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

181–190 of 320 posts

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#181

Post by Domenic_S »

nyghtly wrote: post #117
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.

If you solved homelessness (not with magic, but with money) for everyone with a substance use disorder, then a lot more people would seek treatment, and a lot more would be successful. Even better, you could make that housing into supportive housing, which would prevent deaths from substance use in isolation.

One of the features of addiction and many other mental health issues is a total denial of a problem. It's one of the symptoms of the disease. That's why the first step in 10-step programs is _admit you have a problem_.

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#182

Post by watwut »

deckar01 wrote: post #70

> I was overqualified for most minimum wage jobs. The author lost me here. I have taken jobs way below my expectations to make ends meet. I got startlingly close to not making rent, but I took a job that barely got me by and rode it out until I was able to move to a company that understood the value of my experience.

Overqualified means that employers don't want you, because they assume you will leave very quick or will not be motivated or there is something wrong with you. Employers assume that overqualified people are getting lower job just as temporary solution and prefer someone who will stay longer.

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#183

Post by yesenadam »

virmundi wrote: post #178
dredmorbius wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The OP literally made the argument that, in the extreme, people must have to die if regulations are relaxed. OP did not assume good faith. OP pushed the argument to the extreme. I responded by pointing out that out. I appreciate civility, but won’t assume good faith when the other participant has shown bad faith.

"Ah..I wondered when that would show up." was just being condescending and snarky. "But they started it!" is not a defence.

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#184

Post by mwfunk »

toasterlovin wrote: post #72
megaman8 wrote: post #48

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…

FWIW, people who have a problem with street people are largely not concerned with people living in unconventional shelters (such as tents and cardboard boxes). They're concerned with what street people do . Drug use, syringes left on the ground, shit and piss everywhere, piles of trash, theft, vandalism, etc.

Agreed- a lot of people (on HN at least) are hypersensitive to any suggestion that any homeless people are voluntarily homeless, dangerous to themselves or others, or engage in any activities that everyone living around them would prefer they not engage in.

I get it; acknowledging that can be a slippery slope towards demonizing all homeless people, which in turn could lead to people rationalizing not trying to help the situation, or dealing with it in ways that don't help those in need.

But it's dishonest, and it's a weird sort of virtue signaling to try to shame anyone who says they don't like wading around in syringes and human waste and clearly mentally ill panhandlers when they visit SF. Mass homelessness is absolutely a problem not just for the homeless themselves, but for everyone in a city. There's nothing wrong with saying that mass homelessness makes a city a worse place for everyone, not just the homeless themselves. Accepting that makes it a lot easier to motivate people to actually do things to improve the situation.

Anecdotally, it's an issue where people tend to hold extreme positions with no middle ground- either SF's homeless are primarily noble beings fallen on hard times who need our help, or (the other extreme view) they're primarily panhandlers taking advantage of local sympathies and weather and are fine with sleeping in doorways and pooping in alleys if it means they don't have to have jobs. In reality it's some combination, but I have no idea what the demographics are or if anyone even knows.

If there's no common ground with how people define the problem, there's no agreement on the solution. It sucks but if people don't view it as a huge gray area with multiple valid perspectives, it can't ever get fixed in a meaningful way. People will just continue arguing over whether to arrest them all or throw money at them, and the problem will persist indefinitely. Having said that, I really hope the additional funding approved by voters last week turns out to be a step in the right direction that makes a tangible positive difference for everyone in SF, homeless or not. I have no problem with throwing money at the situation if it actually helps.

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#185

Post by D_Guidi »

jl2718 wrote: post #129

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…

there was a documentary about this, seen on Italian TV (English doc with subs)

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#186

Post by umichguy »

nradov wrote: post #84
ska wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author may just have meant that he was rejected from such jobs due to being honest about his education when asked, which is a fairly common practice.

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.

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#187

Post by jmalicki »

pentae wrote: post #120
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…

Considering the annual cost of a taxpayer for a prison inmate is $31k a year, surely thats a problem that can be solved with that budget.

In California it's about $75k/yr[1] so that budget should be roughly enough.

https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/aug/09...

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#188

Post by dahdum »

jki275 wrote: post #135
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ya, they would be much smaller. Rents in Tokyo appear cheap, until you look at them on a square meter basis.

Never tried to rent in Tokyo, but I can imagine the prices are astronomical in any decent areas.

They really aren't, they are just small compared to western standards. You can get a two bedroom in Shinjuku for $1900/month, it's just going to be around 625 sqft. Transport in the Tokyo area is so good it's not really a big deal to live further out either.

A big reason is that the Japanese land zoning approach is far more rational than the US approach. Much has been written about it[1].

1. https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-...

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#189

Post by sciurus »

alistairSH wrote: post #167
grogenaut wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're going to be real surprised then when you find out what assisted living or memory care costs for your parents. Hint it's at least double what normal cost of living is. And many of these folks do need that level of care and supervision.

Sure, that doesn't surprise me. But how many of those 7000 homeless need that level of care? Half? 2/3? SF should at least be able to get the "easy" people off the street.

Maybe they already have?

Re: I Used to Be Homeless

#190

Post by Nomentatus »

Kalium wrote: post #118
cujo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you're saying, but you're literally saying you feeling awkward is more important than someone having food that day. Sure, it's not the most efficient or probably effective, but giving a little bit does make a difference.

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 don't always carry food, and I try to avoid theatrical and practiced begging, since that's more likely to be for drugs so won't stop for the first apparently homeless person I see.

I don't feel weird "giving to one and not the many," since I've read some Kant and know that I have no moral obligation to do the impossible; I don't even think I have an obligation to do so much that I start to hate doing it, and might quit. I don't mean to be unkind, but "I can't help everyone." and "It might feel weird" do seem like rationalizations to me.

The guy I've sat with most had a serious (obvious impact) brain injury, and when I last talked with him, he was drinking while contemplating whether he should go to a meeting that had been set up with his son, who he hadn't seen since his childhood. He was very worried his now-adult son might not like him. I told him (on the basis of previous our conversations) that he should be proud of himself; he was shouldering a huge burden better he would than most of us would. That it didn't really matter whether his son "got that" or didn't; he should go to help his son understand the world, and understand himself. I have no idea whether he ever met with his son or not.

Break some boundaries, experiment a bit, you don't have to go overboard.

Post reply on HN