8 ms·

If the problem is housing, and some cities don't have homelessness problems because they have cheap housing... then why don't the homeless people in places with

by proc0 4y ago

If the problem is housing, and some cities don't have homelessness problems because they have cheap housing... then why don't the homeless people in places with expensive housing go to the places with cheap housing? Is it maybe because they prefer living in the more expensive area even if it means sleeping outside? is there maybe some individual-level incentive playing a factor here? Something is not adding up. Some cities have cheap housing, and others have expensive housing. In theory people could relocate and avoid sleeping outside, at least a huge portion of them, yet instead we see increasing populations in places with expensive housing. I'm just saying there is something missing from the picture because if housing was the primary cause, relocating would be the obvious solution that most people would rationally choose. Instead it seems like people insist in staying in the expensive housing areas, because I assume the cheap housing areas are boring, and they might not have as many government programs. It doesn't surprise me that government can't solve this problem, because they are unable to analyze it in the proper level of detail and instead use super high level statistical correlations which have not led to any results.

petesergeant 4y ago
If I was down and out, I’d want to stay in the place my friends and family were, rather than pitching up in a whole new city, without a vehicle, funds, and without knowing how to get government assistance
- buzzert 4y ago
  You should also try to imagine that your friends and family want absolutely nothing to do with you also, and that would be a clearer picture of the problem.
- proc0 4y ago
  In that scenario, why would you not live with a relative until you can find work and pay rent? If they're not helping you at that point, they're not worth that much as family, in my opinion. I would guess most homeless people have no one to rely on, and so a fresh start somewhere else should at least be an option.
gremlinsinc 4y ago
If your SO or child got sick, and drove up multiple 6-figures, and you had to mortgage everything, and when they finally died, and the bank took your house, you hit despairing times, regardless of if it drives you to depression, drink, drugs, etc -- you couldn't cope, executive function went out the window and you ended up on the street. Would you A. stick around, or B. Go some place foreign, say you already live in the cheapest part of America, so your options are go expat, maybe India, or Romania, or someplace with cheaper cost of living, but how do you afford to get there? What of other family, friends, etc? There's lots of things that tie people to a certain area. My house isn't just my home, my entire community, city, etc is. Even being homeless, they could still consider where they do live to be their 'home', so why should they, or would they move?
- proc0 4y ago
  If you can't afford even the cheapest housing in America, then housing isn't the problem, right? And if someone can't afford a bus ticket (or even come up with the money) chances are they need a lot more help and it's also not about housing. The point is how can it be housing when the rational thing to do is to relocate, and if you can't even do that, then you need way more help and it's not just housing. The real solutions are different for each individual, since it has to do with keeping a job and being able to pay rent. Affordable housing is only a tangential problem at best.
1letterunixname 4y ago
"Let them eat cake." you say? Homeless people don't have the funds to relocate. The best place to be homeless is away from rich people because rich people are far stingier than average. I've mentioned this to homeless people panhandling in wealthier areas of the Bay Area: the Mexican grocery store down the way would be more productive than Whole Foods or Country Sun.
- proc0 4y ago
  > Homeless people don't have the funds to relocate. It's a trivial problem to solve given current government programs for food stamps, etc. Why is it even a limitation to begin with. If getting people housed is the objective, does it matter that much if it's in a different city? I understand if it's across the country, but there are plenty of cheap cities around SF, for example, yet SF is still attracting a lot of people that apparently cannot afford to live there.

by proc0 4y ago

petesergeant 4y ago

If I was down and out, I’d want to stay in the place my friends and family were, rather than pitching up in a whole new city, without a vehicle, funds, and without knowing how to get government assistance

buzzert 4y ago
You should also try to imagine that your friends and family want absolutely nothing to do with you also, and that would be a clearer picture of the problem.
proc0 4y ago
In that scenario, why would you not live with a relative until you can find work and pay rent? If they're not helping you at that point, they're not worth that much as family, in my opinion. I would guess most homeless people have no one to rely on, and so a fresh start somewhere else should at least be an option.

gremlinsinc 4y ago

If your SO or child got sick, and drove up multiple 6-figures, and you had to mortgage everything, and when they finally died, and the bank took your house, you hit despairing times, regardless of if it drives you to depression, drink, drugs, etc -- you couldn't cope, executive function went out the window and you ended up on the street. Would you A. stick around, or B. Go some place foreign, say you already live in the cheapest part of America, so your options are go expat, maybe India, or Romania, or someplace with cheaper cost of living, but how do you afford to get there? What of other family, friends, etc? There's lots of things that tie people to a certain area. My house isn't just my home, my entire community, city, etc is. Even being homeless, they could still consider where they do live to be their 'home', so why should they, or would they move?

proc0 4y ago
If you can't afford even the cheapest housing in America, then housing isn't the problem, right? And if someone can't afford a bus ticket (or even come up with the money) chances are they need a lot more help and it's also not about housing. The point is how can it be housing when the rational thing to do is to relocate, and if you can't even do that, then you need way more help and it's not just housing. The real solutions are different for each individual, since it has to do with keeping a job and being able to pay rent. Affordable housing is only a tangential problem at best.

1letterunixname 4y ago

"Let them eat cake." you say? Homeless people don't have the funds to relocate. The best place to be homeless is away from rich people because rich people are far stingier than average. I've mentioned this to homeless people panhandling in wealthier areas of the Bay Area: the Mexican grocery store down the way would be more productive than Whole Foods or Country Sun.

proc0 4y ago
> Homeless people don't have the funds to relocate. It's a trivial problem to solve given current government programs for food stamps, etc. Why is it even a limitation to begin with. If getting people housed is the objective, does it matter that much if it's in a different city? I understand if it's across the country, but there are plenty of cheap cities around SF, for example, yet SF is still attracting a lot of people that apparently cannot afford to live there.