Covid and the homeless? A question.

[VaughanJB]

sorry, but there's no envy here. Just stating facts. When I lived in Hawaii, it was not uncommon for folks to hitch hike, and I picked up a few. On average 2 out of offered to sell me drugs, and they were all homeless by choice. Lots of the homeless folks on the Islands scrapped together enough money to fly there from the mainland, knowing they would be homeless. It is a choice.

Holiday makers, or kids going to a sunny locale to live the life? They're homeless only in the very broadest of terms. They wouldn't be going to homeless shelters to sleep, or pitching a tent in the middle of a city. That they got the money for the flight says it all.

And the rate of homelessness hasn't changed in the last few years. It is 0.18%, which means that 99.82% of Americans are not homeless. Please let that sink it. The cost of housing hasn't changed that number on a national basis. Sometimes, we have to move to where we can afford to live. The big run up in homelessness was when the courts said we can't lock up someone just because they're crazy. (See O'Connor v Donaldson, 1975)

Well, there is plenty of data out there that contradicts the idea homelessness isn't rising. It's true, during Covid 19 there were a greater number of programs to get people shelter, but all that money has dried up now. Still, even if it were the same, why has there been no progress?

State of Homelessness: 2023 Edition

Same with house prices. "Aside from a 42% ramp up in home prices between January 2020 and June 2023, many homes on the market still receive multiple offers, which implies “that housing demand is not being satisfied due to a lack of supply,” Yun said in a July report."

Home prices are expected to rise in 2024: 'There are simply not enough homes' to meet demand, says economist

Now, there may be a slump in pricing in a town of city somewhere in the US, but I don't think we can expect the homeless to keep their ear to the ground and move there en masse.

And "corporate welfare" has nothing to do with homeless. That's just a red herring folks use when they don't have the facts to back up what they have said. For example, Washington D.C. was cited as a high housing cost and high homeless population. Yet the vacancy rate for rentals has held steady at little under 9%. So while some may be forced out due to rent increase, someone else moves in.

The point about corporate welfare is that the government will spend $100bn a year to help corporations, but claim there's no money for the homeless. Hardly a red herring. Welfare is welfare. You often see people bemoaning people getting welfare payments, but they never say anything about a far greater amount being given to businesses.

I'm not sure of the relevance of people moving in to apartments in DC. I thought we were discussing the homeless, which by definition, are not moving in. There is a mood these days to discount facts if they're inconvenient. Nothing I've written can't be verified should you want to.

As you might conclude, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the homeless. Mostly, they are where they are because of mental illness, drug abuse, or the decisions they made. And let me add that if you think we should do more, feel free to do more. Work at a food bank, Give to a food bank. Donate to a homeless shelter in your city. Take a homeless person or family into your own home. What's stopping you?

So I ask again if $36k isn't enough, how much should it be? Give us your number.

Interesting. What makes you think I've never helped? I've never been to shelters? What makes you think I've never raised money for the homeless?

Now, it's clear from your posts you don't care about these fellow humans. That's a shame, but is your business. Me? I think every human is important, and I think we should do more because we can do more. It's not just about the money, it's how it's spent. What programs there are to give long term relief.

Still, this clearly is a subject where we're a million miles apart. Someone like yourself can never be part of the solution, so it's up to others to care. Let's hope you never need that $36K spent to house your family.

Other than that, I think we each have a read on each others stance, so there's no need to continue a back and forth. Thanks for the exchange of views.

 

[Buckeye]

Okay - first, you decided those homeless folks on the Big Island weren't really homeless. If you are sleeping outside at night, it sure looks like homeless. And a number of homeless have jobs (some say 25%, others say 40%, I dunno) and can raise enough money for a one way ticket to anywhere. They just decided to be homeless in nicer weather, but they are indeed homeless.

And if you do have any data that says the rate of homelessness is rising, please present a link. The data I see says it is 0.18% and hasn't changed for several years.

Home prices go up and down. Supply and demand. If prices are going up, guess what, it means there are more buyers than sellers. If folks are getting multiple offers I'd say prices are too low.

"Corporate welfare" is a myth, and has nothing to do with the homeless. As I said, it is just a red herring when you know you've lost the debate.

As for Washington D.C, you brought it up as an example of high housing costs and high homelessness. I merely disproved your premise, since the data on rental vacancy rates have stayed approx the same, and are not higher than other big cities. If the rates were too high, vacancy rates would go up.

Additionally, you keep saying we don't do enough for them, and I pointed out that the government spends $36k annually for every homeless person, and have asked you twice how much is enough, which you fail to answer.

Finally, for the record, I have donated to food banks and to open shelters, and I have taken homeless into my own home. So your characterization of me is way off base, but I don't expect you to apologize.

 

[VaughanJB]

Okay - first, you decided those homeless folks on the Big Island weren't really homeless. If you are sleeping outside at night, it sure looks like homeless. And a number of homeless have jobs (some say 25%, others say 40%, I dunno) and can raise enough money for a one way ticket to anywhere. They just decided to be homeless in nicer weather, but they are indeed homeless.

And if you do have any data that says the rate of homelessness is rising, please present a link. The data I see says it is 0.18% and hasn't changed for several years.

Home prices go up and down. Supply and demand. If prices are going up, guess what, it means there are more buyers than sellers. If folks are getting multiple offers I'd say prices are too low.

"Corporate welfare" is a myth, and has nothing to do with the homeless. As I said, it is just a red herring when you know you've lost the debate.

As for Washington D.C, you brought it up as an example of high housing costs and high homelessness. I merely disproved your premise, since the data on rental vacancy rates shows that rates have stayed approx the same, and are not higher than other big cities. If the rates were too high, vacancy rates would go up.

Additionally, you keep saying we don't do enough for them, and I pointed out that the government spends $36k annually for every homeless person, and have asked you twice how much is enough, which you fail to answer.

Finally, for the record, I have donated to food banks and to open shelters, and I have taken homeless into my own home. So your characterization of me is way off base, but I don't expect you to apologize.

As I say, I don't think there is any point in our going back and forth. For the record, yes I think there is a world of difference between young folk buying a ticket to Hawaii and sleeping on the beach while having a good time, as opposed to the homeless in various tent cities across the US and beyond. You don't, apparently. Fine, let's agree to disagree. I've only spent a tiny bit of time in Hawaii, and if I were homeless, it's a pretty good place to be.

House prices? Of course they vary. But I don't think that the homeless can afford to buy one week, and not the next as the market fluctuates. I don't think they're riding the waves (except perhaps, some of those in Hawaii). So I'm not sure why this is important.

I did not bring up DC in terms of prices, only in the number of homeless. But again, rental prices for the homeless is an issue of their not being able to afford them. So they could stay the same, they could go up, it's irrelevant to the plight of those on the street. How many landlords, do you think, would welcome someone living on the street to rent their place? Personally, I think you're confusing those who have money, with those that don't.

And I have told you that not a single homeless person is getting $36K a year given to them. Not a single one. I've told you that we spend $42K on keeping prisoners in Jail (although that's an average, in some states it's much lower, and in others much, much higher). I've told you the government spends $100bn a year on corporate welfare. Much of the $36K isn't being spent on solving the housing problem, to quote: "Much of this money goes toward publicly funded crisis services, including jails, hospitalizations, and emergency departments."

I don't pretend to have all the answers, and I have no insight into how the money is assigned. I do know there are too many people homeless.

Thank you for giving to food banks. I can only go on what you're writing.

But let's not fall out over this - different views are going happen.

 

[Buckeye]

By the way, there isn't a "housing problem" in America. Per your earlier comment, there are about 600k homeless in America, but there are nearly 10 million "second homes". We have plenty of houses.

 

[VaughanJB]

By the way, there isn't a "housing problem" in America. Per your earlier comment, there are about 600k homeless in America, but there are nearly 10 million "second homes". We have plenty of houses.

I'm sorry, we'll never agree it seems. The context of our discussion is not whether there are enough homes, but whether there are enough affordable homes for those on the lowest rung of the ladder. There could be 50m empty houses in the US, it wouldn't address the issue we've been discussing. You did the same thing with housing costs in DC - it's irrelevant whether the prices there have gone up or down relative to the context of our discussion.

Same in the UK, we have a lack of housing for the poorest amongst us. At the same time, there are 1m empty homes.

That's the world we live in. I do believe we have each expressed our opinion on this though.

 

[John cycling]

I pointed out that the government spends $36k annually for every homeless person, and have asked you twice how much is enough, which you fail to answer.

Usually that means the government is paying itself $36k annually for every homeless person, not that homeless people get any of that.

 

[chic]

Usually that means the government is paying itself $36k annually for every homeless person, not that homeless people get any of that.

I had a feeling.

 

[jimintoronto]

sorry, but there's no envy here. Just stating facts. When I lived in Hawaii, it was not uncommon for folks to hitch hike, and I picked up a few. On average 2 out of offered to sell me drugs, and they were all homeless by choice. Lots of the homeless folks on the Islands scrapped together enough money to fly there from the mainland, knowing they would be homeless. It is a choice.

And the rate of homelessness hasn't changed in the last few years. It is 0.18%, which means that 99.82% of Americans are not homeless. Please let that sink it. The cost of housing hasn't changed that number on a national basis. Sometimes, we have to move to where we can afford to live. The big run up in homelessness was when the courts said we can't lock up someone just because they're crazy. (See O'Connor v Donaldson, 1975)

And "corporate welfare" has nothing to do with homeless. That's just a red herring folks use when they don't have the facts to back up what they have said. For example, Washington D.C. was cited as a high housing cost and high homeless population. Yet the vacancy rate for rentals has held steady at little under 9%. So while some may be forced out due to rent increase, someone else moves in.

As you might conclude, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the homeless. Mostly, they are where they are because of mental illness, drug abuse, or the decisions they made. And let me add that if you think we should do more, feel free to do more. Work at a food bank, Give to a food bank. Donate to a homeless shelter in your city. Take a homeless person or family into your own home. What's stopping you?

So I ask again if $36k isn't enough, how much should it be? Give us your number.

In 2022 the city of Toronto spent six hundred and forty MILLION dollars to provide 8,000 shelter spaces, food kitchens, warming centers ( it is Canada after all ) and safe drug use drop in shelters. Now get this number...Toronto conducted two surveys to count the actual number of homeless people in the city. About 10,000 was the estimate. Now divide 647 Million dollars by 10,000 people ? Add to the 640 million dollars the amount spent on Policing, court time, and jail time and the wages of the social services workers who are paid by the city of Toronto. Only in Toronto will you see a homeless man wearing designer clothing that he got for free from some do gooder suburban church. JImB.

 

[VaughanJB]

In 2022 the city of Toronto spent six hundred and forty MILLION dollars to provide 8,000 shelter spaces, food kitchens, warming centers ( it is Canada after all ) and safe drug use drop in shelters. Now get this number...Toronto conducted two surveys to count the actual number of homeless people in the city. About 10,000 was the estimate. Now divide 647 Million dollars by 10,000 people ? Add to the 640 million dollars the amount spent on Policing, court time, and jail time and the wages of the social services workers who are paid by the city of Toronto. Only in Toronto will you see a homeless man wearing designer clothing that he got for free from some do gooder suburban church. JImB.

I don't know the specifics, but it does highlight that if you approach simply through $'s spent, you're on the wrong track. We need programs that have clearly defined goals, and monitor them over time to make sure they reach it. Instead, we allow a lot of programs to have a profit motive, which means money is drained away from the goal in order to appease shareholders. As I've mentioned before, this is the problem with Methadone clinics in the US - do they help addicts? Yes. But since they are essentially pay-as-you-go they have no incentive to transition you off the Methadone itself. These aren't programs that need profits being made. I'd love to see how that money is spent, and whom is getting it.

It's not clear how, or if, Toronto is doing anything to help solve the underlying issues that cause homelessness. A quick look suggests that spend on homelessness is a little less than 4% of Toronto's total budget for the year. The number of homeless hovers at around 20,000 people, which means the spend there is a little less than the number Buckeye posted (Toronto is at a little over 32K per person).

I applaud their efforts, the alternative are tent cities. Hopefully they can eventually switch from tackling those that are homeless, to dealing with the underlying causes.

Also, your last line makes the same mistake Buckeye makes. That 32K per head is not going directly to the person who is homeless. Yes, they might be given designer clothes that have been donated, but that says more about the wealth of the other citizens, and nothing about the homeless.

 

[jimintoronto]

I don't know the specifics, but it does highlight that if you approach simply through $'s spent, you're on the wrong track. We need programs that have clearly defined goals, and monitor them over time to make sure they reach it. Instead, we allow a lot of programs to have a profit motive, which means money is drained away from the goal in order to appease shareholders. As I've mentioned before, this is the problem with Methadone clinics in the US - do they help addicts? Yes. But since they are essentially pay-as-you-go they have no incentive to transition you off the Methadone itself. These aren't programs that need profits being made. I'd love to see how that money is spent, and whom is getting it.

It's not clear how, or if, Toronto is doing anything to help solve the underlying issues that cause homelessness. A quick look suggests that spend on homelessness is a little less than 4% of Toronto's total budget for the year. The number of homeless hovers at around 20,000 people, which means the spend there is a little less than the number Buckeye posted (Toronto is at a little over 32K per person).

I applaud their efforts, the alternative are tent cities. Hopefully they can eventually switch from tackling those that are homeless, to dealing with the underlying causes.

Also, your last line makes the same mistake Buckeye makes. That 32K per head is not going directly to the person who is homeless. Yes, they might be given designer clothes that have been donated, but that says more about the wealth of the other citizens, and nothing about the homeless.

OK I am going to come right out and say it.......There is only ONE taxpayer, regardless if you are talking about the Federal Government, the Provincial Governments, or the city/town Governments. Remember that NO level of Government has any money that was not the result of taxation or fees. Those of us who DO pay our taxes, are ALSO paying to support those who DO NOT pay taxes. The reality is that social programs reward those who are TAKERS from society, with money spent on them, which comes from those who do work and contribute to society. It is time to put the blame where it rightly belongs. Stop rewarding people who are not making any contribution to society. JimB.

 

[Jeni]

perhaps we look at a different view ...
covid if people stayed in bed and rested with little movement ........often turned into covid pneumonia etc as virus settled into lungs
Those who stayed as mobile as possible often had milder cases among my experience with friends and family .......
The homeless often have to stay mobile and often need to find ways to eat and such daily perhaps the always mobile life was a factor in it not progressing in some?

 

[VaughanJB]

OK I am going to come right out and say it.......There is only ONE taxpayer, regardless if you are talking about the Federal Government, the Provincial Governments, or the city/town Governments. Remember that NO level of Government has any money that was not the result of taxation or fees. Those of us who DO pay our taxes, are ALSO paying to support those who DO NOT pay taxes. The reality is that social programs reward those who are TAKERS from society, with money spent on them, which comes from those who do work and contribute to society. It is time to put the blame where it rightly belongs. Stop rewarding people who are not making any contribution to society. JimB.

Blame? Does everything have to begin and end with blame?

There's this idea that say, the homeless are getting something for free, so everyone should be getting the same thing for free, because: reasons. This is not how a society works. There are people in society who never need a thing, and some that do. It's that simple. It's like an insurance, you might need it, and hopefully you don't. Some of the people in need have worked (the number one reason for bankruptcy is losing a job or health problems) and paid taxes.

As for personal benefit. Let's imagine there are 100 people living in tents on your street. You pass them every day, and have to put up with their noise and garbage, So, the local government gives them help, and finds them housing. Your street is therefore cleared out. Are you saying you have not benefited? Would you not benefit from the peace, the cleaner streets, and from noise abatement?

While we all pay taxes, once we have we don't own that money any more. That money goes to politicians to allocate to budgets on our behalf. They don't ever say, "Well, Bob paid $20K in taxes, so let's make sure he gets $20K back". It's simply not how it works. But instead of people being glad they're not homeless, not sick, whatever it is - they're actually envious of them. Yet they'd not want to swap places with them.

Social programs don't "reward" anyone. They might HELP someone. No-one is having a street party because a social program sent a meal truck around. It's not a reward, it's an attempt to lift people up so they can, perhaps, become contributing members of society. Perhaps it would be useful to put as much effort into thinking of ways to help people in need, as some do in hating them.

 

[VaughanJB]

perhaps we look at a different view ...
covid if people stayed in bed and rested with little movement ........often turned into covid pneumonia etc as virus settled into lungs
Those who stayed as mobile as possible often had milder cases among my experience with friends and family .......
The homeless often have to stay mobile and often need to find ways to eat and such daily perhaps the always mobile life was a factor in it not progressing in some?

But Jeni - isn't it more likely that those that stayed in bed simply suffered worse symptoms, and therefore became bed ridden, and that those that stayed mobile suffered a lesser effect from Covid?

It's important to remember that the effects of Covid vary from personal to person based on many criteria. For example, not all of our immune systems are at 100%.

 

[Jeni]

But Jeni - isn't it more likely that those that stayed in bed simply suffered worse symptoms, and therefore became bed ridden, and that those that stayed mobile suffered a lesser effect from Covid?

It's important to remember that the effects of Covid vary from personal to person based on many criteria. For example, not all of our immune systems are at 100%.

Well several doctors in my area told people the importance of staying mobile as much as possible as it did settle in lungs ... so both ways were possible ... and yes people have different immune responses ..