4 ms·

Are there any good studies into the most prevalent causes of homelessness? I'd be especially interested that are trying to tease apart cause and effect, without

by zizee 3y ago

Are there any good studies into the most prevalent causes of homelessness? I'd be especially interested that are trying to tease apart cause and effect, without the study author trying to prove out their own preconceptions.

DoreenMichele 3y ago
Years ago, I took a class on Homelessness and Public Policy. I've spent time homeless and read a lot, etc. There is a lack of affordable housing in all US states. It's extremely hard to live without a car in the US and cars are a huge expense, plus our car-centric culture means lack of a car is a barrier to employment, both practically and because people are reluctant to hire you. Medical expenses can be a factor in the US. Universal health coverage could help. There's no one cause and the oft cited "addiction and mental health" is largely prejudice. In a nutshell, you wind up homeless when you have too many problems and not enough resources to handle them and the US doesn't provide a robust social safety net.
- kodah 3y ago
  > There is a lack of affordable housing in all US states. Is it a lack of affordable housing or is it a lack of wage growth compared to cost of living? Personally, I've started to think it's the latter, because it explains why upper middle class non-millionaires are also getting pinched. They too often rely on income rather than capital gains.
  - DoreenMichele 3y ago
    You can have both things going on.
    - kodah 3y ago
      Does one not solve the other though? If it does, that seems to make them mutually exclusive. My personal conspiracy theory, and I admit it's a conspiracy theory, is that corporate land owners are the ones centering popular conversation and data around affordable housing rather than wage growth. It opens doors for rental assistance, a multitude of rental-based density expansions, and other programs that put more money in their pockets rather than expanding the money income-based people make and keep via ownership.
      - DoreenMichele 3y ago
        I'm not a land owner. I'm someone with an incomplete BS with a concentration in Housing who also spent years homeless. In the 1950s, the average new home was 1200 sq.ft. Post 2000, it was over 2400 sq.ft. and held on average one less household member. We've also torn down a million single room occupancy units in recent decades.
        kodah 3y ago
        Apologies, I wasn't implicating you. Landowner could've been better expressed as corporate landowners. They're the ones that own the most residential real estate in large cities, which are generally the only places having this problem. My house was built in the 1950s at around 1200sq ft. It's since expanded to over 2000, mainly from finishing a basement and expanding the top level. I'd be curious to see the data you base that on, because the people I bought it from passed this down generation to generation and had their entire family living in it. The house I grew up in has a similar story. Another anecdote is that about half of the 1950s homes on my block were bulldozed and replaced with single units that have largely gone vacant. My cities issue is that we have plenty of housing, but even the bottom line single units are too expensive compared to wages because permitting and building costs are through the metaphorical roof.
        DoreenMichele 3y ago
        The figure of of a million units of SROs torn down comes from Wikipedia. Between 1955 and 2013, almost one million SRO units were eliminated in the US due to regulation, conversion or demolition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy I'm pretty sure the stats on 1950s housing vs. post 2000 housing were federal stats, but I don't have a citation handy. I've been talking about housing issues a lot of years.
        kodah 3y ago
        You're probably right. When I was in the Bay I met a lot of people who would've lived in single unit housing who split mansions and single family homes with other people. In Texas I don't remember seeing much if any SROs. I've only seen them in abundance since I've lived in Portland.
- rank0 3y ago
  There is observably an abundance of cheap shelter. It’s just not where people want to live. Something like ~97% of people live on ~3% of the land.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- mrtweetyhack 3y ago
  [dead]
whimsicalism 3y ago
Very difficult to tease out the definition of various terms in studies and they are mostly trying to play to their anticipated audience. This is evident, for example, if you look closely into the studies saying stuff like "most homeless people in the Bay became homeless in the Bay area", etc.
tiahura 3y ago
Lax law enforcement. When we used to have vagrancy laws homelessness had a way of working itself out.
- habinero 3y ago
  Gross. Chasing away homeless people doesn't remove them from existence.
  - tiahura 3y ago
    It removes the addicts and poop from the sidewalk.
    - fragmede 3y ago
      And stops them from yelling obscenities into people's faces.

by zizee 3y ago

DoreenMichele 3y ago

Years ago, I took a class on Homelessness and Public Policy. I've spent time homeless and read a lot, etc. There is a lack of affordable housing in all US states. It's extremely hard to live without a car in the US and cars are a huge expense, plus our car-centric culture means lack of a car is a barrier to employment, both practically and because people are reluctant to hire you. Medical expenses can be a factor in the US. Universal health coverage could help. There's no one cause and the oft cited "addiction and mental health" is largely prejudice. In a nutshell, you wind up homeless when you have too many problems and not enough resources to handle them and the US doesn't provide a robust social safety net.

kodah 3y ago
> There is a lack of affordable housing in all US states. Is it a lack of affordable housing or is it a lack of wage growth compared to cost of living? Personally, I've started to think it's the latter, because it explains why upper middle class non-millionaires are also getting pinched. They too often rely on income rather than capital gains.
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  You can have both things going on.
  - kodah 3y ago
    Does one not solve the other though? If it does, that seems to make them mutually exclusive. My personal conspiracy theory, and I admit it's a conspiracy theory, is that corporate land owners are the ones centering popular conversation and data around affordable housing rather than wage growth. It opens doors for rental assistance, a multitude of rental-based density expansions, and other programs that put more money in their pockets rather than expanding the money income-based people make and keep via ownership.
    - DoreenMichele 3y ago
      I'm not a land owner. I'm someone with an incomplete BS with a concentration in Housing who also spent years homeless. In the 1950s, the average new home was 1200 sq.ft. Post 2000, it was over 2400 sq.ft. and held on average one less household member. We've also torn down a million single room occupancy units in recent decades.
      - kodah 3y ago
        Apologies, I wasn't implicating you. Landowner could've been better expressed as corporate landowners. They're the ones that own the most residential real estate in large cities, which are generally the only places having this problem. My house was built in the 1950s at around 1200sq ft. It's since expanded to over 2000, mainly from finishing a basement and expanding the top level. I'd be curious to see the data you base that on, because the people I bought it from passed this down generation to generation and had their entire family living in it. The house I grew up in has a similar story. Another anecdote is that about half of the 1950s homes on my block were bulldozed and replaced with single units that have largely gone vacant. My cities issue is that we have plenty of housing, but even the bottom line single units are too expensive compared to wages because permitting and building costs are through the metaphorical roof.
        DoreenMichele 3y ago
        The figure of of a million units of SROs torn down comes from Wikipedia. Between 1955 and 2013, almost one million SRO units were eliminated in the US due to regulation, conversion or demolition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy I'm pretty sure the stats on 1950s housing vs. post 2000 housing were federal stats, but I don't have a citation handy. I've been talking about housing issues a lot of years.
        kodah 3y ago
        You're probably right. When I was in the Bay I met a lot of people who would've lived in single unit housing who split mansions and single family homes with other people. In Texas I don't remember seeing much if any SROs. I've only seen them in abundance since I've lived in Portland.
rank0 3y ago
There is observably an abundance of cheap shelter. It’s just not where people want to live. Something like ~97% of people live on ~3% of the land.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
mrtweetyhack 3y ago
[dead]

whimsicalism 3y ago

Very difficult to tease out the definition of various terms in studies and they are mostly trying to play to their anticipated audience. This is evident, for example, if you look closely into the studies saying stuff like "most homeless people in the Bay became homeless in the Bay area", etc.

tiahura 3y ago

Lax law enforcement. When we used to have vagrancy laws homelessness had a way of working itself out.

habinero 3y ago
Gross. Chasing away homeless people doesn't remove them from existence.
- tiahura 3y ago
  It removes the addicts and poop from the sidewalk.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    And stops them from yelling obscenities into people's faces.