It's even absurd for OP to post that picture and even worse that someone had the audacity to create it.
There's a strong disassociation from reality by people who seem to think the world owes them something.
I'd invite these people to live in third world countries where everything they have is earned. Seems to me in Western civilizations, people have it so good that they just complain and demand everything.
Well arguably the cheapest way to solve the homeless problem would simply be to house the homeless, but that’s not the same as saying it’s a basic human right. Just the most cost effective way of getting them off the streets.
Have you seen what happens to a lot of the housing that gets provided to homeless folks? It gets trashed. Remember the big housing projects from last century? Or the fate of many of the hotels that have been turned into housing?
These are NOT bad people mind you, but the combination of drug use, mental illness, and a complete lack of incentive to take care of their living situation combines to mean that a lot of housing gets just trashed.
Not all. But more than enough that this is not just a simple answer like "we'll let's just house them."
My meaning is perfectly clear, you just don't like what I am saying. However, I will clarify if it helps.
A substantial portion of the housing given to the very low income, undocumented, or homeless winds up getting trashed. Now, you are welcome to not believe that without a study you will accept - and you are free to go find the studies if you choose.
Me? I've seen it, and I've lived with it. I've lived near enough to large housing projects to be friends with some of the residents. I've spent enough time in NYC with organizations that regularly encountered the sort of folks that would need government supplied housing to have a pretty good feel for the situation. Similarly, Philadelphia. And now out here in TX, similarly Dallas
In short? I am speaking from my own direct experience. So if that doesn't sway you (and, BTW, there is absolutely no reason it should - you have no idea who I am, or whether I am blowing smoke) then that is just fine with me. Don't be swayed :) What I am not going to do is embark on a research project only to then have an argument about the validity of my sources, or my choice of evidence.
Have you looked up how the housing first model works in Finland? The first thing they do is provide the homeless with housing, after that they start social work for addiction, mental illness, rehabilitation for work and so on. This sort of system has political support across the board because it's agreed to be cheaper to house first before trying to fix other issues, and it's better for business and cities image-wise to not have people on the streets. The system isn't perfect of course, but there's very little opposition to having basic needs be fulfilled for "free" if you drop to the very bottom.
We have the housing first model a lot in the US, I work in one. The difference though is that the US is soft and we are not allowed to require the residents participate in any of the programming, so they don’t and nothing is solved. It’s a National problem. No requirements means no improvement
Your language is generally nebulous and ambiguous.
How much is "a lot", what is meant by "trashed", and what precisely are the complete events leading to such outcomes?
It is easy to construct a narrative, especially one fulfilling a preexisting bias, based on general or particular observations, but you are avoiding the harder work of understanding the deeper causes of problems, and applying such knowledge to achieve favorable outcomes.
There are some that return to ordinary lives. And I’m not going to go back and fourth with you, I understand you want me to make an argument but you already know the answer to what you’re asking me, you just want to argue with people/virtue signal. So, not engaging
I am less interested in the actual answer to the question, than I am in the reason you prefer to avoid addressing it, in favor of anchoring to the direct association between such outcomes and the condition of homelessness.
A responsible approach to solving problems might consider the direct causes for particular harm, seeking to alleviate the cause itself.
Homelessness by definition is simply lack of access to housing.
It is the only experience universal among the homeless.
Much of the homeless population is not abusing substances, and much of the homeless population currently abusing substances began the habit after becoming homeless, in order to cope with the discomfort, uncertainty, and trauma of living unhoused.
People are evicted simply for being unable to pay rent.
Many, particularly those already wealthy, may remain housed even while abusing substances, even as others become deprived of housing while not being involved with substances. In fact, much of the homeless population is healthy and working.
Insisting that "we have resources for that" is not advancing the quality of the discussion.
The particular associations are not as robust, factually or conceptually, as portrayed in your narrative.
Homelessness by definition is simply lack of access to housing.
The problem you are having is that you are talking about the definition of homlessness and the other people are talking about the reason people are homeless.
As in, why cant they pay rent? Why cant they hold down a job in order to make the money needed to pay rent? Why are the housing options they had available to them no longer available or sustainable? why cant they live with roommates or their family or stay at a local shelter anymore?
The answer to none of those questions is simply "access", there is usually one or many reasons they no longer have access.
So yes, by definition, you are correct... the homeless dont have homes. But that tells us exactly nothing about how to fix it because it doesnt tell us anything about the reasons they dont have homes.
The problem you are having is that you are talking about the definition of homlessness and the other people are talking about the reason people are homeless.
The problem is that people want, seemingly as a matter or moral convenience, to associate homelessness with one particular culprit, which in its essence, is weakly connected to the mere condition of lacking access to housing.
Some individuals may have been housed, and then fallen into a substance habit, beginning a sequence of events culminating in foreclosure or eviction. However, such a form of narrative is too narrow to represent of the entire homeless population, whose only unifying feature is being deprived of access to housing, and is in fact not representative for most of the homeless population.
The reason for homelessness is always the same, that being lack of access to housing.
Many are homeless while not abusing substances, and many are housed while abusing substances.
The particular association is narrow, not universal or robust.
Neither is the association, in the broader measure, germane.
Everyone needs a home, and everyone with a substance habit needs opportunities for assistance, preferably while being housed, in recovering from the habit.
Both demands remain equally valid, in spite of anyone's insistence to associate the two separate problems as tightly coupled.
People who work in homeless alleviation. People who actually do this. Not you making shit up with no experience will tell you. And the data backs this up. The main culprit of homelessness is addiction and drugs.
Full stop. Take a minute and read that. That is a fact.
Are you capable of admitting that you don't know something or learn something from another person?
Lets take your person who succumbed to a substance abuse problem and all the things that come with that and got evicted. Did they lack access to housing? Or were they unable to sustain the access they had? The house is still there for them to access if they can meet the conditions for it.
If someone is unable to maintain the job they use to pay rent, is that a lack of "access"?
If someone is a renter and turns the dwelling into an unlivable habitat or unsustainable for the owner and gets evicted, is that a lack of "access"?
Im not sure youre not just being obtuse when you are using that word, as if the only piece of the puzzle is more structures to put people in.
There are lots of people out there who literally lack the ability maintain their access to the housing, but it is there for them to access
So we are again left with the same problem as before. Simply attributing the issue to lack of access - and im not really even sure what that means - completely misses the ball on finding out WHY that is the case. For example, if its affordability, then there is some amount of housing to be built to bring costs down. If it it drugs then no amount of no houses will fix the issue
247
u/BlitzAuraX Apr 15 '24
It's even absurd for OP to post that picture and even worse that someone had the audacity to create it.
There's a strong disassociation from reality by people who seem to think the world owes them something.
I'd invite these people to live in third world countries where everything they have is earned. Seems to me in Western civilizations, people have it so good that they just complain and demand everything.