Homelessness was on the rise even before the pandemic

Is your statement here saying that when people cannot afford to buy their home they live in, they are then forced to rent it, and that is how the property owners make more money?

Oh it has definitely happened. There was a big trend of it happening ("urban decay") in the late 70s and early 80s.
But the trend these days is for city areas to gentrify.
(Not all cities, just the trendy most desirable cities like New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, but even in cities like Detroit there has been gentrification right around the central downtown core of the city)

 

Sorry, I have no idea what any of that is about.

I'm talking about multi-family residences. Nothing to do with multi unit buildings (which are just apartments). The idea is to give up our sense of entitlement to SOLO, INDIVIDUAL, PRIVATE residences ... whether that's an apartment or a house. If each reasonably sized dwelling housed multiple groups, humanity wins, and the planet wins. It would be especially easy in America, where houses are obscenely huge. Some of those McMansions could easily house two or three families, for example. It's not hard, it just takes good manners, keeping your nose clean, patience, and a bit of time management to make sure everyone gets a shot at the kitchen and/or the big TV

 

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean two different unrelated families living in the same home, sharing the same kitchen and living areas?

 

No, I'm saying that the more people there are at the bottom desperate for housing, the more they "push" demand and prices. IOW, a homeless class pushes up the working class, and so on. The more people dive to the bottom, the stronger the push.

Well that doesn't happen in my country. The occasional small country town might die a slow and decaying death, but that's about it. Our urban areas just keep getting more and more expensive and more and more 'upmarket'.

 

Yes, but their relationships are not relevant (or my concern). People would do it in a way that's comfortable for them, obviously. I would expect that the majority would share with close family or close friends. Strangers would be super weird and dysfunctional. We're not designed for that - we're tribal, pack animals. We're at our best when in our little tight packs.

 

It has been my experience that it is very difficult to find people to live with that I feel comfortable having in my living area and whom are compatible.
Many people do not have the opportunity to live with close friends and families these days because people live more nomadically than they used to, having to move for job opportunities. (see thread here: online job ads have forced professional workers to become nomadic)

 

Once again..many have drug and alcohol issues, many have mental illness issues, many have physical issues, many are not qualified for work...any solutions must address all of these things. Many don't have good transportation. It's a complex issue that will never be solved with a so-called 'job guarantee'...

 

I'm going to point out a study that I remember reading in the late 90s. (Sorry I don't have the source, so this will be very anecdotal)
About a third of the homeless population had drug or serious alcohol addiction issues; and about a third had serious mental health issues.
That still leaves the remainder who did not have drug/alcohol addiction or mental health issues.

And the percentage of this remainder was likely more than one third, since there was some overlap between the third with addiction issues and the third with mental issues.
If we do some basic math assuming no correlation between the two, and we assume random distribution, we can calculate that the percentage of the remainder would be four ninths, or 44.4%. (theoretically)

This study came from the late 90s, and the percent of the population who is homeless has grown since then, so I would imagine that the percentage of homeless who have neither of those two issues is higher today.
(or that the percentage of homeless persons with more mild addiction/mental issues has grown. Whereas before they might have managed not to be homeless, the pressures of increasing cost of housing may have pushed them to the streets)

 

I don't like stereotyping but on this topic I need to fudge a little; for myriad reasons, many times through no fault of their own, this group of people experience some of the deepest issues humans can face. Their common denominator is they are homeless. And all the reasons for homelessness require focused attention under tremendous societal pressure to resolve. There are no magic bullets! For example there are about 15,000 homeless people in greater Los Angeles and any idea of getting 6,660 of them a steady job with non-poverty wages, I hate to say it, is about impossible. One of the main reasons for homelessness is the lack of affordable housing, so in LA how much does someone need to earn in order to pay rent, buy food, buy clothes, etc.? I suggest the answer is far more than most of these people are capable of earning. So before we even discuss mental illness, physical disabilities, alcohol, substance abuse, job qualifications, criminal history, health issues, kids, animals, women, obesity, self-esteem, transportation to/from work, etc. the 800 lb. gorilla is the lack of affordable housing. Even if they can find employment, they can't just lock their belongings and disappear for 8-10 hours to work. Someone here has the low-brow idea that all they want and need is a job? Fact is what 99% of them want is a secure place to live in order to have time to get their lives a bit more normal. Whether it's our nimby behavior or just our lack of attention and action on this issue, society has not only failed these people but also failed all other citizens for not dealing with the situation...

 

A federally funded Job Guarantee includes training and assistance where necessary. People don't just turn into drug addicts etc etc. Real unemployment rates (U6 plus those who have given up looking) are always c.10% in a neoliberal private-bank-funded free-market economy.

So hiding behind "complexity" is just a cop-out, for the express purpose of allowing conservatives to blame poverty on its victims.

Re economic orthodoxy:

"It's taxpayer money" ....well yes that's what neoliberal monetarists have convinced everyone to believe, to maintain the benefit for their own vested interests. But sovereign currency-issuing government CAN issue and spend the nation's currency (without taxing or borrowing) ...obviously, unlike you and me, who are USERS of the currency.

So the government CAN afford to train and place everyone, as employer of last resort.

Now obviously the high incarceration rates of blacks is related to employment conditions in the private sector free- markets.

Certainly, Individuals must change and take personal responsibility to turn up to work, but the system also has to change, to fulfill its end of the full employment bargain.

That's what Ms. Tcherneva recognizes.

 

1) Compatibility is not relevant. Harmonious shared housing has nothing to do with different personalities/interests etc, it's a function of GOOD MANNERS and GOOD BEHAVIOUR. Anyone can live with anyone, when all parties are civil, respectful, well mannered, and well behaved.

2) People choose to be nomadic, they don't have to be. They can always change careers, or set up the shared house in a location that suits the majority.

 

Addiction is now at 90%+ of the homeless population. Another small percentage has mental health issues without addiction - which leaves a very very small percentage who are neither mentall ill nor addicts. Given this is precisely the percentage which is much more likely to escape homelessness without help, they don't need to be factored into the equation.

 

You're right in that society has failed these people. But guess what .... society is people. Society is us. We have failed them - not Govt, or the economy - it's entirely us. We are the parents who raised kids so badly that they end up succumbing to the flaws which lead to homelessness. We are the family and friends who refuse to help them when they fall down. And we are the people who refuse to help ourselves and end up or stay homeless. All of it is us.

 

You are as wacky and crazy of a conservative here as those other members are loony leftists.

Both sides of this argument I am reading in this discussion are hyper-partisan and only seeing a narrow side of the issue, in my opinion.

There are factors which the individuals themselves are responsible for, and then there are extraneous factors which the society is responsible for, and there is an interplay between those two in complex ways.

 

Too much diatribe...

 

Society in this case is government and the involved citizenry. This is not about parents and family and friends? It's about people who are homeless and finding solutions to improve the situation...

 

It's a pity: life is complex, I know.

So if you don't want to engage your brain.....hookay......

 

1) Fabulous. I'm happen to be a Lefty, but couldn't care less what you think I am.

2) I'm not even slightly 'partisan' on this issue. Politics has nothing to do with it.

3) Yes, factors I listed clearly in the post you're quoting. PEOPLE are responsible for themselves, and for their loved ones. When PEOPLE fail to take those responsibilities, it's PEOPLE failing. "Society" is not some all powerful entity, controlling everything from behind a curtain. Society is PEOPLE. Individuals, making choices against responsibility.

 

It has NOTHING to do with Govt. Govt doesn't force people to become addicts. Govt doesn't kick people out of the family home. Govt doesn't make people indulge their impulsiveness and sociopathy to the point that their families won't tolerate them. Govt doesn't make families refuse to help out their loved ones in a time of need. That's ALL us.

Obviously, any solutions must come from us. If we can make it, we can unmake it.

 

As a "loony Lefty" ....in Katzenatsu's estimation no doubt, I can assure you that YOU are NOT a Lefty (loony or otherwise), so both he and I reject your false claim to be a Lefty.

The left doesn't blame the victims of poverty for their poverty, as you do.

But macroeconomics has everything to do with it, which you are apparently incapable of understanding ; eg you don't understand the paradox of thrift BECAUSE you can only conceive of economics through a microeconomic lens.

"The paradox of thrift (or paradox of saving) is a paradox of economics. The paradox states that an increase in autonomous saving (ie, of individuals) leads to a decrease in aggregate demand and thus a decrease in gross output which will in turn lower total saving."

Note my underlined: yes, people need to take responsibility for themselves...eg, by being thrifty....but the state needs to be responsible for ensuring full employment, by creating the macroeconomic environment in which full employment can exist - impossible in our current supply-side, Friedman economy in which inflation is controlled by maintaining a pool of unemployed workers to act as a restraint on wages, by defintion (NAIRU).

Yes... some people who are left without a chair in the macroeconomy, when the music stops, ie, when the NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) is reached, regardless of how responsible they are (have you ever played a game of musical chairs?)

Correct; society is the totality of the community. Interestingly, Thatcher said "there is no such thing as society', so let's read on to see where YOU are heading..

Just as I thought; because you don't understand macroeconomics, you mistakenly conflate "society" (ie, all people) with individuals making responsible "choices" in the macroeconomy.

Hence your stance is really only a variation on Thatcher's delusional belief, namely, "there is no such thing as society", because you think society, via its government, has no part to play in engendering the realization of responsibility by individuals., eg by implementing above poverty employment for all.

 

Go for it, Poppet. Meantime, I'll keep voting Left and commiserating with my fellow commies/liberals/anarchists etc at the tragedy of letting the Posturing Elite Progressives hijack our the party for the virtue signalling style points. But you keep singing their praises, Love. It keeps me entertained!

 

Sorry to inform you this is a debating forum. Your "reply" is not debate, merely an affirmation of your ideology.

When/if you do want a debate, you will need to confront the paradox of thrift (....thrift...which both you and I practice, by the way...)


"The paradox of thrift (or paradox of saving) is a paradox of economics. The paradox states that an increase in autonomous saving (ie, of individuals) leads to a decrease in aggregate demand and thus a decrease in gross output which will in turn lower total saving."

And also the NAIRU which informs our current neoliberal macroeconomics.

 

I personally believe the whole concept of the paradox of thrift is a fallacy. But we could have that discussion somewhere else.

If demand (denominated in monetary quantity) falls, then price will fall as well, down to a level that will sustain the original quantity again (albeit now denominated in a lower amount). Basically, all you have done is increased the demand of money and caused some observable deflation.
(That view of course ignores class analysis, but class analysis is kind of irrelevant to the idea behind this alleged paradox)

A person may be more reluctant to spend, but they will also be more eager to earn. The two should theoretically balance each other out, as prices fall.

Well, that would be the laissez faire Austrian perspective.

 

No need to go somewhere else, every OP based on economics comes back to macroeconomics.

You have omitted the significant term "aggregate", which Keynes (during the Great Depression) discovered was related to what he called "effective demand" in the economy, which is determined by the amount of money people have available to spend.

No. You have to consider WHY effective demand falls. This is what Keynes was dealing with, in the Great Depression.

Class per se is more or less irrelevant to effective demand, though the poor are usually the first to suffer in business cycle downturns responsible for loss of aggregate demand in the economy.

 

There's a lot of people here who do not seem to understand what "on topic" means.

This discussion may be "about economics", but it is more specifically about the economics related to homelessness.

There are different degrees of pertinence to a topic, some having much more to do with the topic than others. It is unreasonable to try to fit everything that is the slightest bit distantly related in there. Sometimes you just have to know when it would be more appropriate to start a new thread, when you bring up another topic that could start a very complicated discussion and debate.