3 ms·

> Most participants in the research reported that the cost of living had become unsustainable before they lost housing, reporting a monthly median household inc

by bko 3y ago

> Most participants in the research reported that the cost of living had become unsustainable before they lost housing, reporting a monthly median household income of $960 in the six months prior to homelessness. I don't think $960 could afford 6 months of rent along with other daily expenses, regardless of where you live in the US. I get that the rent is high, but that income isn't going to support you anywhere, so it's not true to say homelessness is primarily caused by high rents.

rhaway84773 3y ago
I suspect the person hasn’t had an opportunity to go apartment hunting in some time. And I’m sure even a few months of homelessness will play tricks with your memory and thinking.
toast0 3y ago
$960 per month of income was the reported median for the last 6 months before homelessness; not $960 of income for the last 6 months before. $960/month is less than my california rent from a decade ago, so I suspect it goes less far today, but a lot farther than $960/6 months.
everforward 3y ago
> I get that the rent is high, but that income isn't going to support you anywhere, so it's not true to say homelessness is primarily caused by high rents. That's basically two sides of the same coin. Affordability is either/both the price of the good or the income someone receives. I think it's worth calling out that that's way below full-time minimum wage in SF (napkin mathed out to $2,720 pre-tax, $17/hr40hrs4weeks). Not to hold it against them, but it sounds like this may be a benefits issue more than a pay issue. > “People are homeless because their rent is too high. And their options are too few. And they have no cushion,” Dr Margot Kushel, initiative director and lead investigator, told the Associated Press. This part doesn't jive to me with this part: > Researchers reported that participants had endured significant trauma, with two-thirds reporting mental health symptoms, more than a third experiencing physical or sexual violence during homelessness, and more than a third visiting an emergency department in the past six months. Access to care and treatment was also a major challenge cited, with one in five who use substances reporting that they wanted treatment but could not obtain it. The latter snippet makes more sense to me for "why are people homeless?". The former is certainly still a problem, but if that's the sole issue, it could be easily solved by helping people move an hour or two away to somewhere they can afford. It makes more sense to me that people can't afford rent in SF, but can't afford to move away and lose access to services that are presumably much better in a major city than the boonies.

by bko 3y ago

rhaway84773 3y ago

I suspect the person hasn’t had an opportunity to go apartment hunting in some time. And I’m sure even a few months of homelessness will play tricks with your memory and thinking.

toast0 3y ago

$960 per month of income was the reported median for the last 6 months before homelessness; not $960 of income for the last 6 months before. $960/month is less than my california rent from a decade ago, so I suspect it goes less far today, but a lot farther than $960/6 months.

everforward 3y ago

> I get that the rent is high, but that income isn't going to support you anywhere, so it's not true to say homelessness is primarily caused by high rents. That's basically two sides of the same coin. Affordability is either/both the price of the good or the income someone receives. I think it's worth calling out that that's way below full-time minimum wage in SF (napkin mathed out to $2,720 pre-tax, $17/hr40hrs4weeks). Not to hold it against them, but it sounds like this may be a benefits issue more than a pay issue. > “People are homeless because their rent is too high. And their options are too few. And they have no cushion,” Dr Margot Kushel, initiative director and lead investigator, told the Associated Press. This part doesn't jive to me with this part: > Researchers reported that participants had endured significant trauma, with two-thirds reporting mental health symptoms, more than a third experiencing physical or sexual violence during homelessness, and more than a third visiting an emergency department in the past six months. Access to care and treatment was also a major challenge cited, with one in five who use substances reporting that they wanted treatment but could not obtain it. The latter snippet makes more sense to me for "why are people homeless?". The former is certainly still a problem, but if that's the sole issue, it could be easily solved by helping people move an hour or two away to somewhere they can afford. It makes more sense to me that people can't afford rent in SF, but can't afford to move away and lose access to services that are presumably much better in a major city than the boonies.