12 ms·

"If you want to say I chose to become homeless and sleep on the streets, really all I have to say is fuck you. You’ve never experienced it.”" If this is a trut

"If you want to say I chose to become homeless and sleep on the streets, really all I have to say is fuck you. You’ve never experienced it.”" If this is a truthful statement, why doesn't he get some sort of job and rent out a cheap room? He seems like he is sane and with the ability to work a labor job or a job at a fast-food restaurant. Even on minimum wage, you could rent out a room on craigslist or a hotel for a weekly rate (I did this before and the prices haven't changed much). There are options for physically and mentally able individuals to get a roof over their head. From the bottom of the article: “I’ve become a professional vagabond, and this is the lifestyle that I love.” I think many of these people (not all) choose not to get a job because it's very empowering to live without having to follow many rules. It's a similar freedom to working for yourself.

happytrails 12y ago
"FREEEEDOM" - William Wallace
dethstar 12y ago
Why doesnt he just get a job? Why dont a sick person just get healthy? Why dont addicts just quit?
muaddirac 12y ago
I also found the statements in the leading and final quotes almost absurdly contradictory. "Fuck you, I didn't choose this, but I love it." Living in a city with a lot of visible homelessness and panhandling, I constantly struggle with what the right thing to do is. It seems like the only way to be sure you're helping is to only ever hand out food, or actually offer someone a place to stay. I used to hand out money when I had some on hand, but on reflection it seems irresponsible - what if that $5 is what ends their life by allowing them to OD or buy unsafe drugs? It could just as easily save their life by providing food or shelter, but by my reasoning it makes more sense to cut out the middleman. Throwing into the mix that some people are choosing this lifestyle for reasons of "freedom" from society (while simultaneously depending heavily upon its existence and the generosity of others) just confuses the matter more for me. If anyone has a good moral framework for this I'd be interested in hearing it.
- rayiner 12y ago
  I always give cash if I have some on hand. Good odds they'll use it to buy a drink, which is fine because hell, I need a drink after a long day and I'm not even homeless. And there is a non-zero chance he or she really does need it to get food or get in from the cold for the night. Wouldn't want to risk not giving money when there was a genuine need because I'm worried about the case where there isn't.
  - cynicalkane 12y ago
    I'm not an expert, but I've heard from authorities on the subject that the "deserving homeless" is almost entirely a myth. The scenario of someone who is down on their luck and has to beg is rare, and they tend to do that for a relatively short amount of time. The odds are strong that you are giving your money to a person suffering from substance abuse or mental illness. Then again, I just moved to New York, and I'm naturally biased towards interpretations that match my recent personal experience.
    - jarin 12y ago
      The "deserving homeless" are generally able to take advantage of resources that are available, like shelters, soup kitchens, etc. Although I hate that term, because it's bad enough that we're already divided by class in this country, and now we have to impose our own classes on the homeless?
    - foldr 12y ago
      People with mental health problems and drug addictions also "deserve" to have enough money to live on. Even if you insist on seeing these things as moral failings, aren't they already being punished enough?
      - cynicalkane 12y ago
        You are arguing against a very insulting straw man, and I would ordinarily not consider you not worth addressing except that a lot of people apparently think along the same ridiculous lines. Panhandlers in major cities are at low risk of not having food available to them. The idea of the 'starving homeless' is another counterfactual myth, just as much as the 'deserving homeless'--but if it really concerns you, there are far more directly expedient ways of helping them than giving away money. Services and shelters for the homeless are pretty terrible, but I've never heard anyone credible say that these services are worse than the shortsighted, feel-good solution of giving people money they are fundamentally incapable of spending correctly. By contrast, it is common for the homeless to die of exposure--not because they had no shelter available, but because they are mentally ill and fell into a pattern of denying it to themselves, even on the coldest days.
6d0debc071 12y ago
> If this is a truthful statement, why doesn't he get some sort of job and rent out a cheap room? He seems like he is sane and with the ability to work a labor job or a job at a fast-food restaurant. Gonna be an interesting CV to write.
Squarel 12y ago
I took it to mean that whilst they did not make a choice to become homeless initially, once in the situation, they have found a culture that works for them. fwiw, there are homeless people who work, so it is not only people who do not work who are on the streets or in shelters. Renting a room on craigslist does not remove you from being homeless, a lack of a permanent residence is what defines homeless, hence living in a shelter is still classed as being homeless, as is temporary accomodation (hotel or week to week room rent, or week to week couch surfing)
astazangasta 12y ago
>why doesn't he get some sort of job and rent out a cheap room? Maybe you missed the part where we had a huge recession that forced millions of people out of work and replaced high-paying jobs with low-paying part-time jobs.
- adevine 12y ago
  But he's not asking the man to get a high paying job. He's wondering why he can't get a low paying job and rent out a cheap room. This man is single, young, and otherwise healthy with no dependents. In that situation it is certainly possible to live off minimum wage.
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    In many regions, there aren't any cheap rooms -- not cheap enough to afford one on near-minimum wage.
    - twoodfin 12y ago
      Bus tickets are pretty cheap, too.
      - tacojuan 12y ago
        Got any suggestions?
    - k-mcgrady 12y ago
      >> "In many regions, there aren't any cheap rooms -- not cheap enough to afford one on near-minimum wage." I find that hard to believe. Even in London, where rent is expensive, minimum wage would be enough for a room (not a great one but not a horrible one either) and food. Minimum wage here is £6.50 but even assuming £5 p/h that's £800 per month. You can definitely find a room for £400-500 p/m. Maybe the situation is different in the US but London is one of the most expensive cities in the world and the effects of the recession are still a lot more obvious here than in the US where the economy has been doing much better.
olefoo 12y ago
Clearly you don't have any experience with people you know struggling with mental illness ( which by the is very prevalent amongst the homeless ). It's not a choice to be so depressed you can't show up for work; or so manic you can't deal with coworkers. But if we're going to talk about choices and homelessness; let's talk about what we can do as a society to minimize it and it's harms. Utah has proven that a "housing-first" approach to dealing with the homeless works. We are the richest and most powerful society that has ever been, yet we choose not solve this problem; and it does reflect badly on us.
- ams6110 12y ago
  My town tried something like this. Built apartments for the "chronically homeless" on the idea that, provided with decent homes, they could focus on getting jobs and putting other areas of their lives in order. What's happening? The tenants are trashing the apartments, selling the appliances, and not working. Enabling poor life choices generally doesn't stop those who are making them.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - SilasX 12y ago
    That sounds closer to what I would expect of such a program, but it apparently works in Utah. Is there something that story leaves out? Are the approaches different?
    - scarmig 12y ago
      "Works" is a tricky word, but consider: What is cheaper, having to replace a microwave once a month, or sending a homeless person to a hospital once a month? And once a month is probably an underestimate, if anything. How we currently treat the homeless is a disaster, both in terms of outcomes and cost. "On a monthly basis she does hundreds of dollars worth of property damage, shoots up heroin once per week, has ten times the chance of the general population of being raped, and costs the government thousands of dollars" is genuinely a massive improvement over the status quo: people just don't realize how shitty and expensive the status quo actually is. One of the benefits of starting from really low is that things that otherwise are shitty end up looking like sunshine in comparison. San Francisco spends something like $150 million a year in direct tax expenditures on solving its homelessness problem, to no observable benefit. It seems obvious choice to me that it'd be better to totally disregard any rights of the homeless, offer Stockton or Kansas $100 million a year just for the right to set up a staffed homeless complex within its borders, and call it a day.
cauterized 12y ago
"Why doesn't he get some sort of job and rent out a cheap room? He seems like he is sane and with the ability to work a labor job or a job at a fast-food restaurant." What does he have to gain by doing this?
acjohnson55 12y ago
I think it's a matter of cost-benefit. On one hand, you have a rat race of soul crushing minimum wage work, always one slip away from the investment in hard work evaporating and being dropped right back on your ass. On the other, you sacrifice any chance of advancement to live with few obligations other than what it takes to survive. It might be more accurate to say that the person didn't choose to have this dichotomy, but given it, they chose the latter option. Our culture is rather obsessed with the idea of wage labor as morally imperative and necessary to provide life with self-meaning. I can sympathize with the idea that to some, wage labor might subtract meaning from life. Especially if it's working at a Burger King to pay for a room at a flophouse.
stegosaurus 12y ago
"why doesn't he get some sort of job and rent out a cheap room?" Other posts have explained why this is fallacious reasoning but I'll give it a shot anyway. There's more to it than simply the physical, theoretical possibility of changing a situation. I graduated fairly recently. Could I have worked in finance? Goldman, JPM, say? I don't think it's excessive hubris to say that it would have been theoretically possible. Then I'd be working towards owning the flat I'm currently renting. But in reality, it didn't happen, and wasn't possible. I dislike finance, and to give 90+ hour weeks in a profession I have no faith in would have been unviable. There was no choice involved; after a fairly basic reasoning process it was excluded because it would have clearly led to failure. I hope that it's easy to see how that can be generalised down the scale. I personally would rather be homeless than work FT for a fast food company, and I express disapproval at a society that makes that a 'choice' for some.

happytrails 12y ago

"FREEEEDOM" - William Wallace

dethstar 12y ago

Why doesnt he just get a job? Why dont a sick person just get healthy? Why dont addicts just quit?

muaddirac 12y ago

I also found the statements in the leading and final quotes almost absurdly contradictory. "Fuck you, I didn't choose this, but I love it." Living in a city with a lot of visible homelessness and panhandling, I constantly struggle with what the right thing to do is. It seems like the only way to be sure you're helping is to only ever hand out food, or actually offer someone a place to stay. I used to hand out money when I had some on hand, but on reflection it seems irresponsible - what if that $5 is what ends their life by allowing them to OD or buy unsafe drugs? It could just as easily save their life by providing food or shelter, but by my reasoning it makes more sense to cut out the middleman. Throwing into the mix that some people are choosing this lifestyle for reasons of "freedom" from society (while simultaneously depending heavily upon its existence and the generosity of others) just confuses the matter more for me. If anyone has a good moral framework for this I'd be interested in hearing it.

rayiner 12y ago
I always give cash if I have some on hand. Good odds they'll use it to buy a drink, which is fine because hell, I need a drink after a long day and I'm not even homeless. And there is a non-zero chance he or she really does need it to get food or get in from the cold for the night. Wouldn't want to risk not giving money when there was a genuine need because I'm worried about the case where there isn't.
- cynicalkane 12y ago
  I'm not an expert, but I've heard from authorities on the subject that the "deserving homeless" is almost entirely a myth. The scenario of someone who is down on their luck and has to beg is rare, and they tend to do that for a relatively short amount of time. The odds are strong that you are giving your money to a person suffering from substance abuse or mental illness. Then again, I just moved to New York, and I'm naturally biased towards interpretations that match my recent personal experience.
  - jarin 12y ago
    The "deserving homeless" are generally able to take advantage of resources that are available, like shelters, soup kitchens, etc. Although I hate that term, because it's bad enough that we're already divided by class in this country, and now we have to impose our own classes on the homeless?
  - foldr 12y ago
    People with mental health problems and drug addictions also "deserve" to have enough money to live on. Even if you insist on seeing these things as moral failings, aren't they already being punished enough?
    - cynicalkane 12y ago
      You are arguing against a very insulting straw man, and I would ordinarily not consider you not worth addressing except that a lot of people apparently think along the same ridiculous lines. Panhandlers in major cities are at low risk of not having food available to them. The idea of the 'starving homeless' is another counterfactual myth, just as much as the 'deserving homeless'--but if it really concerns you, there are far more directly expedient ways of helping them than giving away money. Services and shelters for the homeless are pretty terrible, but I've never heard anyone credible say that these services are worse than the shortsighted, feel-good solution of giving people money they are fundamentally incapable of spending correctly. By contrast, it is common for the homeless to die of exposure--not because they had no shelter available, but because they are mentally ill and fell into a pattern of denying it to themselves, even on the coldest days.

6d0debc071 12y ago

> If this is a truthful statement, why doesn't he get some sort of job and rent out a cheap room? He seems like he is sane and with the ability to work a labor job or a job at a fast-food restaurant. Gonna be an interesting CV to write.

Squarel 12y ago

I took it to mean that whilst they did not make a choice to become homeless initially, once in the situation, they have found a culture that works for them. fwiw, there are homeless people who work, so it is not only people who do not work who are on the streets or in shelters. Renting a room on craigslist does not remove you from being homeless, a lack of a permanent residence is what defines homeless, hence living in a shelter is still classed as being homeless, as is temporary accomodation (hotel or week to week room rent, or week to week couch surfing)

astazangasta 12y ago

>why doesn't he get some sort of job and rent out a cheap room? Maybe you missed the part where we had a huge recession that forced millions of people out of work and replaced high-paying jobs with low-paying part-time jobs.

adevine 12y ago
But he's not asking the man to get a high paying job. He's wondering why he can't get a low paying job and rent out a cheap room. This man is single, young, and otherwise healthy with no dependents. In that situation it is certainly possible to live off minimum wage.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  In many regions, there aren't any cheap rooms -- not cheap enough to afford one on near-minimum wage.
  - twoodfin 12y ago
    Bus tickets are pretty cheap, too.
    - tacojuan 12y ago
      Got any suggestions?
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    >> "In many regions, there aren't any cheap rooms -- not cheap enough to afford one on near-minimum wage." I find that hard to believe. Even in London, where rent is expensive, minimum wage would be enough for a room (not a great one but not a horrible one either) and food. Minimum wage here is £6.50 but even assuming £5 p/h that's £800 per month. You can definitely find a room for £400-500 p/m. Maybe the situation is different in the US but London is one of the most expensive cities in the world and the effects of the recession are still a lot more obvious here than in the US where the economy has been doing much better.

olefoo 12y ago

Clearly you don't have any experience with people you know struggling with mental illness ( which by the is very prevalent amongst the homeless ). It's not a choice to be so depressed you can't show up for work; or so manic you can't deal with coworkers. But if we're going to talk about choices and homelessness; let's talk about what we can do as a society to minimize it and it's harms. Utah has proven that a "housing-first" approach to dealing with the homeless works. We are the richest and most powerful society that has ever been, yet we choose not solve this problem; and it does reflect badly on us.

ams6110 12y ago
My town tried something like this. Built apartments for the "chronically homeless" on the idea that, provided with decent homes, they could focus on getting jobs and putting other areas of their lives in order. What's happening? The tenants are trashing the apartments, selling the appliances, and not working. Enabling poor life choices generally doesn't stop those who are making them.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- SilasX 12y ago
  That sounds closer to what I would expect of such a program, but it apparently works in Utah. Is there something that story leaves out? Are the approaches different?
  - scarmig 12y ago
    "Works" is a tricky word, but consider: What is cheaper, having to replace a microwave once a month, or sending a homeless person to a hospital once a month? And once a month is probably an underestimate, if anything. How we currently treat the homeless is a disaster, both in terms of outcomes and cost. "On a monthly basis she does hundreds of dollars worth of property damage, shoots up heroin once per week, has ten times the chance of the general population of being raped, and costs the government thousands of dollars" is genuinely a massive improvement over the status quo: people just don't realize how shitty and expensive the status quo actually is. One of the benefits of starting from really low is that things that otherwise are shitty end up looking like sunshine in comparison. San Francisco spends something like $150 million a year in direct tax expenditures on solving its homelessness problem, to no observable benefit. It seems obvious choice to me that it'd be better to totally disregard any rights of the homeless, offer Stockton or Kansas $100 million a year just for the right to set up a staffed homeless complex within its borders, and call it a day.

cauterized 12y ago

"Why doesn't he get some sort of job and rent out a cheap room? He seems like he is sane and with the ability to work a labor job or a job at a fast-food restaurant." What does he have to gain by doing this?

acjohnson55 12y ago

I think it's a matter of cost-benefit. On one hand, you have a rat race of soul crushing minimum wage work, always one slip away from the investment in hard work evaporating and being dropped right back on your ass. On the other, you sacrifice any chance of advancement to live with few obligations other than what it takes to survive. It might be more accurate to say that the person didn't choose to have this dichotomy, but given it, they chose the latter option. Our culture is rather obsessed with the idea of wage labor as morally imperative and necessary to provide life with self-meaning. I can sympathize with the idea that to some, wage labor might subtract meaning from life. Especially if it's working at a Burger King to pay for a room at a flophouse.

stegosaurus 12y ago

"why doesn't he get some sort of job and rent out a cheap room?" Other posts have explained why this is fallacious reasoning but I'll give it a shot anyway. There's more to it than simply the physical, theoretical possibility of changing a situation. I graduated fairly recently. Could I have worked in finance? Goldman, JPM, say? I don't think it's excessive hubris to say that it would have been theoretically possible. Then I'd be working towards owning the flat I'm currently renting. But in reality, it didn't happen, and wasn't possible. I dislike finance, and to give 90+ hour weeks in a profession I have no faith in would have been unviable. There was no choice involved; after a fairly basic reasoning process it was excluded because it would have clearly led to failure. I hope that it's easy to see how that can be generalised down the scale. I personally would rather be homeless than work FT for a fast food company, and I express disapproval at a society that makes that a 'choice' for some.