Hacker News Reader

Comment by grafmax | Hacker News Reader

The scale of homelessness isn’t explained by individual traits. Societal factors produce and reproduce it. It’s greatest in areas of high inequality for example - a fact not explained by individual traits.

Take mental illness. A mentally ill person with more resources can get the care they need, but someone who is poor can soon find themselves on the street. And homelessness itself is quite stressful, and can produce or exacerbate mental illness as well as drive people to drug addiction.

Homeless people are just like the rest of us, with their own basic human needs, and just like everybody else are trying to navigate their world as best they can.

View on HN

What do you mean by "The scale of homelessness isn’t explained by individual traits."? Are you saying it's not obvious that being high all day with no income will eventually lead to eviction from whatever housing you had?

No I am saying your just so story of why homeless people are homeless does not explain why places with more wealth inequality see more homelessness. Why would this be if your sounds-good-to-you explanation were the actual factor driving homelessness?

does not explain why places with more wealth inequality see more homelessness

That's just because it's not true. Aspen, Hamptons, Martha's Vineyard and other places with the peak wealth inequality do not see more homelessness (or any homelessness worth mentioning). Liberal cities are the epicenters of homelessness because they all follow the same policies of enablement.

Here’s an example of actual research not your claims which seem to be fabricated from whatever you can free associate:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716220981864

What’s the homeless rate in the luxury enclaves you mention? I couldnt find reliable numbers. Note that your claimed statistics for such enclaves could still be true but not discount the overall statistical relationship - such enclaves can have their own housing dynamics (such as small populations and vacation homes) which don’t negate the larger trend we see when we examine many locales such as large cities and so on. So no, cherry picked counter examples don’t negate the larger statistical relationship between homelessness and inequality.

And attributing homelessness to “enablement policies” is another hot take. It’s just as plausible that enablement policies are enacted as a response to homelessness not a cause.

But at least now we seem to be beyond blaming homelessness on individual traits.

I am sorry, I cannot read that "actual research" but I figure it did not include places with the most inequality, like ones I've listed?

>Note that your claimed statistics for such enclaves could still be true but not discount the overall statistical relationship

If you know statistics then you might be familiar with the "correlation does not imply causation" turn of phrase. And yes, any counter example destroys a causation claim.

This research has nothing to do with wealth inequality or homelessness. It's simply documenting that young children form attachment bonds with consistent caregivers, whether that's mom, dad, grandma, or a stable daycare worker. The key word is stable. Kids need predictable, responsive caregiving from the same people over time. That's basic attachment theory, not a political statement about economic systems.

Friend, I think you may have gotten your links mixed up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com