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

This is Real, That's Not

streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 364 posts

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#291

Post by tchaffee »

timeeater wrote: post #276
tchaffee wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 reloca…

Is there any evidence for people becoming homeless because of skyrocketing rents? Are there no renter protections in the USA, anyway? The theory is simple that where the area is rich, there are more jobs - catering to the rich people, but also the jobs that make the rich people rich. As for relocating, in the old days, you could hitchhike or jump on trains.

> Is there any evidence for people becoming homeless because of skyrocketing rents?

Plenty of it, it is one of the primary causes. But just to put it in concrete terms that should scare anyone, the average rent in San Francisco in 1994 was about $1000. By 2001 the average rent was $2300. [1]

Consider that other living costs go up along with rent.

> Are there no renter protections in the USA, anyway?

Sometimes. But what happens when you lose your job, and then lose your apartment as a result? How are you going to afford the much higher rents now at a new apartment even if you can find a new job? At minimum wage?

If you ever decide to work with homeless people (you should) you'll hear two types of stories over and over: 1. Diseases such as mental illness and addiction. 2. People who are pretty much just like you and me. And then something unexpected happened. These stories are humbling, because after hearing enough of them you realize that a lot of what's keeping a roof over your own head is luck. Add medical bankruptcy to the mix and you've got the USA.

> The theory is simple that where the area is rich, there are more jobs - catering to the rich people.

So your theory is that rich people hire homeless people off the street to cater to them? NYC has loads of rich people - the most in the world [2]. NYC also has a huge homelessness problem. Maybe that will get solved when and if NYC gets just a few more billionaires?

NY state itself has the highest per capita homelessness rate in the USA [3]. Trickle down doesn't work.

> but also the jobs that make the rich people rich.

This is along the lines of saying "stop being poor, just get one of those jobs that the rich people have".

I would encourage you just read up on the subject instead of inventing theories that sound good to you. Homelessness is a well researched topic, and there is no lack of studies and data around it.

[1] https://johnmacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Rents_Avg-S...

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2020/04/07/world...

[3] https://psydprograms.org/the-places-with-the-most-and-least-...

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#292

Post by sethammons »

fastball wrote: post #267
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.

The existing reply captured it well. To add to that, this is not “an unexpected expense”sinking your finances. Imagine instead that you suddenly can’t do the job you do nor can you get equivalent pay. How long could a you float on say minimum wage? Maybe it gets worse and you have trouble getting any regular job. How long could you go with no pay? Many people would say, “can’t happen to me.” And that is what the article is about. That is the invisible knife edge. Get a divorce, get sick, and have student debts, and you could be just like the author and living in a tent and taking years to claw your way out of the situation. When that is a reality that you expect could happen, you think differently. And for most people, it could happen.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#293

Post by monetus »

smallnamespace wrote: post #246
dakial1 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> healthy and sane people living in the streets for some time and most of the time the justification is indebtness There is a strong selection bias here: homeless people who are addicts or suffer from mental health issues are significantly less likely to be on a computer writing interesting articles of their experience. I volunteered at a soup kitchen in SF a number of years ago. At the orientation meeting, the direc…

Homelessness in my area seems to correspond to physical disabilities as often as mental ones sadly.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#294

Post by fastball »

scotty79 wrote: post #271
fastball wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you doubt that plenty of people think that threat of homelessness is necessary motivation for people to work? Those people also think that some people being homeless is acceptable trade off given the motivational value of the threat and cost of paying for everyone's accommodation.

Yes, I do doubt that.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#295

Post by tertius »

scotty79 wrote: post #275
nlh wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your sentiment is in the right direction but I don’t think it’s as explicit as you’re proposing. Landlords don’t “prefer” homelessness to exist. Their position, as capitalists, ends with their interests. Many (not all!) landlord are quite simple: “Pay rent or I will evict you and find someone else”. That’s it. After an eviction, they don’t care whether the person moves elsewhere or is homeless. In fact I’d ar…

If someone would end homelessness by providing homes to all of the homeless free of charge and then some more empty ones then landlords would mind very much because this oversupply would make their prices drop. They would accuse homelessness solver of dumping prices. Landlords "prefer" homelessness exist because that the surplus demand over the supply that they provide.

That already happens. Section 8 is profitable for the right landlords...

Yes, rents going down is not what a landlord wants. Just like salary going down (all things being equal). But it's not as if all landlords are conspiring to keep people homeless to increase their rents.

Yes they would accuse/blame the homelessness solver of decreasing their rents and they would be correct. I'm not a landlord and I would 'blame' or point out the same thing. That doesn't mean that I think it's wrong while at the same time correctly identifying it as the cause...

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#296

Post by fastball »

Tade0 wrote: post #282
fastball wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not about finances. I also grew up relatively poor (we had food, but couldn't afford e.g. school books) and am currently pretty well off (saving more than half of my salary while enjoying a decent quality of life). Such an upbringing leaves a mark. The other day I was thinking how it's been going too well for too long and I probably have, I don't know, ball cancer which is going to bring my situation to a more f…

Ok, but I feeling that you're on a knife edge is not the same as actually being on a knife edge, which is what GC claimed.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#297

Post by timeeater »

tchaffee wrote: post #291
timeeater wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any evidence for people becoming homeless because of skyrocketing rents? Are there no renter protections in the USA, anyway? The theory is simple that where the area is rich, there are more jobs - catering to the rich people, but also the jobs that make the rich people rich. As for relocating, in the old days, you could hitchhike or jump on trains.

> Is there any evidence for people becoming homeless because of skyrocketing rents? Plenty of it, it is one of the primary causes. But just to put it in concrete terms that should scare anyone, the average rent in San Francisco in 1994 was about $1000. By 2001 the average rent was $2300. [1] Consider that other living costs go up along with rent. > Are there no renter protections in the USA, anyway? Sometimes. But wh…

Rising rents are not evidence that rising rents are a major cause of homelessness.

"what happens when you lose your job, and then lose your apartment as a result?"

Then losing your job is the cause, not the rising rents.

"So your theory is that rich people hire homeless people off the street to cater to them?"

I could imagine many people migrate to those places to try to make their luck, because there are many opportunities. Many people trying their luck means also many people failing.

Pretty sure that a couple of dozen Billionaires do NOT cause homelessness.

"Trickle down doesn't work."

People living in New York are probably quite well off in general. A bunch of homeless people don't contradict the trickle down effect. You yourself mentioned mental illness, addiction, and unforeseen events as major causes of homelessness. Notice how rising rents and high paying jobs are not on the list.

"> but also the jobs that make the rich people rich.

This is along the lines of saying "stop being poor, just get one of those jobs that the rich people have"."

Not at all, and this is becoming silly. All I said is that there are presumably the jobs that made the rich people rich, which will usually be a lot of jobs, because rich people will usually have sold a lot of things. Building lots of things requires many workers.

"I would encourage you just read up on the subject instead of inventing theories that sound good to you."

If you are so well read, then provide some convincing evidence for your claims. None of the three links you provided tell us anything about the cause of homelessness. I noticed in the last one that California has very low youth homelessness, though.

Frankly, your "well researched" theories about homeless sound mostly like leftist anti capitalist propaganda to me.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#298

Post by timeeater »

kaitai wrote: post #211
timeeater wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

But that's the thing -- I'm a woman in tech. How am I political? I'm just a sack of cells like you. Are you a political topic? To get back to the parent posters, that's why I keep coming back to HN despite the unfortunately-now-expected friction of, well, comments like the one above me. (And timeeater, to be really clear, I don't care your position on feminism or socialism. The friction is that you label me talking a…

Huh what makes you think that I think you are political because you are a "woman in tech"?

Women in tech is political when it comes along with the unfounded claim that there are so few women in tech because of sexism.

I didn't label you anything, I wasn't even aware of your username appearing in the comment thread. I only answered to comments, not to people.

You as a "woman in tech" could become political if you started claiming special rights or special insights or demand special treatment because of your status as woman in tech.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#299

Post by EarthLaunch »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #185
EarthLaunch wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being "good with money" [...] fixes nothing if there is no money to work with To expand upon that accurate point: Having little to no money can hone your money skills to a razor's edge, because staying on that edge is how you eat.

Money skills for survival and money skills for wealth accruement are completely and utterly different skill sets. If you grow up with money and half decent parents, you learn the latter. Slowly, perhaps even imperceptively so: it probably starts young, opening a bank account, learning how to navigate the basics of the financial world. If you're middle class, you learn about investing and dealing with brokerage accoun…

That's completely accurate at that macro scale. At a smaller scale of paying bills and product selection, I know trust fund adults who can save thousands using tricks poor people know; don't spend money / pay bills until it's necessary, use credit cards to defer interest, avoid pushy extras/upgrades/insurance, buy during sales, buy resellable brands, sell your phone instead of trading it in, check for new deals annually, etc.

Because of the macro skills you mentioned, they don't need to do those things. But they also don't know how to.

Re: This is Real, That's Not

#300

Post by TheCoelacanth »

dragonwriter wrote: post #245
michaelt wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under this definition, presumably a house flipper doing all their own decorating would be petit bourgeois (applying their own labor to their own capital), while a senior manager earning $500,000/year at Google would be proleteriat (selling their labor for wages)?

> Under this definition, presumably a house flipper doing all their own decorating would be petit bourgeois In the economic analysis on which the traditional class distinctions are based, the homes owned transitorily by a flipper would seem to be (well, aside from the land component, which is also not capital) a very expensive raw material, not really capital (they aren't tools used in the course of producing goods f…

Someone making $500k/year at Google probably also gets a healthy chunk of Google stock.
Post reply on HN