a heated blanket. Then pretty much any down and out commercial property could be turned into such a lot without much work. Here the minimum rent is about $1000/mo, if you're willing to be a roommate you can get that down to about $500/mo. A car-turned-home-lot at local real estate prices could support rents as low as $75-100/mo per slot and be quite profitable for the lot owner. If done as a non-profit it could be $40-50/mo at current interest rates. An order of magnitude lower. Such options give people the dignity and self respect of caring for themselves. And accomplish it at a much much lower cost point. Remove the minimum wage barrier and an individual with no skills but a willingness to work could support himself in a reasonably healthy lifestyle at $4/hr. This would, IMHO, go much further to solving these issues.

boston_clone 5y ago
It sounds like you’re advocating for a $4 minimum wage and a living situation that requires a vehicle, while only providing anecdata and opinion in attempt to contradict the very qualitative and well-studied benefits of social programs. Is that accurate? I think it’s fair to say that quality of life can reach far and beyond the kind of conditions you’re describing, especially given the surplus of wealth that goes towards other government services. As a taxpayer with representation, I would prefer to see more of my dollars go toward raising the lowest standard, not rationalizing poverty for the sake of an impressive military.