3 ms·
>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" a
by 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?
- gruez 5y ago> Or am I missing something? You seemed to have missed the point of my comment. I'm not advocating for/against whether "homeless" should count people who are living with others due to economic necessity. I'm pointing out that heavyset_go's definition of "homeless" likely differs drastically than the one used by honksillet, and that him sneakily changing the definition to make a counterclaim is misleading at best.
- nobody9999 5y agoAnd you seem to have missed the point of mine. Which was that the "definitions" of homelessness you're comparing aren't really relevant to whether or not homelessness is primarily an economic issue. I'd add that nitpicking about those definitions doesn't add anything to the discussion, nor does it elucidate anything useful or interesting IMHO. It's pretty clear that the vast majority of homelessness, however you might reasonably define it, is related to economic hardship and insecurity.