[clarky07]

I hate to be that guy, and I'm going to sound like an ass, but this is 100% his doing. Software worker in Palo Alto for 30 years making as much as 150k has no excuse. Save some money stupid. Also, when you get fired and can't find another job, perhaps you should move out of your $2150 a month rental. That's enough for 4-5 months or more in other places. $1700 a month SS isn't much, but it's enough to not be homeless in other places in America. It's not enough to live in Palo Alto. MOVE.

All that being said, I'm not sure what the point of making criminals out of homeless people is. No reason to kick people when they are down.

[mcknz]

Perhaps you're right in his particular instance.

But the issue is the same even for those who end up homeless through no fault of their own.

Moving for the homeless has many hidden costs, including the time and effort required to rebuild the local network of support one has built over many years.

[sentenza]

Also, in my experience, moving is expensive. At least if you want to take more stuff than fits into a suitcase.

Another thing that bugs me about the moving advice is this: It is good advice for an individual or a family, but it becomes extremely problematic if too many people do it. Many of the places where living expenses are low are also places were the public finances at the local level are in a catastrophic state. "Unemployment tourism" can be the deathblow for the municipal level if, as is the case in many places here in Europe, the municipal level has to finance much of the social infrastructure.

[GuiA]

> It's not enough to live in Palo Alto. MOVE.

"He was laid off [...] The next year, his wife died at age 55. [...] He turned down an offer from his brother to move to Illinois. He wants to stay in Palo Alto, he says, because it has been his home for so long and because he feels safe here. [...] He said he stayed in Palo Alto in large part because of the memories of his late wife."

I agree with you. But... humans don't act rationally. I can imagine how heartbreaking it would be to have to move away from where I spent an entire life with my wife while coping with the loss, even if it would absolutely be the right thing to do financially.

[clarky07]

I can understand the sentiment, but I think it would be more heartbreaking to be homeless...

[GuiA]

Have you ever read stories in the newspaper of old people who keep their deceased spouse's corpse at home for weeks or even months?

Humans do weird things when grieving. If there is no one (adult children, siblings, close friends, etc.) to help them go through the grieving process, things can get weird real fast.

[mikestew]

No, go ahead and be that guy. 30 years in SV and you're still living paycheck to paycheck? And guess what? I can't afford to live in Palo Alto, either, and I'm employed with a high-paying tech job.

But what really bothers me is that he's the poster child in this story. He's easy to ignore. "Should have saved more...", "he should move...", it's all his fault. But what about the folks for whom it's _not_ all their fault?

[clarky07]

Yeah, and that's what really makes this not a great article, and it's why I added the last point to my comment. The article starts off as if we're going to talk about this great injustice and then uses an anecdote that says this guy is an idiot who made poor life decisions.

[timmaah]

Agreed on both points. Kicking him out seems kind of harsh since it has been his home for decades, but is there a real solution? He can't afford to live there anymore.

There are tons of LTVA (Long term visitor areas) in southern CA and AZ that he can spend months in his RV for under $200.

[overgryphon]

The article specifically picked someone whose problems were clearly his own making and avoidable. I'm going to guess that the majority of people that will be affected by this new law didn't have successful careers in software development.

[flatline]

Of course, we all have some responsibility for our fate, some perhaps more than others, but this is a societal issue not just an individual issue. I suspect that we will be seeing more and more stories like this in the coming years, with increasing numbers of people hitting retirement age without pensions, after a severe recession, and with an increasingly mobile and dynamic workforce, which generally inhibits saving for retirement.

[devilshaircut]

> "All that being said, I'm not sure what the point of making criminals out of homeless people is. No reason to kick people when they are down."

I agree with this point that you said. The rest I think is pretty unfair; we know very little about this guys' life and how he spent his money (or the reasons he spent his money the way he did - "no excuse" I think is a false statement). The fact is, there are people who aren't making anywhere near $150,000 annual and these people will inevitably run into the same problems this man is facing (outside of Palo Alto - wherever you prefer). Ultimately, he did move out of his $2,150/mo rental, anyhow.

[clarky07]

Perhaps it is slightly unfair, but I think they are reasonable assumptions based on the information given.

1. Worked in tech for 30 years (which implies pretty good salary) along with actual number of 150k for at least some of those years.

2. We have a first-hand account from his step-son that says he was really bad with his money.

3. Then we have irrational behavior staying in a place that he most definitely can't afford and choosing to be homeless in expensive area instead of not homeless in more reasonable area based on his SS income.

> The fact is, there are people who aren't making anywhere near $150,000 annual and these people will inevitably run into the same problems this man is facing

Yes, people who don't make a lot of money will have more problems than someone who does make a lot of money. That's why I said kicking them while they are down doesn't make sense. That doesn't mean that the guy who made a lot of money and pissed it away isn't responsible for his current situation.

[devilshaircut]

Kicking them when they are down definitely doesn't make sense and I still agree with you there.

All I am saying is that those 3 points you listed here really do little to paint a lifetime of 70 years. I am certain you'd have little trouble imagining legitimate scenarios where someone could lose their fortune (hence why I don't buy the "no excuse" statement). #3 isn't irrational; the article indicated that the man worked in Palo Alto for a good portion of his life, where significant life events, such as his family-making, career, and death of his wife all occurred. It is not irrational to want to stay at a place you are emotionally attached to. It would be reasonable to conjecture that he has a social network there, vs. any other random place in the US.

Also, on point #2, his stepson and he are estranged, communicating only through Facebook on occasion so I am not certain that it is as relevant as you believe it to be.

I ask you would 3 facts about your life sufficiently portray the person you believe yourself to be? Would it explain in any detail why you are the person you are today?

The reason I am focusing on this point is because I believe the bias we all (myself included) have against other people in different circumstances including (but not limited to) homelessness, comes from this perspective of assuming we know far too much about the individual in question.