3 ms·

No it is not. Raising rent is a correlated effect, not a causation. All cases of homelessness are highly individualized. They usually follow a pattern such as t

No it is not. Raising rent is a correlated effect, not a causation. All cases of homelessness are highly individualized. They usually follow a pattern such as this: 1. The setup: Some sort of condition or pattern of life choices that isn't intrinsically harmful, but combined with other things, will become overwhelming once the bottom drops out. The lack of community and isolation from a support network are key indicators that a person is at risk. 2. An Event: divorce, disease, severe mental illness, tragedy, etc that causes their steady state to change significantly. 3. An Aftermath: Poor coping mechanisms such as hard drug usage, alcoholism, and other short sighted choices, combined with the inability to bounce back from things in step 1, lead to the bottom falling out. With no support network, the individual falls out of normal society and ends up on the street. Addictions can develop and the person becomes trapped. ^ These three things aren't mine, It's something a social worker pointed out to me.

jeffbee 4y ago
This theory is wrong and it is easy to see why. Rates of homelessness are not correlated with "life choices" or "events" at all. Mental illness rates don't vary much geographically and they don't correlate with homelessness. Same with drug abuse and disease. However housing costs are very strongly correlated with homelessness. Great book on the subject: https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/ https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/ Edit: prospective reply guys need to explain why W. Virginia, the place with by far the biggest drug abuse problem, also has the least homelessness.
- anm89 4y ago
  > Rates of homelessness are not correlated with "life choices" What could this possibly even mean? Someone roles a dice and then somebody materializes on the side of the road with a tent and a shopping cart and a fentanyl addiction? This person just existed in a choiceless state up until the exact moment where the gained agency and simultaneously became homeless?
  - janalsncm 4y ago
    It means that poor choices and addiction can’t explain why San Francisco has so much higher homelessness than other places like West Virginia, which has much higher addiction rates.
    - anm89 4y ago
      It certainly does not mean that poor choices and addiction haven't lead to any or even most of the outcomes in SF. It means that the exact combination of dynamics in SF have produced different rates of homelessness than other places. Nothing more or less. It does not even come close to justifying the statement > Rates of homelessness are not correlated with "life choices" or "events" at all
- dionidium 4y ago
  It's not wrong, though. This is just a rephrasing of the same problem. Imagine two people, one with a family that will take them in in an emergency and another with nobody. They both become heroin addicts. The addiction results in a job loss and a few arrests. Soon they've sold all their possessions, their health is declining, and they're behind on rent. Person A puts their tail between their legs and goes and sleeps in mom's basement. Person B becomes homeless. It would be fairly deranged to say that "life choices" and "events" didn't matter "at all," that the second person's homelessness can be entirely explained by the lack of supportive family. It's both things. Homelessness arises when poor choices intersect with a lack of options.
  - fnimick 4y ago
    And what happens when your hypothetical "emergency" isn't due to a personal failing? There are people homeless in the US right now because of medical debt due to illness, is that their fault too?
    - SoftTalker 4y ago
      Medical debt can be discharged in bankruptcy, there's no reason anyone should become homeless over it.
      - hezralig 4y ago
        Have you tried renting with a lack of a credit score or with a tanked score? It is increasingly out of reach.
        SoftTalker 4y ago
        Lots of people with bad credit scores manage to rent. If this were impossible then a quarter of the population would be homeless.
    - dionidium 4y ago
      I don't feel a ton of emotions about phrases like, "personal failing" one way or the other, so it doesn't really make that much difference to me and I'd just say that obviously the illness was a factor. That's what we're talking about here: whether to describe obvious factors as such. It would be equally silly to claim that the illness in that case was not relevant.

jeffbee 4y ago

This theory is wrong and it is easy to see why. Rates of homelessness are not correlated with "life choices" or "events" at all. Mental illness rates don't vary much geographically and they don't correlate with homelessness. Same with drug abuse and disease. However housing costs are very strongly correlated with homelessness. Great book on the subject: https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/ https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/ Edit: prospective reply guys need to explain why W. Virginia, the place with by far the biggest drug abuse problem, also has the least homelessness.

anm89 4y ago
> Rates of homelessness are not correlated with "life choices" What could this possibly even mean? Someone roles a dice and then somebody materializes on the side of the road with a tent and a shopping cart and a fentanyl addiction? This person just existed in a choiceless state up until the exact moment where the gained agency and simultaneously became homeless?
- janalsncm 4y ago
  It means that poor choices and addiction can’t explain why San Francisco has so much higher homelessness than other places like West Virginia, which has much higher addiction rates.
  - anm89 4y ago
    It certainly does not mean that poor choices and addiction haven't lead to any or even most of the outcomes in SF. It means that the exact combination of dynamics in SF have produced different rates of homelessness than other places. Nothing more or less. It does not even come close to justifying the statement > Rates of homelessness are not correlated with "life choices" or "events" at all
dionidium 4y ago
It's not wrong, though. This is just a rephrasing of the same problem. Imagine two people, one with a family that will take them in in an emergency and another with nobody. They both become heroin addicts. The addiction results in a job loss and a few arrests. Soon they've sold all their possessions, their health is declining, and they're behind on rent. Person A puts their tail between their legs and goes and sleeps in mom's basement. Person B becomes homeless. It would be fairly deranged to say that "life choices" and "events" didn't matter "at all," that the second person's homelessness can be entirely explained by the lack of supportive family. It's both things. Homelessness arises when poor choices intersect with a lack of options.
- fnimick 4y ago
  And what happens when your hypothetical "emergency" isn't due to a personal failing? There are people homeless in the US right now because of medical debt due to illness, is that their fault too?
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    Medical debt can be discharged in bankruptcy, there's no reason anyone should become homeless over it.
    - hezralig 4y ago
      Have you tried renting with a lack of a credit score or with a tanked score? It is increasingly out of reach.
      - SoftTalker 4y ago
        Lots of people with bad credit scores manage to rent. If this were impossible then a quarter of the population would be homeless.
  - dionidium 4y ago
    I don't feel a ton of emotions about phrases like, "personal failing" one way or the other, so it doesn't really make that much difference to me and I'd just say that obviously the illness was a factor. That's what we're talking about here: whether to describe obvious factors as such. It would be equally silly to claim that the illness in that case was not relevant.