It'd be good if we could find some research on this. My guess is along these lines too, but perhaps if you're on the streets for a long time, that becomes the place you feel "at home" so it's not so much opposition to housing, but to a living situation that feels weird. (I'm not opposed to the safety features of a luxury automobile, but it would feel weird to drive one)

I disagree with the sentiment that housing is ineffective without counseling. Even if it were true that long-term homeless on the streets feel at home there, provision of housing can help those who are newly homeless and really don't want to be on the streets...before their state becomes more permanent and harder to escape psychologically.

Uh no, I don't think anyone prefers sleeping outside in a blizzard compared to living indoors. I mean, Jesus Christ even wild animals don't.

If Trump did a Cash for Refrigerator Clunkers everyone would buy a new one and the homeless would have a fresh supply of fridge box forts to live in.

Once Trump gets that wall finished - how hard would it be just to turn it into the world's largest lean-to?

And hire them to guard the wall. Boom, we've just solved homelessness AND rape.

lol jfc

One of the biggest drivers of cost is location. You can develop highly efficient housing units outside the city limits for a fraction of what it effectively costs to house them within the city and use the difference for any number of other things that would benefit them a lot more.

Creating a tiered system where you can 'move up' by paying your way into better units makes sense, but i think even more important (wrt addressing the reality of people who live on the street) is segregating on the basis of histories of violence. The people who choose to live on the streets might be mentally ill but i suspect the desire to sleep on concrete in subzero temperatures isn't the symptom of any particular mental illness.... getting ridiculed and abused by *******s in the shelter on the other hand tends to alienate them.

It's a very uphill battle rehabbing people. A lot of these people need their own personal therapist 24/7 it seems. A problem with rehab is people can check themselves out whenever they want, whether they're actually ready or not.

And then you have doctors in some cases prescribing them things the patient definitely doesn't need, e.g. I had a friend who was prescribed benzos and stuff no matter how much his father pleaded the doctor not to. He'd use up his month's supply within the first week and then he'd be fiending for any drug he could get his hands on. The kid was a damn junkie. He couldn't spend a quiet day in the house without crawling up the walls. Later I found out from his dad that he had stolen his dad's heart medication (why, idfk).

Not learning my lesson, I later tried to help another friend who at first didn't seem hopeless. I put out a guest bed in my house for him and said he could stay for free until he's back on his feet. Helped him get a small job. I went away for a couple months and had another friend stay there (one who doesn't have major issues) to keep him company. He lasted one day on the job. Next morning he didn't feel like going so he didn't, no call and no show. I told him alright no big deal that wasn't your kind of job anyway, just chill and play video games / go biking / whatever until I get back. But that arrangement ended shortly thereafter when he stole half of my other friend's prescription Adderall (and tried to be sneaky by pouring out half the powder from each pill and putting the pills back together). He didn't steal belongings though, with the possible exception of a spatula.

Both of them will be homeless once they run out of couches to sleep on / bite every hand that feeds them. The first friend I mentioned, his mother committed suicide when he was a kid. The second one was raped by his older brother when he was 12. Can they be fixed? Not the way things are. Things would have to be radically different for there to even be a chance. The 2nd one actually tried to get into another rehab center recently but Medicaid wouldn't cover it because USA#1.

From what I see on the news it isn't so much that there are people living on the streets and sleeping on the ground in freezing weather as it is that they are building their own 'cities' on public ground in places where they are considered a blight. Once upon a time they were called hobos who built their towns 'down by the tracks' or in the woods someplace and they were left alone. Now that they are in the tony parts of town and being a nuisance all of a sudden they are a serious problem. I think that what's happening now is that cities are trying to be humane until they get sick and tired of it and simply raze the encampments no matter how cruel it might seem.

We had a pretty good encampment down by the river in town (actually a couple of them) -cleared them out over the last year or so. I think the major impetus was a drive to improve the river area (new parks, walkways, restaurants) Where the people went I have no idea.

We take the Amtrak down from Reno to SF a couple of times a year. Tons of homeless lean-to's, tents, etc. once you get past Davis pretty much all the way into Emeryville. From what it looks, most of the areas are in old industrial spots that are now empty, so I suppose they're just ignored by the powers that be......

MM MD

I meant 400handedly. Divide the 400's total net worth by the number of homeless. Call that x. Have each member contribute their individual net worth times the fraction 1 mil/x.

Obviously not suggesting that this is precisely the best solution. Just like to occassionaly point out that at the outer edges income inequality is actually much greater than people realize simply because most people don't realize how big a number ten billion really is

When they are out of sight they are out of mind. If they show up in places they are not wanted there are usually programs to help them if they are willing to accept the help problem being that many don't want the help. It's a problem w/o a permanent solution, imo.

More importantly the cost of housing is tiny if done without any luxuries . Basic heating, basic plumbing, shared facilities and rooms partitioned with drywall, low grade laminate floors, etc and you can have an enormous facility that houses hundreds for about the price of a single family dwelling.

It’s popular to moan about the insufficiency of min wages to afford a 2 bdrm apt... in what world should that be the bar below which someone is deemed to be suffering in any material way?

No it is not! But yours and others may be if you didnt do proper research.


For example;
https://www.theguardian.com/business...est-half-of-us


"The study found that the billionaires included in Forbes magazine’s list of the 400 richest people in the US were worth a combined $2.68tn – more than the gross domestic product (GDP) of the UK.

“Our wealthiest 400 now have more wealth combined than the bottom 64% of the US population, an estimated 80m households or 204 million people,” the report says. “That’s more people than the population of Canada and Mexico combined.”

Ok lets see. Imagine there are 1.6 mil homeless people at any given point in time in US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homele..._United_States

Give everyone 1 mil $. That requires 10^6*1.6*10^6= 1.6*10^12 = 1600 billions.

That represents 60% of the wealth of the top 400.

If you removed 60% of the wealth of each person in this list you wouldnt affect the slightest their quality of living actually.

It is not the correct way to do it though.

It doesnt have to be done that way. All you need is to consider the top 0.1% of the population and remove 10% of its assets in a productive responsible and fair way creating sustainable solutions for the others. Even find ways that they themselves like to invest 10% of their money in such ideas because they get tax benefits. They may not have to even lose it actually eventually.

"According to the OECD in 2012 the top 0.6% of world population (consisting of adults with more than 1 million USD in assets) or the 42 million richest people in the world held 39.3% of world wealth. The next 4.4% (311 million people) held 32.3% of world wealth. The bottom 95% held 28.4% of world wealth. The large gaps of the report get by the Gini index to 0.893, and are larger than gaps in global income inequality, measured in 2009 at 0.38.[7] For example, in 2012 the bottom 60% of the world population held same wealth in 2012 as the people on Forbes' Richest list consisting of 1,226 richest billionaires of the world."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

So 42 mil people in the world have over 1 mil$ each. That is easily way over 42 tril. So you can stop homelessness (not the same as making them millionaires though because its not needed to eliminate the problem) worldwide with only 10% of that.

What each of these 1.6 mil people need for example is probably doable with only 50k per person in terms of giving them a decent home, a job and a training procedure to learn more and the jobs relate to the sustainability of the system that supports them. 5 tril worldwide covers 100 mil of the most poor people anywhere. And since 50k in other areas can go a bigger distance you can easily elevate that to 500 mil in 3rd world communities too.


Scientific society solves this problem.

In fact it is one of the ways to introduce scientific society to the world.

Create a community that each member accepted will be responsible for cleaning/repairing etc their home and maybe another one if possible, providing maintenance to their garden and solar panels (and other stored forms of energy equipment in the roof of their homes), they can teach their skills to others in their community, they can operate their own restaurants in the community, they can build equipment within the community used to maintain the functionality of the system and participate in educational procedures suitable for each person as requirement for membership.

Basically they get food, home, education, entertainment, some basic healthcare, opportunities to make friends and socialize in a decent constantly improving with science and technology environment with the exchange of only 6h of work every day and some 3-4 hours of studying or learning something. Do the math and find what jobs they need to have for the system to be sustainable. You only need about 80m^2 per person area to live well and cost of $500 per month for food and clothes.

One of the functions of residents admitted is to build new homes or to learn how to build them. Create a non profit (or partial profit if the basics are met well first why not) factory that builds simple, well designed aesthetically, scientifically optimized-efficient homes (parts that assemble to homes). They can also develop art and music and any creative activity that improves the community and can even export their best products. Oh you better believe it you can teach people things they can do to fill their time that can make the place a creative center that exports true treasures. Art, clothes, music, home furniture produced by previously homeless people. Come in contact with various companies and promote the products to customers that enjoy supporting the process.

If every person uses 80m^2 and they have solar panels on 80m^2 area per person (they use also auxiliary areas the person is not living under) the electricity produced by the structure is enough to create income in terms of energy of (avg panel is 1.6 m^2 and has 265W avg power for say 5 h per day in well selected areas and even more with better designed geometries) of 80/1.6*265*5= 66kwh per day or $8 per day per person. That is $240 per month that covers the food instantly. Initial costs for infrastructure are eventually recovered in time. Optimize the panels in rotating geometry that is cleaned and serviced by the local people when needed and that estimate can go higher in well lit areas. But some of the food is from the gardens themselves as well. You can in principle make a home self sufficient with proper design, AI and care from those that live in it.

If one cannot stay within the rules of the system they are free to go and they will be readmitted if they promise to participate well in work again.

The system serves as a protection mechanism that tries to be as self sufficient as possible (it is not in the end welfare but free opportunity for responsible living, a restart).

People get protection and some education that can make them more creative within the community and then if they want they can leave and start their life again on their own or stay there and improve the system in ways that eventually lead to personal profit as the system gets better and develops even more of its own local factories that are fully owned by those working in them and those that are innovating in them in a proper merit based system. The shelter eventually works for its members and reinvests any profits on its own quality of living improvements and the reduction of time needed to work per day per person for it to exist.

lol

Yes precisely. If you had 10 $bil what do you need to spend for food, entertainment, housing and fun engaging activities per year?

You can spend 100k per day and it will take 365 mil per decade!

WTF can one do with 100k per day that is not impressive and up to their current quality of living?

Every 100 days you can buy a $10mil home. You can get a new cool car every 15 days. You can dine in expensive restaurants every day, travel in private jets 20 times, go to exotic places that cost 20k per day for a month of fun, buy all kinds of cool technology every day etc. Does that fill 100 days of boredom?

If quality of life is being able to buy another company or engage in some major idea i call it bs. Yes it matters but its not materially affecting their living conditions.

If a person that has 100 bil lost 60% of their stocks exactly what is the damage to their lifestyle?

If you or i lost 60% of our assets the damage is material but not lethal. I will be just fine actually if i lost 60% but it would alter some of my plans. I could recover it in 5-10 years or faster if i got real pissed about it.

But if a family that is maximally stretched in expenses lost 60% then that may be a big problem.

You do not need to sell their stock shares either. Sell as much as you need every month to deal with the problems. It wont create a market crash.

And yet i am not proposing this to happen.


The fact is very rich people are not anywhere near close to optimized in terms of their expenses. They waste tons of money on worthless things that could have solved endless problems not by welfare but by education and investment in sustainable ideas. Endless army of aholes after their money are "escorting" them to augment their expenses with pretty much low essential improvement in terms of happiness of sense of purpose.

To be fair probably most of homeless are depressed people that are not well educated in how to recover from anything (like truly anything disastrous that requires a restart and optimism, plus society is not exactly friendly either typically in a smart hedged way that helps all involved to experience second chances responsibly) and not eager to stick to a routine that saves them because they revolt on life that has discipline. They may have some bad habits too and lack imagination and resourceful thinking.

But the purpose of the above center suggested would be to deal with that and offer them some structure and pleasure and help mentally. It would start gradually introducing a routine to their lives. Lets face it. If a job is decent the most difficult part of the day is getting out of your home! We are all a little bit depressed in some manner that relates to routine. It is very easy to let yourself go if you postpone to do the proper things and get into a spiral of shame and fear.

They also do not spend their money properly when they have it. I have seen it before (and one shouldn't generalize easily but it fits some patterns) but i also helped recently a person in line at Safeway by paying for their groceries after i was asked if i could help. I wish so much wish i could help in a more meaningful way by starting a real friendship (if it weren't for the fact that i am not looking for potential trouble with strangers at midnight or being accused or perceived for ridiculously wrongly placed interest). So take that to mean that outsiders could volunteer in such centers suggested above and tutor or mentor for free or for some free food or other emotional and symbolic benefits etc.

It wasnt a big deal with that guy, a mere $20 and i had on my basket easily 40-45. The guy thanked me several times looking genuinely glad and it wasnt necessary at all that much. But the choice of things in that list of 20 didnt maximize at all nutritional value or energy or even true quality in enjoyment (although maybe they know better there but not really looking that way from what i recall i paid for).

If you are really in trouble what do you buy for $20 in food? a) if you have access to cooking b) if you do not.


If someone that begs had a plan how to properly use the money you give them then maybe people would give 10 times more actually. Because then you really get a true pleasure out of making something meaningful possible even for a day or two.


Very important for a city to have a place anyone can go in and get cleaned, have a safe environment shower and have a simple clean set of underwear and basic clothes to wear or a place to wash clothes for free and over time offer in some non easily abused manner free t-shirts and pants and a sandwich or other basic meal courtesy of local restaurants and volunteers. You can add access to computer for 1h per day (but if clean you can go to a library for that too).

This really sets them apart from those who aren't homeless.

lol, what the ****

The first step to get out of it is to get clean and presentable and upbeat in attitude. A city must give everyone that minimal chance once a month or week.

Everybody is capable of not spending their money properly especially some very rich people but i imagine someone that cannot recover from this condition probably has an issue with doing certain things right that needs to be examined a little bit. It contributes to improving the failure probability. The real issue is you need a world that offers legitimate second and third chances and endless chances truly if done responsibly. This is what is missing. I am optimistic you can recover 90% of them or more to a happier existence.

In some cases this isn't entirely wrong, but it's not exactly a free choice. Say you're a schizophrenic and ended up in some shelter or hostel. It's crowded, noisy, arguments and fights break out, in general it's a terrifying place for you. At some point you lash out at the staff and get kicked out, or you can't handle it and leave. The thought of going to another shelter or institution is terrifying for you so now you start sleeping rough. Your mental health deteriorates further and with it goes the will or ability to get the help you need.

It's not like many healthy, well adjusted people just decide that a home is too confining. Turns out a huge number of homeless people will have had a traumatic childhood. They're trying to isolate themselves because of the traumatic experiences and the mental health problems they have.

The street life is probably true it damages one's soul and desire to recover. I am thinking we need to have a way that recovers someone that becomes homeless at a young age or after a reasonable decent life immediately when they get to the streets and especially all kids in such terrible situation that have absolutely no reason to be thought as having any issues other than the failure of their guardians or parents.

There is something almost consistent and easily recognizable as pattern of speech or behavior with those that have been in the streets for years. Watch one documentary after another to see what i mean. The process ages them very fast and kills their spirits too. The street is an ugly place if you are forced to experience it 24/7. It kills your soul because in the street you witness a ton of indifference, selfish behavior, crime and pessimism.

It takes a proper education and faith in the power of the individual human spirit as well as significant good examples in your past to make it impossible for the street to defeat you and change you. I think if most of us found our way there we would try to recover immediately by being creative about it and in small steps improve the situation and search for any chance that requires responsible behavior to build a way out. But how can you expect that from someone that has been betrayed by people and probability for most of their lives? How do you expect that from someone that is not creative because they haven't seen good examples of cooperation or of manipulating situations to your benefit in ethical ways?

I think most addiction that comes with many homeless stems from depression and pain at facing reality. You need people that care reliably for you and rebuild your spirit to get out of the abyss. Even if only 30% can be reclaimed for good, it is a huge number and a massive opportunity loss. I think successful stories would be very important in helping others too because they understand the situation a lot deeper. Everybody has some skills or can develop skills and knowledge that are useful to sustaining a better way of living in a proper structure system that is not just a shelter but something that demands doable responsibility in small steps. You need to enter immediately a community that cares and offers examples of others that do well in it.

SMP: how to go from deplorable to full on socialist because you were told you were wrong

The other wrt to homelessness is that a community forms around them. For many homeless people, getting a home results in them leaving the only community they know.

Not saying that these people don't want a home. I'm saying that there are sacrifices large enough to make getting a home not an easy street towards happiness. Loneliness can be pretty damaging.