5 ms·
The article doesn't differentiate between short term homeless and longterm perpetual homeless. That itself is a good clue that the author is clueless.
by vorpalhex 4y ago
The article doesn't differentiate between short term homeless and longterm perpetual homeless.
That itself is a good clue that the author is clueless.
- dang 4y agoPlease make your substantive points without swipes, name-calling, or shallow-dismissals: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Your comment would be fine without that last sentence, which managed to do all three.
- sieabahlpark 4y agoWith all due respect, why is this article even approved here? This is something I'd expect on /r/politics, not a technical news feed. It's blog spam that can be summarized to something like "here is the problem, upvote to show you agree that this is a problem"
- dang 4y agoHN is explicitly not just a technical news feed. It is for anything that gratifies intellectual curiosity. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. I'm not saying that this article does gratify intellectual curiosity! but the assumption in your question is mistaken.
- nocoolnametom 4y agoFrom the article: > Homelessness is best understood as a “flow” problem, not a “stock” problem. Not that many Americans are _chronically_ homeless—the problem, rather, is the millions of people who are precariously situated on the cliff of financial stability, people for whom a divorce, a lost job, a fight with a roommate, or a medical event can result in homelessness. According to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, roughly 207 people get rehoused daily across the county—but 227 get pushed into homelessness. The crisis is driven by a constant flow of people losing their housing.