3 ms·

If you lost your job and couldn’t find another one, you’d land on a couch somewhere. Most of us would. Other people may be glossing over some legal technicalit

If you lost your job and couldn’t find another one, you’d land on a couch somewhere. Most of us would. Other people may be glossing over some legal technicality but the “it’s easy, we just need to spend more money” crowd constantly and deliberately glosses over the fact that the population we are talking about are not people down on their luck and just need a helping hand to get back on their feet. They are people that have alienated everyone in their lives and that no else in this world—-including each other—-wants to share space with.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
thecrash 3y ago
> If you lost your job and couldn’t find another one, you’d land on a couch somewhere. Most of us would. Another way of saying this is that your safety net is the excess capacity of your social network. If your network is composed of people with stable jobs and guest rooms, it's practically guaranteed that someone will accommodate you for as long as you need. After taking all the time you need to get back on your feet, you will probably pay it forward to others in your social network. If your social network is composed of people with low income, lots of dependents, and unstable housing, it's less likely. Sometimes because your peers have no capacity to help, but mostly because the network is already saturated - you're not the only one of your friends who needs a couch and a ride to work. A term to describe this phenomenon is "class", which is a concept so thoroughly erased from American culture that we have to rediscover it through thought exercises like this.
- rufus_foreman 3y ago
  >> If your network is composed of people with stable jobs and guest rooms, it's practically guaranteed that someone will accommodate you for as long as you need I had a stable job, had plenty of room for someone to stay over, had people in my network that were junkies, and no way would I ever let them in my house. That would be insane. Best case, they steal my shit to buy drugs, that is the most favorable possible outcome, worst case they OD in my bathroom. There's nothing you can do. But no, you can't "accommodate" them.
  - theossuary 3y ago
    Why did you bring up drug addicts, when nobody else mentioned it? We were talking about losing your job and couch surfing, and your immediate response was "no way I'd let a junky into my house." Do you think that everyone that ended up homeless (living out of their cars or couch surfing) deserved it due to some personal failing? That's the usual conservative line, but they tend not to be so forward about it, so I'm curious
red-iron-pine 3y ago
Aye. Studies have shown that a lot of "homeless" folks are couch crashing, sleeping in cars, or have other made-do options. Some people make it work, but most of the time people are stuck there, and are often one bad argument away from being on the street.
BryantD 3y ago
Well, most of the commenters on HN would. But more than 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and the cost of giving a friend shelter is not just space on a couch. If the friend is broke, you're absorbing their food costs. Maybe not a big deal for a few weeks, of course. But when highly competent software engineers are out of work for months... Plus the pandemic exacerbated the problem a fair bit. And no, spending more money isn't easy. There's nothing easy about this. I think Housing First is the right solution because it works, not because it's trivial.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

thecrash 3y ago

> If you lost your job and couldn’t find another one, you’d land on a couch somewhere. Most of us would. Another way of saying this is that your safety net is the excess capacity of your social network. If your network is composed of people with stable jobs and guest rooms, it's practically guaranteed that someone will accommodate you for as long as you need. After taking all the time you need to get back on your feet, you will probably pay it forward to others in your social network. If your social network is composed of people with low income, lots of dependents, and unstable housing, it's less likely. Sometimes because your peers have no capacity to help, but mostly because the network is already saturated - you're not the only one of your friends who needs a couch and a ride to work. A term to describe this phenomenon is "class", which is a concept so thoroughly erased from American culture that we have to rediscover it through thought exercises like this.

rufus_foreman 3y ago
>> If your network is composed of people with stable jobs and guest rooms, it's practically guaranteed that someone will accommodate you for as long as you need I had a stable job, had plenty of room for someone to stay over, had people in my network that were junkies, and no way would I ever let them in my house. That would be insane. Best case, they steal my shit to buy drugs, that is the most favorable possible outcome, worst case they OD in my bathroom. There's nothing you can do. But no, you can't "accommodate" them.
- theossuary 3y ago
  Why did you bring up drug addicts, when nobody else mentioned it? We were talking about losing your job and couch surfing, and your immediate response was "no way I'd let a junky into my house." Do you think that everyone that ended up homeless (living out of their cars or couch surfing) deserved it due to some personal failing? That's the usual conservative line, but they tend not to be so forward about it, so I'm curious

red-iron-pine 3y ago

Aye. Studies have shown that a lot of "homeless" folks are couch crashing, sleeping in cars, or have other made-do options. Some people make it work, but most of the time people are stuck there, and are often one bad argument away from being on the street.

BryantD 3y ago

Well, most of the commenters on HN would. But more than 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and the cost of giving a friend shelter is not just space on a couch. If the friend is broke, you're absorbing their food costs. Maybe not a big deal for a few weeks, of course. But when highly competent software engineers are out of work for months... Plus the pandemic exacerbated the problem a fair bit. And no, spending more money isn't easy. There's nothing easy about this. I think Housing First is the right solution because it works, not because it's trivial.