Wealth inequality doesn't have anything to do with homelessness

Seattle

Seattle

Valued Senior Member
Tiassa said:
Consider our neighbor's take on ineffective government and freedom↗; he has a lot to say about homeless people, for instance.

But the thing about the suggested take on wealth inequality is that it creates more homeless people; that is, the perspective you suggest on his behalf would be one that exacerbates circumstances he complains about.
Click to expand...
Wealth inequality doesn't have anything to do with homelessness. Mental illness, drug addiction, not having a job has a lot to do with homelessness.

Income and wealth inequality are positive side effects of prosperity. It's not a zero sum game. If one person owns real estate and stocks, that takes nothing away from another who owns nothing.

Not having a job can create homelessness.
 
Seattle said:
Wealth inequality doesn't have anything to do with homelessness.
Click to expand...
journalistsresource.org

New research parses how income inequality drives homelesness in U.S.

Income inequality drives hundreds of people into homelessness on any given night in communities across the U.S., new research finds.
journalistsresource.org journalistsresource.org
www.sandiegouniontribune.com

Homelessness won’t be eradicated until we address the root causes of economic inequality

Gallo and Mori are graduate students of social work at University of Southern California. Gallo lives in Los Angeles. Mori is a resident of San Diego.Boom! Just like that, the news hit us like a to…
www.sandiegouniontribune.com www.sandiegouniontribune.com

Just a selection from a cursory Google-search.
 
Sarkus said:
journalistsresource.org

New research parses how income inequality drives homelesness in U.S.

Income inequality drives hundreds of people into homelessness on any given night in communities across the U.S., new research finds.
journalistsresource.org journalistsresource.org
www.sandiegouniontribune.com

Homelessness won’t be eradicated until we address the root causes of economic inequality

Gallo and Mori are graduate students of social work at University of Southern California. Gallo lives in Los Angeles. Mori is a resident of San Diego.Boom! Just like that, the news hit us like a to…
www.sandiegouniontribune.com www.sandiegouniontribune.com

Just a selection from a cursory Google-search.
Click to expand...
https://www.hoover.org/research/inc...ew of America as,16, 2024 by Mark Borgschulte
 
Seattle said:
https://www.hoover.org/research/income-inequality-isnt-problem#:~:text=The view of America as,16, 2024 by Mark Borgschulte
Click to expand...
Sure, but note that there isn't a single mention of the word "homelessness", or even "homeless" in that report. ;)

But here's the thing: homelessness is to do with owning/renting a house. And the reports I gave focus on the issue of homelessness rather than just poverty in general. Income inequality makes home ownership/renting less affordable for those at the bottom than would otherwise be, not because of their higher earnings but because house and rental prices are higher because of the inequality.
So if income was more equal, house X might cost 500 a month and person A might have been able to afford it. But because of income inequality, and more people able to afford higher prices, the cost of X is, say, 700 a month. Or more. This then puts that rent outside of person A's ability. Sure, they can find a cheaper place... and that's ture... up until the point they can't, because this same dynamic happens all the way up and down the chain.
One solution is to lift everyone's buying power, sure, but if the inequality remains then this will inevitably inflate housing costs and you're left with the same issue.
Build more housing is another solution, with the increased supply deflating the costs of rents/ownership. But then unless this is a permanent solution - i.e. a constant new supply of sufficient housing year after year after year, you'll eventually end up in the same position. And the fact remains throughout that period that inequality still impacts the cost of housing to the detriment of those at the bottom - only now they wouldn't be homeless.

Yes, this is a simplistic rendering of an argument, but it seems clear that inequality does have something to do with homelessness.
:)

Here's another link:
 
Seattle said:
Wealth inequality doesn't have anything to do with homelessness. Mental illness, drug addiction, not having a job has a lot to do with homelessness [...]
Click to expand...

Ironically, states and special districts sporting the highest homeless rates are those with progressive polices, and accordingly elevated taxes (Washington DC, New York, Vermont, Oregon, California, etc). However, some of those are also where the most affluent and powerful people reside/work, pushing rent and certain standards to stratospheric levels. And making housing unaffordable for low-skilled outsiders who mistakenly decide to move to such areas (i.e., get stranded).

As for the mentally ill... In the old days, they were largely kept off the streets by state hospitals and other facilities that were universally available, that featured easy admittance. Those were gradually shut-down from the late 1950s to 1970s for a variety of converging reasons (including that transition to alternatives being endorsed by the psychiatric industry). That's when "homeless" nomenclature started making the headlines and replacing traditional "bums, hobos, winos, etc" classification that had arguably been a less prioritized or politically profitable crisis.

And, of course, substance-abuse beyond the classic alcoholic habit accelerated massively during that historic time period, as well.
_
 
Last edited:
C C said:
And, of course, substance-abuse beyond the classic alcoholic habit accelerated massively during that historic time period, as well
Click to expand...
About 3% of homeless on the street in the UK are Ex forces. BAME are about 15%.
Addiction issues, abuse and immigration...

A complex issue and horrible to see at the levels we have in the UK.
350,000
 
Pinball1970 said:
About 3% of homeless on the street in the UK are Ex forces. BAME are about 15%.
Addiction issues, abuse and immigration...

A complex issue and horrible to see at the levels we have in the UK.
350,000
Click to expand...

Does seem to be a global state of affairs. Traumatized veterans receiving insufficient care and contingently being booted out on the street. And some migrant and domestic marginalized group members finding themselves deposited or steered into either the most expensive or the most uninviting communities. Even a same cultural or same personal identity neighborhood can be afflicted with problems, but maybe fewer obstacles in acquiring housing.
_
 
billvon said:
Not to defend him (he can speak for himself) but it is possible to simply not care about inequality of wealth; to think that it is neither a benefit for society nor a problem to be solved.

Personally if EVERYONE is getting richer AND wealth inequality keeps increasing, I think that is both good and bad. Good because everyone's quality of life is less limited by poverty - bad because in such a society the rich exert a tighter and tighter grip on society, and the poor lose what little power they have.

Unfortunately in the case of the US the poor (specifically the lowest 20% of income earners) are not increasing in wealth over time, so there's not much in the way of the above benefit.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that about half of all Americans have less than $500 for any given emergency. I'm also reminded of these words...

We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. Louis Brandeis.
 
C C said:
Ironically, states and special districts sporting the highest homeless rates are those with progressive polices, and accordingly elevated taxes (Washington DC, New York, Vermont, Oregon, California, etc).
_
Click to expand...
From the link:

"According to a 2020 Government Accountability Office report, rent prices can play a role in homelessness rates. California, Washington, DC, and Hawaii had the nation’s highest rents in 2022 and among the highest rates of homelessness in 2023; all three were in the top 10 nationally. West Virginia and Mississippi had among the country’s lowest rents, and lower homelessness rates."

It stands to reason that if rent prices and/or real estate prices are high, it's a place where people want to live. People want to live in places with progressive policies.
 
(Q) said:
From the link:

"According to a 2020 Government Accountability Office report, rent prices can play a role in homelessness rates. California, Washington, DC, and Hawaii had the nation’s highest rents in 2022 and among the highest rates of homelessness in 2023; all three were in the top 10 nationally. West Virginia and Mississippi had among the country’s lowest rents, and lower homelessness rates."

It stands to reason that if rent prices and/or real estate prices are high, it's a place where people want to live. People want to live in places with progressive policies.
Click to expand...
People want to live where there are jobs. It's not about the progressive policies. Microsoft, Google, etc pay well, with or without the progressive policies. Progressive policies aren't going to make Mississippi a place where people flock to.
 
Last edited:
Sarkus said:
Sure, but note that there isn't a single mention of the word "homelessness", or even "homeless" in that report. ;)

But here's the thing: homelessness is to do with owning/renting a house. And the reports I gave focus on the issue of homelessness rather than just poverty in general. Income inequality makes home ownership/renting less affordable for those at the bottom than would otherwise be, not because of their higher earnings but because house and rental prices are higher because of the inequality.
So if income was more equal, house X might cost 500 a month and person A might have been able to afford it. But because of income inequality, and more people able to afford higher prices, the cost of X is, say, 700 a month. Or more. This then puts that rent outside of person A's ability. Sure, they can find a cheaper place... and that's ture... up until the point they can't, because this same dynamic happens all the way up and down the chain.
One solution is to lift everyone's buying power, sure, but if the inequality remains then this will inevitably inflate housing costs and you're left with the same issue.
Build more housing is another solution, with the increased supply deflating the costs of rents/ownership. But then unless this is a permanent solution - i.e. a constant new supply of sufficient housing year after year after year, you'll eventually end up in the same position. And the fact remains throughout that period that inequality still impacts the cost of housing to the detriment of those at the bottom - only now they wouldn't be homeless.

Yes, this is a simplistic rendering of an argument, but it seems clear that inequality does have something to do with homelessness.
:)

Here's another link:
Click to expand...
Being poor has something to do with not being able to buy everything that you want. Not being academically gifted has something to do with not being a medical doctor.

1% of the people having a much higher percentage of the income and wealth doesn't have much to do with the cost of housing for the other 99%.

In a larger city with a good economy and higher paying jobs, it's true that the housing that those with the higher paying jobs have won't be affordable to the poor. We don't need a "study" for that.

With only minimal government, what would happen? Those with less money would move to less expensive areas. Everyone in Mississippi can't move to San Francisco without it causing problems. Is the problem "inequality"? Their wealth and income isn't "equal". It can be both true and not a problem to be solved.

Again, no study needed here. That's just reality. We do have more than minimum government and we do have section 8 housing and cards for food, etc. If you want more, great. If you want less, great. Those are reasonable political discussions.

There still isn't some problem to solve called "inequality of wealth or income". If you want high paying jobs, this is what you get. Not everyone has the skills for high paying jobs because everyone isn't "equal" in that regard.

If you discourage those kinds of companies from coming into your community, you get Mississippi. There is little homelessness in Mississippi.

You have to look at 2nd and 3rd order effects when making policy. It's not just a matter of wanting a great economy and then taxing those who created that economy high enough to fund whatever politicians want to promise to voters.

Incentives and initiative don't work that way. Jobs don't pay based on what you need. Visible homelessness in big cities is largely a mental health and drug addiction problem. High housing prices is reflected in how many roommates you have, how much debt you have. It's a problem but the market does sort it out over time as it always has, if you let it.

You can't take a city, like Seattle for instance, that is sandwiched between two mountain ranges and two bodies of water and add Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, Costco, etc. and expect prime real estate to be "affordable". It isn't because of any reasonable definition of "inequality".

If you are a software engineer you move to Silicone Valley. If you are in finance you move to Manhattan. If you catch catfish for a living you move to Mississippi and not Manhattan hoping for "affordable" housing and when you don't find it you cry "inequality". You might as call just cry "life isn't fair". OK, now what?
 
billvon said:
OK. So you do think that the poor and the rich have equal housing opportunities. Good for you.
Click to expand...
You are being dishonest. You don't think that I think that. I don't have equal housing opportunities with Bill Gates.
 
(Q) said:
That's only partly true, if not for progressive policies, you get states that fail at all metrics; health care, education, etc. Why would anyone want to move to a state where it's elected leaders govern poorly whereas states with progressive policies support things like health care, education, etc. which is a much better reason to move there. Any state can offer a job, but not all states offer other things that attract people there.
Click to expand...
We aren't talking about government jobs. Any state can't offer good, high tech jobs. Microsoft is in Seattle because Gates was born there, the state has no state income taxes and it has an educated population and it's scenic and many people want to live here.

Mississippi is corrupt, hot and humid, it's not a place where most people would want to live and it has no Microsoft or Google type of companies.
(Q) said:
Why not? Is Mississippi that much of a shithole that no one would ever want to move there? Or, are there elected leaders (Maga Republicans) hell bent on fighting culture wars, hating on the gay crowd and nothing much else. What does Microsoft and Google have to do with anything?
Click to expand...
People move to Seattle for Microsoft and not for the crazy city council.
 
Seattle said:
You are being dishonest. You don't think that I think that. I don't have equal housing opportunities with Bill Gates.
Click to expand...
OK, although that directly contradicts your earlier statement that wealth inequality has nothing to do with the ability to obtain a place to live. But I agree with your new opinion - wealth inequality DOES affect housing opportunities.
 
Seattle said:
Mississippi is corrupt, hot and humid, it's not a place where most people would want to live and it has no Microsoft or Google type of companies.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And if Mississippi had the sort of tech incubators / startup funding programs that California has (for example) there would be Microsoft type companies. But that takes funding.
 
billvon said:
OK, although that directly contradicts your earlier statement that wealth inequality has nothing to do with the ability to obtain a place to live. But I agree with your new opinion - wealth inequality DOES affect housing opportunities.
Click to expand...
Do you generally take everything literally in real life. If someone says "The weather is beautiful today" do you say "It's sunny today, I guess you have never tried to do physical labor on a hot sunny day"?

Income inequality has little to do with the cost of housing unless you are the only one with a low income and everyone else has a higher income. Are you actually, literally, arguing that everyone should have the same income? Should the local gardener make exactly as much as you?

Why take a position and make it ridiculous. All you are saying is that unless everyone makes the same salary, someone is going to have a harder time buy a house than someone else. This is silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top