Wealth inequality doesn't have anything to do with homelessness

[Seattle]

Research from the Pew Charitable Trust↱ would disagree:

… analysis of rent prices and homelessness in American cities demonstrates the strong connection between the two: homelessness is high in urban areas where rents are high, and homelessness rises when rents rise.​

​

To identify and illustrate the housing market dynamics driving these trends, The Pew Charitable Trusts compared homelessness and rent data in 2017 and 2022. In recent years, many metro areas in the U.S. have seen stark increases in levels of homelessness along with fast-rising rents. At the same time, some other locales that saw slow rent growth experienced declines in homelessness.​

​

Media reports have highlighted increases in homelessness and the emergence of encampments in numerous cities, including Austin, Texas; Fresno, California; Phoenix, Arizona; Raleigh, North Carolina; Sacramento, California; and Tucson, Arizona. But other urban areas where homelessness declined over the same period—such as in Chicago, Houston, Minneapolis, and Philadelphia—recorded slower growth in rents than in the U.S. overall.​

​

A large body of academic research has consistently found that homelessness in an area is driven by housing costs, whether expressed in terms of rents, rent-to-income ratios, price-to-income ratios, or home prices. Further, changes in rents precipitate changes in rates of homelessness: homelessness increases when rents rise by amounts that low-income households cannot afford. Similarly, interventions to address housing costs by providing housing directly or through subsidies have been effective in reducing homelessness. That makes sense if housing costs are the main driver of homelessness, but not if other reasons are to blame. Studies show that other factors have a much smaller impact on homelessness.​

Yeah, they kind of nailed you, there, like, a year and a half in advance.

That gruff, declarative method of argument by which someone just says something and expects it to carry reads like one of those Boomer holdovers that probably worked better back before people could look stuff up on the internet. You know, the kind of thing that worked back when Reganistas complained that everyone who disagreed with them was a communist or a welfare queen.

Bottom line, you were wrong before you even uttered.
____________________

Notes:

Horowitz, Alex, Chase Hatchett, and Adam Staveski. "How Housing Costs Drive Levels of Homelessness". Pew Charitable Trusts. 22 August 2023. PewTrusts.org. 9 January 2025. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...ow-housing-costs-drive-levels-of-homelessness

Hey little man,

According to the One Seattle Homelessness Action Plan (2023), approximately 70% of the homeless population in Seattle struggles with some form of substance abuse.

https://homelessnomore.com/seattle-...ssing-the-drug-problem-and-finding-solutions/

 

[Sarkus]

So if you buy a house and rent it out to make a profit, you are causing suffering and therefore you shouldn't make a profit? In that case you wouldn't buy the house and it wouldn't be available for rent.

What exactly is the mechanism so organize the economy if it isn't the profit motive. Is it to buy a house, determine what is "fair" for a particular renter and maybe lose money if they began to suffer?

You're being simplistic and thus disingenuous with your examples. Noone here, afaik, is saying that profit = greed, only that there are instances when people/companies prioritise profit over other people's suffering when, other than for profit, there is no need. That, at least as far as I am concerned, is greed. Profit is not, and should not be, an excuse to forgive such behaviour.

 

[Sarkus]

Hey little man,

According to the One Seattle Homelessness Action Plan (2023), approximately 70% of the homeless population in Seattle struggles with some form of substance abuse.

https://homelessnomore.com/seattle-...ssing-the-drug-problem-and-finding-solutions/

Without reading through that article, does it detail the cause/effect relationship between substance abuse and homelessness, or just correlation? I mean, does homelessness lead people to substance abuse, or vice versa?

 

[Seattle]

You're being simplistic and thus disingenuous with your examples. Noone here, afaik, is saying that profit = greed, only that there are instances when people/companies prioritise profit over other people's suffering when, other than for profit, there is no need. That, at least as far as I am concerned, is greed. Profit is not, and should not be, an excuse to forgive such behaviour.

Bill is saying that.

A company rarely controls whether someone else suffers. If an insurance company doesn't cover some medical procedure and someone suffers that's a factual or legal issue. What obligation do they have for coverage or not, etc.

The person is suffering because they have an illness. Companies, in general, don't have excessive profit margins. Competition sees to that. Therefore you either organize around the profit motive to allocate scarce resources or you don't. If you don't, you need to specify another system and then explain how it could work.

You could say that governments focus on social issues such as suffering and companies don't. It's not that they don't care. It's not about them "caring". That's not what they are in charge of.

I'm not being disingenuous. Throwing that out there adds nothing to the discussion

 

[Seattle]

Without reading through that article, does it detail the cause/effect relationship between substance abuse and homelessness, or just correlation? I mean, does homelessness lead people to substance abuse, or vice versa?

What do you think? Is living on the streets a rational decision when you have a job but find housing to be expensive or if you have no money but you have a car, or a friend's couch, family, public shelters and yet you picked the streets?

Your mind is highly likely to not be functioning well before you end up on the streets. You don't really need a "study" for some things.

 

[parmalee]

This is worth repeating:

Tiassa said: ^^^
Around here, people are more worried about the "big lie" of ufology, or maybe you missed it.

Moreover, I haven't seen the Administration doing the same things to drum right-wing crackpots out.

Additionally, I know from experience, having been a moderator, that the Administration is reluctant to crack down on certain crackpottery because it does not wish to disrupt those expressions.

How this is not blatantly apparent to everyone here is beyond me.

Something something about backing up one's claims, especially when they're like beyond outlandish etc. etc. etc.

 

[parmalee]

But, no, we don't need no "studies" on the etiologies or the demographics of homelessness--cuz some bigoted rape advocate* says their minds are all not functioning well, and that's all there is to it.

* Who is also seemingly incapable of responding with anything but a strawman or a non sequitur. Clearly, that's a "well functioning" mind.

 

[Seattle]

But, no, we don't need no "studies" on the etiologies or the demographics of homelessness--cuz some bigoted rape advocate* says their minds are all not functioning well, and that's all there is to it.

* Who is also seemingly incapable of responding with anything but a strawman or a non sequitur. Clearly, that's a "well functioning" mind.

Thank you for your quality contributions.

 

[Sarkus]

What do you think? Is living on the streets a rational decision when you have a job but find housing to be expensive or if you have no money but you have a car, or a friend's couch, family, public shelters and yet you picked the streets?

Your mind is highly likely to not be functioning well before you end up on the streets. You don't really need a "study" for some things.

You do realise that what you have written doesn't answer my questions in any way, right? I asked about whether the report details the cause/effect between substance abuse and homelessness. But I'll take your non-answer as a 'no, it doesn't'.

 

[Seattle]

You do realise that what you have written doesn't answer my questions in any way, right? I asked about whether the report details the cause/effect between substance abuse and homelessness. But I'll take your non-answer as a 'no, it doesn't'.

I don't know. I don't respond to questions or demands for answers here on a full time basis. I suspect that this particular link probably doesn't answer that question (or maybe it does) but we could play this game forever and I've seen it played here for hundreds of posts and I'm not interested in that. Sorry.

Do you think it more likely that most of the homeless on the streets started out drug free and only took up drugs once they were on the streets? Do you think most were drug free with jobs but rent was just too high and it lead to this rather than to all the more rational choices?

Tiassa is playing the name calling and study citing game so I played along. My report showed that 70% of the people on the streets in Seattle were on drugs. He said otherwise. Two can play that game. I could tear his report apart with questions that would make him research for days and he could (and probably will) do the same.

I'm not playing that game. It's obviously that most of the homeless on the streets in Seattle are drug addicts, like it or not. Maybe he doesn't leave his house? I don't know the answer to that one.

 

[Sarkus]

Do you think it more likely that most of the homeless on the streets started out drug free and only took up drugs once they were on the streets? Do you think most were drug free with jobs but rent was just too high and it lead to this rather than to all the more rational choices?

Again, you're being disingenuous. Noone has said that homelessness is solely caused by rent being too high. The argument is that high rent prices, caused in part (so not wholly) by inequality, contributes to homelessness. Report after report supports that.
My point about whether the report you linked to indicated whether substance abuse and homeless have a causative relationship - and if so which way - was to make the point that your article didn't really address the issue, yet you used the article to dismiss inequality as a cause and lay it, seemingly predominantly, at substance abuse. But your report failed to detail, or even claim, that it was causative, only that there was a correlation.
My view on that, for what its worth, is that it is certain that substance abuse can lead to homelessness, but also that homelessness can lead to substance abuse. It's not one or the other. I would hazard that the former is more likely, though, but that doesn't rule out the latter.

 

[Seattle]

Again, you're being disingenuous. Noone has said that homelessness is solely caused by rent being too high. The argument is that high rent prices, caused in part (so not wholly) by inequality, contributes to homelessness. Report after report supports that.
My point about whether the report you linked to indicated whether substance abuse and homeless have a causative relationship - and if so which way - was to make the point that your article didn't really address the issue, yet you used the article to dismiss inequality as a cause and lay it, seemingly predominantly, at substance abuse. But your report failed to detail, or even claim, that it was causative, only that there was a correlation.
My view on that, for what its worth, is that it is certain that substance abuse can lead to homelessness, but also that homelessness can lead to substance abuse. It's not one or the other. I would hazard that the former is more likely, though, but that doesn't rule out the latter.

You're being disingenuous by implying that everything I say is meant to be taken literally, to the extremes. Most reports that you might refer to that say that inequality contributes to homelessness generally say "may" contribute to homelessness. That's because it's not something that you can really know or prove. So to be honest, you need to mention that as well.

I agree that the mainstream media repeats constantly the phase "inequality of wealth or income" and many studies by organizations that already believe that to be the case state, as I pointed out, state that inequality "may" lead to whatever.

It's one of those things that sounds good but it doesn't fix the problem because it isn't the main problem. In addition the "fixes" aren't really compatible with our economic system. Wishing there was no poverty and that wages and housing was "affordable" isn't how our system works. You can't change one part of a system that you like in general without it having other negative effects down the line.

For instance, you can give everyone a raise for doing the same job but ultimately all you get is inflation so nothing changes. Some people wanted more stimulus checks after grocery prices went up to help pay for higher grocery prices. That would just lead to even higher prices.

Raising minimum wages in Cal to ever higher levels is and will just result in more restaurants closing and/or fewer people being hired.

The solution to higher rents is to move to lower rent cities. We already have a reasonable level of section 8 housing and food cards for the truly needy (for whatever reason).

You can change the whole system if you want to. You can make land public and housing a commodity controlled by the government. You can have the government set wages for everyone. They already do that for 1/3 of the economy.

But if that isn't what you are arguing for, then it's not a good plan IMO. It has longer term negative consequences. That's why many government programs don't work out. It's due to no feedback loop, short term planning rather than long term planning and ideas that aren't well thought out but that sound good to the voters. Cheaper food, cheaper rents, higher wages...sure that sounds good to many but it's not a good idea ultimately.

 

[Sarkus]

You're being disingenuous by implying that everything I say is meant to be taken literally, to the extremes.

I'm not being disingenuous at all. When someone says "this has no bearing on..." or "these two things are in no way related..." or some such statement then how is one supposed to take it? That they do have a bearing? That they are related? I mean, are we supposed to assume going forward that you don't actually mean what you say? If so, are we to simply guess what you do mean?
When one person in the conversation isn't being sufficiently accurate in what they write that it doesn't reflect what they actually mean, and when the words they write are really all anyone else has to go on as to the intended meaning, then it doesn't augur particularly well for that conversation, as half the time you'll be arguing about what they said versus what they meant.

It's one of those things that sounds good but it doesn't fix the problem because it isn't the main problem.

Afaik, noone has said that it is the main problem, only that it is a problem, and that it does contribute to homelessness. Also, afaik, noone has said that "fixing" inequality will "fix the problem". So, unless I've missed where someone has said those things, it seems that as well as not meaning what you say/write, it seems that you're also not taking people by what they do write. Again, doesn't augur well.

Just sayin'

 

[Seattle]

I'm not being disingenuous at all. When someone says "this has no bearing on..." or "these two things are in no way related..." or some such statement then how is one supposed to take it? That they do have a bearing? That they are related? I mean, are we supposed to assume going forward that you don't actually mean what you say? If so, are we to simply guess what you do mean?
When one person in the conversation isn't being sufficiently accurate in what they write that it doesn't reflect what they actually mean, and when the words they write are really all anyone else has to go on as to the intended meaning, then it doesn't augur particularly well for that conversation, as half the time you'll be arguing about what they said versus what they meant.

Afaik, noone has said that it is the main problem, only that it is a problem, and that it does contribute to homelessness. Also, afaik, noone has said that "fixing" inequality will "fix the problem". So, unless I've missed where someone has said those things, it seems that as well as not meaning what you say/write, it seems that you're also not taking people by what they do write. Again, doesn't augur well.

Just sayin'

If you want to argument just as an exercise that's one thing. If you want to talk about real issues that's another. If someone is starving and they need a new shirt, my approach would be to focus on getting food and not on the shirt, even if it is true that their shirt is a little old.

If high rents isn't a major problem for the homeless and since it's a market driven thing anyway then why wouldn't mental health and drug addiction be the topic of discussion and not high rents?

There are other reasons that so many want to talk about high rents and the homeless. It's because they themselves want lower rents and they don't like the zoning laws, don't feel that current homeowners should have those houses zoned in that way and therefore they get on the homeless bandwagon, IMO. If there were no homeless those same people would be arguing for affordable wages and affordable housing anyway.

 

[Tiassa]

Hey little man,

According to the One Seattle Homelessness Action Plan (2023), approximately 70% of the homeless population in Seattle struggles with some form of substance abuse.

And?

 

[billvon]

OK, so you are selective in your use of "greedy". If greedy is good, it's not the usual definition of greed.

Greedy is simply a selfish desire for more than you need. We are (almost) all greedy to one degree or another. Again, it's how capitalism works.

Inequality of wealth and income isn't hurting anyone either.

I gave you a concrete example of how inequality of wealth exacerbates the homeless problem. So your statement is provably wrong.

 

[billvon]

If someone is starving and they need a new shirt, my approach would be to focus on getting food and not on the shirt, even if it is true that their shirt is a little old.

That's great.

But if they are freezing to death, but you decide they're starving because all the other homeless people must be starving because they are poor, you are not helping them. And you might return with a basket of food to find them dead of hypothermia.

If high rents isn't a major problem for the homeless and since it's a market driven thing anyway then why wouldn't mental health and drug addiction be the topic of discussion and not high rents?

It IS a topic of discussion and you bring it up all the time. It is one aspect of homelessness. Another aspect is poverty, and the problem is exacerbated by large income disparities, as I explained by example.

There are other reasons that so many want to talk about high rents and the homeless. It's because they themselves want lower rents

Of course. Just like you complain that "taxing the rich" is bad, and spending is the problem - because you want to pay lower taxes. Does that mean that we should disregard your arguments?

IMO. If there were no homeless those same people would be arguing for affordable wages and affordable housing anyway.

Again - of course. And if doctors cured cancer they would be working on something like diabetes or heart disease. That does not mean that the cure for cancer is worthless, or that doctors are just whiners who should be ignored.

 

[TheVat]

Still not seeing compelling argument for the notion that rentals should be completely profit-centered and let the free market reign. As others have pointed out, it is greed when you go beyond making a profit that you can live on, to gaming the whole "free" market so as to please shareholders. or private owners and force renters to cough up half their entire income or more rendering them "house poor" in other respects. I know too many young people who are in this situation, and it creates a lot of stress and skimping on other necessities. Just as pure capitalism isn't a good model for human health, so is it not a good model for having shelter. As someone who did social work for a decade, I keep seeing these odd myths about the homeless and how all the need to do is "just move somewhere else." So first, most homeless aren't druggies living in tent camps. Indeed, most homeless are largely invisible to data collection by human service agencies, as they hold jobs, live in their cars (discreetly moved around every day so as not to attract attention or enforcement), have PO Boxes, and use cheap health club memberships for a place to bathe and do other personal hygiene. Others live in the driveways of relatives, and make arrangements for some use of home amenities. Many work full-time, or as many hours as they can find, and for multiple reasons cannot simply "move to another city," and separate themselves from their social and familial networks. (and it's worth noting, for any free market Libertarians looking on, that when there is a significant migration to places with lower rents, demand in that area rises, new building doesn't keep up (for all the reasons discussed exhaustively here), and that area then becomes also a rental nightmare. Rinse, lather, repeat. The same spillover effect happens with trailer parks. Those who turn to mobile homes see their HOA or park fees go stratospheric, as all those noble capitalists running trailer parks take full advantage. Doubling trailer park fees in one year is not exactly a price change that is merely "accounting for inflation." It means economic suffering, poor nutrition, heating shut off, skipping healthcare maintenance, and sometimes eviction and destitution.

For people barely making a living wage (due to low mininmum wages in many areas), it really doesn't take a lot to implode a budget and send them out onto the street in a fairly short time.

 

[Seattle]

Of course. Just like you complain that "taxing the rich" is bad, and spending is the problem - because you want to pay lower taxes. Does that mean that we should disregard your arguments?

If spending was gotten under control first, I'd be happy to pay a little more in taxes. I'm not trying to change the system.

 

[Pinball1970]

Why? Should there not be houses that are available to rent?

I was getting at the fact that my friend is solvent and chose to buy a house in an area where locals are not able to.

He is doing nothing illegal but there is an ethical question.

Part of me thinks he deserves his house, he worked hard and grew up in a very difficult area, poverty, violence, drugs, gangs on a daily basis.
We both have the scars.

However.......those people who already live there in modest housing will never be able to able to get a mortgage.
Their kids will be in the same boat.

Newer properties build there will have very high price tags. So a kid born in the area, looking for a place when he has his first job and wants to get on the property ladder, has no chance in that area. Unless his UG is medicine or law, then gets a practice or partnership.