6 ms·

Imagine if every homeless person in SF got over their drug habit or was cured of their mental illness or physical disability or what ever other issue they had t

Imagine if every homeless person in SF got over their drug habit or was cured of their mental illness or physical disability or what ever other issue they had that drove them to being homeless. Then they all got stable jobs that they were good at and happy with. What kind of jobs do you think they’d get? Would they all become SWEs making $300k? Maybe they’d be lawyers, or marketing executives, or university presidents, or hospital administrators? I doubt it. The problem is that those people aren’t going to be able to get the kinds of jobs that would make it possible to even afford rent a place here. And most homeless don’t have the kinds of issues I listed before. And many among the ones who do have those issue as a result of becoming homeless. The city can throw any amount of money at trying to help the homeless, but it’s not going to make a difference if the minimum cost of living is above what they could ever earn.

phendrenad2 5y ago
They'd move out of SF, something they can't do now due to the availability of drugs, good weather, and sympathetic tourists with money to spare.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  It's really great that you can blame your problems on tourists.
trident5000 5y ago
You cant live in San Francisco then. Pack your bags and live somewhere you can afford. That may sound harsh but its reality. You're not entitled to live anywhere you want just like i cant live on billionaires row in manhattan. edit: should have known this wouldnt be popular considering half of HN is trapped in cali absurd prices but refuse to leave. Too bad. Applies to you as well.
- gregable 5y ago
  That's a common response. The problem is that it ignores the fact that San Francisco needs those people to fill jobs that need doing. https://nyti.ms/3yuq3nX https://nyti.ms/3yuq3nX The common response to that then is then we should just raise the pay in an area until every job pays enough to afford to live there, or if not those jobs are clearly not important enough. The problem is that the number of these jobs is growing faster than housing stock. Market forces can't solve the problem of more jobs than homes unless you can build homes or destroy jobs. Take a look at https://bit.ly/36ySeFS https://bit.ly/36ySeFS - Santa Clara County added 300,000 jobs between 2010 and 2020 while building around 6,000 homes per year (5 jobs per home). SF is the same story: total housing units in San Francisco increased by about 23,000 from 2010 to 2018 (https://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/1996.0013CWP_2018_Presentation.pdf https://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/1996.0013CWP_2..., slide 6). Total employment in San Francisco during the same period grew by almost 300,000. Seattle: total housing units in Seattle from 2010 to 2019 grew by about 59,000 homes (https://www.seattle.gov/opcd/population-and-demographics/about-seattle#housing https://www.seattle.gov/opcd/population-and-demographics/abo...). Total employment (labor force) in Seattle during the same period grew by 243,000 (https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LAUDV534264400000006?amp%253bdata_tool=XGtable&output_view=data&include_graphs=true https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LAUDV534264400000006?amp%253...)
  - trident5000 5y ago
    If you really need them, then pay them more. Otherwise you dont need them do you. People dont want to pay a business enough so they can hire people? Then you dont get the business. Economics works itself out if you let it.
    - timdev2 5y ago
      I feel like you didn't really address anything past the second sentence of the comment you were responding to. > Economics works itself out if you let it. Sure. But exclusive single-family zoning, for example, isn't exactly "letting it".
    - nate_meurer 5y ago
      > Economics works itself out if you let it. It's not just the businesses that are lost. Entire towns are at risk. We're facing the same problem in a lot of small mountain towns here in Colorado. Businesses can't hire because workers can't afford to leave anywhere near. The poor business environment and rising prices destroys the quality of life for locals, and the feedback can drain the population. I feel like this is an experiment that hasn't been fully conducted on a large scale anywhere, but I fear it will be soon.
- maybelsyrup 5y ago
  There shouldn't be a billionaire's row in Manhattan. There shouldn't be billionaires.
  - trident5000 5y ago
    People who win your dollar vote can have as many value exchanges as they want and deserve to keep it. And a quick reminder than spacex and tesla wouldnt exist if it were up to you.
    - maybelsyrup 5y ago
      > And a quick reminder than spacex and tesla wouldnt exist if it were up to you. You're doing my work for me here, pal. Where do I sign up?
      - trident5000 5y ago
        You're a pretty depressing example of a human if you're not rooting for innovative companies that are creating the future. Maybe get beyond your own ego and root for others sometime.
        maybelsyrup 5y ago
        > if you're not rooting for innovative companies > root for others sometime. I'll root for those companies when they start rooting for me, and for the rest of us. My objection to those firms, and to the obscene individual wealth of the people who own them, isn't about innovation, it's about them as "companies", as immortal legal persons whose fundamental purpose is the enrichment of their owners. That they make rockets or hastily-made electric cars is incidental, and so is the fact that we're allowed the great privilege of working in them until we're laid off. They don't exist for us; they exist for the owner. The nanosecond that making space toys or vroom-vrooms or employing you and me works against those people's interests, well, poof, there will go the rockets and cars and you and me. > that are creating the future I'd laugh if this weren't so terribly sad. What future, exactly? Firms like these have been "innovating" and "building the future" for a good century now, and doing so in that exact Harvard Business Review jargon for at least my own lifetime. You're right that they have the future in their hands -- collectively, they have the most power and wealth of (nearly) any entity on the planet -- but what future have they delivered? A dying planet, endless war, no real wage increase in half a century -- that future? Millions homeless in the wealthiest polity in world history -- maybe that one? The unhoused, or maybe the ones driven into penury by healthcare "costs"? The implication that we should be somehow thankful for these people and their legal structures is like ... I don't know. Where's your self-respect? Where are your standards? How bout this, I'll make you a deal: I'll work on getting "beyond my own ego" if you ask yourself sincerely why you believe what you wrote.
honksillet 5y ago
In my experience the percentage of homeless that have serious addiction issue (alcohol, meth or heroin) approaches 100%
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  In the US, the majority of homeless people are homeless for economic reasons[1], and not because of mental illness or addiction. [1] https://nlchp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Homeless_Stats_Fact_Sheet.pdf https://nlchp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Homeless_Stats_...
  - gruez 5y ago
    Your document doesn't really support your claim. >at least 2.5 to 3.5 million Americans sleep in shelters, transitional housing, and public places not meant for human habitation [...] At least an additional 7.4 million have lost their own homes and are doubled-up with others due to economic necessity In other words, if we expand the definition of homeless to include people who are living with others "due to economic necessity", then most of the "homeless" are homeless for economic reasons. That's not exactly the same as "most people who are conventionally homeless (for a lack of a better term) are homeless for economic reasons". When you say "homeless", most people think of "sleeping on the streets", not "crashing at a friends house".
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >In other words, if we expand the definition of homeless to include people who are living with others "due to economic necessity", then most of the "homeless" are homeless for economic reasons. That's not exactly the same as "most people who are conventionally homeless (for a lack of a better term) are homeless for economic reasons". When you say "homeless", most people think of "sleeping on the streets", not "crashing at a friends house". That seems to be a distinction without a difference, IMHO. If you have friends who will let you crash on their couch, does that make you less homeless than if you don't have any friends? Or at least none that will let you crash on their couch? The vast majority of homeless people wouldn't be homeless if they could afford to rent/buy housing. That sounds like economic reasons to me. Or am I missing something?
jdgoesmarching 5y ago
The point of the article is that the homeless need homes. It is encouraging the city to spend money on that, which seems to address your main point.
- Romanulus 5y ago
  Like a kid with a new drivers permit needs a new garage.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The problem is that those people aren’t going to be able to get the kinds of jobs that would make it possible to even afford rent a place here. Even people with decent jobs in the core Bay Area cities (or even the peripheral ones) often commute in from some place more peripheral and cheaper to live then where their jobs are located.
DantesKite 5y ago
Amazon could always use more workers. But I agree with you about the rising cost of housing. It's ridiculous.
moralestapia 5y ago
>Imagine if every homeless person in SF got over their drug habit or was cured of their mental illness or physical disability or what ever other issue they had that drove them to being homeless. Wow, privilege makes you blind, indeed.
letitbeirie 5y ago
> The problem is that those people aren’t going to be able to get the kinds of jobs that would make it possible to even afford rent a place here. So we're back to bus tickets, then? Only partly joking because you're completely right. I'm not sure a path from homelessness to financial stability really exists in San Francisco right now.

phendrenad2 5y ago

They'd move out of SF, something they can't do now due to the availability of drugs, good weather, and sympathetic tourists with money to spare.

jessaustin 5y ago
It's really great that you can blame your problems on tourists.

trident5000 5y ago

You cant live in San Francisco then. Pack your bags and live somewhere you can afford. That may sound harsh but its reality. You're not entitled to live anywhere you want just like i cant live on billionaires row in manhattan. edit: should have known this wouldnt be popular considering half of HN is trapped in cali absurd prices but refuse to leave. Too bad. Applies to you as well.

gregable 5y ago
That's a common response. The problem is that it ignores the fact that San Francisco needs those people to fill jobs that need doing. https://nyti.ms/3yuq3nX https://nyti.ms/3yuq3nX The common response to that then is then we should just raise the pay in an area until every job pays enough to afford to live there, or if not those jobs are clearly not important enough. The problem is that the number of these jobs is growing faster than housing stock. Market forces can't solve the problem of more jobs than homes unless you can build homes or destroy jobs. Take a look at https://bit.ly/36ySeFS https://bit.ly/36ySeFS - Santa Clara County added 300,000 jobs between 2010 and 2020 while building around 6,000 homes per year (5 jobs per home). SF is the same story: total housing units in San Francisco increased by about 23,000 from 2010 to 2018 (https://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/1996.0013CWP_2018_Presentation.pdf https://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/1996.0013CWP_2..., slide 6). Total employment in San Francisco during the same period grew by almost 300,000. Seattle: total housing units in Seattle from 2010 to 2019 grew by about 59,000 homes (https://www.seattle.gov/opcd/population-and-demographics/about-seattle#housing https://www.seattle.gov/opcd/population-and-demographics/abo...). Total employment (labor force) in Seattle during the same period grew by 243,000 (https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LAUDV534264400000006?amp%253bdata_tool=XGtable&output_view=data&include_graphs=true https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LAUDV534264400000006?amp%253...)
- trident5000 5y ago
  If you really need them, then pay them more. Otherwise you dont need them do you. People dont want to pay a business enough so they can hire people? Then you dont get the business. Economics works itself out if you let it.
  - timdev2 5y ago
    I feel like you didn't really address anything past the second sentence of the comment you were responding to. > Economics works itself out if you let it. Sure. But exclusive single-family zoning, for example, isn't exactly "letting it".
  - nate_meurer 5y ago
    > Economics works itself out if you let it. It's not just the businesses that are lost. Entire towns are at risk. We're facing the same problem in a lot of small mountain towns here in Colorado. Businesses can't hire because workers can't afford to leave anywhere near. The poor business environment and rising prices destroys the quality of life for locals, and the feedback can drain the population. I feel like this is an experiment that hasn't been fully conducted on a large scale anywhere, but I fear it will be soon.
maybelsyrup 5y ago
There shouldn't be a billionaire's row in Manhattan. There shouldn't be billionaires.
- trident5000 5y ago
  People who win your dollar vote can have as many value exchanges as they want and deserve to keep it. And a quick reminder than spacex and tesla wouldnt exist if it were up to you.
  - maybelsyrup 5y ago
    > And a quick reminder than spacex and tesla wouldnt exist if it were up to you. You're doing my work for me here, pal. Where do I sign up?
    - trident5000 5y ago
      You're a pretty depressing example of a human if you're not rooting for innovative companies that are creating the future. Maybe get beyond your own ego and root for others sometime.
      - maybelsyrup 5y ago
        > if you're not rooting for innovative companies > root for others sometime. I'll root for those companies when they start rooting for me, and for the rest of us. My objection to those firms, and to the obscene individual wealth of the people who own them, isn't about innovation, it's about them as "companies", as immortal legal persons whose fundamental purpose is the enrichment of their owners. That they make rockets or hastily-made electric cars is incidental, and so is the fact that we're allowed the great privilege of working in them until we're laid off. They don't exist for us; they exist for the owner. The nanosecond that making space toys or vroom-vrooms or employing you and me works against those people's interests, well, poof, there will go the rockets and cars and you and me. > that are creating the future I'd laugh if this weren't so terribly sad. What future, exactly? Firms like these have been "innovating" and "building the future" for a good century now, and doing so in that exact Harvard Business Review jargon for at least my own lifetime. You're right that they have the future in their hands -- collectively, they have the most power and wealth of (nearly) any entity on the planet -- but what future have they delivered? A dying planet, endless war, no real wage increase in half a century -- that future? Millions homeless in the wealthiest polity in world history -- maybe that one? The unhoused, or maybe the ones driven into penury by healthcare "costs"? The implication that we should be somehow thankful for these people and their legal structures is like ... I don't know. Where's your self-respect? Where are your standards? How bout this, I'll make you a deal: I'll work on getting "beyond my own ego" if you ask yourself sincerely why you believe what you wrote.

honksillet 5y ago

In my experience the percentage of homeless that have serious addiction issue (alcohol, meth or heroin) approaches 100%

heavyset_go 5y ago
In the US, the majority of homeless people are homeless for economic reasons[1], and not because of mental illness or addiction. [1] https://nlchp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Homeless_Stats_Fact_Sheet.pdf https://nlchp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Homeless_Stats_...
- gruez 5y ago
  Your document doesn't really support your claim. >at least 2.5 to 3.5 million Americans sleep in shelters, transitional housing, and public places not meant for human habitation [...] At least an additional 7.4 million have lost their own homes and are doubled-up with others due to economic necessity In other words, if we expand the definition of homeless to include people who are living with others "due to economic necessity", then most of the "homeless" are homeless for economic reasons. That's not exactly the same as "most people who are conventionally homeless (for a lack of a better term) are homeless for economic reasons". When you say "homeless", most people think of "sleeping on the streets", not "crashing at a friends house".
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >In other words, if we expand the definition of homeless to include people who are living with others "due to economic necessity", then most of the "homeless" are homeless for economic reasons. That's not exactly the same as "most people who are conventionally homeless (for a lack of a better term) are homeless for economic reasons". When you say "homeless", most people think of "sleeping on the streets", not "crashing at a friends house". That seems to be a distinction without a difference, IMHO. If you have friends who will let you crash on their couch, does that make you less homeless than if you don't have any friends? Or at least none that will let you crash on their couch? The vast majority of homeless people wouldn't be homeless if they could afford to rent/buy housing. That sounds like economic reasons to me. Or am I missing something?

jdgoesmarching 5y ago

The point of the article is that the homeless need homes. It is encouraging the city to spend money on that, which seems to address your main point.

Romanulus 5y ago
Like a kid with a new drivers permit needs a new garage.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The problem is that those people aren’t going to be able to get the kinds of jobs that would make it possible to even afford rent a place here. Even people with decent jobs in the core Bay Area cities (or even the peripheral ones) often commute in from some place more peripheral and cheaper to live then where their jobs are located.

DantesKite 5y ago

Amazon could always use more workers. But I agree with you about the rising cost of housing. It's ridiculous.

moralestapia 5y ago

>Imagine if every homeless person in SF got over their drug habit or was cured of their mental illness or physical disability or what ever other issue they had that drove them to being homeless. Wow, privilege makes you blind, indeed.

letitbeirie 5y ago

> The problem is that those people aren’t going to be able to get the kinds of jobs that would make it possible to even afford rent a place here. So we're back to bus tickets, then? Only partly joking because you're completely right. I'm not sure a path from homelessness to financial stability really exists in San Francisco right now.