This is Real, That's Not • Hacker News Board

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#261

Post by OJFord » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 4:44 PM UTC

arrow7000 wrote: post #250

OJFord wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my mother's ideas of "proper" attire are somewhat like the dress codes of British Royalty that you read about in gossip rags. (Not too much skin showing, no cleavage on display, don't let your bra straps show, etc.) This is an even more bizarre comment than TFA to me. Your idea of 'upper class' and the royal family is... curious. You certainly don't have to be royal not to want to wear (or your daughter to wear) a…

These dress codes are necessary, but not sufficient, for being a member of the upper class.

What's described isn't a dress code, it's 'not being a chav', essentially. It's necessary, but not sufficient, for something very far from 'upper class'.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#262

Post by tchaffee » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 4:45 PM UTC

timeeater wrote: post #195

tchaffee wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is your claim: > homeless people flock to places with spare money and mild climate. Here is what it would look like as a question: Do homeless people move to places with spare money and mild climate? The "why else" construction is not a literal question. It's rhetoric device used to make a claim about reasoning. It implies that you've thought through all the possible reasons and you've come up with the obvious a…

I wrote the reason MIGHT be spare money and mild climate, and in that context my question is an actual question, not rhetoric. "It implies that you've thought through all the possible reasons and you've come up with the obvious answer." No, me writing "MIGHT" literally implies the opposite of that. It is also an aspect to consider, in any case - it is a valid question of why there are many homeless in a rich place. M…

> In theory, the rich place should offer more job opportunities than poor places elsewhere.

Which theory? Because trickle down doesn't have much support in terms of evidence. Often it's actually the wealth that causes the homelessness. As wealthy people move into an area and rents skyrocket, people who once could afford to live there end up on the street.

And where are homeless people getting all this money to relocate a thousand miles away based on the hopes that they might get a job in a city with a much higher cost of living? None of this even passes a quick common sense test.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#263

Post by fastball » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 4:49 PM UTC

reificator wrote: post #122

ggm wrote: post #105

Under the medically justified urgency of covid, Victoria took a significant number of homeless rough sleeping people (as they are called here in australia) into some kind of housing. Queensland did the same using surplus student purpose built dense housing. I'm not going to pretend this "solved the problems" but I am told a number of the less intractable cases got put into a better situation,simply having secure shel…

> That's the truly amazing thing: the net budget effect on federal and state funded interventions was probably better, and they STILL unwound the programmes. > Collective failure of imagination. > Homelessness exists because we let it. You're listening to the words and not understanding the actual motivation. Budgets are a convenient objection but not actually important. Like you observe there are people who would gl…

Citation needed that there is a significant cohort of people who effectively believe that homelessness is some sort of divine wrath that shouldn't be interfered with.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#264

Post by IanCal » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 4:50 PM UTC

Ntrails wrote: post #193

headmelted wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK loans are actually a good deal if you really understand them, which students here inevitably don’t. It makes demanding government to pay for tuition here pretty abhorrent imho. I know a lot of working class/blue-collar families here, and talking with them, it really becomes clear how incredibly selfish and unreasonable it is to expect their taxes to buy someone wealthier than them an education that they themse…

I think that the modern loans are a far less amicable deal than I had just a few years ago. Interest rates far higher despite an incredibly low rate environment. But. The repayment thresholds and the loan forgiveness period do massively reduce the onerousness, especially on those in lower paid roles who would otherwise never repay. My main complaint about the system is really how it drags on the middle. The successfu…

6-7 years on standard repayments would require a salary of around £100k straight out of uni.

On £40k you'd end up with them cancelled and likely repay less than you borrowed (45k typical borrowing, £38k repaid over 30 years).

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#265

Post by fastball » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 4:51 PM UTC

Synaesthesia wrote: post #227

pille wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think GP was saying that landlords keep hoards of miserable homeless people just outside the property, in order to scare tenants into paying their rent. People are plenty aware of economic reality.

They certainly collaborate to keep rent high, its known that property developers in the US don't rent out property in manhattan to keep prices high. Why would they want to solve homelessness? They're motivated by profit in their role at the institution.

This is just nonsense.

Right now, homeless people are not customers, meaning they are not making money off of those people, when they could be if those people were actually renters.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#266

Post by mistermann » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 4:51 PM UTC

DubiousPusher wrote: post #119

ggm wrote: post #105

Under the medically justified urgency of covid, Victoria took a significant number of homeless rough sleeping people (as they are called here in australia) into some kind of housing. Queensland did the same using surplus student purpose built dense housing. I'm not going to pretend this "solved the problems" but I am told a number of the less intractable cases got put into a better situation,simply having secure shel…

We have it over and over and over again that housing first is the approach that works. Yet it is very hard for society to stomach the idea of giving someone a handout "no matter what they have done or will do". I don't know why but this seems to be the primary psychic barrier to doing this thing we know works and which can in some cases even be cheaper than services first aid.

I believe the primary psychic barrier is that when people propose a solution, they perceive that they are working from a perfectly accurate, comprehensive model of reality, when what they are really working from is a perspective upon a very simplified, personal model of reality.

And what is overlooked/unrealized is not just the missing data (that which exists, but is not perceived by the individual), but also all the "forces" at play, like complex causation, individual preferences (many of which are highly illogical), behind the scenes string-pulling, randomness/chaos, and so forth and so on.

If we could somehow find a way to get even a few people to realize (and honestly acknowledge) that we all live within a complex, interconnected and interactive system, full of uncertainty and illusion, could we perhaps start to come up with some solutions that take this complexity into consideration (and therefore are more resistant to being derailed by simple rhetoric and propaganda)?

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#267

Post by fastball » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

sethammons wrote: post #225

This was a good post. I particularly like: > I will suggest that repeating all the things you believe about how life is supposed to work will not magically make them true and thereby fix your problems. I recently realized I would frame some of my wants/desires as “I just want $x.” There is no natural order of fairness and by shifting my internal phrasing to “I want $x,” it helped shift my mental model to what concret…

If you're well off and living on a knife's edge, I don't think you're doing a very good job of managing your finances.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#268

Post by ed25519FUUU » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

dakial1 wrote: post #168

vecinu wrote: post #78

I hope my comment doesn't sound tone-deaf or ignorant but this is something I have thought about for a while. As I was watching @lisper's movie "grace of god"[1] and heard the phrase "convince myself that it could never happen to me" (becoming homeless), I started thinking, is this a more American-centric problem? What I mean by that is, can the lack of a social safety net in the US cause a much higher rate of homele…

This is exactly my thought while I was reading the text. I live in Brazil and while we certainly have homeless and poverty here, this specific situation of someone with skill and education becoming homeless is something ultra rare, to te point that I never saw, hears or read of anyone in this situation. Even very modest people earning little money are able to get a roof over their heads. The usual case of homelessnes…

One thing I notice about developing countries that is basically non-existent in the US is tenement housing. In a lot of counties you can get a tiny “apartment” where it’s enough to sleep out of the rain and lock up your possessions. The “minimum housing” is actually not that expensive.

These places are long gone in the US, because of fire code reasons, local regulations, etc. The minimum housing in many areas that have the hardest hit homeless populations is probably closer to $1500 a month.

What’s more cruel, having people live in tenement housing our having none available at all?

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#269

Post by shortandsweet » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 4:58 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #231

DubiousPusher wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have it over and over and over again that housing first is the approach that works. Yet it is very hard for society to stomach the idea of giving someone a handout "no matter what they have done or will do". I don't know why but this seems to be the primary psychic barrier to doing this thing we know works and which can in some cases even be cheaper than services first aid.

The problem with Housing First, like with any Welfare program, it abuse. Housing First programs are ripe for abuse and are abused. While yes it is cheaper in some ways, the problem is people will be less likely to be creative or lean on personal support networks (i.e couch surfing, live with family, etc) if the government through the taxpayer will just hand you a key to an apartment no questions asked.... There were…

Abuse? How? And how do you know this? Where is the history of the entire world has this been attempted?

I'm tired of hearing how people think it will go. Pre-critics and naysayers. I want action, drastic action that has never been done before to solve problems that have never been solved before. Offer a solution or go back to work.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#270

Post by treis » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 5:02 PM UTC

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #241

michaelt wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it was the social/security net family/friends hold so that if you were unfortunate enough to fall, someone will catch you. I've no doubt that, for every person who ends up rough sleeping in the US there are 1000 who move back in with their parents. Or sleep on a friend's couch. Or get gifted a few hundred bucks from a loved one to tide them over. Or move in with a partner when otherwise they wouldn't have. But ther…

Right. But they have welfare programs to fall back on. Every homeless person on the streets of SF is cut a welfare check by the govt courtesy of the tax payers. There is no such thing in India. Perhaps the problem is that there IS a govt welfare program. The complaint currently is that what’s being done is not enough. The truth is that it will never be enough. The govt and tax payers can shovel mountains of dollars i…

>Every homeless person on the streets of SF is cut a welfare check by the govt courtesy of the tax payers.

I don't think that's true. Welfare as commonly understood doesn't really exist any more in the US. The closest is TANF (temporary assistance for needy families) but that requires you to have children and is time limited. SNAP gives you food benefits but that is limited to 3 months unless you have a job or are in workforce training. For the most part, your random homeless person on the street isn't eligible for these and doesn't get benefits. The loophole is disability but that's a pretty tough process to go through. Not likely that many homeless can muster it.