[grafmax]

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.

[mlrtime]

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.

[grafmax]

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

[pandaman]

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.