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

71–80 of 82 posts

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

#71

Post by amit_m »

fvrghl wrote: post #7
ChuckMcM wrote: post #4

Well if Palo Alto is willing to spend $250,000 they could pave a bit of parking lot and put in a bathroom/shower unit like exists in campgrounds. But that seems a bit extreme. The guy profiled was tech worker for 30 years, but allegedly "not good with money." If you're in your 20's don't be that guy. Live within your means, save for those future days.

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

Specific advice:

1) Housing tends to be the biggest expense. So try to share an apartment with flat mates until you're sick of it, or even stay at your parents place for a few years (if that's possible).

2) If you need a car, buy a used one in good condition and keep it that way for many years. Make sure you change the oil and filters at recommended intervals.

3) If you like to travel, learn to do it cheaply! Long and wonderful trips in south-america or asia can easily be had for 1000$-2000$ a month - sleep in hostels, eat what the locals eat, don't drive/fly around to much, travel slowly. :-)

4) Learn to cook.

5) Learn to make and fix basic things around the house: installing fixtures, plumbing, wall painting, furniture (fixing and making), etc. Doing things yourself is more satisfying and saves money.

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

#72

Post by thetrb »

debt wrote: post #16
ChuckMcM wrote: post #4

Well if Palo Alto is willing to spend $250,000 they could pave a bit of parking lot and put in a bathroom/shower unit like exists in campgrounds. But that seems a bit extreme. The guy profiled was tech worker for 30 years, but allegedly "not good with money." If you're in your 20's don't be that guy. Live within your means, save for those future days.

This guy is popular. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/ Basically, spend as little money as possible until your dead. It's surprisingly good advice.

Until you're dead? Why? What sense does it make to have a lot of money saved once you're dead?

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

#73

Post by bowlich »

I find the overwhelming perspective of comments approaching this article to be, fascinating. I also think that Diogenes of Sinope would have a great deal to say concerning the matter.

I would say that it's a fallacy to dwell on why Mr. Smith is living in an RV or what he could have done to prevent himself from landing there. After all, it doesn't answer the question of why the state thinks it ought to so finely dictate the comings and goes of a person or where it is that one should choose to sleep. To seek shelter is as much a natural right as any of the others and to deny someone easy access to readily available public shelter should come with the same level of concern as restricting speech.

I think it's more interesting that we choose to allow those who do own or can afford to rent property to dictate and bully others for the convenience of their avoiding a "nuisance." Since apparently choosing to reside in a house grants you greater worth than choosing to reside in a car.

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

#74

Post by sentenza »

mcknz wrote: post #25
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…

Perhaps you're right in his particular instance. But the issue is the same even for those who end up homeless through no fault of their own. Moving for the homeless has many hidden costs, including the time and effort required to rebuild the local network of support one has built over many years.

Also, in my experience, moving is expensive. At least if you want to take more stuff than fits into a suitcase.

Another thing that bugs me about the moving advice is this: It is good advice for an individual or a family, but it becomes extremely problematic if too many people do it. Many of the places where living expenses are low are also places were the public finances at the local level are in a catastrophic state. "Unemployment tourism" can be the deathblow for the municipal level if, as is the case in many places here in Europe, the municipal level has to finance much of the social infrastructure.

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

#75

Post by theorique »

mbillie1 wrote: post #6
theorique wrote: post #2

Seems to be largely a means of pushing the problem elsewhere. "Um, could you please be poor some place else? This is Palo Alto - we have a prosperous reputation to uphold."

It is, but that's nothing new. The cops in NYC have been known to give the homeless a McDonalds meal and a bus ticket up the coast. I'm curious what the prevalence of work-from-home software jobs will do, over time, to the ridiculous swell in cost-of-everything in the bay area though. I realize that, like Manhattan for finance, there's some status associated with being in tech in the bay area, as well as legitimate o…

Many people want to be where other people are - the center of the action for their particular universe. They vote with their money.

You're right that status is a big part of it. Manhattanites look down on the "bridge and tunnel" crowd.

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

#76

Post by smm2000 »

sharemywin wrote: post #54

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.

4% of 628k (safe withdrawal limit) is 25k - this is amount you can withdraw in pretty much perpetuity (for 62 year old). 25k combined with SSN (20k/year) is very close to average family income in US and guarantee good living in most cities in US (outside of Bay Area/NY and a few other zip codes).

Saving 10% is borderline enough to retire on if you do not make stupid financial moves (like moving out of market in 2007 or living in most expensive area in US). It's not enough to be financially secure - you need to save 20-25% for that (totally doable on software engineer salary).

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

#77

Post by debt »

thetrb wrote: post #72
debt wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This guy is popular. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/ Basically, spend as little money as possible until your dead. It's surprisingly good advice.

Until you're dead? Why? What sense does it make to have a lot of money saved once you're dead?

Because most people really, truly, honestly don't need the shit they think they need; they just "want" stuff more than they "need" it. Adopting this mindset helps you have cushion for catastrophic problems if/when they arise.

And typically the number one thing that negatively affects a person's financial situation is the state of the national/global economy, that is, something entirely outside their immediate control. Thus having a nice cushion for something outside your control is a pretty good idea.

Watch Robert Shiller's OpenYale courses. They're amazing. Particularly the last one* in which he mentions that, to reiterate, that most financial problems most people face are economic circumstances completely outside of their control. The causes of which are financial institutions inability to properly deal with risks which then causes massive economic inequality that we see today and which is growing larger more so today than it ever has in history.

*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_pDTWgJg94&index=24&list=PL8...

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

#78

Post by Xdes »

smm2000 wrote: post #67
Xdes wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>At the age of 70, after a long -- and I'm assuming successful, based on his highest salary -- career, having only a "meager" savings is no one's fault but his own. I sympathize with him. I do not intend to save since there is no point when the future of the country is so uncertain.

If you have high salary now and do not save for retirement, I really hope you won't burden society when you are out of job at 65 by either dying young or living exclusively on social security. Spending all income is as selfish as it gets.

We live in what is called a free country.

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

#80

Post by clarky07 »

mikestew wrote: post #58
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 faul…

Yeah, and that's what really makes this not a great article, and it's why I added the last point to my comment. The article starts off as if we're going to talk about this great injustice and then uses an anecdote that says this guy is an idiot who made poor life decisions.
Post reply on HN