7 ms·

I know my experience is entirely anecdotal, so even I take it with a grain of salt, but unbiased, verified data on this topic is hard to come by at a large scal

I know my experience is entirely anecdotal, so even I take it with a grain of salt, but unbiased, verified data on this topic is hard to come by at a large scale. I spend between 10 - 20% of both my income and time working through a charitable organization, and since moving to Silicon Valley a couple of years ago, I have been disappointed to see that most of the people who I've worked with who have become homeless recently enough for me to know the circumstances well (or who have become homeless while I have known them), and most of the people who have had long-term welfare dependencies, have not shown any initiative or drive to seize opportunities. They have rejected job offers for silly reasons, they have soured their relationships with those willing to help them over silly issues, and they have in some cases outright rejected offers of assistance. Now, I don't say this to suggest that all homeless people deserve to live in camps like this, but I would like to suggest that the existence of homeless camps is not a sign that our society is beyond "common decency and civilization... so far beyond that it's obscene", as one commenter has described it. I don't doubt that there are many who are or who have been in those camps that had fallen on hard times and did not get a fair second chance - but likewise I personally know some who have simply been beyond help, and I don't know why. Clearly there are places that have more or less homelessness, so there must be some cause involved that may not be obvious - all I wish to say as that as a "hacker" in Silicon Valley, I have spent my efforts in this direction far enough that my wife asked me to cut back for the sake of our family - and I was simply unable to get most people to accept the help they needed. I am skeptical of suggestions that all that is needed is for the 1% to stop being so 1%-ish. (I apologize - I have made several small edits while organizing my thoughts that aren't convenient to label explicitly as edits...) edit: (Yes - another one) For the record, I agree with most of the suggestions that have been provided in responses. I think these are avenues worth further investment and exploration. My only point here is that it's not just a case of the 1% in Silicon Valley being selfish.

StandardFuture 13y ago
That's because it is absolutely foolish to think that this problem is purely economical. There are much deeper and more complex problems PER INDIVIDUAL that you don't know about. Personality traits, undiagnosed mental disorders, a horrible upbringing, etc., etc., etc. To summarize all these people's problems as stemming from a singular cause does nothing for anyone. I think we can show that helping a particular individual does way more good than trying to solve a whole "group of people's" "problems". That's why when you read stories about a single guy helping a single homeless person/person in straits it truly does mean more for us as individuals than just a charity wanting us to throw money at them. Case in point: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/york-city-programmer-homeless-man-software-coding-classes/story?id=20042021 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/york-city-programmer-homele...
- TallGuyShort 13y ago
  I did not mean to suggest the problem was purely economical - the individuals I'm referring to have also been receiving professional help for, when necessary, prior addictions, career training and mental health problems (although such cases happen to have been the minority in my specific experience). I understand there's always more that can be done, but I do believe there exist people (in a tiny minority) who do want to lower the amount of responsibility in their life to the point that they are homeless, and that there's nothing that can be done to actually help said individuals, and I also believe that it's pointless to criticize society at large for not doing enough unless you can suggest specific, actionable things we could all do better. I don't say that with a defiant attitude - honestly, if you think I'm missing some action I can personally take to improve things, I'm all ears.
  - milkshakes 13y ago
    are you saying that there is simply no way to improve the circumstances of these people, or that they're just not worth the effort because they refuse to help themselves?
    - TallGuyShort 13y ago
      I'm not saying that either is always the case, but that I have seen example of both. I also wouldn't want to agree with the phrase "not worth the effort". It's not that I think anyone's "not worth it" - it's that current methods simply aren't going to work all the time, no matter how much people's attitudes or resources change. The GP comment pointed out personality issues and upbringing, and I think that's spot-on - I don't think we yet understanding issues like that to really be effective at helping people overcome them, and there's certainly work to be done in that area. As I said - I continue my own charitable efforts, and I'm only saying that it's not just an issue of "boo, Silicon Valley, how could you let this happen?"
    - asdfdsa1234 13y ago
      There is a part of the homeless population that will not stay in free housing, damages it when it's given to them, or is severely disruptive to neighbors, and refuses addiction treatment or returns to drugs immediately after leaving treatment. Improving the circumstances of these people is an unsolved problem, and one many consider not worth solving when these people actively resist all "solutions" offered to them.
sentenza 13y ago
A universal health care system would probably fix a lot of this, as it should reduce the number of untreated mental disorders. When I was still considering moving to another country, one of the factors I used to assess the attractiveness of a country was the worst worst case metric. The worst worst case metric looks at what might happen if things get worse than what you think of when you hear the words "worst case". Basically, I looked at how prisoners and the insane are treated. For instance, the metric allowed me to rule out Serbia pretty fast. It also led me to rule out the US.
- refurb 13y ago
  Canada has universal healthcare yet the homeless problem in Vancouver is only getting worse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Vancouver http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Vancouver
  - timr 13y ago
    That's not a rebuttal to the parent's argument. For all we know, the homeless residents of Vancouver could be far more numerous (or worse-off) without the safety net of universal health care.
    - refurb 13y ago
      The parent's argument was "A universal health care system would probably fix a lot of this" I rebutted with an example of a country with universal healthcare that still has a large homeless problem. I have no doubt that homeless residents of Vancouver have better access to healthcare. I'm just saying universal healthcare will NOT fix a lot of this.
      - timr 13y ago
        Your comment was not a rebuttal. It was a logical fallacy, and you haven't shown what you think you've shown ("universal healthcare will NOT fix a lot of this"). Canada's healthcare system could be making the situation in Vancouver much better than it otherwise would be. The OP can be correct, even if homelessness is getting worse in Vancouver.
w1ntermute 13y ago
> most of the people who have had long-term welfare dependencies, have not shown any initiative or drive to seize opportunities. They have rejected job offers for silly reasons, they have soured their relationships with those willing to help them over silly issues, and they have in some cases outright rejected offers of assistance. It's not always so easy to make the right decisions when you're poor: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6149/976.abstract http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6149/976.abstract
rdl 13y ago
How would you, given the total resources devoted to the problem today, improve how homeless and poor people in the Bay Area are treated? I believe per capita there are more resources spent in the Bay Area than in a lot of other places, but either it is less effective here, or the problem is just more visible -- I don't notice the same level of problems in most other parts of the US. Is the problem mainly with people who fall from working class and could easily be pushed back up, or with long term hardcore homeless (with drug, alcohol, or mental illness issues?). Is it mainly single men (who I notice on the street the most), children, families? Why is it so hard to get good data? Would a charity focused on collecting that data be more effective per marginal dollar than marginal dollars spent directly on naive solutions?
- TallGuyShort 13y ago
  First let me say that I don't think I have good answers for most of these questions, but that I think these are exactly the right kinds of questions to be asking. Regarding how I would use the total resources, I don't know, specifically (which is part of my problem). I think in general the best long-term solution is to get the values of personal responsibility, hard work, honesty, and genuine charity better ingrained into our culture. Again - how do you do that specifically? I don't know. But I think that's ultimately a root cause of a lot of the problems in society. That's where I would like to focus my attention more. As for who it is that becomes homeless. In my experience, it's been pretty evenly split between men and women, and pretty evenly split between "fallen from working class" and "long term hardcore homelessness with ... issues", although I suspect my specific work has been more than usually biased towards the fallen-from-working-class folks. I very rarely see families with children fall from working class, actually. Of all the classes we're discussing - I think that's the most significant pattern. (edit: I can think of several individuals who had children and nearly became homeless - they've always been the most willing to do work that was "below them", accept help, and make the necessary long-term changes. I don't know if this is because they had kids, or related to why they had kids in the first place) I think it's hard to get good data because it's easy for existing political biases to cloud the data (and I'm as guilty of that as anybody), and because so much of the real, underlying issues are very sensitive and / or subjective. Labeling people as lazy, crazy, unlucky, etc. is a very hard thing to do consistently and fairly, if it's even possible. Anyone who tries is likely to be disagreed with no matter what anyway.
consonants 13y ago
It's telling that you feel you can deem some people as being beyond help from a position of absolute rationality as if being an observer grants you a minutiae of perspective into their situation.
- specialist 13y ago
  Please pull your punches. TallGuyShort clearly has good intentions (deeds speak louder than words) and is simply expressing his frustrations.
- TallGuyShort 13y ago
  It's also telling that you read my whole response and my use of the phrase "beyond help" is what you think actually represents my attitude towards these people.
calibraxis 13y ago
There's many well-off people who sour relationships with others for silly reasons, seem beyond help. (I'm certainly like that sometimes.) Fortunately, they're safe from hunger. I used to imagine, "What if Bob (or Alice) were homeless, maybe abused? Had to actively fight to stay afloat?" And guessed he'd probably sink to the bottom, because I couldn't see the part of his personality which would avoid it. One 'Bob' I knew was in fact homeless in one country, but went back to his birth country full of sensible social programs. Now he lives in an apartment and lives frugally. It's worse than unnecessary — anti-human — to make such a person homeless and without decent healthcare. Is Bob frustrating at times to friends who try helping him? Doesn't mean he should worry about homelessness or indignities. When governments claim to spend $X million, that means nothing. The US has the highest incarceration rate, but that doesn't mean we're effective against crime. To the contrary. (The spending is effective in achieving its actual goals, but not the nice fuzzy propagandistic ones like "fighting crime".) (BTW, about the 1% thing... that's just a slogan about wealthy elites, who have more power over policy than others. In another society, the 1% might refer to feudal hierarchy, a ruling party, etc.)
specialist 13y ago
I spend between 10 - 20%... Kudos. I'm working my way up to 10% of my money. Mostly food banks and shelters. (I do this, because apparently my taxes have already been fully committed to unnecessary wars and enriching cronies.) ... not shown any initiative or drive to seize opportunities. Having had plenty of self-destructive behaviors, I only ask that you go easy on people who are on this path. Abuse (e.g., sexual, domestic, drugs, PTSD) very much warps people's brains. As in changes people brain chemistry and wiring. Very much an altered state of awareness. It takes a huge amount of effort for an individual to back away from the abyss. my wife asked me to cut back for the sake of our family" Agree with your wife here. We must cover our own needs before we have the excess strength, resources to help others. I was simply unable to get most people to accept the help they needed. I believe we're on this rock to help each other. More specifically, help people help themselves and help those who can't help themselves. A truism from the addiction world is that you can't help people who don't want to be helped. So that means you're opening the door for others to walk thru. And some people will walk thru.
- ciclista 13y ago
  >Having had plenty of self-destructive behaviors, I only ask that you go easy on people who are on this path An important point not to be underestimated IMO. It's not a lack of initiative, it's not being able to recognize opportunities when they present themselves due to skewed perceptions based on deep self-esteem issues, depression, anxiety, etc.
csomar 13y ago
and most of the people who have had long-term welfare dependencies, have not shown any initiative or drive to seize opportunities. Shouldn't that be a mental issue? If you need housing, you go looking for a job. If someone is looking for housing, and doesn't look for a job: 1. Either he's physically incapable of doing it or 2. He's mentally ill (drug addict or any other thing related really). Laziness is fine until you don't have shelter/food/healthcare. Otherwise, I'll put it as a mental issue, unless the person is happy about his situation.

StandardFuture 13y ago

That's because it is absolutely foolish to think that this problem is purely economical. There are much deeper and more complex problems PER INDIVIDUAL that you don't know about. Personality traits, undiagnosed mental disorders, a horrible upbringing, etc., etc., etc. To summarize all these people's problems as stemming from a singular cause does nothing for anyone. I think we can show that helping a particular individual does way more good than trying to solve a whole "group of people's" "problems". That's why when you read stories about a single guy helping a single homeless person/person in straits it truly does mean more for us as individuals than just a charity wanting us to throw money at them. Case in point: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/york-city-programmer-homeless-man-software-coding-classes/story?id=20042021 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/york-city-programmer-homele...

TallGuyShort 13y ago
I did not mean to suggest the problem was purely economical - the individuals I'm referring to have also been receiving professional help for, when necessary, prior addictions, career training and mental health problems (although such cases happen to have been the minority in my specific experience). I understand there's always more that can be done, but I do believe there exist people (in a tiny minority) who do want to lower the amount of responsibility in their life to the point that they are homeless, and that there's nothing that can be done to actually help said individuals, and I also believe that it's pointless to criticize society at large for not doing enough unless you can suggest specific, actionable things we could all do better. I don't say that with a defiant attitude - honestly, if you think I'm missing some action I can personally take to improve things, I'm all ears.
- milkshakes 13y ago
  are you saying that there is simply no way to improve the circumstances of these people, or that they're just not worth the effort because they refuse to help themselves?
  - TallGuyShort 13y ago
    I'm not saying that either is always the case, but that I have seen example of both. I also wouldn't want to agree with the phrase "not worth the effort". It's not that I think anyone's "not worth it" - it's that current methods simply aren't going to work all the time, no matter how much people's attitudes or resources change. The GP comment pointed out personality issues and upbringing, and I think that's spot-on - I don't think we yet understanding issues like that to really be effective at helping people overcome them, and there's certainly work to be done in that area. As I said - I continue my own charitable efforts, and I'm only saying that it's not just an issue of "boo, Silicon Valley, how could you let this happen?"
  - asdfdsa1234 13y ago
    There is a part of the homeless population that will not stay in free housing, damages it when it's given to them, or is severely disruptive to neighbors, and refuses addiction treatment or returns to drugs immediately after leaving treatment. Improving the circumstances of these people is an unsolved problem, and one many consider not worth solving when these people actively resist all "solutions" offered to them.

sentenza 13y ago

A universal health care system would probably fix a lot of this, as it should reduce the number of untreated mental disorders. When I was still considering moving to another country, one of the factors I used to assess the attractiveness of a country was the worst worst case metric. The worst worst case metric looks at what might happen if things get worse than what you think of when you hear the words "worst case". Basically, I looked at how prisoners and the insane are treated. For instance, the metric allowed me to rule out Serbia pretty fast. It also led me to rule out the US.

refurb 13y ago
Canada has universal healthcare yet the homeless problem in Vancouver is only getting worse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Vancouver http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Vancouver
- timr 13y ago
  That's not a rebuttal to the parent's argument. For all we know, the homeless residents of Vancouver could be far more numerous (or worse-off) without the safety net of universal health care.
  - refurb 13y ago
    The parent's argument was "A universal health care system would probably fix a lot of this" I rebutted with an example of a country with universal healthcare that still has a large homeless problem. I have no doubt that homeless residents of Vancouver have better access to healthcare. I'm just saying universal healthcare will NOT fix a lot of this.
    - timr 13y ago
      Your comment was not a rebuttal. It was a logical fallacy, and you haven't shown what you think you've shown ("universal healthcare will NOT fix a lot of this"). Canada's healthcare system could be making the situation in Vancouver much better than it otherwise would be. The OP can be correct, even if homelessness is getting worse in Vancouver.

w1ntermute 13y ago

> most of the people who have had long-term welfare dependencies, have not shown any initiative or drive to seize opportunities. They have rejected job offers for silly reasons, they have soured their relationships with those willing to help them over silly issues, and they have in some cases outright rejected offers of assistance. It's not always so easy to make the right decisions when you're poor: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6149/976.abstract http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6149/976.abstract

rdl 13y ago

How would you, given the total resources devoted to the problem today, improve how homeless and poor people in the Bay Area are treated? I believe per capita there are more resources spent in the Bay Area than in a lot of other places, but either it is less effective here, or the problem is just more visible -- I don't notice the same level of problems in most other parts of the US. Is the problem mainly with people who fall from working class and could easily be pushed back up, or with long term hardcore homeless (with drug, alcohol, or mental illness issues?). Is it mainly single men (who I notice on the street the most), children, families? Why is it so hard to get good data? Would a charity focused on collecting that data be more effective per marginal dollar than marginal dollars spent directly on naive solutions?

TallGuyShort 13y ago
First let me say that I don't think I have good answers for most of these questions, but that I think these are exactly the right kinds of questions to be asking. Regarding how I would use the total resources, I don't know, specifically (which is part of my problem). I think in general the best long-term solution is to get the values of personal responsibility, hard work, honesty, and genuine charity better ingrained into our culture. Again - how do you do that specifically? I don't know. But I think that's ultimately a root cause of a lot of the problems in society. That's where I would like to focus my attention more. As for who it is that becomes homeless. In my experience, it's been pretty evenly split between men and women, and pretty evenly split between "fallen from working class" and "long term hardcore homelessness with ... issues", although I suspect my specific work has been more than usually biased towards the fallen-from-working-class folks. I very rarely see families with children fall from working class, actually. Of all the classes we're discussing - I think that's the most significant pattern. (edit: I can think of several individuals who had children and nearly became homeless - they've always been the most willing to do work that was "below them", accept help, and make the necessary long-term changes. I don't know if this is because they had kids, or related to why they had kids in the first place) I think it's hard to get good data because it's easy for existing political biases to cloud the data (and I'm as guilty of that as anybody), and because so much of the real, underlying issues are very sensitive and / or subjective. Labeling people as lazy, crazy, unlucky, etc. is a very hard thing to do consistently and fairly, if it's even possible. Anyone who tries is likely to be disagreed with no matter what anyway.

consonants 13y ago

It's telling that you feel you can deem some people as being beyond help from a position of absolute rationality as if being an observer grants you a minutiae of perspective into their situation.

specialist 13y ago
Please pull your punches. TallGuyShort clearly has good intentions (deeds speak louder than words) and is simply expressing his frustrations.
TallGuyShort 13y ago
It's also telling that you read my whole response and my use of the phrase "beyond help" is what you think actually represents my attitude towards these people.

calibraxis 13y ago

There's many well-off people who sour relationships with others for silly reasons, seem beyond help. (I'm certainly like that sometimes.) Fortunately, they're safe from hunger. I used to imagine, "What if Bob (or Alice) were homeless, maybe abused? Had to actively fight to stay afloat?" And guessed he'd probably sink to the bottom, because I couldn't see the part of his personality which would avoid it. One 'Bob' I knew was in fact homeless in one country, but went back to his birth country full of sensible social programs. Now he lives in an apartment and lives frugally. It's worse than unnecessary — anti-human — to make such a person homeless and without decent healthcare. Is Bob frustrating at times to friends who try helping him? Doesn't mean he should worry about homelessness or indignities. When governments claim to spend $X million, that means nothing. The US has the highest incarceration rate, but that doesn't mean we're effective against crime. To the contrary. (The spending is effective in achieving its actual goals, but not the nice fuzzy propagandistic ones like "fighting crime".) (BTW, about the 1% thing... that's just a slogan about wealthy elites, who have more power over policy than others. In another society, the 1% might refer to feudal hierarchy, a ruling party, etc.)

specialist 13y ago

I spend between 10 - 20%... Kudos. I'm working my way up to 10% of my money. Mostly food banks and shelters. (I do this, because apparently my taxes have already been fully committed to unnecessary wars and enriching cronies.) ... not shown any initiative or drive to seize opportunities. Having had plenty of self-destructive behaviors, I only ask that you go easy on people who are on this path. Abuse (e.g., sexual, domestic, drugs, PTSD) very much warps people's brains. As in changes people brain chemistry and wiring. Very much an altered state of awareness. It takes a huge amount of effort for an individual to back away from the abyss. my wife asked me to cut back for the sake of our family" Agree with your wife here. We must cover our own needs before we have the excess strength, resources to help others. I was simply unable to get most people to accept the help they needed. I believe we're on this rock to help each other. More specifically, help people help themselves and help those who can't help themselves. A truism from the addiction world is that you can't help people who don't want to be helped. So that means you're opening the door for others to walk thru. And some people will walk thru.

ciclista 13y ago
>Having had plenty of self-destructive behaviors, I only ask that you go easy on people who are on this path An important point not to be underestimated IMO. It's not a lack of initiative, it's not being able to recognize opportunities when they present themselves due to skewed perceptions based on deep self-esteem issues, depression, anxiety, etc.

csomar 13y ago

and most of the people who have had long-term welfare dependencies, have not shown any initiative or drive to seize opportunities. Shouldn't that be a mental issue? If you need housing, you go looking for a job. If someone is looking for housing, and doesn't look for a job: 1. Either he's physically incapable of doing it or 2. He's mentally ill (drug addict or any other thing related really). Laziness is fine until you don't have shelter/food/healthcare. Otherwise, I'll put it as a mental issue, unless the person is happy about his situation.