2 ms·

I believe a big chunk of the homelessness today were people who were able to sustain themselves with ad-hoc labor and housing arrangements . Though they’re not

I believe a big chunk of the homelessness today were people who were able to sustain themselves with ad-hoc labor and housing arrangements . Though they’re not comfortable holding down a 9-5 (blue or white collar) , they could pick up an ad-hoc job as needed until their next transition. We’ve replaced a once diverse and diffused economy with a “all or nothing” labor workplace. Either you are “in the system” working full time or multiple part-time gigs, on assistance, or on the streets. There’s no real room for transients, hippies, hobos and the like to sustain themselves as they had.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Yeah, the other angle is the over-regulation of housing. Ad-hoc workers often lived out of boarding and flop houses, or otherwise simple accommodations. Just like ad-hoc work has been outlawed to "protect the workers", minimalist shelter has been outlawed to "protect the tenants". Both of these endeavors provide some benefit to a certain vulnerable groups, but they absolutely cut the legs out from under other even more vulnerable groups. I can build a decent shack for less $1,000, or a crappy one for $200. To be clear, I wouldnt want to live in it, but it would be a hell of a lot better than living on the sidewalk. Meanwhile, low income housing projects tag in at more than a million per unit, so few get built. People say it is inhumane to let people live in a shack, small rooms, or flop houses so it should be illegal. However, they balk at the cost of the alternatives and people are simply left out in the street. A free person can't voluntarily choose to live in a 8x8' shack, but the state can lock you in a 8x8' cell for disobeying.