Just tryin’ to make this a debate is all, seemed pretty one sided. I’m speaking from the San Francisco point of view, where NO ONE making less than $100,000 a year can live comfortably, plus the weather is not the greatest for sleeping outdoors. I didn’t like it, so I left. Why would a homeless person put themselves through that? To say a Burger King or whatever wouldn’t give someone an application is not realistic. I had a “Help Wanted” sign in my box office window year 'round and we’d go months without anyone even asking for an app. I gave one to anyone who asked and interviewed everyone who showed up for it. (About half the time, no one would bother showing.) I did in fact have a homeless kid working for me at one time, he showed up when he felt like it and soon quit showing up at all. The point I’m trying to make is that if you go to assboink, usa the big new Wal-mart or whatever has taken up all the available work force, and the Taco Bells, etc. are desperate for bodies. Last time I was visiting back home in the midwest they were starting people at $7 an hour, and this was maybe 3 years ago when minimum wage was still like $4. Around that time my mom was renting a two story house for $350 a month. Just think how cheap you could get an efficiency apt! In SF squalid studios in the worst part of town START around $700-$800. I’m not saying assboink wouldn’t have a booming tourist trade (although, how could it?), I’m saying that although there is no logical reason for a person with no home to stay in SF, they do anyway because there are plenty of softhearted tourists to give them money and there’s a big “yay-homeless/boo-the-mayor” lobby. I’m not saying “Hey, why don’t all the homeless people just become lawyers? Then they’d have enough money to not be homeless!” Duh. I’m saying you can be homeless anywhere, why not go somewhere where you’ll be more likely to grab a toehold and pull yourself back up.
Arnold wrote:
As I recall, the real Saint Nicholas didn’t limit his activities to Christmas time, though.
“Love 'em, fear 'em, and leave 'em alone.” – Dr. Spockiavelli
Well, certainly the homeless have lots and lots of disposable income that they can spend on travel . . .
“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather
You don’t need income to travel. You need a thumb and feet (or a wheelchair). Hell, most of them have shopping carts! (JOKE) Don’t you remember how our ancestors came west to begin with? Not everyone had a luxurious covered wagon or horse. Some actually walked. (Johnny Appleseed and all that, y’know.) I know, that would be too hard. Much easier to lay in the snow and freeze to death.
voguevixen, you asked:
Thomas Jefferson had this to say on the general subject:
In short, most people tend to put up with the shit they know, until they just can’t tolerate it anymore, rather than change. Why? Who knows - but it’s true; TJ had it right. We’re built that way, somehow.
One thing worth adding to Jefferson’s analysis: the more you can see, the better your field of vision, the more likely you are to see an alternative that works for you, and how you might get yourself from Point A to Point B.
Homeless people don’t have a really good vantage point; if you’re on the streets in Milwaukee, how do you really know how you’re going to make it in Miami, and how do you get there? Are you going to wind up stuck somewhere in Indiana or Kentucky on the way, and if you do, will you be able to find food and safe shelter?
Those of us who are affluent are, increasingly, citizens of the world. The poorer you are, the more your life tends to be tied to a place, and and leaving that place tends more to risk not only everything you’ve collected materially, but your network of friends and support systems as well. Homeless people are at the bottom of that gravity well.
In many depressed areas, including the one I came from, there are just plain not the jobs for persons without specific employable skills. My wife and I housed one young man, very personable and willing to work hard and long hours, whose only option was to drive a taxi. For a twelve-hour shift he would gross between $50 and $120 daily. However, from this gross came the cost of his vehicle’s gas, between $10 and $20, and he and the company got 50% of the remainder each. He would end up working a 12-hour shift for a net of about $12. As to why he didn’t work BK, TB, Mickey D’s, etc., they were interested in hiring kids who could put in 20 hours a week and therefore not entitled to benefits, workmen’s comp., and so on that were their rights by state law if full-time employees. Though he could in theory have worked two or more part-time jobs, and tried it, scheduling them together proved an insurmountable problem, as one would want him during his shift at the other.
If someone is capable of working, has no responsibilities interfering with that (e.g., rural single mother nowhere near daycare), and chooses not to work, I’d find it hard to be compassionate. But I would venture to guess that the vast majority share of people who are condemned by the judgmental for being homeless and broke would willingly change that in a heartbeat if they had some means to do so.
Firefly and Polycarp – you both make good points, especially that the evil you know may be better than the evil you don’t know. I’m not being judgmental so much as frustrated that for the 3 years I lived in San Francisco I’d see the exact same handful of people panhandling every single day and seeming to accept it as a way of life. The homeless are nearly celebrated as part of the city’s “colorfulness” or something. There are articles in the free papers about the homeless with the best signs or con games going. Anytime the city tries to do something such as round up grocery carts (stolen property) so that they might be returned to the grocery stores (rightful owners) there are plenty of homeless advocates ready to rally around city hall and bash the mayor. (If you or I stole a car and the police returned it to the rightful owners, I seriously doubt there’d be a mass cry of “but how will she get to work?”) The reason I responded to the original post was that I thought that it was perfectly reasonable for a mayor to tell people to get off the streets for the Xmas season. The fact that he/she let’s them stay there the rest of the year shows an exceptional leniency. Maybe with all the hustle and bustle of the crowds, it was a safety consideration? People actually LYING on the sidewalk in a congested area can’t possibly be an insurance company’s dream.