"The Unhoused Community"

[NotHardUp1]

Look at what our politicians are doing (Republicans and Democrats) they can find money to fund multiple wars and fund illegal immigrants but can't help homeless American citizens.

Not sure I'd want to be Ukraine right now. Having a half-hearted friend may prove to be more dangerous than a constant one.

But, if we did put all that money to working on homelessness, what actions would do that?

 

[peeonme]

Many would argue that poverty and homelessness are hugely different issues. Look anywhere in the 2nd and 3rd world, and you still find plenty of poverty, but people simply live in poor houses.

It's more likely homelessness is a combination of increasing drug addiction, the irresponsible end of mentally ill homes, the change in work ethic, and the migration of Americans from rural to urban centers. With the population move, anonymity allowed vagrants to not face the pressures of community and the social contract.

Living in cities also voluntarily moves away from rural areas where homes have been extremely cheap until only recently, and even now still can have much more affortable living than cities, But, country folk won't feed you and give you money if they know you can work but won't. The poor are funny that way.

Poverty is just a step away from homelessness. In the USA we really don't seem to have "poor houses" unless we count tents and shacks as housing. Closing mental hospitals was a cruel act but I have yet to see any politician call for them to be reopened.

When I was a boy I was told not to feed our dog table scraps, if you do he will never go back to dog food. I would venture to say that when the new deal came along the work force in our cities got a taste of "table scraps". They could own a home, maybe only 600-800 sq. ft. and they could afford a car, it might be used with a stick shift and no a.c. but it beat walking or waiting at a bus stop. I feel that it is analogous to say that our economy is saying "go back to dog food". Live in a shack, remember "Hoovervilles"?

We are witnessing the dismantling of the "blue collar" middle class right now. So is it a surprise that the work ethic has suffered? I see countless young people that are in their 20's that have dropped out, they don't marry, they don't work if they can avoid it and many are "couch suffers" drifting around and being exposed to drugs.

Is it a shock that the dismantling of the working class started soon after the demise of the USSR? The powers that be had to keep the American worker happy until the Soviet Union collapsed. Why? because the greatest fear of the wealthy was the communism would work.

The irony of this is that the worker will abandon capitalism when they become desperate and hungry. I hate communism, but I don't like dog food either.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Poverty is just a step away from homelessness.

Homelessness is more of a social behavior, not an economic indicator. In all other societies and times, poor people were simply poor together. If one sibling or cousin or in-law lost a job or a farm or a home, he had to move in with family. This was true as long as people lived near their families. But, with migration to cities, that is no longer as true.

And, with the rise of the me generations, people intentionally move away from family, often unable to be independent but too willful to live with anyone else and (temporarily) abide by a roommate's or family member's house rules.

A great number of the homeless are anti-societal in fundamental ways.

In the USA we really don't seem to have "poor houses" unless we count tents and shacks as housing.

The heck we don't. A direct outworking of the New Deal was programs that funded nursing homes, and public housing. Poor houses in the Vvictorian sense were actually work houses and the poor were treated harshly.

There are also still plenty of dilapidated older houses, rented in every town, large and small, to the poor. They pay little, and the landlord maintains little. It's been true for hundreds of years. And whatever is paid is always too much.

Closing mental hospitals was a cruel act but I have yet to see any politician call for them to be reopened.

Politicians were cornered by society. There was a huge social revolution that said mainstream the mentally handicapped students and free the asylum "prisoners". The government did. And now no one seems to know how to reverse the issue, else we'll be having the locked up people be unhappy, and all the SJW folk will be arguing for them without providing any solutions.

When I was a boy I was told not to feed our dog table scraps, if you do he will never go back to dog food. I would venture to say that when the new deal came along the work force in our cities got a taste of "table scraps". They could own a home, maybe only 600-800 sq. ft. and they could afford a car, it might be used with a stick shift and no a.c. but it beat walking or waiting at a bus stop. I feel that it is analogous to say that our economy is saying "go back to dog food". Live in a shack, remember "Hoovervilles"?

Of course, I don't remembere Hoovervilles, and no one on JUB is old enough to, but I descend from Arkies, and we were among the people who stayed during the Dust Bowl and the exit of the farms and ranches. After all, it wasn't just the areas without rain that left, but farmers in general as they couldn't sell commodities for enough to justify planting them. They literally lost money if they sold them.

But, most of the ones heading West were people like sharecroppers, and I don't mean former slaves. There were plenty of people tied to agriculture who didn't own a decent amount of land, or any land, and when agriculture failed, they were absolutely destitute. My point was, they packed up and drove and tried elsewhere. They ended up in migrant camps. Eventually the crisis upended government and the WPA and the CCC and others fixed the problem by creating work, funded with tax dollars, and restoring some normality. It required reordering society. Youth left home to earn money. No workers got rich on those wages, but they didn't go hungry either.

Our government STILL provides work programs. There are vo-tech schools, community colleges, JobCorps, and a myriad of programs that try to get people working. We live in a country with a shortage of workers. Work is there, but it requires building up skills and earnings to do better over time. You don't get to be middle class by simply walking into a Burger King job.

We are witnessing the dismantling of the "blue collar" middle class right now.

Disintegration is also responsible. Parts of the society that relied on heavy industry have not adjusted to get sklills that pay more, plus with the collapse of public education, generations of youth have entered into adulthood with no ability to work within directions, to submit to any authority, or to accept deferred gratification until they earn their rewards.

So is it a surprise that the work ethic has suffered?

No surprise, but also not accountable? If I opt out of trying or working for my daily bread, does it become my community's job to contribute if I refuse to do my own part for my own welfare?

I see countless young people that are in their 20's that have dropped out, they don't marry, they don't work if they can avoid it and many are "couch suffers" drifting around and being exposed to drugs.

Can they be said to drop out if they never stepped in? Hard times breed hard worrkers. Somehow, we don't have hoards of 20-somethings getting thinner by the day and going hungry. Additionally, the homeless aren't the young unless you count the kids who run away or are living from couch to couch with friends, and they do that mostly because they are both too stubborn to work and to live by parents' rules. The homeless are predominantly older, mid-life or seniors. They truly have dropped out.

As for drug culture, the kids were exposed to drugs long before they left home. It's not a product of drifing but a part of it. And it's not new. Alcohol was always there for those who abused, and its results were severe enough to trigger Prohibition, so it wasn't some mild problem a century ago.

Is it a shock that the dismantling of the working class started soon after the demise of the USSR? The powers that be had to keep the American worker happy until the Soviet Union collapsed. Why? because the greatest fear of the wealthy was the communism would work.

Whereas it's true the American oligarchs and kingmakers have co-opted the police force since Day 1 to thwart legitimate unionizing, it really doesn't appear to me to be recently related to the breakup of Soviet Russia. Communisma and Socialism still exist. It's the political structure that changed. Now, Russia is again the center of an empire, and she doesn't have to give a voice to her vassal states. Before she imploded, she was facing the same problem Japan, the Nordic countries, and all northern countries face of a negative birth rate.

Over time, that meant Russians would increasingly have less representation than the "stans" which she buffered her borders with. They were southerly. They were Muslim. They were a growing threat to her power intenally. Far from the USSR collapsing from outside pressures by Reagan, it looks much more like the Muscovites oligarchs looked about and let it crumble, knowing the math worked out in their favor. Look at Ukraine. They made a deal to take their nukes promising modern sovereignty. Russia never, ever intended to give up control of the Crimea. It was a cynical lie.

The irony of this is that the worker will abandon capitalism when they become desperate and hungry. I hate communism, but I don't like dog food either.

I don't see the only alternative as "dog food" but I get your point.

I do hope we have revolution in store. We've been fed a bill of goods for over a century that our only choices are corrupt Democrats or corrupt Republicans and we've seen less and less voter turnout as a result.

Congress wastes its sessions with bullshit like the Biden Impeachment or the social media hearings or some other circus while they let the moneyed interests write the laws and melt the ice caps.

The govenment should fall. It no longer represents the peoeple. If that means civil war and people having to die to see the needed change, that is the very reason we had the Revolutionary War, even if it was prompted by upwardly mobile New Englanders whose sales were being pinched by the King's taxes.

 

[peeonme]

When I was a boy I was told not to feed our dog table scraps, if you do he will never go back to dog food. I would venture to say that when the new deal came along the work force in our cities got a taste of "table scraps". They could own a home, maybe only 600-800 sq. ft. and they could afford a car, it might be used with a stick shift and no a.c. but it beat walking or waiting at a bus stop. I feel that it is analogous to say that our economy is saying "go back to dog food". Live in a shack, remember "Hoovervilles"?

"Of course, I don't remembere Hoovervilles, and no one on JUB is old enough to, but I descend from Arkies, and we were among the people who stayed during the Dust Bowl and the exit of the farms and ranches. After all, it wasn't just the areas without rain that left, but farmers in general as they couldn't sell commodities for enough to justify planting them. They literally lost money if they sold them.

But, most of the ones heading West were people like sharecroppers, and I don't mean former slaves. There were plenty of people tied to agriculture who didn't own a decent amount of land, or any land, and when agriculture failed, they were absolutely destitute. My point was, they packed up and drove and tried elsewhere. They ended up in migrant camps. Eventually the crisis upended government and the WPA and the CCC and others fixed the problem by creating work, funded with tax dollars, and restoring some normality. It required reordering society. Youth left home to earn money. No workers got rich on those wages, but they didn't go hungry either."

When I refer to remembering "Hoovervilles" I am speaking in the context of having read and acknowledging the existence of them as we do all dark sides of the past of our nation. If I were to say "remember slavery or stealing the land from the indigenous people(s) we can't say I don't remember that, I am not old enough. History happened, we remember it in hopes that we don't repeat it.

Now, let's consider the job market today. Many folks are at Burger King due to the fact that they were left high and dry when manufacturing was high jacked and sent to lands where people were sent to work in dangerous conditions and were and still are housed in barracks so they can be called to work in a moments notice. Seems that the corporations weren't making enough money by paying a livable wage to the people that manufactured and used the goods that they produced.

When this started our schools had closed up classes such as wood shop and auto mechanics. The students were told that they needed a college degree to make a spot for themselves in the "middle class". So we ended up with thousands maybe millions of people with useless degrees in liberal arts. At one time a degree of any kind would land a person a job in a big company. Now even that work is outsourced.

So, we have people competing for jobs flipping burgers. At one point and time these burger chains were competing with each other for employees. Now the situation has flipped as have the burgers. In 1968 I was a 16 year old drop out and was hired (with no experience) to serve food under the Golden Arches, McDonalds paid me $2.00 per hour. In todays dollars that would be $17.85 per hour, yes nearly $18. bucks! I worked 45 hours per week, if I went over that (which happened quite often) the cash was put on my next pay because of my age. I bought my first car a 10 year old Ford with about 80,000 miles on it, a one owner car for $75. I rented a house for $125. per month.
Why did McD's pay me so well? Because they are nice? Heck no! It was about supply and demand. Fewer workers available means more pay to "lure" them in. It's not rocket science.

So, now we have a shortage of workers in such places as building trades. If the elite had not discontinued wood shop, metal shop or auto shop we might have workers ready to enter these trades and make a decent living. I worked in "job shops" for many years. I can't begin to tell you how many of these guys would come along and had no idea of fractions, decimals, they couldn't read a tape measure. Forget metrics. But at least they got a diploma! At one time that meant something.

At the risk of seeming condescending I would interject that the masses are not real good at adapting to a new economy. I was fortunate enough to be able to learn a new skill set on my own, I would read a book on wiring a home and rewire my house (it was 40 years ago and still stands). When work dried up in one area I would take a class on real estate and sell houses. If my clunker broke down I could fix it (most of the time). The average person has a limited skill set and capacity to learn on their own. At one time I thought that some were just lazy, truth be told that isn't the case. In the world (country) in which we now live it is easy to fall through the cracks.

As for family support, What family? At one time people had a number of grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and siblings to lend a hand. Back in the 60's we took in my mothers half brother. He slept on our coach for three years. My mother bought him clothes, food and cigarettes. Today we have on average 1.5 kids per household, who takes care of mom when she is old? Most are in a nursing home. When they pass their properties are taken by the state to pay for their care. So much for generational wealth!

Can any of this be fixed? I am not optimistic any longer.

 

[NotHardUp1]

At the risk of seeming condescending I would interject that the masses are not real good at adapting to a new economy. I

I agree that our society has enabled the rich to get richer at the expense of the working classes, but I also believe that Darwinianism doesn't just apply to the non-human animal kingdom.

Many believe we are breeding masses of people not really fit to survive and are rewarding unfitness, educationally, nutritionally, and socially, making society increasingly weaker. That's also the fear many have of absolute socialism, although I don't think socialists actually espouse members not working if able.

Whatever generation, each of us must look around, assess the life we land in, and make choices about accepting it or changing it. Too many are not working to change their lots. MOST of the fast food crews are the same kids who played all the way through school, would not work at studying, and found life giving them fewer and fewer options as they squandered the easy ones.

As for many getting liberal arts degrees, most people who fall into those without having a plan or path forward were just sluffing off into weaker degrees because they were not going to study or attend the hard curriculum classes and degrees.

A worthless degree is still a worthless degree, even more if the GPA is mediocre or worse, and I have a liberal arts degree.

Disappointed to hear vo-techs closed in your area. They still exist here, and there's a big trades school less than 20 miles from me. And plenty of trades are making great pay right here, where the work is. I personally cannot abide Alabama, but I'm not the first man to pick up and move when my job ended and I looked about for the next work.

 

[peeonme]

^^
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" has an inherent flaw, abilities seem to dissipate and needs seem to grow. As for Darwinism if stupidity were to be lost in societal evolution it would be gone by now. Seems the people that are some what challenged when it comes to any type of abstract thinking are quite good at pumping out children. I remember at the boys home it seemed that the more endowed a teen was the dumber they seemed to be (in most cases).

That school today is no longer residential school for "wayward" boys. It has begun a program for coach surfers who have Peter Pan syndrome. They want to teach building trades along with other skills such as how to make your bed and do your laundry i.e. be functional to people from age 18- 24. I sent them a donation, I hope it works.

 

[NotHardUp1]

^^
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" has an inherent flaw, abilities seem to dissipate and needs seem to grow. As for Darwinism if stupidity were to be lost in societal evolution it would be gone by now. Seems the people that are some what challenged when it comes to any type of abstract thinking are quite good at pumping out children. I remember at the boys home it seemed that the more endowed a teen was the dumber they seemed to be (in most cases).

That school today is no longer residential school for "wayward" boys. It has begun a program for coach surfers who have Peter Pan syndrome. They want to teach building trades along with other skills such as how to make your bed and do your laundry i.e. be functional to people from age 18- 24. I sent them a donation, I hope it works.

I hope it works, too.

On the Darwinian bit, I don't think any abstract thinking is required to not only survive, but flourish in our world. There is plenty of manual labor to do, and if the non-abstract populace doesn't want to do that either, then figure out what you DO want to do to make a living, or perhaps becoming lost in addiction, leisure, theft, prison, and early death is a selection process.

 

[peeonme]

I hope it works, too.

On the Darwinian bit, I don't think any abstract thinking is required to not only survive, but flourish in our world. There is plenty of manual labor to do, and if the non-abstract populace doesn't want to do that either, then figure out what you DO want to do to make a living, or perhaps becoming lost in addiction, leisure, theft, prison, and early death is a selection process.

What I see and hear from many young men is state of hopelessness, you might say it's a Nihilistic attitude. What brought this about is a mystery to me. The things that mattered to my generation such as learning to drive, getting married, having children, owning a home and such just don't seem to be the goals of many young people.

 

[NotHardUp1]

What I see and hear from many young men is state of hopelessness, you might say it's a Nihilistic attitude. What brought this about is a mystery to me. The things that mattered to my generation such as learning to drive, getting married, having children, owning a home and such just don't seem to be the goals of many young people.

It would make sense if you could turn back the clock and follow the individuals back through school and in their homes. The "good" kids did little or nothing to learn, but had parents who thought they were doing ok because they didn't get into trouble. The "bad" kids did nothing to learn and actively fought the process and were disrupters, but their families largely were not parenting at all, and had no control over their children, many of whom literally roved the streets at night with their peers who were not going home either.

Let that start somewhere around the fourth and fifth grade, and see how dead-ended a future can become. I saw it in my own family. I saw it in the public schools. I see it in the headlines. Children of the middle class who are lazy can drop out just as easily as children of poverty. The odds are more in the middle class kid's favor, but if his parents never made him work for anything, he may well fold when presented with the working side of earning.

The kids from poverty either use poverty as an excuse, or as a motivation to get out of it. Still on the individual to try, not merely blame everything and everyone but self. Society has never been perfect. More than half the world would love to have at least the chances we have at success, but all those people are barred from coming here while we piss away our opportunities and whine about it.

 

[Latimer]

In Los Angeles, a 49-unit apartment complex is taking 17 years to complete, the result of complex laws that exacerbated California's affordable housing crisis​

https://www.businessinsider.com/california-affordable-housing-los-angeles-construction-regulations-lorena-plaza-delays-2023-12#:~:text=The project was slowed down,to The Los Angeles Times.

 

[Latimer]

 

[Latimer]

A $1.2 billion program intended to quickly build housing for Los Angeles’ sprawling homeless population is moving too slowly while costs are spiking, with one project under development expected to hit as much as $837,000 for each housing unit, a city audit disclosed Wednesday.

https://ktla.com/news/los-angeles-is-spending-up-to-837000-to-house-a-single-homeless-person/

 

[Latimer]

In an exceedingly close vote, Californians have approved Gov. Gavin Newsom’s $6.4 billion plan to build treatment beds and housing for people experiencing serious mental health illnesses.

Update: California voters narrowly approve Prop. 1, Gavin Newsom’s mental health overhaul

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 1 on California’s 2024 primary election ballot would fund mental health beds and treatment facilities.

calmatters.org

 

[Latimer]

California's Prop 1 homelessness measure passed by a hair. Here’s what both sides are saying

Advocates say Proposition 1 will inject much-needed funds into a struggling mental health care system, but opponents worry about who will get left behind.

www-pbs-org.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[NotHardUp1]

What they will discover is that helping the mentally ill only addresses a fraction of the street dwellers. And the same goes for the building of units for non-mentally ill. What will become evident is that only a fraction want to be off the streets. The major cities will then face backlash for spending the money and then having the problem remain, still impacting the homeful population.

 

[jjonn3]

A $1.2 billion program intended to quickly build housing for Los Angeles’ sprawling homeless population is moving too slowly while costs are spiking, with one project under development expected to hit as much as $837,000 for each housing unit, a city audit disclosed Wednesday.

https://ktla.com/news/los-angeles-is-spending-up-to-837000-to-house-a-single-homeless-person/

And that is probably what will happen with the new 6 billion dollar bond they just passed.

A huge percentage will be spent on "administrative costs" and then they will way overspend on what housing they do build.

The California Legislature changed all local zoning to make it easy for people to build ADU's (Additional Dwelling Units) on their property because of the housing crunch. That was supposed to help with the homeless problem. So people are all building back houses that cost $350K and renting them out for $3K a month. That does nothing for the homeless.

 

[Latimer]

I see thousands of new apartment units built on the westside of Los Angeles (including West Hollywood and Culver City) over the past five years in four- to eight-story mixed-used buildings as well as a few office towers of fifteen or so stories that have been converted to residential use. The units remain largely unoccupied. In many cases I believe this is often attributable to either unsympathetic design, bad location or a combination of both, but high rents are the overwhelmingly the most important factor. The high cost of land and construction (onerous building and zoning codes, local and state environmental restrictions, city and country fees, liability insurance in an extraordinarily litigious state, and the cost of materials and labor) make it impossible for a private developer to build "affordable" housing without government subsidies. And, while new construction is largely exempt from rent control, the continuing threat from the state legislature to remove the exemption is hardly an incentive to build. Laws imposed during the pandemic which allowed tenants to withhold rent for a period of four years are also not an incentive. I know of cases where tenants withheld rent for the entire period and then moved out.

Help available for those who need to pay back rent owed during COVID-19 pandemic

Los Angeles renters face a Feb. 1 deadline to pay back rent owed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here's what you need to know.

abc7.com

 

[NotHardUp1]

I just don't believe that a large percentage of the homeless are looking to pay rent and earn wages. That must be only a minority of the homeless.

 

[peeonme]

I just don't believe that a large percentage of the homeless are looking to pay rent and earn wages. That must be only a minority of the homeless.

Trying to understand homelessness is like peeling an onion. Drugs, booze, abuse and circumstances beyond a persons control such as illness (both physical and mental) play into it. Unfortunately being homeless can be a very uncomfortable "comfort zone" for many. One learns the "ropes" gains street smarts, "where can I get food, clothing or take a shower?" and plods along a path of misery that we can't fathom being on.

It may well be related to "self worth" or fear of failure. Also the idea of freedom. Sleeping without an alarm clock, not punching a time clock or dealing with an abusive boss might be an incentive to stay out of the rat race.

Perhaps the true "victims" are those who have to view the tent cities or those who feel some pain or guilt wondering how we a society have failed these people.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Trying to understand homelessness is like peeling an onion. Drugs, booze, abuse and circumstances beyond a persons control such as illness (both physical and mental) play into it. Unfortunately being homeless can be a very uncomfortable "comfort zone" for many. One learns the "ropes" gains street smarts, "where can I get food, clothing or take a shower?" and plods along a path of misery that we can't fathom being on.

It may well be related to "self worth" or fear of failure. Also the idea of freedom. Sleeping without an alarm clock, not punching a time clock or dealing with an abusive boss might be an incentive to stay out of the rat race.

Perhaps the true "victims" are those who have to view the tent cities or those who feel some pain or guilt wondering how we a society have failed these people.

Although that does describe some, I've worked with homeless folks in several cities where I lived, and most of them (not the mentally ill) did not have low sefl-esteem, or not so that it showed. And they indeed seemed invested in the no-strings-attached vagabond life. And work would be a string.

I'm not sure that most Americans would conclude that we have failed the homeless. That assertion seems to assume that they are not responsible for their own choices. We provided a free public education. We provided work training progreams. We provided public transportation in metropolitan centers. We provided food subsidies as commodities or SNAP or WIK or free school lunches. We provided food banks, shelters, free clothes through church thrift rooms, and meals delivered to the streets where they are. We even provided free clean needles. We provided JobCorps and other training and retraining programs for those laid off. We provided Habitat and other similar programs that build homes, even if only a few, that are affordable for them to buy interest free IF they are interested in owning a home. In Albuquerque, we even made a survey and the most medically needy were attended first, given priority in the housing, and given medical care.

Are there yet some that the safety net doesn't adequately help? Absolutely, but it seems lopsided to imply that everyone else is more responsible than the person who chooses to remain on the street.