Having done volunteer work with the homeless (and helping with these counts in years past), I think the broad term of "homeless" isn't all that useful.
I encountered so many different types of folks. Some were people down on their luck that needed help. Some had mental problems that (I'm guessing) can never really be fixed. Some had addictions. Some simply enjoyed being homeless.
I think addressing the problem would need to address varying underlying causes. For instance, "just give them jobs" will work for some of these folks, but not for a lot of them.
That is because mental/psychological healthcare is completely broken in the US.
Im currently dealing with the system for a family member, and I am shocked at just how hard it is to get help. Ignore the financials, most psych hospitals won’t treat you and have zero interest in keeping you longer than absolutely necessary. The one my family member went to twice didn’t even set them up with a treatment plan or doctors/psychiatrists/psychologists when they were released.
I’m homeless and have schizoaffective bipolar disorder. I haven’t been able to see a regular psychiatrist or therapist since Covid started. A lot of my therapist were taken over by people suffering from dealing with the lockdowns. should they have really been the priority?
My homelessness exacerbates my mental illness, not only because of the stress of living out of a van but also the inability to have consistent healthcare being that I have to drive to warmer temperatures or cooler temperatures depending on the season.
And the treatments for psychiatric diseases are still stuck back about 50 years. I’ve had to run my own genetics and do my own research to find out what would help me. I mostly done it no help to any doctor or physician or psychiatrist.
Many people act like homeless people don’t want to get better, but I’m doing everything I can and no one is helping me absolutely no one. Psychiatrist who take Medicare have zero investigative initiative and psychiatric awards are for profit hotels for the mentally ill.
If anyone has a positive view of this country and the goodness of the people of this country, I want to dissuade you of that notion.
I am currently parking at Walmart in Palm Springs, California. The amount of wealth I see driving around me in vehicles alone could end homelessness in this country.
I was homeless for awhile due to mental health issues and this couldn't be more true. The people dealing with the homeless professionally aren't the people you would want dealing with them and the funding isn't there for anything better. A LOT of people end up worse off because of bad experiences when they reach out for help. That's certainly true in my case. I have autism and was a "gifted" student growing up, so it isn't like the system is impossible for me to understand. It really is that bad (in my experience and where I live).
I’m always amazed at some of the responses here whenever the mentally ill are brought up. Suggesting that they should simply be hospitalized for their illness. That would be lovely, but speaking as someone who has been locked in a hospital before, it’s very expensive. When I’m between layoffs, I do have health insurance, but I don’t imagine that’s the case for the chronically ill.
When I bring this up here, I’m told that these people just need to engage with some system and they’ll be well taken care of. I have seen no evidence of this myself; as the article and your experience would suggest, it’s just the opposite.
The best someone can have going for them is a family member with money, but the mentally ill tend to burn their last bridges quite often.
Just want to offer some additional context here: "in the US" isn't really necessary. Mental health care is generally broken everywhere. Over here in the UK, waiting lists for "talking therapy" are long, and access is limited. Same story for most other countries with socialised healthcare. And, often, mental health care is even more stigmatised than it is in the US (where at least there's fairly broad societal acceptance, at least amongst younger generations).
Further, while the US is seeing major shortages of mental health care providers, most European countries are even worse off, in large part because there's no class of master's-degree-holding therapists -- you either get a doctoral-level degree, or you just attend some basic courses and call yourself a therapist with no licensing or regulatory bodies governing your practice.
I'd actually argue that the US's system is better than most other western nations' mental health care systems -- which is not a statement in favour of the US, but an indictment of other nations' approaches.
(Source for my data and opinions here: I'm an American immigrant to the UK, and my wife has a master's degree in clinical mental health counselling - she only practised for about a year before she quit because the system is so broken in the US.)
Some people need a hand to get back on their feet. Some people need a small, safe space just for them and their stuff (voluntary homelessness, broadly speaking; tiny homes or more dense concepts in urban areas work here), some people need to be committed (I know some folks like this both in a clinical setting, as well as a working farm in New England operated just for this need). These statements are the easy part, the hardest part is implementation.
Affordable housing is of course key to broad housing security for those of sound mind and economics who desire to be housed.
Oh, to be clear, I have no idea what a solution is. Some are straightforward (It was great to see when people finally got a job and got off the streets). But I'd say the majority of them are not easy solutions. Give a job to someone who is mentally not capable of ever holding a job, and there won't be any success.
If only America was the richest country in the world...
Homelessness for San Francisco was a mere PR problem during a state visit. Their is 0 appetite to tackle these social problems. Before implementation comes the actual political will to do something about it.
You have to be careful, because what you said is also the standard argument against action. You get people implying that if you can't help everyone you shouldn't help anyone, that more study is needed before doing anything, et cetera. No solution is perfect, but they are all better than nothing.
And all homeless have something in common: they are homeless. Yes, most of them have other problems in addition, but once they have housing they have one less problem and the other problem is likely to be easier to treat or handle once they have their housing situation sorted out.
I think there’s also a gradient to “not having a home” here that isn’t discussed. Does “homeless” describe somebody who is illegally squatting? Somebody who has lost their home and is crashing on friends couches? Youth who have a home but do not want to return to it? Somebody who stays in a shelter every night? The group I work with uses “underhoused” as the term, which I think better describes the situation.
Homelessness is well-defined by HUD and the definition has been the same for decades. The report discussed here almost certainly missed numerous homeless people because it is based on the point-in-time count, where local agencies go out in the field for one day and try to find homeless people, which overlooks some classes of homeless.
IIRC, the terms in the UK are "homeless" if you have no fixed abode and "sleeping rough" if you have no access to permanent shelter. If you're limited to couch surfing, that's the first but not the second.
Can’t upvote this enough. There are so many categories of homeless. It’s such a a board bucket that any policy that helps some may have a negative effect on others or is at least ineffective. To lump them all together makes the problem unsolvable
I’ve never met someone who wanted to be homeless, I met people who didn’t want to live in substandard housing because homelessness was better, but I never met someone who wanted to be homeless. Give anyone of these homeless people $1 million house and I guarantee you they willwant to live in it.
I'll try to clarify. I met a large number of people who had all the tools, facilities, ability, and help they needed to not be homeless and still chose to be homeless.
Just as an example, one young man I spent a lot of time with had a family that wanted him to come home, but who wouldn't let him smoke weed in the house. I wouldn't have called him an addict by any stretch, but it was something he was unwilling to give up. He was a strong, able bodied guy that could have gotten a job. Despite all of this, he decided he'd rather live on the streets and do what he wants. (Could he have had severe mental problems and be making all of this up? Sure, but I don't believe that he did).
It's actually the biggest reason I stopped volunteering. Over the years that I volunteered, I noticed a steady shift from people who really need and/or want help to a large number of people like the young man I described. When helping out the homeless people you can't pick or choose or make judgements, so you treat everyone equally. But it became very hard to hand out things like sleeping bags to folks like that young man and then see people who really did have nothing unable to get one.
But, yes, in your example if you offer anyone a free million dollar house they will take it over living on the streets, but I don't think that's a very realistic comparison.
Also, to be clear, I'm just some dude. I don't have any realistic answers to fix the problem.
Yeah. The homeless in popular imagination that actually prefer living without a home are called #vanlife’rs.
The one sees in cities are not those at all. Where they have access to shelters or even housing and they prefer to live as homeless instead is overwhelmingly because the housing and shelters are substandard, moldy, they’re exposed to risks of abuse including sexual abuse, they may not be allowed to bring their pets in, they may have addictions that they will be asked to wean off cold turkey (both understandable from the housing/shelter point of view, but it’s also obvious why someone addicted to a substance would not be able to do this), etc.
In my interactions I was genuinely surprised by the really large percentage of homeless who preferred to live on the streets (even in the winter) over decent shelters without many of these risks, because of pets not being allowed. For many the companionship with the pets are quite literally keeping them sane, and there’s no way they’d give them up, and yet the vast majority of shelters have a no pet policy (again, understandable, but it still is a contributing problem).
Now, there are definitely a few homeless who have mental health issues. And unfortunately, for obvious reasons those are the ones most people are likely to encounter (the sane homeless people prefer to stay out of the way and would prefer avoiding people altogether because of the shame and the judgment they’d encounter to begin with). So most people’s (including mine until I started volunteering with organizations that worked directly with homeless people) estimation of homeless people is based on this tiny minority at one extreme. Which is unfortunate because it makes passing actual useful policy that will help the homeless and reduce homelessness and all the issues that come with it, very difficult to bring into force.
I used to travel around the world and cannot believe that US couldn't solve or is blind about this problem. It shocks me to be in the "country of technology dreams" while I look at the state of many people there. Only think in tech-noir movies.
One of the biggest problems is many homeless are too mentally ill to make good decisions for themselves like seeking treatment. That's probably obvious given their life situation, but the law doesn't allow anything to be done for people too sick to help themselves. We need compelled treatment and high-quality facilities which are not jails but where people are not free to leave until they have enough momentum in their treatment to improve their lives. This seems heavy-handed, and probably is, but most people would thank you eventually.
That's changing in CA in 2024. The state legislature passed a law permitting involuntary holds on people who are unable to provide for their own physical safety or are suffering from substance abuse disorders.
What a lot of people don't understand is that the policy inadequacies that led to this point are mostly state-based, and in CA, cities simply couldn't do much about strung-out junkies on their streets once city councils started experimenting with decriminalizing drug use and deprioritizing drug enforcement. It's not like arresting them was a great solution, but it was the only thing available to city police forces, and it kept these people out of the public eye. Once that was removed as a tool, they were pretty much left with "Unless they're actively threatening someone, nothing we can really do."
That's changing, mercifully. Here in SF, a lefty-fringe position took over for a while, wherein homelessness with thought of as some sort of legitimate lifestyle, and society had to be forced to see it so we could all gaze upon the misery that tech money had wrought. After a while though, normal people just get sick of having to step over an unconscious body while taking their kids out for a walk.
While it's tempting to blame Reagan for the contemporary homeless problem, I'm not sure that's really right. Reagan was a giant piece of shit, but I don't find it plausible that his policy decisions in 1980 were the proximate cause of the homeless problem that started taking off in the late 2000s.
Personally I think a lot of the homeless problem comes down to two things that worked together to produce unintended consequences.
1. Opioids
2. Evolving attitudes toward drug use
Opioids are a scourge that created lots of new addicts. At the same time, society finally started realizing that criminalizing drug use was stupid. So the first thing to happen was the easiest: we stopped throwing people in prison. But it's not like these were people who had their lives together in the first place -- they had problems, and previously the prison system is how we dealt with those problems and kept them out of public view. And simultaneously, we were seeing an explosion of addicts thanks for opioids and pharma marketing. So lots more addicts plus lots less enforcement means lots more homelessness.
Now we're in a transitional phase where we're trying to figure out the best way to help these people and maintain their dignity. In the mean time, they live in tents on the street for everyone to see. CA is now codifying the obvious -- these people cannot care for themselves, and law-abiding citizens have a right to use public sidewalks without having to worry that a guy in a tent will think they're trespassing.
It's not really something the federal government can do much about. There is a vast difference between the availability of affordable housing between a state like, say, California, and New Jersey. The latter has far more programs, and far more available stock, and far more perfectly livable, undeveloped land where new housing, offices, stores, etc. could be built for the long term. California, on the other hand, has little to no affordable housing stock, and since it is so hard, already, with the available space to build new single family housing (and because, in the past, affordable housing programs in large apartment towers have turned out to be hotbeds of societal ills, so nobody wants to build high-density affordable housing) prices have skyrocketed and whenever a natural disaster, which is common in California but very uncommon in New Jersey, comes and destroys a bunch of houses, all the sudden a bunch of people become homeless.
All these issues are dealt with at the level of the municipality and the state, the federal government has significantly less power here. Now, I am no expert in affordable housing programs, if someone who has done more research on this topic would like to come and correct me, they are welcome. But this is my basic impression from what I've seen.
> affordable housing programs in large apartment towers have turned out to be hotbeds of societal ills, so nobody wants to build high-density affordable housing
The problem isn't with high-density affordable housing but with building housing that segregates people based on income level. High-density development is a good thing generally and makes a neighborhood more varied and vibrant in my view.
The problem comes from concentrating poverty into a single location. Instead, the United States should spread it out evenly with affordable housing throughout our cities and neighborhoods. The development patterns in the United States end up with two extremes: single family houses or large apartment blocks, with nothing in between (the missing middle problem). There is a lot of implicit segregation by income there, even at the single family housing level, since different housing developments tend to build roughly the same size house repeatedly in any given development. Rather than building neighborhoods where everyone has roughly the same income level, as the United States does now, it would be better to build neighborhoods that can accept people of all income levels. That way, the problems associated with poverty and similar issues are diluted throughout a city and never concentrated.
I’d normally agree, except in America it’s very difficult for local governments to handle homelessness because they seem inherently incapable of learning from each other and building a corpus of best practices that they can share and adopt.
American local governments go out of their way to do everything as if they’re the only ones facing an issue, and I think solving that tendency in American governance is likely way harder than solving anything in the homelessness space.
Even outside of that there are very large downsides for local governments to handle such issues because any successful system would likely attract more people from other parts of the country which would put an even greater financial burden on local taxpayers. Considering cities are cutting services like libraries, etc. it’s a huge disincentive for any local government to enact an actual effective solution.
Certainly, by definition. A "civilisation" is a body achieving an
advanced stage of development and organisation. With shelter and food
being at the base of the needs hierarchy, satisfying those would be a
least requirement for "advanced".
Yes, there has. It’s not that hard, they just need houses. Which means they need a population that cares. So this is not a physical matter, it’s a spiritual matter. It’s a matter of the heart.
The economy is doing stellar for the upper classes which account for maybe 10 to 15% of the population. That’s the so-called disconnect that the Biden administration doesn’t understand.
But the economy in general is not doing stellar, regardless. This bifurcation of wealth is going to lead, or is at least a marker, of an instability in the system. The fact that the Fed just decided that they’re looking at lowering interest rates means that they can’t lower inflation because the stock market and housing prices will crash. Housing prices increase because money printing increased.
Or rather, unless you put them up in hotels and send them back when done, how do you account for providing them housing when housing is already constrained?
“This year's "counts reflect a considerable lessening of the impact the COVID-19 pandemic on shelter use," the department's report said.
Pandemic-era social safety net programs expired throughout the year, such as income protections and eviction moratoria.”
Pretty terrible reporting tbh. The above seems to be the executive summary. Also worth noting it’s the highest count since 2007, which is interesting on its own. Why was 2007 so high?
In January of 2007? The crisis hit a bit later, if you’re thinking about foreclosures. Housing prices were still up, and the housing market was tight. It may suggest that homeless is driven by real estate speculation. In other words hot economies cause homelessness to increase, not the converse.
One's ability to feel superior to people less fortunate than you is a very ingrained psychological factor in a capitalist society. America isn't going to change, unfortunately.
Grades are Important measure of achievement and development in the academic realm. Still, not all students find it simple to keep up consistently good grades. This is where Technocrat Recovery, a well-known resource that focuses on enhancing academic achievement and assisting students in realizing their full potential, comes into play. Technocrat Recovery's track record in academic support services is unmatched. Their knowledge has helped countless students, who have also seen notable gains in their grades. Technocrat Recovery has a proven track record of achievement and a dedication to excellence, making it a trustworthy and credible option for students in need of academic support. Grades are more than just letters on a report card; they serve as indicators of a student's progress and understanding of the material. Good grades reflect a student's dedication, effort, and ability to grasp and apply knowledge. They provide a measure of academic achievement and can open doors to various opportunities in the future. Technocrat Recovery takes a holistic approach to academic improvement, considering various factors that can impact a student's performance. They focus not only on subject-specific knowledge but also on developing essential skills like critical thinking, problem-solving, and effective communication. This comprehensive approach ensures that students are equipped with the necessary tools to excel academically in the long run. You can always rely on Technocrat Recovery
Email: technocratrecovery@contractor.net
WhatsApp: +1-573-356-3708
Official Website: (www.technocraterecovery.site)
Readit News
I encountered so many different types of folks. Some were people down on their luck that needed help. Some had mental problems that (I'm guessing) can never really be fixed. Some had addictions. Some simply enjoyed being homeless.
I think addressing the problem would need to address varying underlying causes. For instance, "just give them jobs" will work for some of these folks, but not for a lot of them.
That is because mental/psychological healthcare is completely broken in the US.
Im currently dealing with the system for a family member, and I am shocked at just how hard it is to get help. Ignore the financials, most psych hospitals won’t treat you and have zero interest in keeping you longer than absolutely necessary. The one my family member went to twice didn’t even set them up with a treatment plan or doctors/psychiatrists/psychologists when they were released.
My homelessness exacerbates my mental illness, not only because of the stress of living out of a van but also the inability to have consistent healthcare being that I have to drive to warmer temperatures or cooler temperatures depending on the season.
And the treatments for psychiatric diseases are still stuck back about 50 years. I’ve had to run my own genetics and do my own research to find out what would help me. I mostly done it no help to any doctor or physician or psychiatrist.
Many people act like homeless people don’t want to get better, but I’m doing everything I can and no one is helping me absolutely no one. Psychiatrist who take Medicare have zero investigative initiative and psychiatric awards are for profit hotels for the mentally ill.
If anyone has a positive view of this country and the goodness of the people of this country, I want to dissuade you of that notion.
I am currently parking at Walmart in Palm Springs, California. The amount of wealth I see driving around me in vehicles alone could end homelessness in this country.
When I bring this up here, I’m told that these people just need to engage with some system and they’ll be well taken care of. I have seen no evidence of this myself; as the article and your experience would suggest, it’s just the opposite.
The best someone can have going for them is a family member with money, but the mentally ill tend to burn their last bridges quite often.
Further, while the US is seeing major shortages of mental health care providers, most European countries are even worse off, in large part because there's no class of master's-degree-holding therapists -- you either get a doctoral-level degree, or you just attend some basic courses and call yourself a therapist with no licensing or regulatory bodies governing your practice.
I'd actually argue that the US's system is better than most other western nations' mental health care systems -- which is not a statement in favour of the US, but an indictment of other nations' approaches.
(Source for my data and opinions here: I'm an American immigrant to the UK, and my wife has a master's degree in clinical mental health counselling - she only practised for about a year before she quit because the system is so broken in the US.)
Affordable housing is of course key to broad housing security for those of sound mind and economics who desire to be housed.
Homelessness for San Francisco was a mere PR problem during a state visit. Their is 0 appetite to tackle these social problems. Before implementation comes the actual political will to do something about it.
And all homeless have something in common: they are homeless. Yes, most of them have other problems in addition, but once they have housing they have one less problem and the other problem is likely to be easier to treat or handle once they have their housing situation sorted out.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Just as an example, one young man I spent a lot of time with had a family that wanted him to come home, but who wouldn't let him smoke weed in the house. I wouldn't have called him an addict by any stretch, but it was something he was unwilling to give up. He was a strong, able bodied guy that could have gotten a job. Despite all of this, he decided he'd rather live on the streets and do what he wants. (Could he have had severe mental problems and be making all of this up? Sure, but I don't believe that he did).
It's actually the biggest reason I stopped volunteering. Over the years that I volunteered, I noticed a steady shift from people who really need and/or want help to a large number of people like the young man I described. When helping out the homeless people you can't pick or choose or make judgements, so you treat everyone equally. But it became very hard to hand out things like sleeping bags to folks like that young man and then see people who really did have nothing unable to get one.
But, yes, in your example if you offer anyone a free million dollar house they will take it over living on the streets, but I don't think that's a very realistic comparison.
Also, to be clear, I'm just some dude. I don't have any realistic answers to fix the problem.
The one sees in cities are not those at all. Where they have access to shelters or even housing and they prefer to live as homeless instead is overwhelmingly because the housing and shelters are substandard, moldy, they’re exposed to risks of abuse including sexual abuse, they may not be allowed to bring their pets in, they may have addictions that they will be asked to wean off cold turkey (both understandable from the housing/shelter point of view, but it’s also obvious why someone addicted to a substance would not be able to do this), etc.
In my interactions I was genuinely surprised by the really large percentage of homeless who preferred to live on the streets (even in the winter) over decent shelters without many of these risks, because of pets not being allowed. For many the companionship with the pets are quite literally keeping them sane, and there’s no way they’d give them up, and yet the vast majority of shelters have a no pet policy (again, understandable, but it still is a contributing problem).
Now, there are definitely a few homeless who have mental health issues. And unfortunately, for obvious reasons those are the ones most people are likely to encounter (the sane homeless people prefer to stay out of the way and would prefer avoiding people altogether because of the shame and the judgment they’d encounter to begin with). So most people’s (including mine until I started volunteering with organizations that worked directly with homeless people) estimation of homeless people is based on this tiny minority at one extreme. Which is unfortunate because it makes passing actual useful policy that will help the homeless and reduce homelessness and all the issues that come with it, very difficult to bring into force.
I used to travel around the world and cannot believe that US couldn't solve or is blind about this problem. It shocks me to be in the "country of technology dreams" while I look at the state of many people there. Only think in tech-noir movies.
What a lot of people don't understand is that the policy inadequacies that led to this point are mostly state-based, and in CA, cities simply couldn't do much about strung-out junkies on their streets once city councils started experimenting with decriminalizing drug use and deprioritizing drug enforcement. It's not like arresting them was a great solution, but it was the only thing available to city police forces, and it kept these people out of the public eye. Once that was removed as a tool, they were pretty much left with "Unless they're actively threatening someone, nothing we can really do."
That's changing, mercifully. Here in SF, a lefty-fringe position took over for a while, wherein homelessness with thought of as some sort of legitimate lifestyle, and society had to be forced to see it so we could all gaze upon the misery that tech money had wrought. After a while though, normal people just get sick of having to step over an unconscious body while taking their kids out for a walk.
While it's tempting to blame Reagan for the contemporary homeless problem, I'm not sure that's really right. Reagan was a giant piece of shit, but I don't find it plausible that his policy decisions in 1980 were the proximate cause of the homeless problem that started taking off in the late 2000s.
Personally I think a lot of the homeless problem comes down to two things that worked together to produce unintended consequences.
1. Opioids
2. Evolving attitudes toward drug use
Opioids are a scourge that created lots of new addicts. At the same time, society finally started realizing that criminalizing drug use was stupid. So the first thing to happen was the easiest: we stopped throwing people in prison. But it's not like these were people who had their lives together in the first place -- they had problems, and previously the prison system is how we dealt with those problems and kept them out of public view. And simultaneously, we were seeing an explosion of addicts thanks for opioids and pharma marketing. So lots more addicts plus lots less enforcement means lots more homelessness.
Now we're in a transitional phase where we're trying to figure out the best way to help these people and maintain their dignity. In the mean time, they live in tents on the street for everyone to see. CA is now codifying the obvious -- these people cannot care for themselves, and law-abiding citizens have a right to use public sidewalks without having to worry that a guy in a tent will think they're trespassing.
All these issues are dealt with at the level of the municipality and the state, the federal government has significantly less power here. Now, I am no expert in affordable housing programs, if someone who has done more research on this topic would like to come and correct me, they are welcome. But this is my basic impression from what I've seen.
The problem isn't with high-density affordable housing but with building housing that segregates people based on income level. High-density development is a good thing generally and makes a neighborhood more varied and vibrant in my view.
The problem comes from concentrating poverty into a single location. Instead, the United States should spread it out evenly with affordable housing throughout our cities and neighborhoods. The development patterns in the United States end up with two extremes: single family houses or large apartment blocks, with nothing in between (the missing middle problem). There is a lot of implicit segregation by income there, even at the single family housing level, since different housing developments tend to build roughly the same size house repeatedly in any given development. Rather than building neighborhoods where everyone has roughly the same income level, as the United States does now, it would be better to build neighborhoods that can accept people of all income levels. That way, the problems associated with poverty and similar issues are diluted throughout a city and never concentrated.
American local governments go out of their way to do everything as if they’re the only ones facing an issue, and I think solving that tendency in American governance is likely way harder than solving anything in the homelessness space.
Even outside of that there are very large downsides for local governments to handle such issues because any successful system would likely attract more people from other parts of the country which would put an even greater financial burden on local taxpayers. Considering cities are cutting services like libraries, etc. it’s a huge disincentive for any local government to enact an actual effective solution.
Deleted Comment
https://oecdecoscope.blog/2021/12/13/finlands-zero-homeless-...
Overview of the AHAR reports, including data: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/ahar.html
We need to eliminate (most) zoning, bring in a bunch of immigrants, train them up on construction, and build moderate-density housing like crazy.
But the economy in general is not doing stellar, regardless. This bifurcation of wealth is going to lead, or is at least a marker, of an instability in the system. The fact that the Fed just decided that they’re looking at lowering interest rates means that they can’t lower inflation because the stock market and housing prices will crash. Housing prices increase because money printing increased.
Or rather, unless you put them up in hotels and send them back when done, how do you account for providing them housing when housing is already constrained?
The article’s chart makes the change look more dramatic by using the lowest level as zero bound instead of zero.
A few days ago there was a recent story shared on HN describing a perfect example of why it's become so difficult to solve this horrible problem:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38627492
Pandemic-era social safety net programs expired throughout the year, such as income protections and eviction moratoria.”
Pretty terrible reporting tbh. The above seems to be the executive summary. Also worth noting it’s the highest count since 2007, which is interesting on its own. Why was 2007 so high?
https://www.reuters.com/article/banks-writedowns-losses-idCN...
Email: technocratrecovery@contractor.net WhatsApp: +1-573-356-3708 Official Website: (www.technocraterecovery.site)