3 ms·

> They are homeless for six weeks or fewer; 40 percent have a job. Huh. So whenever a city pats itself on it's back for how many people it has homed, it's very

> They are homeless for six weeks or fewer; 40 percent have a job. Huh. So whenever a city pats itself on it's back for how many people it has homed, it's very likely the majority were people who were going to get back on their feet anyway.

tjr225 4y ago
I think it takes a pretty extreme leap of mental gymnastics to figure out how to look at this in a negative light.
- cudgy 4y ago
  Is it negative to criticize a statistic for including short term homeless people who would have resolved their homelessness without aid in the total for homeless aided by the city of Houston? Seems like a valid point despite the positive result. At the least, a consistent measure should be used when comparing statistics between cities.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    It's taking only an external view of homelessness: what are its effects on me and people like me. It completely ignores the consequences and experiences of being homeless: losing possessions, damaging relationships, stretching support networks, risk of acquiring long-term health and legal problems. It's a "valid point" as far as you're talking about numbers not people but I don't think you should feel so comfortable only going that far.
    - ryan93 4y ago
      Actually people want to know about the street homeless and if they are being housed. You are being holier than thou
- legitster 4y ago
  I don't get why this isn't a fair criticism. My city has both spent a record-breaking amount on homelessness and yet still has record breaking numbers of homeless. It seems worth pointing out that these programs might not be doing what we think they are.
ebiester 4y ago
However, even if we say that the majority were indeed people who would be back on their feet, any effort to prevent these people from dropping into chronic state is a continual savings.
ry4nolson 4y ago
no, the article says the opposite, these policies are specifically for the chronically homeless and "most vulnerable". These are not the ones most likely to get back on their feet.

tjr225 4y ago

I think it takes a pretty extreme leap of mental gymnastics to figure out how to look at this in a negative light.

cudgy 4y ago
Is it negative to criticize a statistic for including short term homeless people who would have resolved their homelessness without aid in the total for homeless aided by the city of Houston? Seems like a valid point despite the positive result. At the least, a consistent measure should be used when comparing statistics between cities.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  It's taking only an external view of homelessness: what are its effects on me and people like me. It completely ignores the consequences and experiences of being homeless: losing possessions, damaging relationships, stretching support networks, risk of acquiring long-term health and legal problems. It's a "valid point" as far as you're talking about numbers not people but I don't think you should feel so comfortable only going that far.
  - ryan93 4y ago
    Actually people want to know about the street homeless and if they are being housed. You are being holier than thou
legitster 4y ago
I don't get why this isn't a fair criticism. My city has both spent a record-breaking amount on homelessness and yet still has record breaking numbers of homeless. It seems worth pointing out that these programs might not be doing what we think they are.

ebiester 4y ago

However, even if we say that the majority were indeed people who would be back on their feet, any effort to prevent these people from dropping into chronic state is a continual savings.

ry4nolson 4y ago

no, the article says the opposite, these policies are specifically for the chronically homeless and "most vulnerable". These are not the ones most likely to get back on their feet.