Hacker News Reader

> This is a fair question to ask, though. Why don’t they just get jobs? What are the structural issues in society that lead to this? Why are some people chronically homeless while the average length of homelessness (for those experiencing it) is “just” around 150 days? Why is getting a job not the solution for many? Why are there even people with jobs who are homeless?

I feel that it's more fruitful to not frame discussions on "why homeless people X" and instead think about why some of us end up losing any support and specially income so that the only and best option is to lose our home.

You answered the question "why don't homeless people get jobs" with what you insist it should be reframed as. That doesn't make sense.

I don't think it's healthy let alone desirable to discourage pointed questions from kids. It's another thing altogether to teach them to be tactful and tip-toe in mixed company around sensitive topics (which goes beyond the level of maturity of a child), but they shouldn't have to do that with their own parents.

> I don't think it's healthy let alone desirable to discourage pointed questions from kids.

Reframing a question isn't tiptoeing around it: "that's a Wrong Question" is the start of an answer. Though, probably the kind of answer you'd give someone able to read The Ask and the Answer and realise it's about fascism.

Answering with a "Why don't they? What's keeping them from doing so?"-type reframe is the better approach for people not used to making such leaps on their own: you're teaching them to do this reframing, and to question premises.

(Wrong Question = question from an invalid premise)

It's not an invalid premise.

> You answered the question "why don't homeless people get jobs" with what you insist it should be reframed as.

No. The problem is not whether X has a job or not. The problem is why X was forced to lose their home. In this day and age you can still lose your home even if you are juggling multiple jobs.

> In this day and age you can still lose your home even if you are juggling multiple jobs.

Not with geared-to-income housing that one rents. A house you own, yes, but the outcome of no longer owning a home does not translate to homelessness.

The answer to your hypothetical question is because many people have mental illnesses that make them dangerous to be around in some shape or fashion to the point that only a state actor can safely step in and help.

This gets even harder when the neighborhood you live in has a substantial population of visible unhoused on fentanyl. Kids will make generalizations as quickly as adults when provided with first hand observations, and explaining selection bias to a 5 year old isn’t easy.

I feel like this is one of those questions that have different answers for different people. Hence there need to be multiple solutions that solve different root problems in different ways.

Off the top of my head, homelessness can be caused by drug or alcohol abuse, mental illness, financial distress, or a desire to just tune out from societies responsibilities. I'm sure there are more.

Some would like intervention, some would not. There is no "one size fits all" solution.

The easy ones to help are the ones who are homeless for financial reasons. They need a leg up, and once up will be just fine.

It's much harder when people are unemployable (mental illness, drug abuse etc) and basically need either reoccurring rehab, or long-term medical care. Our society does not function well for those too sick to fit in.

I think it is purely political question intending to frame and limit the discussion about the issue. That is why it is pointless time wasting question.

If it was honest direct question, the only true answer is that being homeless makes getting a job super hard. You need stability, you need address, you need to guard your belongings and you are too tired to be reasonably effective in work. And employer does not want you. And that is where it stops despite ignoring quite a huge amount of reality.

And the issue with homelessness is not primary job issue. It is housing cost issue. It is mental health issue. It is social safety network issue. And drug use issue and violence issue. It is many issues in perfect storm that touch jobs only in an artificial way.

drugs.

edit: i'm serious. do you guys know any drug addicts? you lose your ability to make a plan.

Partly, yes. Partly it's a coping mechanism for being homeless, because they have no money and useful social connections, or the know-how to get out of it. In other words drugs being a symptom of homelessness, not necessarily a cause.

Regardless of the extent of drugs' blame, I'm skeptical of any solution to homelessness that entails just putting them in a cubicle, "no strings", and declaring them no longer homeless. Yes it can be a useful mechanism, but there's more work to do beyond that, it's admission that there's more to fighting homelessness than shoving people in free apartments.

I'm more curious as to why there's not an equivalent grassroots leftist sentiment for getting them jobs, as though that were somehow undignified. But notwithstanding the sometimes distorted incentives, maybe that's the actual hard part - holding down a job, and getting one that pays enough to make rent. Jobs can give us a sense of meaning, but if validation and social needs are being replaced by a similar proxy among the homeless, then maybe motivation is stifled - on top of the general fatigue that comes from it.

> I'm skeptical of any solution to homelessness that entails just putting them in a cubicle, "no strings", and declaring them no longer homeless. Yes it can be a useful mechanism, but there's more work to do beyond that,

For many people, there is, and they're capable of doing that work themselves once they're relieved from other pressures (like day-to-day survival). We all probably know someone that isn't enough for, but why not start with the lowest-cost interventions?

> maybe that's the actual hard part - holding down a job, and getting one that pays enough to make rent.

That's a hard thing for anyone – though within most people's ability. (Ignoring, for the moment, the question of whether people should be obliged to in order to continue living.) Having a place to live makes both getting and holding a job much easier.

> like day-to-day survival

Getting their square meals every day isn't the challenge for them. Even the meth tweakers eat.

> why not start with the lowest-cost interventions?

I don't think housing is the lowest-cost intervention

> Ignoring, for the moment, the question of whether people should be obliged to in order to continue living

No one is obliged to in the Western world, such is the safety net.

My understanding is that where “housing first” has been tried, it makes it very much easier to start dealing with the other issues around mental health and getting jobs.

Housing without drug addiction or mental house services doesn’t end well for the housing, which is why housing costs are around $10k/month/person in many of these programs (at least in the Seattle area). You have to put asides funds for services and rehabbing the housing every year.

In addition, my pet theory is that if society _really_ wanted to help poor black communities (as an example) they would start, not by throwing money at the school, but by throwing money at the _community_ around the school. "throwing money" is a short-hand here, but working to provide services so the _parents_ aren't stressed and are a part of the school success.

For real, there's an element of environmental determinism. But the homeless aren't just products of microcultures of poverty.

So your argument here is that someone didn't have the money for housing and the coping mechanism the non-drug addict chose is to start doing drugs?

Typed out that way, does that still make sense in your head?

This is not your typical chick-and-egg type problem. Those who are not addicted to something tend to be off the street relatively quickly. It's those with pre-existing problems that don't, such as drugs, mental instability, etc.

The over-representation of certain demographics amongst the homeless tells you full-stop this is true, such as war veterans.

> So your argument here is that someone didn't have the money for housing and the coping mechanism the non-drug addict chose is to start doing drugs?

Correct. Not overnight.

> Typed out that way, does that still make sense in your head?

Yes. It's not hard to get exposed in those circles.

> Those who are not addicted to something tend to be off the street relatively quickly.

Citation needed.

> It's those with pre-existing problems that don't, such as drugs, mental instability, etc.

Mental instability is self-medicated with drugs.

> Mental instability is self-medicated with drugs.

I'm guessing you've never seen directly or by proxy what happens when someone ends up in jail because they attacked a family member with a knife as a result of them going off their meds.

I didn't say mental illness, I said mental instability.

People with those sorts of mental instabilities find they have NO support structure because they're fundamentally unsafe to everyone but state actors.

https://www.hudexchange.info/sites/onecpd/assets/File/CoC-Sy...

It gets even worse for you when you start to realize the how many people aren't even counted because they're homeless for mere days due to being kicked out, unexpected circumstances, etc.

What you're thinking of are what's known as "chronically homeless" and your challenge is showing both that drug users are a significant portion of those who are homeless for under 100 days and that those who are not drug users are a significant portion of the chronically homeless.

A big part of the problem is that you have to be "in" the system to even get a job (and welfare in the countries that have it).

You MUST have an address to write on the forms, you must have a phone number. For a job you'll need to have a shower, clothes, transport, etc.

This is why programs exist to address this. All participants have to do is stick with it. So what's the problem? Either they decline, aren't fit to participate, or can't complete it. Which means there's yet more unaddressed needs before they can even be suited to work.