5 ms·

>" As unpopular as it may sound, the reason we have so many homeless is that the people who have more deciding power decide to vote to focus on very different i

by nickff 5y ago

>" As unpopular as it may sound, the reason we have so many homeless is that the people who have more deciding power decide to vote to focus on very different issues. Slowly more people slip through the cracks into homelessness and lose all their power, and fewer people are left to care about them and vote in their interest." I think your points are actually the popular ones. The less-popular view is that the current homeless crisis is highly correlated with drug-addiction, and it's not clear that just providing housing to fentanyl addicts will solve it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
spaetzleesser 5y ago
The question is what came first. The drug addiction or homelessness? I think a lot of people see that even if they work hard they won't go anywhere so they give up. When I grew up in Germany we had neighbors where the dad had no education, worked in a warehouse, had a house, 3 children and the mom stayed at home. In the same area now they can barely scrape by if both parents work full time. Add some mental problems to this and you quickly drop out because there is no safetey margin left these days.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  No Safety margin makes it much more unlikely for the same person to make sacrifices for the future as well. There are variations of the 'marshmallow test' in which the person introducing the test lies to the child before presenting them with the choice of delaying gratification. The number of children holding out for a second marshmallow in those instances drops noticeably, and it's not hard to imagine why. Delaying gratification presupposes that the future is somewhat predictable.
buran77 5y ago
When I say unpopular I mean in the way in which very few people vote to focus on fixing homelessness rather than something that personally benefits them, yet almost nobody would ever accept this is at least partly their failure and their will to have it like this. You'll always hear people priding themselves in living in a democracy, having the power to decide, and yet when any such failure of the majority to care for the minority is pointed out it conspicuously always falls on someone else's shoulders. It's the fentanyl, they're all lazy, it's their lifestyle. People will not waste a second bragging about the good things they did with their power to vote but will always implicitly support leaving hundreds of thousands of their own people in the dirt just so the price of their real-estate is maintained, or ravaging entire nations on the other side of the world to have a cheaper tank of gas.
fundad 5y ago
It solves it as much as a family taking in a family member with addiction problems. A family can’t be sure they can cure a person, but it’s an alternative to (and possibly a precursor to living on the street. Many people don’t have that alternative.
ihaveajob 5y ago
SF doesn't rank anywhere near the top in terms of drug use/overdoses, a title merited by some Midwest cities such as Omaha. This would clearly invalidate the drug-addiction -> homelessness cause and effect. The data I've seen points in the other direction: A majority of homeless drug addicts started using AFTER they became addicts. I imagine once you're at the bottom and have little hope to improve, it's easy to give in to abandon.
- ihaveajob 5y ago
  In other words: In cities with cheap housing, even the drug addicts can afford a home, which is a GOOD thing IMO. For everybody, homeless and housed.
  - tehwebguy 5y ago
    Agreed! It’s not like none of the homeowners or folks in luxury apartments in SF are using recreational drugs, they are just doing it in private because they can.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      Yep, this is what I saw when I moved from the worst schooling filter district in GA to the best in the state. AFAICT wealthy people use drugs more than poor people, as drugs cost nontrivial amounts of money. Wealthy people just have safety nets that allow them to take greater risks.
      - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        Wealthy people can also avoid the cheap crappy fentanyl that is in mass circulation right now. Fentanyl is a huge problem for the unhoused here in Seattle, many of them are probably beyond rehabilitation and will require lots of help for the rest of their lives, it is really sad.
        monocasa 5y ago
BeFlatXIII 5y ago
It would help to make a distinction between those who become homeless because they're addicts and those who became addicts because they were homeless. Providing housing to the later group would slow the growth of long-term homelessness by not letting people fall so far that they get stuck on the addict path.
sitkack 5y ago
This is trope that reinforces itself here. It gets repeated without evidence quite often.

by nickff 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

spaetzleesser 5y ago

The question is what came first. The drug addiction or homelessness? I think a lot of people see that even if they work hard they won't go anywhere so they give up. When I grew up in Germany we had neighbors where the dad had no education, worked in a warehouse, had a house, 3 children and the mom stayed at home. In the same area now they can barely scrape by if both parents work full time. Add some mental problems to this and you quickly drop out because there is no safetey margin left these days.

SuoDuanDao 5y ago
No Safety margin makes it much more unlikely for the same person to make sacrifices for the future as well. There are variations of the 'marshmallow test' in which the person introducing the test lies to the child before presenting them with the choice of delaying gratification. The number of children holding out for a second marshmallow in those instances drops noticeably, and it's not hard to imagine why. Delaying gratification presupposes that the future is somewhat predictable.

buran77 5y ago

When I say unpopular I mean in the way in which very few people vote to focus on fixing homelessness rather than something that personally benefits them, yet almost nobody would ever accept this is at least partly their failure and their will to have it like this. You'll always hear people priding themselves in living in a democracy, having the power to decide, and yet when any such failure of the majority to care for the minority is pointed out it conspicuously always falls on someone else's shoulders. It's the fentanyl, they're all lazy, it's their lifestyle. People will not waste a second bragging about the good things they did with their power to vote but will always implicitly support leaving hundreds of thousands of their own people in the dirt just so the price of their real-estate is maintained, or ravaging entire nations on the other side of the world to have a cheaper tank of gas.

fundad 5y ago

It solves it as much as a family taking in a family member with addiction problems. A family can’t be sure they can cure a person, but it’s an alternative to (and possibly a precursor to living on the street. Many people don’t have that alternative.

ihaveajob 5y ago

SF doesn't rank anywhere near the top in terms of drug use/overdoses, a title merited by some Midwest cities such as Omaha. This would clearly invalidate the drug-addiction -> homelessness cause and effect. The data I've seen points in the other direction: A majority of homeless drug addicts started using AFTER they became addicts. I imagine once you're at the bottom and have little hope to improve, it's easy to give in to abandon.

ihaveajob 5y ago
In other words: In cities with cheap housing, even the drug addicts can afford a home, which is a GOOD thing IMO. For everybody, homeless and housed.
- tehwebguy 5y ago
  Agreed! It’s not like none of the homeowners or folks in luxury apartments in SF are using recreational drugs, they are just doing it in private because they can.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    Yep, this is what I saw when I moved from the worst schooling filter district in GA to the best in the state. AFAICT wealthy people use drugs more than poor people, as drugs cost nontrivial amounts of money. Wealthy people just have safety nets that allow them to take greater risks.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      Wealthy people can also avoid the cheap crappy fentanyl that is in mass circulation right now. Fentanyl is a huge problem for the unhoused here in Seattle, many of them are probably beyond rehabilitation and will require lots of help for the rest of their lives, it is really sad.
      - monocasa 5y ago

BeFlatXIII 5y ago

It would help to make a distinction between those who become homeless because they're addicts and those who became addicts because they were homeless. Providing housing to the later group would slow the growth of long-term homelessness by not letting people fall so far that they get stuck on the addict path.

sitkack 5y ago

This is trope that reinforces itself here. It gets repeated without evidence quite often.