Who said they were jobless? They said they were homeless.
I remember in high school wanting to intern at Lucasfilm, and didn’t even apply because I was like, how the hell could I live in Marin county, CA?
4 Likes
That one’s San Fernando, no?
3 Likes
Slightly O/T, but Seattle just passed a new levy to raise money for more low income housing, so that’s good (hopefully).
Tiny houses are relatively inefficient, working out a way to build an apartment building would get more people off the street.
4 Likes
Sorry, I got confused.
2 Likes
No no, they’re still producing twinkies at a prodigious rate; they just automated one factory to produce the same output as all their others, and then sent almost all of their workers packing.
If people built more dormitories and other forms of shared shelter, there would be much more efficient use of space, and so more room to house people.
1 Like
Certainly, but having large amounts of people in shared shelter would require a higher level of maturity and interpersonal conflict resolution skills than is typically seen in most modern populations.
5 Likes
It’s about more than shelter, though. Shared housing as you describe is only a quick fix which only addresses the symptoms, not the cause. The cost of housing is an issue. The availability of affordable housing is an issue. if you work a job but only make $10/hr, and then have to leave your place due to rent increases, and the only place you can afford to live is a 1.5-2 hr commute…oh look, an example of how homelessness happens when you’re not mentally ill or a drug addict.
4 Likes
How do you figure?
That was my point. Housing is treated like a commodity rather than a utility. But it being a commodity fetish is also what makes it inefficient. The costs of housing are rationalized as being a function of finite space, while there is no attempt to make use of the space we do have in any planned efficient way. Why does the block I live on NEED dozens of separate houses, mostly filled with the same kinds of things? It takes up far more room and costs far more than making one large structure we could all live in.
People are conditioned to live as separate isolated nuclear families as if this is an empowering luxury that they are entitled to, when it simply isn’t the case. Selling separate houses, cars, etc stimulates more economic activity which benefits the minority who control the economy while making the cost of living for the average person, family, community, etc drastically more expensive. On a small scale, us paying 1/10 or less what things cost now would be a boon, but to “the powers that be”, this would be a disaster which costs them.
1 Like
I think for many the “empowering luxury” of having your own home is about privacy, autonomy, and the dignity that comes along with that. I’m sure some would feel ok about living in a more communal situation - I know many who do, in fact, but many won’t, and won’t ever. And it still doesn’t address the root causes of homelessness.
4 Likes
Well, ownership only works if/when people believe in it, so I think it can be argued that isn’t very practical. And with community generally having broken down over the 20th century, privacy and autonomy are being attacked more than ever. People are sold the promises and superficial appearances of both privacy and autonomy, while those who have separated us for the exploitation of our labor, our capital are openly hostile to those notions. The reason why corporations now practically own people is that they are themselves organized collectives, if only of an anti-social variety.
Then they might find themselves needing to justify how land and housing are used - why their vague feelings of entitlement are more important than how much shelter there is, or who can access it. Even if people are somehow entitled to all live on their own little islands, what good does that do if there simply isn’t enough room? Do others die of exposure so that they can still feel “dignified”?
I think it does. It is like the old kid’s game of musical chairs. Get people to work harder to compete and get into the “winner’s circle”, because this perpetuates the current exploitive structure of society. More than enough money is spent (wasted) by governments which would allow for every single person to be housed comfortably already. But it isn’t, because that is not one of their priorities. Instead, they prioritize creating employment and commerce, with the expectation that these will somehow “just happen” to satisfy people’s immediate needs. No municipality that I know of actually prioritizes the securing of food, clothing, and shelter for its citizens - despite the obvious necessity of these things.
“The Homeless” are simply those who are, for various reasons, unable or unwilling to play their game.
1 Like
All of that is well and good, and please feel free to recruit willing residents and develop a community based on these values and ideas. I don’t feel it’s moral or ethical to suggest it’s ok to place people into these types of living situations because they’re homeless and because it “makes sense” to you, especially when you’re suggesting that it’s ok because people need to modify and/or sacrifice their values and ideas of autonomy, privacy, and dignity. Nope.
4 Likes
It’s funny that you call out my notions of autonomy, yet suggest “placing” people. I am not talking about assigning anybody anywhere. My point is that culturally the entire plan for how housing is built and allotted is based upon selfishness. All I outlined was ways to make housing more economically and spatially efficient. I never said anything about forcing people to live in it.
I wish that I met more people who articulated “values and ideas of autonomy, privacy, and dignity”, but most people who I meet don’t, and instead live how they live because countless people around them appear to do the same. For frivolous consumer goods like video games or designer counter tops, people can be as impractical as they like. But I argue that when it comes to survival basics, pragmatism comes before vague notions. The sick irony is that people don’t need to explain their sense of entitlement to the homeless, because all they need to do is close the door!
In any case, big societal changes don’t just somehow happen without people changing how they live. It might seem scary, but if people do things the same way, they are greeted the next day with the same problems.
If you think that I am so far off the mark about the root causes of homelessness, certainly feel free to explain what you think they are.
[quote=“popobawa4u, post:35, topic:82763”]
I wish that I met more people who articulated “values and ideas of autonomy, privacy, and dignity”, but most people who I meet don’t, and instead live how they live because countless people around them appear to do the same. For frivolous consumer goods like video games or designer counter tops, people can be as impractical as they like. But I argue that when it comes to survival basics, pragmatism comes before vague notions.[/quote]
Wow, that’s incredibly judgmental, presumptive, and insulting generalization about “most people” that fails to recognize individuality and autonomy at all. Again, I’m not OK with this idea that it’s ok to place homeless people into these situation because this is how you think people should live and function. no. nope. no.
I don’t see that you’ve addressed them at all. ETA: Or are actually advocating for the homeless in any way, rather you’re promoting your idea of how you want society to work.
2 Likes
I said that most people do not articulate such things to me. How does that make for any sort of “incredibly judgmental, presumptive, and insulting generalization”? My point was the opposite - that rather than me generalizing about others, I know about them only what they can be bothered to explain. Unfortunately - that’s not much.
Didn’t I just explain that I was not discussing “placing” people anywhere? I don’t know where you keep getting this idea from, but it is not reflected in anything I’ve said. And where did I say that I think people should live some certain way? What I did say is that there are often conflicts between people’s stated goals, and what they are willing to do to actually help. If they really desire more housing and/or cheaper housing, there are ways to achieve that.
I have been homeless several times, and I have improvised shelter for myself and others. I advocate for the right of homeless people to be homeless if they choose. And I advocate for communities to be more practical about building shelters, if they choose. How society works is simply the result of the choices we make. The difference between my solutions and most others I find is that mine are more at an “urban planning” level. If you are running a city, you operate it around the obvious idea that it will have residents, inhabitants who need things to survive. Survival needs are central, not an afterthought which gets shoehorned in if the remaining budget allows it. If cities prioritize frivolous things instead of survival, then people will suffer - NOT because I said so, or because I think they should do anything differently - I am simply pointing out a cause and effect relationship. IF cities think that creating jobs and commerce are more important than affordable housing, then they will have a population of homeless people. Regardless of what they, you, or I think would be preferable.
The key is not for cities to do what I want, but for them to reduce the conflict between what they say they want, and what they actually do. I won’t tell anybody what their goals should be, but I can tell them whether or not I think their actions can possibly achieve the goals they profess to have.
If my ideas are so awful, then certainly feel free to contribute some of yours or others which you find more agreeable.
and the rest of that sentence: [quote=“popobawa4u, post:35, topic:82763”]
but most people who I meet don’t, and instead live how they live because countless people around them appear to do the same.
[/quote]
You do realize that initially I was talking about “shared shelter” being a quick fix that doesn’t address the root problems, like lack of jobs and lack of income (and other issues mentioned by others upthread). You’ve entirely ignored/forgotten all about that because you’re bent on speaking your own endless diatribe about how society is inherently selfish and any number of ridiculous judgments about why people choose to live the way they do (because they’re imitating others), and yes, how YOU THINK society should work and what people should value. Initially I thought you were talking about “building dormitories” and other communal low-cost housing, but i’ve come to understand what you’re on about isn’t close to being that practical.
I still don’t see that you’ve addressed the root causes of homelessness. What I do see is you is talking about a need to completely restructure society and shift people’s values to fix everything, in a way that is entirely theoretical, not at all pragmatic, lacking any concrete timeline or plan of action, and having only very little to do with “urban planning.” As I said a while ago, by all means, take your ideas and make them real with willing people, but a mess of thoughts, ideas, and judgment on others’ entitlement and lack of sharing isn’t a plan.
1 Like
But that is what people tell me, so how am I responsible for it? Believe it or not, yes, many people have told me that they have no individual values or ideas about how to live. They do “whatever” to get by.
It would be more honest to say that I refute it, not that I am ignorant. I have been homeless and improvised shelter, and there was no “income” required. What was required was a little knowledge and a fair amount of effort. It was in no way “theoretical”. Shelter can be made to last for years, or only a single day. What is pragmatic about dormitories is that it can reduce the costs to such an extent that sheltering all of the people who need it is already covered by the costs spent now in waste, administrative overhead, and other more costly outreach/rescue programs there are now. The money is already there, but is being funnelled in a roundabout way to make busywork for people instead of directly towards the problem.
If you think that it is more important that people do some arbitrary task to get an income to exchange for hugely inflated shelter, then perhaps you should convince me of how that is supposedly pragmatic. What is the moral or ethical basis of me petitioning for the right to be employed so that I can live in some solitary box somewhere? Why should anybody value that? Well, guess what - many homeless people do not value that, which is why it is less of a hassle for them to be homeless. Work is great, when it has a social function. But earning a right to survive is callous and uncivilized, and it creates power imbalances between people. Maybe trying to shoehorn a protestant work ethic into an information-based economy is a utopian and misguided ideal.
There’s your “cause”. The homeless are not willing participants of the system you are outlining. What is the “cause” of having a home? Does living in a home have a specific cause?
Here’s an exercise in equity - try to help homeless people to be homeless on their own terms, instead of forcing them to fit into a system they have rejected, or which has rejected them. If you recognize their agency and choice as citizens this shouldn’t be too hard. Let them do work which benefits the community without them being “hired” and live normal lives outside of your transactional economy, instead of harassing them to live a certain way. Work, money, shelter, food etc are great - but not always at any price, people have their limits of what they are willing to do to fit in. And if people honestly wanted to know “why”, they could always ask and listen. The reasoning is not especially mysterious or difficult to understand. Are the homeless “willing people”? Who is working with them to make their ideas real?
Creating commerce and jobs is hardly a plan, either. In fact, if you ask the people responsible, they often say explicitly that they do it this way so that they do not have to plan. Because markets naturally solve all of their own problems magically.
Instead, invest in infrastructure first. For what people actually need to survive. It might not be much, but it is more of a plan and timeline than “let the market fix it”. Income IS a theoretical abstraction, food and shelter are not. Why invest your money and labor into a system which demonstrates such poor priorities? FFS, everybody in the US could have been housed already just with the money we wasted only last year. People keep asking “where’s the money going to come from” when if you follow the money, you’ll see that it has already been paid for thousands of times over. What a deal!
Dig deeper. I’m seeing a trend of having a lot of assumptions of what motivates individuals without any interest or effort in looking deeper. That, also, is an issue with you lack of a plan,
Again (since you ignored it) i hear a lot of abstract ideas and notions without any guts, moving parts, workable methods, plans, strategies, or any way to enact them at all. And that really doesn’t help homeless people.
1 Like
No. Hostess Brands was at that point owned by a consortium of private equity firms that had zero interest in the company’s success, as their whole thing was acquiring troubled companies for a song, bankrupting them, and selling off the assets. When workers went on strike protesting the intentionally onerous concessions that management demanded, the owners used that as an excuse to liquidate the company. For a couple of years you could not get Twinkies anywhere. Finally in 2013 an billionaire and another equity firm acquired the cake business and restarted production using four (now three) of the former eleven Hostess bakeries. Too late for everyone who got laid off though.
1 Like
