So...agreed it would be good if housing were cheaper. And it's definitely a part of the homelessness problem. But I looked at Carr's post and have some critiques: -are we getting our understanding of what percentage of homeless people are mentally ill or on drugs from asking them if they are? An awful lot of mentally ill people genuinely…
So...agreed it would be good if housing were cheaper. And it's definitely a part of the homelessness problem. But I looked at Carr's post and have some critiques:
-are we getting our understanding of what percentage of homeless people are mentally ill or on drugs from asking them if they are? An awful lot of mentally ill people genuinely don't think they're crazy, aside from the stigma factor of admitting to either condition. I read one article where a homeless advocate argued very strongly the homeless weren't mentally ill or on drugs because she'd gone to their encampment and asked them. Not sure I take the answers at face value.
-I do not know the average cost of housing in Maine, Arkansas, New Mexico, or Missouri compared to Mississippi, but I have a hard time believing it's vastly higher. Yet the homelessness rates in those states are per capita 2 to almost 4 times higher than in Mississippi. Meanwhile, the rate in New Jersey is about 50% less than in Maine, and on par with Oklahoma. I'm spitballing, but I'm assuming housing costs are higher in New Jersey than either of those places. With almost 4x the per capita rate of homelessness, is the average housing cost in Oregon 4x that in Pennsylvania? I think these numbers create some problems for the idea that housing costs are the primary causal variable, and it suggests there's another variable at play that's more significant.
-Carr asks why there wasn't more homelessness in the olden days and says housing costs are the answer. But I can think of a couple of other variables. First, widespread drug use really didn't exist. There was alcohol, but being a functional alcoholic is a lot easier than being a functional heroin addict. Second, there were a lot more agricultural jobs, jobs in general required less skill, and there were less service jobs that required interacting with people. I suspect it was a lot easier for someone with moderate mental illness or substance abuse, someone who can a lot of the time seem quite normal, to hold down a job. Schedules could also be more flexible in the agricultural field. Today jobs, especially menial or low-wage jobs, tend to be rigidly scheduled and have a lot of human interaction, and also tend to test most stringently for substance abuse. For a marginally functional individual, it's harder to hold a job. I have relatives who I would put into this category, and they worked into middle age, but then took a turn, lost their jobs, and I'm sure would be homeless if they weren't getting family help. They wouldn't tell you they're mentally ill, but they are. But in many ways they're at least somewhat functional and at first glance you wouldn't necessarily know. My suspicion is that a lot of our homeless population falls into this "marginally functional" category. They're not raving mad or drugged out of their minds, but they're unhinged or on drugs enough that it makes it hard to keep a job.
Do you imagine that being able to buy opium over the counter (and even from the Sears Roebuck catalog!) made its use *less* common? It also hurts your thesis that its easier to be a functional alcoholic than a functional user of other drugs. People were using them nonstop and with almost no control.
Back to the Sears catalog, though; you could buy a house from Sears Roebuck. They would sell and deliver everything you needed to build the house. It arrives, and you and your family either build it, or have a contractor do it. You'd just put it up. They were all over. Meanwhile, we wanted to build my mom an accessory dwelling unit on our property so that she has a retirement home. We were looking at over $10,000 in work just to get the permitting in order to know we can do it, with *zero* guarantee that we'll be able to build at the end of it. On an acre of land. You can fix all the other problems you bring up, but if it costs a fortune to meet demand, all the people freed from all the other social issues are just going to be dumped into a game of musical chairs where there's no possible way for everyone to win.
So...agreed it would be good if housing were cheaper. And it's definitely a part of the homelessness problem. But I looked at Carr's post and have some critiques:
-are we getting our understanding of what percentage of homeless people are mentally ill or on drugs from asking them if they are? An awful lot of mentally ill people genuinely don't think they're crazy, aside from the stigma factor of admitting to either condition. I read one article where a homeless advocate argued very strongly the homeless weren't mentally ill or on drugs because she'd gone to their encampment and asked them. Not sure I take the answers at face value.
-I do not know the average cost of housing in Maine, Arkansas, New Mexico, or Missouri compared to Mississippi, but I have a hard time believing it's vastly higher. Yet the homelessness rates in those states are per capita 2 to almost 4 times higher than in Mississippi. Meanwhile, the rate in New Jersey is about 50% less than in Maine, and on par with Oklahoma. I'm spitballing, but I'm assuming housing costs are higher in New Jersey than either of those places. With almost 4x the per capita rate of homelessness, is the average housing cost in Oregon 4x that in Pennsylvania? I think these numbers create some problems for the idea that housing costs are the primary causal variable, and it suggests there's another variable at play that's more significant.
-Carr asks why there wasn't more homelessness in the olden days and says housing costs are the answer. But I can think of a couple of other variables. First, widespread drug use really didn't exist. There was alcohol, but being a functional alcoholic is a lot easier than being a functional heroin addict. Second, there were a lot more agricultural jobs, jobs in general required less skill, and there were less service jobs that required interacting with people. I suspect it was a lot easier for someone with moderate mental illness or substance abuse, someone who can a lot of the time seem quite normal, to hold down a job. Schedules could also be more flexible in the agricultural field. Today jobs, especially menial or low-wage jobs, tend to be rigidly scheduled and have a lot of human interaction, and also tend to test most stringently for substance abuse. For a marginally functional individual, it's harder to hold a job. I have relatives who I would put into this category, and they worked into middle age, but then took a turn, lost their jobs, and I'm sure would be homeless if they weren't getting family help. They wouldn't tell you they're mentally ill, but they are. But in many ways they're at least somewhat functional and at first glance you wouldn't necessarily know. My suspicion is that a lot of our homeless population falls into this "marginally functional" category. They're not raving mad or drugged out of their minds, but they're unhinged or on drugs enough that it makes it hard to keep a job.
"First, widespread drug use really didn't exist."
Do you imagine that being able to buy opium over the counter (and even from the Sears Roebuck catalog!) made its use *less* common? It also hurts your thesis that its easier to be a functional alcoholic than a functional user of other drugs. People were using them nonstop and with almost no control.
Back to the Sears catalog, though; you could buy a house from Sears Roebuck. They would sell and deliver everything you needed to build the house. It arrives, and you and your family either build it, or have a contractor do it. You'd just put it up. They were all over. Meanwhile, we wanted to build my mom an accessory dwelling unit on our property so that she has a retirement home. We were looking at over $10,000 in work just to get the permitting in order to know we can do it, with *zero* guarantee that we'll be able to build at the end of it. On an acre of land. You can fix all the other problems you bring up, but if it costs a fortune to meet demand, all the people freed from all the other social issues are just going to be dumped into a game of musical chairs where there's no possible way for everyone to win.