Aging homeless in America

Murrmurr

Murrmurr

SF VIP
Location
Sacramento, California
As with the general population, the homeless population is aging. Simultaneously, an alarming number of older Americans are becoming homeless, and according to several studies, may soon outnumber young people who are at risk of becoming homeless. (sources: aarp, pbs, jchs.harvard.edu)

Young people have options such as living with their parents or friends that most elderly people do not have.

"Tales from the Streets" vlogger/journalists did a series of interviews with elderly/older homeless people and posted them on social media. Despite their ages, some of the women turn to prostitution in order to buy food or pay for a room.


California seniors on the streets:


Study: More Seniors Becoming Homeless:

 

hollydolly said:
I've been reading and watching Youtube videos over the last year with regard to the ageing homeless population in the USA.... at the same time the prison population has risen also with people over the age of 65
Click to expand...
I tried to include 2 videos showing the "some of the women turn to prostitution in order to buy food or pay for a room." part, but they came up as "unavailable".

Some people, including politicians, blame the US support in Ukraine for the current homeless crisis, but the problem's been around for over 20yrs now, and social assistance isn't connected to the military budget in any way.
 

I would like to see groups of poor senior women allowed to live in shared group housing where they might help each other instead of always putting them in isolated single housing or expensive senior care facilities. It isn't seniors fault that our real estate system has unfairly jacked up far beyond other cost of living factors, low end housing rentals and mobile home park space rentals but rather the inconsiderate Wall Street real estate corporations, their financial corporations, and politicians they control.

It is their politicians that through legislation have caused a lack of former low end housing as they let in endless poor across our open borders to compete with the already little low end housing available. Forget about their usual deflective response of "We need to build more housing." Yeah what kind of housing do they ever build? Very little low end housing is or has been built because it does not generate high profits nor pay for city employee salaries. Accordingly, those corporations ought narrowly pay using targeted taxes to offset damage they have caused in society.

Likewise, the rest of society ought outright pay for permanent state facilities taking care of seniors with mental health and Alzheimer's disease, thus not leaving such up to any free market companies to do so because there never will be. At least in the Sacramento urban region Newsom's tiny home project is moving forward.
 
One of the problems of shared housing is that if they are getting government benefits (SNAP, Medicaid, HEAP, SSI or subsidized housing) their benefits are cut if they have anyone living with them. So instead of shared housing increasing their household incomes it doesn't go up much.

Another problem is that moving into an apartment is a huge expense for anyone on low income. The deposit plus first and last month rents is a big reason someone ends up homeless if they lose the place they are living.

Some people cannot work at a job due to their health or mental issues. Even if they could, it is difficult to get hired due to their age. So they cannot work if they want to.
 
Murrmurr said:
I tried to include 2 videos showing the "some of the women turn to prostitution in order to buy food or pay for a room." part, but they came up as "unavailable".

Some people, including politicians, blame the US support in Ukraine for the current homeless crisis, but the problem's been around for over 20yrs now, and social assistance isn't connected to the military budget in any way.
Click to expand...
I agree, I've been watching these videos since before the Ukraine conflict , and if you listen to the interviews with these people many have been living in cars for several years
 
David777 said:
I would like to see groups of poor senior women allowed to live in shared group housing where they might help each other instead of always putting them in isolated single housing or expensive senior care facilities. It isn't seniors fault that our real estate system has unfairly jacked up far beyond other cost of living factors, low end housing rentals and mobile home park space rentals but rather the inconsiderate Wall Street real estate corporations, their financial corporations, and politicians they control.

It is their politicians that through legislation have caused a lack of former low end housing as they let in endless poor across our open borders to compete with the already little low end housing available. Forget about their usual deflective response of "We need to build more housing." Yeah what kind of housing do they ever build? Very little low end housing is or has been built because it does not generate high profits nor pay for city employee salaries. Accordingly, those corporations ought narrowly pay using targeted taxes to offset damage they have caused in society.

Likewise, the rest of society ought outright pay for permanent state facilities taking care of seniors with mental health and Alzheimer's disease, thus not leaving such up to any free market companies to do so because there never will be. At least in the Sacramento urban region Newsom's tiny home project is moving forward.
Click to expand...
That's not a bad idea, but it's not a good fit for all homeless senior women. My mother (deceased) would much rather live with, say, a young homeless mother with 1 or 2 children than a fellow homeless senior.

It'd be awesome to create a program that puts homeless seniors together with homeless young adults. Naturally, a social worker would have to be involved to vet and monitor placements long-term, but that would create jobs. The gov't spends billions needlessly on absolutely ineffective programs, so this could be a winner.

Imagine a senior lady helping a young unwed mother by keeping an eye on the children while she looks for work and also after she gets a job, helping the young woman budget her money so she can save up for her own place, maybe teaching her to cook and keep house and stuff. The senior lady would be a mentor, giving her life purpose, and being around children might make her feel younger.

That wouldn't be a good fit for all older women, either, but could be a successful program well worth the costs.
 
katlupe said:
One of the problems of shared housing is that if they are getting government benefits (SNAP, Medicaid, HEAP, SSI or subsidized housing) their benefits are cut if they have anyone living with them. So instead of shared housing increasing their household incomes it doesn't go up much.

Another problem is that moving into an apartment is a huge expense for anyone on low income. The deposit plus first and last month rents is a big reason someone ends up homeless if they lose the place they are living.

Some people cannot work at a job due to their health or mental issues. Even if they could, it is difficult to get hired due to their age. So they cannot work if they want to.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree. It makes more sense to me to exempt seniors in shared housing from losing benefits due to shared housing.

Also, state-subsidized housing places strict limits on move-in costs. It would be great if state gov'ts went further and placed strict limits on these costs for all who earn a lower than average income. Increasing social assistance benefits always worsens problems. Even worse, increasing social assistance causes dependency on social assistance to become generational.
 
Murrmurr said:
I have to disagree. It makes more sense to me to exempt seniors in shared housing from losing benefits due to shared housing.

Also, state-subsidized housing places strict limits on move-in costs. It would be great if state gov'ts went further and placed strict limits on these costs for all who earn a lower than average income. Increasing social assistance benefits always worsens problems. Even worse, increasing social assistance causes dependency on social assistance to become generational.
Click to expand...
slightly off topic... I read just the other day that..( actually I think it was a video )..on elderly people living in homes with younger people , whether family members or not... over 180,000 seniors are physically abused every year in the UK alone..in their own homes..

So.. I think altho' teaming a younger person with an older person in a home may sound like an ideal situation for both sides ... it would have to be closely monitored
 
hollydolly said:
slightly off topic... I read just the other day that..( actually I think it was a video )..on elderly people living in homes with younger people , whether family members or not... over 180,000 seniors are physically abused every year in the UK alone..in their own homes..

So.. I think altho' teaming a younger person with an older person in a home may sound like an ideal situation for both sides ... it would have to be closely monitored
Click to expand...
Yes, it would. Pairing up young and old roomies would require vetting as well. Government funded agencies really suck at that, so it would also require a change in the justice system to ensure the agencies and social workers involved can be held accountable when they eff-up.

As it is now, people can't press charges against administrators, social workers, and directors, etc, of tax-funded agencies and programs. Because of that, when tragedies happen due to a gov't agency's failings, bureaucracy or sheer neglect, they go unnoticed and people can't get justice.
 
Last edited:
Murrmurr said:
I have to disagree. It makes more sense to me to exempt seniors in shared housing from losing benefits due to shared housing.

Also, state-subsidized housing places strict limits on move-in costs. It would be great if state gov'ts went further and placed strict limits on these costs for all who earn a lower than average income. Increasing social assistance benefits always worsens problems. Even worse, increasing social assistance causes dependency on social assistance to become generational.
Click to expand...
That is what they should do but they do not. If you share an apartment with someone who is receiving SSI even if it just a roommate status, your SSI check will be cut. They count the whole household income.

I don't understand what you mean about strict limits on move-in costs. If someone gets evicted from my building they cannot afford to get another apartment due to the high cost of moving into another apartment (unless they can get into another building that is subsidized).

I am talking about senior apartments only not younger people. Ones who are on Social Security or SSI.
 
katlupe said:
I don't understand what you mean about strict limits on move-in costs.
Click to expand...
What I mean is, when a rental agency or landlord rents to anyone living on a limited income, they should be required by law to limit the deposit amount and either eliminate or reduce the last-month charge based on the renter's income.

No such laws currently exist, as far as I know.
 
In this modern vehicle dominant era, many US families are no longer in extended family communities. And that impacts retired without much income seniors that are often beyond the help of any children and relatives. Group housing where compatible low income individuals as a community village with a purpose can add value to a whole complementary group, is preferable to instead being on isolated single government housing support. Though as a start, it is not surprising society is muddling about in a simpler realm.

In a village, minimally just lockable sleeping quarters with a work desk area, and garage storage spaces need to be personal. Kitchens, dining rooms, living rooms restroom not so. Seniors helping seniors. Just as we humans as intelligent entities evolved in multi-generational extended families and villages within distributed, vastly complex, challenging Earth environments. Humans learned they needed to help each other, especially regarding food resources that the modern world has mostly lost awareness of values of.

But such groups would need to have oversight protection from otherwise disruptive aggressive persons that would be given a short leash before physical removal. Thus might grow a world of outcasts seniors that did not fit in with groups. To rise from that they would first only have options to group up with other outcasts.

In general, I think a good generational mix of gregarious people that effectively communicate instead of pure seniors, is wiser long term in many ways and is likely to increase the ways younger adults can appreciate some of us in older generations. A common way that works today is with live in grandparents providing child care while working age parents pursue careers and income. Over time, humans would develop better ways within a moving ever changing modern Earth human society to put people to better use helping other people. But as a starting point, that puts at considerable disadvantage many groups in society. True, but then life isn't fair in this limited mortal existence.
 
In America, you are much more likely to be a millionaire than be homeless. Currently, only 0.18% (582,000) of the population are homeless, and we have 6.7% (22.7 million) millionaires. (And I'm not in either group....) For every homeless person, there are 37 millionaires. And, for the record, 4 out of 5 (79%) millionaires inherited zero.

I am not aware of anyone in my extended family that has ever been homeless. And only a couple of millionaires. I'm 77, and have two older brothers, and I am certain that as long as one of us has a home, all 3 of us have a home. I would happily take in either one of them, or both of them if needed, along with their wives and dogs and cats. That's what is so puzzling to me about the elderly homeless - where are their families?
 
We recently had a thread on this topic, and it didn't go too well.

When it was people in their 20's being made homeless, no-one cared. When it was working people, no-one cared. And now it's the elderly. Will anyone care?

This is a classic example of something happening within society (homelessness), but until it directly affects the individual, they stick their head in the sand about it. In the mean time, the water is rising, and the way things are going to could be someone you know sooner than you'd like to think.

The burden of inflation, wage stagnation, rising home costs, fuel, and food price increases fall more heavily on the poor. They are squeezed far more harshly, because they already have no room to move. The reason people should care is because this can happen to anyone.

In the UK, they are saying 1 in 10 Councils are heading for bankruptcy. These Councils will cut services to the bone, which again means hurting the poor directly. It won't affect people with a great job, their own home, and with savings - but that doesn't mean we all shouldn't be concerned.

We need policy changes from government. We need better laws protecting tenants. We need to rethink wealth distribution.

Buckeye said:
In America, you are much more likely to be a millionaire than be homeless. Currently, only 0.18% (582,000) of the population are homeless, and we have 6.7% (22.7 million) millionaires. (And I'm not in either group....) For every homeless person, there are 37 millionaires. And, for the record, 4 out of 5 (79%) millionaires inherited zero.

I am not aware of anyone in my extended family that has ever been homeless. And only a couple of millionaires. I'm 77, and have two older brothers, and I am certain that as long as one of us has a home, all 3 of us have a home. I would happily take in either one of them, or both of them if needed, along with their wives and dogs and cats. That's what is so puzzling to me about the elderly homeless - where are their families?
Click to expand...

Not sure of the relevance of the first paragraph. If you're poor, the number of millionaires isn't important.

As for families, I can answer for myself. I could be destitute on the street, and only have old pizza someone threw away as a food source, and my family wouldn't step in to help. Not all families are close knit, or even on friendly terms. Not only would they offer no help, but I'd never ask them in the first place.
 
And if you're a millionaire, the number of poor isn't important.... My position is that, very often those homeless folks are where they are because of choices they made, just as the millionaires are where they are because of the choice they made. There is no lack of opportunity.

Sorry to hear about your poor relationship with your family. i guess it happens. I do think it's odd that you would never ask them for help, but have no problem thinking the taxpayers should step up and offer you help.
 
Last edited:
Buckeye said:
In America, you are much more likely to be a millionaire than be homeless. Currently, only 0.18% (582,000) of the population are homeless,
Click to expand...
I'm assuming you don't mean that it's ok and not an issue since it only effects nearly 600,000.

VaughanJB said:
The burden of inflation, wage stagnation, rising home costs, fuel, and food price increases fall more heavily on the poor. They are squeezed far more harshly, because they already have no room to move. The reason people should care is because this can happen to anyone.

In the UK, they are saying 1 in 10 Councils are heading for bankruptcy. These Councils will cut services to the bone, which again means hurting the poor directly. It won't affect people with a great job, their own home, and with savings - but that doesn't mean we all shouldn't be concerned.

We need policy changes from government. We need better laws protecting tenants. We need to rethink wealth distribution.
Click to expand...
We need to examine and make public the causes of inflation. The causes are often political, especially over the past 4 or 5 decades. There's such a thing as intentional inflation for political reasons and sometimes for "national security" reasons. But you rarely see that publicized.

We already have tenant-protection laws that fall so far on the renter's side that individuals who rent property lose millions in revenue and damages every year that they can't recoup or be compensated for. And those laws apply to squatters as well. Evicting a renter is a lengthy, expensive court process even when the issue is non-payment of rent or extensive damage to the property.

In 2018, the top 1% earners in the US paid $616 billion in income taxes; 40% of all federal income taxes collected that year. And note, that's only the tax on their income. Wealthy Americans are taxed in multiple ways that average and low earners are not.

When compared to other countries, wealthy Americans have the largest tax burden and America's poorest taxpayers have the lowest tax burden on earth. America's poorest taxpayers get tax refunds and can also get tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit - or in other words, tax programs for the distribution of wealth. And there were additional benefits for low-earners during the 2-yr pandemic, including a moratorium on rents and evictions, which meant an additional tax for the wealthy (which I think extends through 2025).
 
Murrmurr said:
I'm assuming you don't mean that it's ok and not an issue since it only effects nearly 600,000.
{snip}
Click to expand...
Just trying to put it in perspective. 99.82% of Americans are not homeless. And we have multiple programs to help the homeless, which are in fact rejected by that same group. As I stated in the other thread, the government spends $36,000 per homeless on various programs to help them. That doesn't include the charitable efforts, such as the food bank that's a few miles from me.

One absolute fact of human nature is that what you reward you will get more of. The more we do to "help the homeless", the more homeless we will have.
 
Buckeye said:
Just trying to put it in perspective.

... The more we do to "help the homeless", the more homeless we will have.
Click to expand...
It sounds more like you're trying to offer justification for dismissing the problem.

Those programs you elude to are rejected because they are useless. The ones that aren't are almost always programs taken on by individuals and private organizations, like a group of folks in AZ who set out bottles and jugs of ice water in areas where homeless people congregate. Some fire stations do that, too. There are restaurants that offer a free meal once a day, thrift store owners that offer free clothing and shoes, free medical clinics, barbers and hairdressers who go to homeless encampments to give free haircuts and shaves, a charity organization that helps homeless youth fill out job applications and families fill out rental applications and disabled people apply for SSDI.

Most government programs are little more than bank accounts for the government. Your last sentence there is an example of how government does it.
 
I see homeless folks everyday. Especially now with cooler weather. Rarely are they anything close to being seniors. The few older ones are mostly car campers. I see them camped (or parked) near the bike path and hiking trails that I travel. Also, panhandling at intersections.
It‘s a harsh life living out in the elements. Add to that a poor diet and drug use, no wonder one doesn’t see many “elders” among the homeless in my area. They probably expire before reaching 65.

They must be somewhere though. There was an article in the local paper this year about investors buying up senior apartments in town and converting them to regular market-based ones. It is all legal and very disturbing. They interviewed one woman who said they evicted everyone from the building and invited them back at double the rent. And no subsidy either as they were no longer in the program. Very sad. These are people on SSI and disability. Where are they going to go?
 
EmptyCup said:
...

...There was an article in the local paper this year about investors buying up senior apartments in town and converting them to regular market-based ones. It is all legal and very disturbing. They interviewed one woman who said they evicted everyone from the building and invited them back at double the rent. And no subsidy either as they were no longer in the program. Very sad. These are people on SSI and disability. Where are they going to go?
Click to expand...
That's happening around here, too. Our Congress made it perfectly legal just a few years ago. I suspect a bunch of them invested in this "progress residential" scheme.
 
Murrmurr said:
I'm assuming you don't mean that it's ok and not an issue since it only effects nearly 600,000.


We need to examine and make public the causes of inflation. The causes are often political, especially over the past 4 or 5 decades. There's such a thing as intentional inflation for political reasons and sometimes for "national security" reasons. But you rarely see that publicized.

We already have tenant-protection laws that fall so far on the renter's side that individuals who rent property lose millions in revenue and damages every year that they can't recoup or be compensated for. And those laws apply to squatters as well. Evicting a renter is a lengthy, expensive court process even when the issue is non-payment of rent or extensive damage to the property.

In 2018, the top 1% earners in the US paid $616 billion in income taxes; 40% of all federal income taxes collected that year. And note, that's only the tax on their income. Wealthy Americans are taxed in multiple ways that average and low earners are not.

When compared to other countries, wealthy Americans have the largest tax burden and America's poorest taxpayers have the lowest tax burden on earth. America's poorest taxpayers get tax refunds and can also get tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit - or in other words, tax programs for the distribution of wealth. And there were additional benefits for low-earners during the 2-yr pandemic, including a moratorium on rents and evictions, which meant an additional tax for the wealthy (which I think extends through 2025).
Click to expand...

Those laws are not in place all across the US. In some states you can be evicted for being 5 days late on a payment.

Honestly, we can look at inflation, economic policy, and the rest, but that's never going to matter if people don't start caring. The problem today is that there's too little empathy or caring. Just go to Youtube and search for "Poverty in the USA". I've been watching documentaries on the homeless for much of the day. It's really sad that there's this flaw in the US. I do see it as a flaw. Instead there's a blame game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top