[adaisadais]

Homelessness does not beget homelessness. It is most important to note that. Our society is so focused at solving the primary symptoms without ever diving deeper into the root cause of things like this (looking at you Sf).

To experience homelessness one must have first experienced a reason to now be homeless. In modern western society we have many failsafes that prevent people from becoming totally dislodged from a place of shelter. But more and more people are losing such shelter and are ending up on our streets. Why?

The answer is often rooted in the human condition. Solving that is almost impossible... but it’s worth trying.

[offtop5]

I'll say this as someone who's been evicted twice, the number one reason the vast majority of people end up homeless is because they don't have money.

This can happen for a small array of reasons, let's say you're in a bad marriage and your spouse leaves. You simply can't make the rent anymore, you're now homeless.

19 years old, and you're getting into really bad fights with your parents, you're now homeless.

Develop a medical issue in your mid-30s which prevents you from working, you're now homeless.

In my fantasy world we wouldn't even have evictions, instead a social worker would advise you that you're legally entitled to effectively a dorm of some sort.

>In modern western society we have many failsafes that prevent people from becoming totally dislodged from a place of shelter.

You're kidding right, when you're released from prison they give you 20 bucks. Awful hard to find housing with $20 you know, especially when you have a criminal record. A ton of people did do things which warranted a sentence, but we make no effort to reintegrate these people. So you did something bad when you were 20, you being 35 years old out on the streets without any hope isn't healing anything. If anything at all you're much more likely to resort to another crime of desperation.

[jariel]

I think there are generally accepted to be 2 categories - those that fall out temporarily and the long term homeless.

Your situation is more the former. It's really common and that's what basic safety nets are for.

The longer term folks - serious drug addiction, mental illness, excessive abuse etc. etc. - those are the harder cases.

[offtop5]

>Your situation is more the former. It's really common and that's what basic safety nets are for.

Like a 10 year Section 8 waiting list ?

Sorry for the snark, but no social safety net really exist in America. If you don't have a place to go, you don't have it.

In many states if you don't have kids you can't get effective aid. And even with you can still end up sleeping in a car .

[jariel]

Oh yes, sure I don't doubt there isn't much there in the US. But certainly in Finland, Europe etc. there is.

[shuckles]

In California, you have: Social Security, re-entry services provided by the CCDR, EBT, Medicaid, cash through county assistance programs, and a large number of non profit providers of aid.

[offtop5]

Then why does California have so many homeless ?

[manfredo]

Popular answers: Good weather and high housing costs.

Less popular answers: Extensive services for homeless serves as a magnet to homeless. Greater benefits for the homeless incentivizes homeless across the nation to move there.

[porb121]

> In modern western society we have many failsafes that prevent people from becoming totally dislodged from a place of shelter.

the US has much weaker social safety nets, and the ones it does have are often conditional on applications or proof of work.

to say solving homelessness is almost impossible when US homelessness is orders of magnitude worse than countries like Finland's is nonsensical

[Cthulhu_]

> In modern western society we have many failsafes

The US called, they want you to pay your hospital bills.

Or when it comes to SF, rent.

[iSnow]

>Homelessness does not beget homelessness. It is most important to note that

But is this really a fact? I agree with your later reasoning that homelessness is a symptom of deeper problems, but I'd argue that our societies should have one more failsafe in place: housing for the homeless.

I've never been sleeping rough, but I'd think it would be pretty traumatic. This would kick some into seeking help, but would make others fail even more.

[Synaesthesia]

It should be pretty elementary to solve homelessness, as Finland has shown. There's also no reason we can't have full employment. The Soviet Union had it.

[itake]

I’ve lived in LA, SF, and Boulder. Most of the homeless in these cities are not interested in being apart of society. They are perfectly happy with their lifestyle of mental health and drug addictions.

Yes, there is a minority of homeless struggling to rejoin society, but the (pardon verbiage) worst people have no interest or empathy for society.

[Cthulhu_]

You're already coming across as very judgmental of these people. Have you actually talked to them? Do you know why they prefer their lifestyle? I mean you just implied that mental health is a lifestyle or addiction (??? maybe check your phrasing), and that drug addiction is a lifestyle choice instead of e.g. a coping mechanism because society failed them.

[itake]

> Have you actually talked to them?

yes. Everyone has their own story. Checkout these interviews on Youtube:

LA - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6ZFzEW7_Q4 Seattle - https://youtu.be/bpAi70WWBlw?t=877

The homeless I talked with in Boulder romanticize camping forever along the creeks and being free from society, while trying to leach off of public services.

> Do you know why they prefer their lifestyle?

Drug addiction, mental health, and in some cases lack of family support.

> that drug addiction is a lifestyle choice

Drug addiction is a choice. Based on my very limited personal experiences, you gotta commit to making a change (see above videos). Many addicts just aren't ready to leave their vices for a better life. No amount of rehab will help someone if they aren't ready to commit to a change.

> society failed them.

Sorry if this sounds conservative, but trying to blame other people for your problems doesn't really get you any where. Society throws problems at everyone, some more than others. Laying around complaining or rejecting it doesn't improve anyone's situation.

People need to apply critical thinking skills and tackle their own issues (hence the need for an addict needing to commit to the idea of solving the problem of their addiction).

Ex-homeless/addicts getting together to correct "society failed" them problems via AA meetings is an excellent example of people that apply critical thinking skills and try to help.

[watwut]

> Sorry if this sounds conservative, but trying to blame other people for your problems doesn't really get you any where.

The person you are responding to is not homeless and is not talking about own problems at all. Much less blaming own homeless problem on somebody else.

Instead, he is someone who is trying to talk about strategies people like him, non homeless people, can push for so that other peoples chance to become homeless is smaller.

Basically, compete opposite of your accusation.

[porb121]

> Most of the homeless in these cities are not interested in being apart of society

maybe they are not interested in being a part of our society because of how our society is organized, and if we changed our societal structure, they would be more willing or able to participate.

[grumple]

The USSR ran enterprises at a loss and kept workers idle though. And then their economy and government collapsed.

Not exactly a recipe for success.

[Cthulhu_]

Woop, there's the "socialism is a slippery slope to communism" argument.

[collyw]

Isn't socialism supposed to be the stepping stone to communism (but usually ends up in totalitarianism instead)?

[dragonwriter]

> Isn't socialism supposed to be the stepping stone to communism

The “socialism” stage of Marxist Communism, which in Leninist practice (which differs sharply from the dictates of Marxism from which it was adapted, but shares this and some other elements of theory) is totalitarianism (not a stepping stone to it) is supposed to be a stepping stone to the perfected end state in that theoretical framework. But neither the Marxist nor especially the Leninist form of that is the same thing as the “socialism” pursued by non-Marxist socialists, and in non-Marxist socialism there's no consistent role of socialism as a stepping stone to something else, whether utopian Communism or some other end-state.

[watwut]

No. Communism was supposed to be abrupt revolution and transformation. The democratic socialism was seen as enemy, because it made people calmer, happier and less likely to commit to revolution.

[user-the-name]

Actually the answer is much more often rooted in capitalism, which is a lot easier to solve.