2 ms·

You don't tend to have high amounts of ultra-poor people in low-cost-of-living areas (which also have lower minimum wages than the high-cost areas with the high

You don't tend to have high amounts of ultra-poor people in low-cost-of-living areas (which also have lower minimum wages than the high-cost areas with the higher minimum wages). Montgomery, Al is known as a "poor" area - and yet there are only ~330 homeless people in a city of ~200k people (0.165%). In SF you have about ~8800 homeless people in a city of ~880k (1%). If you're looking at somewhere like Rural PA - you're already not going to be able to employ people at low wages - because you're going to need to pay them almost $4 per hour just to get to and from work.

hotnfresh 3y ago
Have you… lived in those kind of places? One side of my family’s from not even that bad of one, and there are tons of the ultra-poor. They’re the ones living in a house with a blue tarp on part of the roof, three broken cars in the yard, overgrown weeds right up to the foundation, et c. The land’s owned by some family member (all three crappy acres are worth $2,000 total—the house is worth negative dollars—so it’s not like they’re giving up a fortune to let them stay there) or is an illegal rental. They often have one or two even-worse-off buddies living with them. Income and hand-me-downs (clothes, anppliances, old cars they’ll break and not be able to repair within a year which’ll join the front yard scrap pile) are from family and churches. Income, if any, is government assistance (lots of vets) and odd jobs. They have a bunch of health problems and are probably addicted to something. If they don’t have family to get them to the hospital 90 minutes away, they do without. They die decades younger than they might. These are my people, and it gets worse than that. Rural America is shockingly poor. The cost of living’s low because nobody there can afford to pay more, and because they have no local public services to speak of. [edit] the reason, specifically, there aren’t more homeless those places isn’t because it’s better, but because 1) nobody moves in, so 100% of people have family ties of some kind, at least some background that gets them access to a hovel or something, and 2) if you’re actually homeless there, you get picked up and shipped somewhere they can actually serve homeless people (or just go to prison), or you die.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
  > These are my people, and it gets worse than that. Rural America is shockingly poor. And yet unemployment is lower than in places like SF, and homelessness is also lower, so is hunger. I think you're forgetting how shockingly poor the entire world is.
FireBeyond 3y ago
> Montgomery, Al is known as a "poor" area - and yet there are only ~330 homeless people in a city of ~200k people (0.165%). In SF you have about ~8800 homeless people in a city of ~880k (1%). I'd have to imagine that police in Alabama are probably a lot more aggressive in "running off" homeless people.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
  Or rent is $300, and unemployment is extremely low, so it's easier to not be homeless. YMMV.
  - selimthegrim 3y ago
    Rent isn't even $300 in New Orleans and hasn't been since before Katrina. I paid $550 up until last April and that was bottom of the market.

hotnfresh 3y ago

Have you… lived in those kind of places? One side of my family’s from not even that bad of one, and there are tons of the ultra-poor. They’re the ones living in a house with a blue tarp on part of the roof, three broken cars in the yard, overgrown weeds right up to the foundation, et c. The land’s owned by some family member (all three crappy acres are worth $2,000 total—the house is worth negative dollars—so it’s not like they’re giving up a fortune to let them stay there) or is an illegal rental. They often have one or two even-worse-off buddies living with them. Income and hand-me-downs (clothes, anppliances, old cars they’ll break and not be able to repair within a year which’ll join the front yard scrap pile) are from family and churches. Income, if any, is government assistance (lots of vets) and odd jobs. They have a bunch of health problems and are probably addicted to something. If they don’t have family to get them to the hospital 90 minutes away, they do without. They die decades younger than they might. These are my people, and it gets worse than that. Rural America is shockingly poor. The cost of living’s low because nobody there can afford to pay more, and because they have no local public services to speak of. [edit] the reason, specifically, there aren’t more homeless those places isn’t because it’s better, but because 1) nobody moves in, so 100% of people have family ties of some kind, at least some background that gets them access to a hovel or something, and 2) if you’re actually homeless there, you get picked up and shipped somewhere they can actually serve homeless people (or just go to prison), or you die.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
> These are my people, and it gets worse than that. Rural America is shockingly poor. And yet unemployment is lower than in places like SF, and homelessness is also lower, so is hunger. I think you're forgetting how shockingly poor the entire world is.

FireBeyond 3y ago

> Montgomery, Al is known as a "poor" area - and yet there are only ~330 homeless people in a city of ~200k people (0.165%). In SF you have about ~8800 homeless people in a city of ~880k (1%). I'd have to imagine that police in Alabama are probably a lot more aggressive in "running off" homeless people.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
Or rent is $300, and unemployment is extremely low, so it's easier to not be homeless. YMMV.
- selimthegrim 3y ago
  Rent isn't even $300 in New Orleans and hasn't been since before Katrina. I paid $550 up until last April and that was bottom of the market.