[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.