151–160 of 320 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US has more holess problem than all the other developed countries yet has a very low minimum wage. So I would say no.
That's not true. The rate of homelessness is higher in France, Sweden, Luxembourg, New Zealand, the UK, etc.
I wonder if the high minimum wage makes it harder to employ people who tend to be homeless. I ask because I see many young people homeless these days, and it isn't clear why they are homeless.
"it isn't clear why they are homeless." Domestic violence, for starters. "Among families [typically a single mother and child, which account for 37% of the homeless population] that reported domestic violence in the prior five years, 88 percent reported that it contributed to their homelessness a lot." [1] Other causes include: lack of affordable child care, underemployment, lack of affordable housing, societal negle…
To live in, In SF. your choices are a 1.5 million dollar condo or a 50$ dollar tent. Seriously people, we need to allow for more choices than that. I'm sure builders and entrepreneurs would line up around the block to build solutions that are cheaper and more cost effective, but you first have to make it legal (get rid of the mountains of regulations and zoning headaches that make this problem so insurmountable), wit…
The cost of your "regulation free zone" will likely be measured in human lives. Does that seem like an acceptable risk?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. But if you are asked directly you may not feel comfortable lying about it.
I can't imagine that the McDonald's manager is going to ask whether you have as Master's degree but just didn't write it down.
If you present as something unexpected (more educated, different social class, different age range, etc.) to someone hiring, they are often going to try and figure you out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Homelessness != Substance Use Disorder Moreover, why does treatment have to come at the expense of self-determination? The reality is that people want to receive treatment--if they don't, it is because they encounter a barrier to treatment. Barriers to treatment include: lack of treatment facilities (hospitals do not count), poor quality of existing treatment facilities, unwillingness of treatment facilities to take…
> Homelessness != Substance Use Disorder True. But the Venn diagram overlaps a _lot_. If we magically solved homelessness for everyone with a substance-abuse problem, the people still left homeless would be the ones cities are already able to help.
Here's a relevant graphic for the US[4].
The top three obstacles to obtaining permanent housing in SF are lack of affordability, unemployment and lack of housing availability[2].
The figures I've seen put substance abuse and alcoholism between ~10% and ~20% of the reasons for homelessness[3].
[1] https://probonoaustralia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/w...
[2] http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2016/02/san-franciscos-ho...
[3] https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/Figure%206_...
[4] http://www.homelesshouston.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/lo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not true. The rate of homelessness is higher in France, Sweden, Luxembourg, New Zealand, the UK, etc.
do you have some sources for this?
I was homeless in Silicon Valley many years ago. There were a lot of ‘us’. We stayed hidden in the woods, bathed often, and dressed impeccably in public. Some had jobs. Some were grad students. Several couples. There were no drugs, alcohol, beggars, or thieves out there. $5/day was enough. It was hard physically, but very spiritual, financially free, and altogether one of the best times of my life. Today it’s too dan…
Question for the author or anyone else with similar background: I've previously done a lot of work with homeless and poverty-stricken people, and one of my biggest remaining difficulties is people who won't accept help, or are offended when people only do little things to help. Part of that certainly could come from any drug or mental issue that contributed to their homelessness in the first place, but I'm sure it's…
When you say that they won't accept help, what do you mean? What did you try to offer that they didn't accept?
Once we stop judging addicts as being intrinsically bad people and see it as a mental health issue, we can solve a lot of this problem.
I live in Central LA (near LACMA / La Brea Tar Pits), and share my neighborhood with dozens of homeless. Most of the homeless in my area are what I would deem "regulars", as they tend to sleep / hang out in the same spots day in and day out. I can't tell you how they landed in the situation they are in, but I can safely say that 9/10 appear (and I'm not a doctor, so I can't obviously say for certain) to have at minim…
I agree with you, but providing full-time housing is just not feasible and would be very sensitive and pre-disposed to abuse.
I may be wrong as well, but my thought has always been that homeless camps are a good idea. One could build wells and outhouses similar to what you'd see at any standard family campground and designate "lots" for homeless to set up tents or a lean-to or what-have-you. This would also be the ideal location to distribute services to the homeless, or where charities could operate, all in a few centralized locations. Most of the charities that work for the homeless in my city are in the downtown area, consequently most of the homeless population can be found downtown despite the fact that there are very few safe places to sleep in the big city.
There are many variations of the camp idea, and certain modifications. One could require that a person register to be in the camp, or that they have no record of addiction or are currently in recovery, or that they have a case worker. These restrictions would help prevent a kind of "festering city" situation where the camp just becomes a place you can go to safely shoot up.
I can see an option for dedicated bus routes to and from the camps and then to other organizations in the city that could help the homeless (counselling centers, charities, drop-in centers, job centers, etc.)
Ideally it would be run like a community. Charities and organizations plan events in the camp, with dedicated hosting buildings and whatnot, with people who live in the camp encouraged to become active in helping with maintenance and organization and maybe even some wage-paying jobs within the camp (they would be considered government workers in that case).
Because the facilities are limited and there isn't much infrastructure to maintain, the camps would be cheap for local governments to build while also being a relatively long-term option for people (mostly homeless people are looking for a dedicated and safe place to sleep, which the camps would provide).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The latest tax increased it from 30k to about 60-70k. As to why it's doing so little, there's a variety of explanations. Some say that homeless often have mental or drug abuse issues that keep them from being able to live on their own. Others (including the mayor) say that the money is more than enough, and we need more accountability of what we already spend. 70k is about the median wage of a single person in SF.
Even losing half the bureaucracy, that leaves 35k/year for actual aid. Toss half of that at misc care and other programs. 17.5/year left for housing. Not much, but should still be enough for group home type arrangements. Or, at least I would hope so. I've never been involved in these programs on either side, but it's amazing that $70k/year might not be enough to house somebody.
