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

Who’s unhoused in California? Largest study in decades upends myths

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 20 posts

Re: Who’s unhoused in California? Largest study in decades upends myths

#11

Post by toast0 »

bko wrote: post #7

> Most participants in the research reported that the cost of living had become unsustainable before they lost housing, reporting a monthly median household income of $960 in the six months prior to homelessness. I don't think $960 could afford 6 months of rent along with other daily expenses, regardless of where you live in the US. I get that the rent is high, but that income isn't going to support you anywhere, so…

$960 per month of income was the reported median for the last 6 months before homelessness; not $960 of income for the last 6 months before.

$960/month is less than my california rent from a decade ago, so I suspect it goes less far today, but a lot farther than $960/6 months.

Re: Who’s unhoused in California? Largest study in decades upends myths

#12

Post by bombcar »

lockhouse wrote: post #6
about3fitty wrote: post #3

I’m a recent divorcee who was unhoused for the past few months but sheltered in very cheap hotels in San Francisco before recently signing a lease to continue living in an SRO on a month to month basis. The divorce was a shock to the finances but not a big one. I make over $100k and am just now zeroing out my debt, much of which was education related. The reason I haven’t signed a serious lease for a proper apartment…

Sorry to hear about your struggles and I genuinely hope you’re in a good place now. Inflation is brutal. As the head of a 6 person household, rent, groceries, and gas are eating up way too much of my budget. I make just under 6 figures and with trying to maintain the modest activities my children were in before inflation hit and paying down debts it’s pretty much paycheck to paycheck living.

I’m in a similar situation and I was surprised to learn that I’m within a few dollars of qualifying for food stamps.

Re: Who’s unhoused in California? Largest study in decades upends myths

#13

Post by bombcar »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #9
FollowingTheDao wrote: post #5

I am currently homeless in Washington state (disabled with Schizoaffective Disorder) and for them to be surprised that “most people want housing” is pretty obvious. I know my illness is made worse by the stress of living in a minivan, but no one cares. I am nearing 60 as well. Being mentally ill and white is a death sentence in “the richest country in the world”.

> Being mentally ill and white is a death sentence in “the richest country in the world”. How would it be better if you weren't white? Is there some racism going on in social services provided? Also, this isn't really the richest country in the world on a per-capita basis. Switzerland, for example, is a lot richer than America.

There is definitely sexism. There’s an entire program named “women, infants, and children”.

A completely competent person would have difficulty navigating the Byzantine and Kafkaesque world of government and social services help. I don’t see an easy path for someone with difficulties.

Re: Who’s unhoused in California? Largest study in decades upends myths

#15

Post by ryan_lane »

bombcar wrote: post #13
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being mentally ill and white is a death sentence in “the richest country in the world”. How would it be better if you weren't white? Is there some racism going on in social services provided? Also, this isn't really the richest country in the world on a per-capita basis. Switzerland, for example, is a lot richer than America.

There is definitely sexism. There’s an entire program named “women, infants, and children”. A completely competent person would have difficulty navigating the Byzantine and Kafkaesque world of government and social services help. I don’t see an easy path for someone with difficulties.

WIC is for nutrition for children. It includes women, but ones that are pregnant, breastfeeding, or postpartum, as they're providing nutrition to children. Men can use this program with their infants and children as well.

I'm not saying that social programs are easy to navigate, but saying that the game is rigged against white men is absurd.

Re: Who’s unhoused in California? Largest study in decades upends myths

#16

Post by FollowingTheDao »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #9
FollowingTheDao wrote: post #5

I am currently homeless in Washington state (disabled with Schizoaffective Disorder) and for them to be surprised that “most people want housing” is pretty obvious. I know my illness is made worse by the stress of living in a minivan, but no one cares. I am nearing 60 as well. Being mentally ill and white is a death sentence in “the richest country in the world”.

> Being mentally ill and white is a death sentence in “the richest country in the world”. How would it be better if you weren't white? Is there some racism going on in social services provided? Also, this isn't really the richest country in the world on a per-capita basis. Switzerland, for example, is a lot richer than America.

> How would it be better if you weren't white?

It is my experience, so I am not saying this is statistical proof, but many of the lower income areas are African American and the services run by the same group. And by that community I am seen to have some kind of advantage because I am white that never appears for me. And I was literally told I would not want to work with a group because it would put me in a densely African American apartment complex.

I am not claiming "reverse racism" or anything, that would be stupid. Just saying how it is for me. People claiming that white people have it easy are projecting the same stereotypes or people living with mental illness.

Re: Who’s unhoused in California? Largest study in decades upends myths

#17

Post by milkytron »

about3fitty wrote: post #3

I’m a recent divorcee who was unhoused for the past few months but sheltered in very cheap hotels in San Francisco before recently signing a lease to continue living in an SRO on a month to month basis. The divorce was a shock to the finances but not a big one. I make over $100k and am just now zeroing out my debt, much of which was education related. The reason I haven’t signed a serious lease for a proper apartment…

Do hotels really end up being cheaper than a rental?

That seems interesting to me because even the cheapest motels in my area that are the last resort before homelessness run about $40/night and the cheapest studios in the same area are usually a bit lower than that on a monthly basis.

Edit: Different market so prices may be different. Just find this surprising.

Re: Who’s unhoused in California? Largest study in decades upends myths

#18

Post by everforward »

bko wrote: post #7

> Most participants in the research reported that the cost of living had become unsustainable before they lost housing, reporting a monthly median household income of $960 in the six months prior to homelessness. I don't think $960 could afford 6 months of rent along with other daily expenses, regardless of where you live in the US. I get that the rent is high, but that income isn't going to support you anywhere, so…

> I get that the rent is high, but that income isn't going to support you anywhere, so it's not true to say homelessness is primarily caused by high rents.

That's basically two sides of the same coin. Affordability is either/both the price of the good or the income someone receives.

I think it's worth calling out that that's way below full-time minimum wage in SF (napkin mathed out to $2,720 pre-tax, $17/hr40hrs4weeks). Not to hold it against them, but it sounds like this may be a benefits issue more than a pay issue.

> “People are homeless because their rent is too high. And their options are too few. And they have no cushion,” Dr Margot Kushel, initiative director and lead investigator, told the Associated Press.

This part doesn't jive to me with this part:

> Researchers reported that participants had endured significant trauma, with two-thirds reporting mental health symptoms, more than a third experiencing physical or sexual violence during homelessness, and more than a third visiting an emergency department in the past six months. Access to care and treatment was also a major challenge cited, with one in five who use substances reporting that they wanted treatment but could not obtain it.

The latter snippet makes more sense to me for "why are people homeless?". The former is certainly still a problem, but if that's the sole issue, it could be easily solved by helping people move an hour or two away to somewhere they can afford. It makes more sense to me that people can't afford rent in SF, but can't afford to move away and lose access to services that are presumably much better in a major city than the boonies.

Re: Who’s unhoused in California? Largest study in decades upends myths

#19

Post by swearwolf »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #9
FollowingTheDao wrote: post #5

I am currently homeless in Washington state (disabled with Schizoaffective Disorder) and for them to be surprised that “most people want housing” is pretty obvious. I know my illness is made worse by the stress of living in a minivan, but no one cares. I am nearing 60 as well. Being mentally ill and white is a death sentence in “the richest country in the world”.

> Being mentally ill and white is a death sentence in “the richest country in the world”. How would it be better if you weren't white? Is there some racism going on in social services provided? Also, this isn't really the richest country in the world on a per-capita basis. Switzerland, for example, is a lot richer than America.

I live in Portland, and I have some friends who work in homeless services. They follow an equity model, which places those with the highest level of intersectional need first, particularly BIPOC people. White, cisgender men are thought to have the least intersectional need, and therefore they receive the least support. In practical, day-to-day terms, this means that BIPOC with marginal housing are given priority over non-BIPOC with no housing at all.

Re: Who’s unhoused in California? Largest study in decades upends myths

#20

Post by worik »

ryan_lane wrote: post #15
bombcar wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is definitely sexism. There’s an entire program named “women, infants, and children”. A completely competent person would have difficulty navigating the Byzantine and Kafkaesque world of government and social services help. I don’t see an easy path for someone with difficulties.

WIC is for nutrition for children. It includes women, but ones that are pregnant, breastfeeding, or postpartum, as they're providing nutrition to children. Men can use this program with their infants and children as well. I'm not saying that social programs are easy to navigate, but saying that the game is rigged against white men is absurd.

> but saying that the game is rigged against white men is absurd.

Yes.

But for an individual white man with no family nor means, it does not look like that

The real absurdity is the avarice, bigotry, and prejudice that bought us here

Post reply on HN