[Taylorious]

Love the picture of the "homeless" guy using a laptop newer than mine, with his pet, nice bike, playing a video game while he smokes a cig. He also has an energy drink... as if he needs it to get through his day of sitting around. It's people like him who are hurting the homeless people that are actually in need.

[fps]

That's a $319 laptop (http://www.amazon.com/Lenovo-G505-15-6-Inch-Laptop-Black/dp/...) and, while I can see the brand of the bike, that's likely a less than $150 bike when it was brand new. Pit bulls/boxers are basically free at any dog shelter. The average rent price of apartments in Pensacola Fl (where he lives) is $819/month, and the cheapest apartment I could find was $600/month, with proof of income and first and last month's rent paid in advance ($1200.) I bet they probably won't take his bitcoin blockchain as proof of income for that apartment.

So, he has spent less than 1/3rd of what he'd need for an apartment on 2 items that provide him income, entertainment and transportation and you're complaining that he doesn't "look homeless enough."

EDIT: the "energy drink" in one picture is a monster branded water bottle, but in another picture there are clearly cans of Monster on the bench.

[k-mcgrady]

>> "Pit bulls/boxers are basically free at any dog shelter."

True but you have to feed them.

[jessaustin]

You don't have to feed them society-approved dog food. Some people live on dumpster-diving; it's much easier to imagine a dog owner helping the dog do that. In an area with the right kind of restaurants, this would take about ten minutes of effort once a day.

[NovemberWest]

You do not know the backstory here. The laptop and bike may have been purchased when he still had housing. Ending up homeless does not mean you are automatically stripped of all worldly possessions. A laptop and bike are very valuable to have on the street. In a digital world, being able to stay connected can help you do things like job hunt so you can get off the street again. And playing a video game so you don't fucking lose your mind can be time very well spent.

I find such remarks incredibly annoying given the importance of the "digital divide" in separating rich from poor. Criticizing a homeless person for hanging onto a laptop as their only path out of poverty amounts to hatred and a desire to keep them a permanent member of the underclass with no way out. I value my computer far more than I valued the crappy apartment I was evicted from. I always have.

[Taylorious]

I made this comment out of irritation at the suggestion that this guy is doing this because he needs food. It's a load of shit. It's impossible for a mentally sound person to starve to death in this country, homeless or not. Just because there are homeless people who are homeless because they lost their job and now cant afford food/shelter, doesn't mean that there aren't homeless people who prefer that lifestyle. If you are in a nice climate (like SF) and you are given food, shelter, and basic necessities plus some luxuries (bike laptop etc.) then the idea of working extra hard to land a crappy job where you can still only survive with subsidized everything and you don't have any spare money, doesn't sound so appealing. People on here infer that the average homeless person had some great job, a house, car, etc. and they just need some help to regain that. I'm sure there are people like that who exist, but I would warrant a great deal of the homeless (those who aren't addicts or mental)wouldn't have a much better lifestyle if they got a job, because the job would likely be minimum wage. You cannot live independently on minimum wage in this country. So why even bother working?

[michaelwww]

Yes, because homeless people should have nothing and suffer as much as possible because they can't afford rent.

[jeffasinger]

I think the point is, the cost of having/using those things is approaching the cost of rent.

[twelvechairs]

Really? Sell a laptop and bike and you might have a couple of weeks rent at best. Stop buying cigarettes and dog food and you aren't going to magically save enough for a one-bed apartment on an ongoing basis.

[michaelwww]

Not really. In order to get in most places you need first/last/cleaning deposit and good credit. For that you need a job. But to get a job you need a permanent address, a place to get clean everyday, and fresh clothes everyday. But to have those you need a place to live. While it's true that "digital nomads" choose to be homeless, that is more often not the case. I went the digital nomad route and found myself in a hole that was hard to get out of. At least I still had a car to sleep in and a laptop. Showers were a big problem. The best solution is to join a 24 hour gym.

[roma1n]

Not a chance in hell -- a laptop that will last at last two years goes for what, $300-400 ?A used bike goes for way less than a hundred. That would cover at most one month of rent, and then what?

[Nikker]

Rent for how long though? One month? With no security deposit and no documented income? If you wanted to rent an apartment for one year it would cost $500/month x 12 months + security deposit == $6500. This does not include food, utilities or heat.

So no a $400 laptop does not approach the cost of rent.

[igreulich]

Seems like rent would be more important than a fancy laptop, cigarettes, and energy drinks...

[crazypyro]

300 dollar laptop =! Fancy laptop. There's 0 chance of the added cost of all these products being equal to rent. Even assuming its a fancy laptop, are you suggesting he sell his only means of income to MAYBE afford a month of rent? How bout the next month? Judging a homeless person based on their small amount of possessions in a single picture shows a complete ignorance to the situation most homeless people are in...

[igreulich]

Any laptop = fancy laptop, in my opinion. But it doesn't change my original point.

[dwaltrip]

You should have read the rest of his post. Oh wait, can't do that, might have to change your opinion.

[lingben]

No, it is about priorities. See Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

[icebraining]

That's a ridiculously myopic application of the concept (which is flawed to begin with). Even if some needs are more important, that doesn't mean we can't make plans to better fulfill those needs in the future.

[DanielCM]

Your comment reminded me of a Colbert segment from a few years ago: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/39316...

"'Poor' in America - A Heritage Foundation report proves that as long as 'poor' Americans have refrigerators and the strength to brush flies off their eyeballs, they're not really poor."

[hosh]

Wow, you guys talking about how this guy should have an apartment or something because he has a laptop are lacking in empathy.

When was the last time you met the eyes of one of these good-for-nothing, lazy, bad-smelling, disgusting … things?

If you can't even meet eyes with a homeless person, let alone really observing the person, you can't even put yourself into their shoes, feel what they feel, and see the world from their eyes. If you can't do that, then you lack empathy.

And when you lack empathy, that's the seed of prejudice.

Or how about this article, posted here on Hacker News: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/These-young-SF-profess...

Those are startup founders that live in RVs … because rent is too high in the Bay Area.

There are indeed homeless people who are mentally or emotional unstable. Not all homeless people are like that. And there are mentally and emotionally unstable people who live in homes. And then, there are systemic problems where rent prices have driven people out of affordable homes.

As to the point about how having laptops point to a confusion in Maslow's Hierarchy, I think that demonstrates more of the commenter's lack of understanding of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

It is true that shelter is at the bottom of the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. It is part of the human need to seek physical security, and is the foundation for the higher level needs. However, "shelter" is so much more than an apartment or a house. An apartment and a house are socially approved shelter. Shelter is anything that will help you maintain homeostasis. It can be a cave. It can be survival shelter in the woods. It can be under a freeway bridge. It can be in a cardboard box. It includes clothing.

When you are in survival mode, you are not thinking about socially-approved shelter. You are seeking any shelter. People who go out into the woods without a lot of training in wilderness survival tends to flounder around when things go bad. Their minds, being unable to accept the situation as-is, keep thinking that civilization will save them somehow, and cling to that. "If only I can get out of these woods or find a ranger, I would be safe." Instead of "Oh shit, a bad storm is coming, I need to get under covers NOW."

Likewise, having talked to some of the homeless, I was told how you can pick out the newly homeless. They have so much pride (and shame), it kept them from receiving help -- food, or shelter, or whatever. They are clinging to behaviors that are socially-approved. Social approval is higher up on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Believe me, if you were somewhere public and you hear gunshots, and you felt your life threatened, you will probably run. And you won't be thinking that the place you are running to is private property or not.

Finally, comments like these suggest that the commenters have not examined their concepts thoroughly or looked into their own feelings about this.

People who live outside the socially-approved box are threatening to people living inside the box. This threat goes beyond the surface, "oh, he is going to mug me." The aversion and disgust that keeps people from empathizing with the homeless comes from pack behavior. Humans tend to aggregate in groups, reject outsiders, and severely punish anyone who betray the pack.

This punishment is exactly the kind of reflexive emotional response risk-averse people have when you tell them about startup idea. "What's wrong with these people? They must be crazy!"

It is also the emotional reaction that leads to comments like, "If he can afford a better laptop than I, he can afford an rent. There must be something wrong about him."

That's bullshit.

[twoodfin]

When was the last time you met the eyes of one of these good-for-nothing, lazy, bad-smelling, disgusting … things?

That's a fairly vile perspective to project onto someone you're trying to have a productive conversation with.

Please treat folks on hn with a bit more respect.

[hosh]

I've watched people and how they actually react to people on the streets. I've watched myself. When aversion arises, I have seen this reaction.

Does everyone on HN have this aversion? No. I can't even see your faces, hear your voice. But everyone has some kind of aversion. There is often something vile lurking within the depths of people's hearts. It's ugly. I wrote that to give you the reader, a sense of empathy for the people who turn away in disgust from another human being, and believe me, I've seen that kind of reaction in person.

I've seen it in people walking down the street being solicited by the homeless. I've seen it in mothers and fathers turning away from their children. I've seen it in politicians, and activists. I've seen it all sorts of ordinary people.

I don't know if you react that way. You might. You might not. You might even react this way, and don't even know it.

The only way to be truly respectful is not to hide this, but to bring this ugliness out into the open, to really look at it, and to accept that you have these feelings -- whatever those feelings are -- arising from you. Who knows? You might find the deeper root causes for those feelings.

[jmspring]

I've watched and engaged here where I live. Reaction depends on whom you are engaging with. Crazy guy hopped up on something and not sure how he is going to react is a lot different then the guy trying to get by/improve himself and not wanting to be a burden on society.

For the most part, the able bodied young "travelers" that seem to infest this town from time to time are generally met with scorn. The mother with two kids living out of an RV and wanting to avoid the crazy / disturbed street people - met with compassion and care.

[twoodfin]

"Some kind of aversion" is a long, long way from seeing other human beings as "things".

I think it would be better if we all acted as if hn were populated by people much closer to the former end of that spectrum.

[hosh]

> "Some kind of aversion" is a long, long way from seeing other human beings as "things".

Every moment you to avert your attention, you are treating a person as a thing. You stop seeing the person and react to the aversion instead.

This is something that happens with pretty much everyone.

The difference here is for me, I am seeing people who, from time to time, will have aversions, and will in that moment treat that person as a thing. For you, it seems to be an unforgivable act that once committed, can never, ever be redeemed. I think that latter is another form of typecasting, don't you think?

I think it is useful to recognize that each of us have done this in the past, as a way of being aware of what is happening in the present moment. So that, when you do find yourself walking down the street, and you are busy, rushing to somewhere else, and someone asks you for change: do you at least stop, look at that person in the eyes, and sincerely tell that person, "No, I don't have change for you. Sorry."?

[hosh]

I think a much better frame to look at this comes off of the recent article posted up on Hacker News in the past week or so. This was the interview about the scarcity trap: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/13/b...

The question is, is by watching the youtube videos or clicking on the apps for bitcoins, giving enough return? Or is it really a case of being inside a "tunnel" and there are more effective means?

If there are more effective means, does this person necessarily want to live better? We can't assume that someone who is homeless "wants" to be homeless (not unless you talk to that person and observe that person), though we can say that the choices he is make is likely to keep him in a scarcity trap that results in being homeless.

[sliverstorm]

If you can't even meet eyes with a homeless person... you lack empathy.

I don't cast my eyes aside because I am disgusted. I cast my eyes aside because I see myself through his eyes- just another selfish anglo that won't show charity- and I am too ashamed to look him in the eye.