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

Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 82 posts

Re: Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

#51

Post by GuiA »

clarky07 wrote: post #42
GuiA wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not enough to live in Palo Alto. MOVE. "He was laid off [...] The next year, his wife died at age 55. [...] He turned down an offer from his brother to move to Illinois. He wants to stay in Palo Alto, he says, because it has been his home for so long and because he feels safe here. [...] He said he stayed in Palo Alto in large part because of the memories of his late wife." I agree with you. But... humans don'…

I can understand the sentiment, but I think it would be more heartbreaking to be homeless...

Have you ever read stories in the newspaper of old people who keep their deceased spouse's corpse at home for weeks or even months?

Humans do weird things when grieving. If there is no one (adult children, siblings, close friends, etc.) to help them go through the grieving process, things can get weird real fast.

Re: Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

#52

Post by chiph »

ssharp wrote: post #32

Serious question: Are there trailer parks in the area? A place where you can rent land for parking a mobile-home long term? I am not at all familiar with the SF/Valley rental market, other than hearing how it's exorbitantly expensive and rents keep growing. I'd have to think there would be somewhere where rents are not so expensive. I have a hard time believing a standard suburban studio or one-bedroom apartment woul…

There are a couple of RV parks in the area. I want to say they're $700 a month plus electricity. Not sure if any of them would be up for multi-year residents, that's more of a mobile-home (trailer) park thing. Of which, there are several in the area and from what I can tell from Google maps, they're all full.

Re: Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

#53

Post by clarky07 »

devilshaircut wrote: post #40
clarky07 wrote: post #10

I hate to be that guy, and I'm going to sound like an ass, but this is 100% his doing. Software worker in Palo Alto for 30 years making as much as 150k has no excuse. Save some money stupid. Also, when you get fired and can't find another job, perhaps you should move out of your $2150 a month rental. That's enough for 4-5 months or more in other places. $1700 a month SS isn't much, but it's enough to not be homeless…

> "All that being said, I'm not sure what the point of making criminals out of homeless people is. No reason to kick people when they are down." I agree with this point that you said. The rest I think is pretty unfair; we know very little about this guys' life and how he spent his money (or the reasons he spent his money the way he did - "no excuse" I think is a false statement). The fact is, there are people who are…

Perhaps it is slightly unfair, but I think they are reasonable assumptions based on the information given.

1. Worked in tech for 30 years (which implies pretty good salary) along with actual number of 150k for at least some of those years.

2. We have a first-hand account from his step-son that says he was really bad with his money.

3. Then we have irrational behavior staying in a place that he most definitely can't afford and choosing to be homeless in expensive area instead of not homeless in more reasonable area based on his SS income.

> The fact is, there are people who aren't making anywhere near $150,000 annual and these people will inevitably run into the same problems this man is facing

Yes, people who don't make a lot of money will have more problems than someone who does make a lot of money. That's why I said kicking them while they are down doesn't make sense. That doesn't mean that the guy who made a lot of money and pissed it away isn't responsible for his current situation.

Re: Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

#54

Post by sharemywin »

Let's assume started in 1978 with 30k. Pay increases of 5.75%/yr which gets him to 151K in 2007. assuming saving 10% and a 8% return per yr that's 628k in 401k. Let's assume market takes 40% and losses job with 2-3 years before SSN. Out there you could easily blow through any kind of retirement savings pretty quickly.

Re: Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

#55

Post by jdmichal »

malanj wrote: post #44
jdmichal wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only an invitation for police harassment if you're breaking the law. And in your version, you would instead have been arrested / fined immediately regardless of anyone reporting you. The bottom line for selective enforcement is that the police recognize that there is a priority structure in laws. They have limited resources and cannot enforce every law, everywhere, every time. While I would rather see this law u…

I see this a closer to something like prostitution laws that are selectively enforced in many countries and lead to large scale police corruption/harassment. Random rant: my limited experience of police treatment of homeless people in San Francisco leaves quite a lot to be desired. I've spent about one month in total there and I saw police hassling homeless people quite frequently. Anything that makes that easier is…

I agree with your principle whole-heartedly; I was just pointing out that I feel that police harassment is an orthogonal concern, and that selective enforcement is a Good Thing in the vast majority of cases -- ie, all the ones you never hear nor think about.

Re: Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

#56

Post by chiph »

a3n wrote: post #19
Asparagirl wrote: post #18

Only 15 emergency shelter beds in all of Palo Alto?! And an estimated 150 men, women, and children competing for those spots every night? That's disgusting. Companies who have HQ's in Palo Alto: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_based_in_P... Not one of those companies, some of which are valued in the billions, could pick up the cost of sponsoring another ten emergency beds? Another five, even?

Possibly, but they'd have to bring in their profits from offshore, and that would be taxed.

That might be something the legislature could do (Sacramento, maybe Washington) -- corporations buying municipal bonds are exempt from the tax.

Re: Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

#57

Post by h1karu »

ssharp wrote: post #32

Serious question: Are there trailer parks in the area? A place where you can rent land for parking a mobile-home long term? I am not at all familiar with the SF/Valley rental market, other than hearing how it's exorbitantly expensive and rents keep growing. I'd have to think there would be somewhere where rents are not so expensive. I have a hard time believing a standard suburban studio or one-bedroom apartment woul…

yes there are places within a short car ride of the city where you can rent.. for about $750+/month a place to put an RV with electricity and hookups and all of that.. Some of these vehicle dwellers can't even afford that.

As far as FREE places to camp with an RV, no absolutely not. You have to drive hours to get to a campground where you might be able to camp for free or close to nothing.

Re: Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

#58

Post by mikestew »

clarky07 wrote: post #10

I hate to be that guy, and I'm going to sound like an ass, but this is 100% his doing. Software worker in Palo Alto for 30 years making as much as 150k has no excuse. Save some money stupid. Also, when you get fired and can't find another job, perhaps you should move out of your $2150 a month rental. That's enough for 4-5 months or more in other places. $1700 a month SS isn't much, but it's enough to not be homeless…

No, go ahead and be that guy. 30 years in SV and you're still living paycheck to paycheck? And guess what? I can't afford to live in Palo Alto, either, and I'm employed with a high-paying tech job.

But what really bothers me is that he's the poster child in this story. He's easy to ignore. "Should have saved more...", "he should move...", it's all his fault. But what about the folks for whom it's _not_ all their fault?

Re: Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

#59

Post by jamesaguilar »

Natsu wrote: post #43
fvrghl wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a 20-something, does anyone have any advice me for or know of resources where I can learn about financial management?

I don't know about links, but the basics are simple enough: track what you spend and save some % of what you make. Avoid debt for things that lose value (e.g. cars). Debt for things like houses that retain value can make sense, though. Always keep money in reserve. Pay off the high-interest debt (e.g. 30% APR credit cards) first. If you do buy any complex investments, keep in mind what conditions cause gain or loss.…

> Avoid debt for things that lose value (e.g. cars).

This is actually not terribly good advice. Debt does not become especially bad depending on whether what you used it for is gaining or losing value.

This rule is really a proxy for, "Don't buy an expensive car, boat, or plane, relative to what you are making." Now that is a good rule. There's no reason to hide it behind a false rule. Financing a purchase that you could pay cash for can sometimes be wise, even if the purchased item is losing value.

Re: Homeless Lose a Longtime Last Resort: Living in a Car

#60

Post by mbillie1 »

jdmichal wrote: post #50
mbillie1 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's only an invitation for police harassment if you're breaking the law. Edit: it is often more of an invitation, however, if you are a minority or poor.

If they are going to harass you when you're not breaking the law, then the law itself has nothing to do with it. They could equally harass you for any number of things which no one would argue should be criminal. Making a statement about police harassment and abuse of power is fine, but the topic at hand has little to do with that.

I suppose my point is that, when a law is selectively enforced, minorities and the poor are the ones who tend to get "selected," which I do think is relevant to selectively enforced laws - they are often enforced in a discriminatory manner.

Edit: I clearly did not explain this with the post above, which upon re-reading makes little to no sense in context here.

Post reply on HN