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

I Used to Be Homeless

yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 320 posts

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#261

Post by jawnv6 »

SilasX wrote: post #236
jawnv6 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using the point-in-time count as a divisor for the entire budget is so ridiculously asinine I'm shocked so many folks are engaging with it in good faith. "Let's figure out how to use that money" might begin with understanding how it's already spent. Here's a more in depth article correcting this fallacy: http://beyondchron.org/sfs-homeless-spending-myth/ “Since the 1980’s, the media has created an impression—now shar…

The only thing "dangerously ignorant" is giving someone a free place to live on top of the most expensive real estate in the world, merely because they threaten they might be on the street instead of moving somewhere cheaper like everyone else.

A free place to live? Which program is that, exactly? Refresh my memory if you'd be so kind.

I mean, I'm certain you're not denigrating housing assistance programs for persons who lived in the city before they were homeless and painting it as dangerous outsiders getting free rent. That would be unconscionable.

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#262

Post by jawnv6 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #137
megaman8 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF just passed 300 million/year measure that's supposed to help the homeless and that's in addition to the 240 million/year of funding that's already there. Both of those combined exceeds the budgets of most cities. First I would say, let's figure out how to use that money so that it's actually working. 540 million/year is enough to give the 7000 homeless in SF 77,000$ per year. Let's put that to good use and make su…

The divisor should be 7000 people + however many people are not homeless because of the money SF spends reducing homelessness. I certainly hope that's a number much larger than 7000.

You're correct. A full 50% of the budget is housing assistance. 10% is eviction prevention. After that, we're getting into the services and support for the 7000+ people that the point-in-time count captures.

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#263

Post by yitosda »

umichguy wrote: post #186
nradov wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing dishonest about omitting irrelevant qualifications and experience from a job application.

Genuine question for you (and anyone else), while on the topic. If you had a Master's degree and all you did was "normal" office job type stuff, but now if you want to do hourly burger flipping or whatever else, how would you go about tailoring your CV? You can drop a degree or something but now you have to also account for 5 to 7yrs of full-time job experience.....I am trying to rack my brain.

I doubt you need to account for a gap in work experience for a burger flipping job.

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#264

Post by lliamander »

kakarot wrote: post #257
lliamander wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think he's disputing that crime and poverty are correlated. I think he's disputing both the idea that poverty causes crime and the idea that cracking down on petty crime hurts the poor. There are many people who are poor due to unfortunate circumstances, but more than likely, if a poor person commits crimes, it has less to do with their poverty and more to do with other factors that caused both their poverty…

You're telling me that if I was rich I would still have risked my freedom to steal food from the supermarket during the time when I was homeless and extremely sick and unable to work? And conversely, that I should have just starved instead of stealing food in order to maintain my moral standing? That is arguably an illogical position.

Obviously I am saying neither of those things, because I am speaking in generalities (as they apply in the US) and have no knowledge of you in particular.

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#265

Post by SilasX »

jawnv6 wrote: post #261
SilasX wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing "dangerously ignorant" is giving someone a free place to live on top of the most expensive real estate in the world, merely because they threaten they might be on the street instead of moving somewhere cheaper like everyone else.

A free place to live? Which program is that, exactly? Refresh my memory if you'd be so kind. I mean, I'm certain you're not denigrating housing assistance programs for persons who lived in the city before they were homeless and painting it as dangerous outsiders getting free rent. That would be unconscionable.

It would be “unconscionable” to object to a 90% housing subsidy (but not a 100% subsidy) for someone to live on the most valuable real estate in the world rather than moving somewhere cheaper like everyone else?

Um, okay then. Forget I said anything, I guess.

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#266

Post by twblalock »

canhascodez wrote: post #127
twblalock wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Markets are not a solution for all problems: market failures are quite real, and no, they are not all caused by government. This particular market failure is definitely caused by government.

Homelessness never existed before government regulations?

> Homelessness never existed before government regulations?

The context of the parent comment is high real estate prices in San Francisco, which are caused by government regulations.

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#267

Post by ksenzee »

darpa_escapee wrote: post #155
ksenzee wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The majority of homelessness is caused by economic issues like the loss of a job, lack of sufficient income, lack of affordable housing and domestic violence. I did some work for an Australian charity that works with the homeless, so I have this graphic[1] on hand. 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…

This is what I mean. There are plenty of people experiencing homelessness because, say, they lost their job and they were already behind on their rent, so now they're couchsurfing or living in their car. That is not a complicated problem for cities to solve, if they have enough money and the political will to spend it. Housing vouchers, job placement counseling, domestic violence programs: there are lots of successful ways to help people without substance abuse issues.

But my uncle Jim, an alcoholic whom I most recently saw panhandling on a freeway on-ramp in Seattle? His problems are not easy to solve, and nobody quite knows how to turn money and political will into solutions for people like him. His family doesn't know how, his city doesn't know how, and I certainly don't know how. I gave him a few bucks, which I'm sure he used on his alcohol of choice, and tried not to think about how my dad looked just like him.

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#268

Post by jawnv6 »

SilasX wrote: post #265
jawnv6 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A free place to live? Which program is that, exactly? Refresh my memory if you'd be so kind. I mean, I'm certain you're not denigrating housing assistance programs for persons who lived in the city before they were homeless and painting it as dangerous outsiders getting free rent. That would be unconscionable.

It would be “unconscionable” to object to a 90% housing subsidy (but not a 100% subsidy) for someone to live on the most valuable real estate in the world rather than moving somewhere cheaper like everyone else? Um, okay then. Forget I said anything, I guess.

Nah, I'm referring to how you're wildly misrepresenting your position and now presenting an exceptionally poor reading of the objection. If you manage to say anything of substance I'll be sure to recall it.

But really, I'm game! Name a specific program you object to? Single out one of the nonprofits that receives these funds? I'm curious what the nice folks down at Hamilton Families did to deserve this much of your ire.

I mean, it couldn't possibly be sour grapes that those lucky ducky homeless folks get to stay in smoke-drenched SF while you had to bounce to Austin like "everyone else?" How was ACL this year?

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#269

Post by DoreenMichele »

Nomentatus wrote: post #190
Kalium wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's consider a proposal, then. A simple approach. Whenever you encounter a homeless person, stop and interact for a bit. Treat them as a human being, deserving of respect and dignity and humane treatment as a friend and neighbor. Find out what they need. Give the at least enough for a meal. I'm going to assume 5-10 minutes and $10 per person per encounter per day. Given that I pass at least 20 of my neighbors exper…

I choose one out of the many, and it doesn't have to be every day - or every week; and I do this only when I have some real time to spend to talk, in case a conversation gets deep, which can happen and is a good thing. At least a third of the time I bring say cherries or a couple of bananas (scurvy from Vitamin C deficiency is not uncommon for homeless people.) The food donations would be more common except that I do…

It's cool that you do this and I enjoyed reading the comment, but I'm not too keen on the idea of actively encouraging random strangers on the internet to try the same when they clearly are openly hostile. I can readily see that going bad places.

When I was on the street, people sometimes treated me like a zoo animal they could gawk at and would waste my time and energy and violate my personal boundaries by peppering me with invasive questions. No, they weren't going to be a positive social experience for me. No, they weren't going to help me brain storm or problem solve. No, they weren't going to do anything for me.

People who have nothing but contempt and excuses can just keep walking as far as I'm concerned. They don't need to listen to stories of how you behave, filter it through their mind and come to bizarre conclusions that are likely to just add to the problems of the poorest of the poor.

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#270

Post by Nomentatus »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #269
Nomentatus wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I choose one out of the many, and it doesn't have to be every day - or every week; and I do this only when I have some real time to spend to talk, in case a conversation gets deep, which can happen and is a good thing. At least a third of the time I bring say cherries or a couple of bananas (scurvy from Vitamin C deficiency is not uncommon for homeless people.) The food donations would be more common except that I do…

It's cool that you do this and I enjoyed reading the comment, but I'm not too keen on the idea of actively encouraging random strangers on the internet to try the same when they clearly are openly hostile. I can readily see that going bad places. When I was on the street, people sometimes treated me like a zoo animal they could gawk at and would waste my time and energy and violate my personal boundaries by peppering…

I take your point, and it's a good one. My counter would be that I would like to encourage the less-narcissistic to be of a little help and make contact, in part because, just as you say, right now those who aren't homeless but are willing to interact with them are not always the best people - they often have selfish or trivial agendas. We need a few more making real contact who don't. You know, actual mature human beings.

So I wouldn't want to think that I've encouraged "poverty tourism" (which has a long history, right back to Victorian slum tours, and probably further back than that.) I'm absolutely not trying to indulge my curiosity when talking to a homeless person; that seems exploitative at best. If a question would be intrusive and unnecessary if you posed it to a billionaire, it's probably not polite question for a homeless person, either. You've better expressed what I meant when I said I always made sure I had time to talk: sometimes homeless people are new to town, or just have something on their mind, and I'm happy to brainstorm (or help fix a bike one time.) But that's up to them of course.

Post reply on HN