5 ms·
Look at it this way, there are definitely people homeless because it's not possible to afford somewhere to live on the wages they can earn. It's also really har
by LarsAlereon 3y ago
Look at it this way, there are definitely people homeless because it's not possible to afford somewhere to live on the wages they can earn. It's also really hard to keep a job when you're living out of your car. People in a situation like that often give up, or experience depression that they try to self-medicate using addictive substances.
- nicenewtemp84 3y agoWho decides to be homeless instead of getting a room in Tracy CA and driving? Or just renting a room in Tracy CA for $500 and working any menial job in town?
- snypher 3y agoNot everyone can drive, to begin with.
- xp84 3y agoThere are two distinct sets of homeless people: the ones passing through a homeless phase (many car-inhabitants in this group; shower at the gym; they work); and those with substance and/or (usually ‘and’) mental health issues (the ones you see everywhere in SF). The first group gets through it, finds a job or a $20 greyhound fare to somewhere they have family, or where they can afford a home on what they can earn. The second group is stuck. Treating these as though they are a homogenous group is super pointless. For one thing, the systems in place do support the first category and make it possible for them to escape homelessness. The second group — I’ll just say this: it’s not uncommon for Hollywood celebrities, who have access to infinite money and the most people who care intensely about them to help them get into rehab, to have massive substance and MH problems, and to OD or die by suicide. If they can’t even be helped, what amount of money and skilled intervention will cure every meth addict on the SF streets plus the new ones who arrive every day? (Without violating their civil rights by forcing them to get treatment)