Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 101 posts

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#21

Post by darkr »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #12

We need to come up some better language for people who could afford a house in another town, but prefer to live in the open in order to be in some particular geographic spot. "Homeless" is much too broad. Are you homeless if you prefer "high-profile but low-profit" jobs, as this man did? Well sure, but being homeless does not always mean that conditions outside of your control have left you with no place to live, whi…

> I imagine there would be a lot of folks -- myself included -- who would consider owning a "room that goes places" instead of a traditional home/apartment

You've heard of a Motorhome or "Recreational Vehicle", right?

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#23

Post by chii »

anon4 wrote: post #14
toothbrush wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Brave. Men don't get anything for free anyway. Do you mean that male humans don't get anything for free, or do you mean that as in people? Because in certain societies ( ahem large swathes of Europe) there are social safety nets in place to prevent precisely this type of thing from happening. Lose your job? You get a percentage of your old salary for a fixed number of months to allow you to transition to a new job.…

Not to mention that sunlight, air and water are pretty much free. Most fruits, vegetables and game are also free (though it requires some effort to take, you're not engaged in a traditional capital transaction with another owner), provided you don't hunt it to extinction. Then again, freezing to death in a snow storm is also free. There's lots of free to go around.

> Most fruits, vegetables and game are also free

if you owned the property you caught them on. Otherwise, no, i don't believe you are allowed to "live off the land" in these day and age.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#24

Post by forgetsusername »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #12

We need to come up some better language for people who could afford a house in another town, but prefer to live in the open in order to be in some particular geographic spot. "Homeless" is much too broad. Are you homeless if you prefer "high-profile but low-profit" jobs, as this man did? Well sure, but being homeless does not always mean that conditions outside of your control have left you with no place to live, whi…

>about some guys who came to YC and were living in their car

Outliers, likely in many ways. Young, talented people, wealthy enough to own a car and smart enough to get into and through YC. They probably had family and a home life to return to if they failed. I agree, that isn't "homeless". You can't point at such examples as the model for most people on the streets, though.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#25

Post by noja »

dazc wrote: post #9
sofaofthedamned wrote: post #3

I remember hearing on the radio about the UK Government, many years ago doing a census of all the homeless in the UK. They had somebody on the radio who worked with the homeless who was tasked to do it in her area. Her instructions were only to count those on public property - i.e, if they were in a shop doorway or a car park they didn't count. Funnily enough the count showed a large decrease in the number of homeles…

I've been homeless. Counting people in shop doorways,etc would be a poor measure anyway. And, someone 'who worked with the homeless' would be unlikely to spot the majority of people who were homeless. It's not something you go around advertising unless you're in a certain outlying subset. To my mind, in the UK at least, many of the 'people who work with the homeless' are often part of the problem.

> many of the 'people who work with the homeless' are often part of the problem.

How so?

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#26

Post by PavlovsCat »

aurelianito wrote: post #17
toothbrush wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Brave. Men don't get anything for free anyway. Do you mean that male humans don't get anything for free, or do you mean that as in people? Because in certain societies ( ahem large swathes of Europe) there are social safety nets in place to prevent precisely this type of thing from happening. Lose your job? You get a percentage of your old salary for a fixed number of months to allow you to transition to a new job.…

I think that he is trying to imply that society imposes men the burden to endure things. We cannot complain nor show suffering. If we do so, we are discriminated. I see this behavoiur a lot.

There is no way I can get away with it on HN, but in my mind, I call it Neoliberal Personality Disorder (not because it is a personality disorder, I mean it as a pun on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which in turn is a placeholder for itself plus related disorders). A set of soundbites and rationalizations that lead people to talk and behave (about and towards not directly present people) as if they were devoid of empathy, while considering the expression of suffering (especially suffering they are made in some way made indirectly and partially responsible for), as an affront in itself, and the only problem to be solved (or ignored). Certain ideas are so deeply ingrained that they don't even need to be articulated or seriously defended, and poking under the facade is met with aggression or silence (or flowery explanations of why it's pointless to communicate, shallow non-communication etc., which are the same thing in effect).

The problem isn't that corporations, political parties, fan clubs etc. aren't fully developed people, how could they, they're groups of people; it's that they in some weird way sometimes tend to "think" they are, and think their lack of empathy and unwillingness to self-criticize is strength, just like a damaged person might. How those then train and filter people reflects that, which creates feedback. Also note that I don't mean to say that "all corporations are X" or "all neoliberals think Y" - calling corporations or capitalism sociopathic is overused anyway, I know, but I really think there is something there, and just like personality disorders and related traits in humans, it's not black and white but rather on a spectrum.

Put differently and rephrasing what many people said before in the last 100 years, it's the pathology of a "system", not (just) that of the people in it. Though I wonder how long it takes to rub off, and where the lines blur, how it affects language which in turn affects thought and our ability to even see it. Take it as food for thought more than a claim, and sorry for rambling.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#27

Post by Alex3917 »

chii wrote: post #23
anon4 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that sunlight, air and water are pretty much free. Most fruits, vegetables and game are also free (though it requires some effort to take, you're not engaged in a traditional capital transaction with another owner), provided you don't hunt it to extinction. Then again, freezing to death in a snow storm is also free. There's lots of free to go around.

> Most fruits, vegetables and game are also free if you owned the property you caught them on. Otherwise, no, i don't believe you are allowed to "live off the land" in these day and age.

You're not legally allowed to live off the land in many places, but no one is going to stop you either. Especially if you're not uprooting native plants or whatever. If you go into someone's garden and start eating their hostas then that might be a different story.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#28

Post by gloves »

mettamage wrote: post #18
gloves wrote: post #4

In this particular case, having read the article, it didn't seem as if the man in question really minded the lifestyle of homelessness. There is a perception that to be without a static home is a terrible, terrible thing, but really, I can imagine for someone who appears to have his life together in many other ways (and free from other issues that plight the homeless community such as addictions) - then it could poss…

I have the same opinion and said the same thing in discussions with some friends. Being powerless is the element that needs to dealt with, by being homeless against your will for example. I could imagine myself being homeless just because I choose to do so. I could also imagine that I'd live in a home and feel imprisoned by obligation. Between those two cases, I'd prefer self-chosen homelessness.

Exactly.

I feel, and again only speaking for myself, but the thing I strive most for in life is choice, or options.

Having the option to choose whether to live in a home or not. If I was to choose homelessness, I wouldn't see this as a bad thing, but a lifestyle choice. Thinking about it, it's quite a strange concept to return to the same place each day when there is such a big wide world out there full of experiences.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#29

Post by gloves »

mettamage wrote: post #18
gloves wrote: post #4

In this particular case, having read the article, it didn't seem as if the man in question really minded the lifestyle of homelessness. There is a perception that to be without a static home is a terrible, terrible thing, but really, I can imagine for someone who appears to have his life together in many other ways (and free from other issues that plight the homeless community such as addictions) - then it could poss…

I have the same opinion and said the same thing in discussions with some friends. Being powerless is the element that needs to dealt with, by being homeless against your will for example. I could imagine myself being homeless just because I choose to do so. I could also imagine that I'd live in a home and feel imprisoned by obligation. Between those two cases, I'd prefer self-chosen homelessness.

I don't mean to say those who are homeless without choice have it easy by the way, or that people choose homelessness. I appreciate there are a world of reasons why people find themself homeless, most of which are bad.

Simply making the point that living in a home is an interesting quirk of society.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#30

Post by yummyfajitas »

gloves wrote: post #4

In this particular case, having read the article, it didn't seem as if the man in question really minded the lifestyle of homelessness. There is a perception that to be without a static home is a terrible, terrible thing, but really, I can imagine for someone who appears to have his life together in many other ways (and free from other issues that plight the homeless community such as addictions) - then it could poss…

I've significant amounts of time living without a static home. In 2014, the longest time I spent in one place was 2-3 months at one particular low end hotel, not really by choice (prepping and recovering from spine surgery). Significant chunks of my time were spent living in shared housing - 8-12 bunk beds to a room, no real privacy, shared baths. In the west, if such a living space were filled with crazy drug addicts, it would be called a homeless shelter.

When a westerner has this experience in Asia it's called "backpacking" rather than "homelessness", and most folks will object strongly if I were to describe myself as homeless. Perhaps we should come up with a similar term to describe it when folks do it in the west and similarly compartmentalize their experiences.

Post reply on HN