3 ms·
> for six weeks or fewer; 40 percent have a job. I said years ago (during occupy wallstreet), that I think this class of person isn't homeless, they're friendl
by maerF0x0 4y ago
> for six weeks or fewer; 40 percent have a job.
I said years ago (during occupy wallstreet), that I think this class of person isn't homeless, they're friendless. Someone shouldnt be homeless for less than a month, with a job, so long as they have a few friends with a couch.
EDIT: Yeah yeah, edge cases, families etc. The problem scales with the quality of friend groups you have. And in the most extreme I'd expect collaborative groups to step in -- eg: for a family of 4 I'd expect my church to collectively solve this.
- hef19898 4y agoNobody should be homeless, period. I know that homelessness is unavoidable, so I'll settle for nobody should be homeless with a job. And if unemplyed a social security net in a developed nation has to be strong enough to avoid tgat. Relying on friends and family is poor societies safety net, a rich coubtry counting on that took capitalism one step too far.
- maerF0x0 4y agoInteresting take. From my PoV I see a society that's rich in social fabric (such as relationships) to be a rich society, not a poor one. Perhaps I think I kinda get the angle you're hammering on though? Are you kind of talking similar to the Walmart +EBT, right? ie No employer should get to pay so little that the tax payer subsidizes the worker's basic needs? For that I sort of agree-- albeit IMO a big part of the issue is rising costs of living, not a lack of pay raises... Pay raises are in the locus of control of a business, but a lack of housing supply caused by NIMBYism is not.