Archinect
anchor

Homelessness by country

147
jla-x

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_population

Is this correct?  US lower homelessness than Sweden and Same as Netherlands?  Surprisingly high in some European countries and geez wtf is Japan doing.  They seem to have the problem under control...

 
Oct 23, 19 3:46 am

1 Featured Comment

All 8 Comments

Featured Comment
geezertect

Different countries often use different definitions of homelessness, making direct comparisons of numbers complicated

The disclaimer says it all.  This data is basically meaningless.

As for your question about Japan, it is a very conformist, disciplined culture, with strong social sanctions against disruptive behavior.  Just my speculation.

Oct 23, 19 8:38 am
a-f

There was an interesting article about the definition of homelessness in The New Republic recently:

https://newrepublic.com/articl...

The only problem, according to critics, is that HUD’s definition of “homeless,” and thus the scope of its Point-in-Time count, is severely limited, restricted to people living in shelters or on the streets. Everyone else—those crammed into apartments with others, or living in cars or hotels—is rendered doubly invisible: at once hidden from sight and disregarded by the official reporting metrics.

Oct 23, 19 8:46 am
BulgarBlogger

If we only procreated less....


Oct 23, 19 9:31 am
tduds

or paid more.

BulgarBlogger

Yeah sure- without personal accountability, poverty will never end

Isn't it essentially both? Aren't there studies showing generally an inverse relationship between children and income ... or am I making that up?

SneakyPete

Yeah, if we don't force the poor to admit it's their own fault, poverty will never end. :|

tduds

EA - yes, and education level. Once you stop needing 8 children to help with farmwork (and once you stop losing 1/3 of them to The Consumption), it doesn't make much sense to have more than a couple.

BulgarBlogger

Parents who knowingly choose to bring children kntk poverty are disgusting and should be shot.

RickB-Astoria

nice typo. Almost thought you were talking about a radio station in Firth, Nebraska but know it couldn't possibly fit into the rest of the sentence.

BB, shot in a capital punishment way, or a murderous way? What happens to their children when they are dead?

SneakyPete

I hear cages are good for kids.

tduds

VulgarBlogger

tduds

That justification is like, 1.5 steps away from eugenics.

jla-x

That’s a gross statement Bulgarianflogger

jla-x

Having lived with a tribe for a short time in a third world country... I can tell you those kids were so much nicer and had better manners than most spoiled rotten kids from “good families.”

BulgarBlogger

Bringing children into poverty is child torture. I firmly and completely believe that and I would die defending that statement.

BulgarBlogger

Bringing children into poverty is child torture. I firmly and completely believe that and I would die defending that statement.

BulgarBlogger

Impverished parents who have kids do it for their own selfish reasons. Whether its because it feels good to cum when you're feeling shitty, or its because one their kids as the "future" that would be their saving grace, raising kids in poverty is torturous to the child and parents who do that knowingly should be severely punished.

BulgarBlogger

tduds- is that how you spell it in Spanish?

tduds

The solution to this is to seek to end poverty, not to punish biological impulse. You might not mean to, but you're making the same argument used in support of ethnic cleansing.

BulgarBlogger

no I am

BulgarBlogger

no i am

BulgarBlogger

Sorry- on the phone: No I am not! The premise of ethnic cleansing is that people are deemed inferior because of their race or ethnicity. That is not what I am for. However, if supporting responsible procreation is eugenics- absolutely for that. Parents should not torture their kids because of their own selfish impulses.

tduds

Should we sterilize the poor? What about the developmentally challenged? Their job prospects are reduced so they're less likely to be able to support their offspring. & if you're going to sterilize them, why not just let them die? Or, why not just eliminate them? 

I never said you were in favor of ethnic cleansing, just that you're making the same case as people who are. So... maybe stop that?

I can't believe I have to say out loud that killing poor people for having children is fucking disgusting.

tduds

"Supporting responsible procreation" is not the same as executing people for procreating irresponsibly.

SneakyPete

I think you could have stopped at "no i am".

RickB-Astoria

BulgarBlogger..... seriously, most people in relatively developed countries aren't merely bringing people into this world while they were poor. Most of the time, they enter into poverty after they had birthed children. In the U.S., the common number of children is 1 to 3 children. Most of them are born within a 6 year time frame. The biggest problem is usually when they get into their mid-career time frame when they maybe laid off and have trouble getting hired. While age discrimination is illegal, it is almost impossible to know why you are fired/laid off or not getting hired with evidence necessary to win a lawsuit for discrimination since almost always they don't state why. Most employers are smart enough to not speak or write why they make a decision regarding hiring or firing. They just simply use legally vetted pre-canned termination of employment or rejection letters. With that said, people often lose their job mid-career and can find it difficult to get re-employed. Tech jobs have been notorious for this where the production staff or other words the work horses are young and the directors/managerial are older. There is only so much demand for managerial/directors which is less than the demand for work horses but they pay the least per person that are the work horses and the most to the managerial/directors/administrative. Those that are chronically homeless have often begin that in their mid-career age and they may compound their problems and ultimately not able to get gainful employment. Sure, some younger people may face periods of homelessness but usually shorter term. However, those chronically homeless simply given up applying for jobs as they are no longer socially aligned with the social culture of the working environment. They developed various psychological illnesses, substance abuse issues, etc. All this compounding downward spiral to becoming effectively unemployable in the community they reside. They may do themselves a service by leaving those communities while making a change for the better by cleaning themselves up and addressing the issues with substance abuse which is common among the homeless. I can't say they are becoming homeless or poor then having children as much as they are frequently victims of a cruel discriminatory culture that kicks them to the curb when they are fired/laid off and essentially become 40+ years old so they lay them off because the insurance goes up on insuring them. Then they in turn compound their problems and it turns ugly. People often get married in their mid 20s to mid 30s and begin having children shortly after. It is more like they enter into the situation AFTER having the children and they are starting to go to pre-school/school or sometime along the timeline. People then are in this situation in their 40s/50s. Most people don't retire until mid 60s- mid 70s. In poor countries, they all are poor and they will continue to have children so their will continue to exist as a people otherwise they would cease to exist as a country or people. If no one in Somalia had children.... before long.... Somalia would essentially cease to exist. The people would died off without a future generation. Haiti would be another situation because Haitian people are all poor and in a way... you could argue that Haiti as a country shouldn't even exist. If they don't have children, Haiti would literally become an extinct country with no Haitian because Haitians would become an extinct/lost civilization considering virtually everyone is poor except maybe a handful of more well to do. Bulgar, what exactly are you proposing, again????

RickB-Astoria

Ethnic cleansing or just plain old mass killing justification? What the f--- real difference when in either case people are getting killed en masse?

BulgarBlogger

Prove that most people who eneter poverty ebter poverty after they have children. If they are operating on such thin margins- they shouldn't be having children!

BulgarBlogger

Prove that most people who eneter poverty ebter poverty after they have children. If they are operating on such thin margins- they shouldn't be having children!

BulgarBlogger

I think that there ought to be a way that people can prove to the government hat they have thought about the financial ramifications of having chilssren, as a preequisite to receicing welfare. Not just "just bang and go". Why? Because then the middle and upper class get stuck with the bill for paying for their irresponsibility.

Your outrage is based on ignorance and stupidity. The US spends far more on corporate welfare than it does on social welfare. Blame the poor for being poor when Bezos, Gates, and Buffet own as mush as the poorest 50% of citizens and the top 5% has 2/3 of the country’s wealth (1% own half of all stocks). All of that is the direct result of economic policy including government (public) subsidies to corporations and tax policies that reward hoarding wealth while penalizing people who actually work. Beyond that taxes don’t pay for anything at the federal level. Money is continuously created on demand to fund wars, quantitative easing (bank subsidies), corporate subsidies, etc., but not for social programs because “we cant afford it!”. Try not to be such a flaming idiot.

I wonder what type of tortured upbringing BB must have had that resulted in this absolutely disgusting mentality. I think that’s the real tragedy here. I hope you seek out some professional help.

jla-x

I think we in the West have a warped perception of life. That’s probably the greatest flaw that I see in western civilizations. The US particularly has an obsession with “happiness.” This is a shit metric for weighing the value of life and an even shittier goal. Happiness is an emotional state that we ought to experience in moments, not a permanent unwavering condition that engulfs the entirety of our life. This is perhaps why we have such high divorce and suicide rates. We aren’t entitled to lives of constant happiness. If that’s what we expect, we will be constantly disappointed. This has little to do with wealth or poverty, and all to do with the expectations of our culture.

BulgarBlogger

My outrage is based on logic and practicality. You seem to be of the conviction that if an employee works for a company, the employee needs to get most of the compensation because he is the one doing the work! This is particularly true in the case of a valet who parks cars at a hotel like the Ritz Carlton. If the valet makes $10 an hour and works 8 hours a day, he makes $80 a day. But say it costs $30 to park your car at the Ritz, and there are 100 cars that get parked there, the hotel makes $3,000 a day- right? You're saying that the valet should get the $3,000, not the Hotel because the Valet is doing all the work. This is ludicrous. Why? Because the Valet is trading job security for a lower wage, whereas the Ritz isn't just taking the risk for the business, but also created the value of the business. So when you talk about corporate welfare- the financial institutions/corporations etc they actually try to create jobs, whereas the people who breed and breed and expect society to take care of their impoverished children only leech and leech.

The myth of the “job creators”. Job creators like Walmart, who pay so low that their employees qualify for Medicaid, housing aid, and food stamps. A direct corporate subsidy with public money: we’ll pay your employees because you’re too cheap to do it. But hey, they’ve got jobs! Meanwhile the Waltons are worth $130 billion and you’re calling for euthanasia of the children of their employees. Vulgar Blogger indeed. Adios, asshole.

BulgarBlogger

Correction- not calling for euthenasia of their children; punishment of their parents. Who in their right mind knows they're in a shitty spot in life and brings kids into the world anyway? They are the assholes; not me.

Chad Miller

OK, you punish the parents. Now what? Children go into foster care or state care? Both of these option will cost you the taxpayer just as much if the children stayed with the parents so your economic argument is moot. As for the emotional and socioeconomic impacts on the children now and in the future? I have no idea what the future of these children would look like in foster / state care compared with staying with poor parents. Could be the same?

BulgarBlogger

No- you provide incentives to parents in poverty to NOT have children by making it so difficult on them if they choose to bring kids into their own impoverished lives, that the consequences would make not want to even try. This is how incarceration and punishment works. If people know you'll go to jail for robbing someone, you won't do it. Sure- in the beginning, people will "test" this, but will quickly learn that they're contempt for the law will not go unpunished.

RickB-Astoria

BulgarBlogger, I can't single-hand do that type of research scale to research every city, county, state/province, and nations throughout the world. What I can tell from observation is the typical age of those who are chronically homeless (hence, likely in a state of poverty) are 40+ years old. If you look at the median age of those laid off are usually between 40 and 60 years old. People at this point tend not to go back to college/university to retrain into another career field and having to start entry level pay. In some fields, getting hired AFTER you are in your 40s, 50s, or so forth is next to impossible because there is an undisclosed / hidden practice of age discrimination that goes on. Therefore, they give up if they don't get employed after 3 to 6 months or whenever the unemployment benefits runs out as they do run out in many cases. This is usually beginning with depression and then their life goes to shit. Also if you look at studies of typical age of when people have children... you'll usually notice this is usually during a time of gainful employment while working on their way up in their career or occupational field(s). I can't say this is true for all countries in the world but most developed countries much like the U.S., Canada, most of Europe, etc. is fairly similar in this regard. You can loosely correlate when adults become chronically homeless to a certain age range. Then you have the cascade effect on youth. Already studies on average of people having children being their 20s and 30s. 

It's already known that a major reason for adults being homeless is due to loss of job. While the average age of those unemployed in the nation at any one time is late 20s to early 30s, but that includes people who are unemployed by resignation/quitting jobs, etc. The younger adults will tend to have shorter duration of unemployment and find another job within a couple months. However, those in their 40s and 50s have a harder time with getting re-employed if they have to switch careers. This usually means they will be offered only a starting wage/salary of entry level. You might, for example, enjoy a $50K to $75K salary but if you have to change career and in the process have to retrain in college for 3-4 years, you would only be getting a $20-35K income. This means a significant loss of income for 5-15 years before you reach where you were from the time you got laid off to the point where you match your wage/salary you had in your old career. When you are in your 50s, this is a serious impact on retirement benefits and such. In short, a percentage of people that find themselves in this situation at this age level will go into depression and life goes to shit. There is probably tens of thousands of studies and research in various aspects of the issue but almost no complete connecting of the dots. You get a gestalt picture from the data but you kind of have to connect the dots. 

From observation, most of the people chronically homeless on the streets tends to be in their 40s to 60s and some cases older. I know there are reference to homeless youth but youth being classified as homeless is not the same as adults. A lot of youth in the homeless classification are in shelters and such facilities because they are picked up by law enforcement and sent to such facilities and their are social service programs for that. This is a different scenario then the adults which are usually left on the streets or taken to the local jail and maybe homeless shelter but they are usually sent back out after a few days but children are kept off the streets as much as possible. There are reasons for this and how it's done which I'm not explaining as well but when I go around town here and in other towns and cities, those homeless people you see on the street, under the sidewalk or other locations tends to be definitively adults in their 40s to 60+ age. Especially the ones you will still see on the streets 6 months to even several years later are still homeless. Short term homelessness tends to be from just a day to maybe a few months or so. Those chronically homeless tends to be in a state of perpetuity in homelessness and this tends to last years other then maybe being in a jail for a couple nights from time to time. Homelessness is a multifaceted issue with several common factors.

RickB-Astoria

I don't support the notion or idea of euthanizing children or the parent because they get into a state of poverty. I don't think anyone of any developed nation finds any kind of mass killing as acceptable or justifiable. In fact, wars are never truly justifiable. Something went horribly fucking wrong in peaceful diplomacy if we have to go to war. Sadly, we have to defend ourselves from time to time from an invader or attacker. It is not something to be proud of but maybe a duty to protect our people,friends, and family. So war itself is not justified but defending ourselves from an attacker is if they are not open to peaceful settlement. However, to go out and euthanize homeless people en masse is basically no different then genocide because its unjustifiable mass killing of people because they are perceived as less than human that we just kill them. It isn't always about religion, ethnicity, etc. It can just be another kind of prejudice classification or disrimination on basis of wealth.... A social caste system those that have and those that have not. Therefore those that have euthanizing the people that have not is in all practical sense no better than genocide. I hope we can all basically agree on that essential point.

RickB-Astoria

BulgarBlogger, here's a simple solution.... 

Set the Federal minimum wage of 3x the Federal poverty line level for a single person. Complete outlawing of unpaid internships. Close that loop hole. Make mandatory that independent contractor relationship for Billed Hourly rate no less than 2 times the Direct Labor rate where the direct labor rate shall not be below the Federal minimum wage. 

There can still be competition in price setting but there would be a minimum baseline. States can raise the minimum above the Federal. This will make the cost of professional services go up somewhat on average. This will mean employers are not under paying. Half time workers would be working for a pay at 1.5x the Federal poverty line level for a single person. This way we shore up the bottom so everyone who works 15+ hours a week should be able to be above the Federal poverty line level for one person/household. Two parents working half time should still be able to raise a family. Maybe not fancifully but still able to do fine if they manage their finances well. Two parents working full time should be earning at least 6 TIMES the federal poverty line for a single person. 

Current Federal poverty line is approx. $12,500 for a single person. So a worker who works 2080 hours a year should be required to be paid no less than.... $37,500 (2019) and adjusted for inflation... annually. A half-time worker would earn at least $18,750 a year. Two parents working half-time would earn enough to support a family household of 3 to 4 at modest levels. If one parent works full-time, they can support a household of 6-8. That's 4 to 6 CHILDREN. That would be the standard the federal minimum wage/salary standard that I would support at least. People with degrees and/or experience would get paid more obviously.

RickB-Astoria

Some could argue for a higher minimum wage and that is where the states would come in.

RickB-Astoria

I'm not proposing that someone fresh out of high school working half-time or full-time would be living to the same level of luxury as those billionaires but it would be a better economic standard if we can require employers to distribute more of that wealth so everyone will be able to live with some level of comfort. It means they have to sacrifice a little more of their luxurious profit margins and pay more percentage of their gross revenue in human resource cost.

Chad Miller

BB so you punish the parents. I still ask what happens to the children? You make it difficult on the parents with jail or fines so what happens to their children?

BulgarBlogger

That's what I'm saying... in the beginning this policy will be tested and children will grow up without parents in foster homes. As more parents become accustomed (i.e. "trained") not spread their seed irresponsibly, there will be less of it.

BulgarBlogger

There can be no progress without suffering. Without incentive to life yourself out of a really bad hole, people aint ever gonna apply themselves. This is why I'm against correlating the minimum wage with the poverty line. You don't want to be in poverty? Work for it!

Chad Miller

Nice troll.

Almosthip7

wow....just wow

BulgarBlogger

LOL- Almosthip7: did I hurt your snowflake feelings? hahaha

RickB-Astoria

BulgarBlogger, once they have these criminal records, its on their background reports for possibly the rest of their lives and in turn they may not be able to get ANY job other than minimum wage jobs for the rest of their lives? Why such a draconian approach? Would it be more humane to euthanize the parents at that point? As it is, many employers will NOT hire someone with a criminal record nor will landlords rent because ALL OF THEM or close to it like 99.99% of them do a background and CREDIT SCORE check. Oh.... and even credit scores will sometime be dropped because of a criminal record and as the trend is going, they may drop your score in half between the current score and the minimum before long if you have even a misdemeanor and that will impact the credit score for 7 YEARS. Eventually, people with criminal records won't even be able to open a bank account. Lets not be so damn asinine.

Almosthip7

BB ....just thinking your parents need to be punished

BulgarBlogger

Rick B- T. Harv Eker wrote a book called "Secrets of a Millionaire Mind," in which he coined the term "financial blueprint." Changing that blueprint takes a lot of effort, but once people change it, they will have a much better chance at not being poor. When parents who knowingly bring kids into poverty (torture) can't change that blueprint by themselves abd transfer the trophy of poverty to their next generation, it is not my responsibility as a taxpayer to pay for their reliance on my tax dollars so that next generation can do the same thing to their kids (with little exception). So the "draconian" approach is draconian only because parents don't have the self-control needed to not extend poverty into their kids life. Beyond that, and as k have already stated: knowingly bringing kids into a life of poverty is equivalent to torturing children.

RickB-Astoria

First, that is just an author. ANYONE with the will can change their situation but it all takes effort. For one, attitude. If you have a bad attitude or lazy attitude or one of a down and out loser that has given up, people won't assist you. Hand up and hand out. For the hand up is a quid pro quo. Employers don't have to hire you. They can always hire someone as there is always people out there in need of work. The importance is the attitude of one wants to be successful will work in exchange for fair pay and respectable employers will reward fair pay for fair work. It's a two way road quid pro quo. It's a relationship be it a working / professional relationship. The road goes both ways. If a worker gives you fair labor/work then you should give them fair pay. The attitude is about both employer and employee has an obligation to each other to provide FAIR LABOR 4 FAIR PAY and FAIR PAY 4 FAIR LABOR. Again, its attitude, values, and sense of integrity and responsibility. We do have a problem of employers not providing fair pay for fair labor and also a problem of employees not providing fair labor for fair pay. Why the focus on the employee/employer situation. 

It is a key area that will have profound effect on homeless situation when we invest in the human resource and retain and grow that resource vs. finding any scheme to f--- over everyone else in any way they can get away with in order to maximize the profits that goes to line the pockets, purses, and wallets of the shareholders/owners of the business. The reason some of these ultra rich people are as rich as they are is through crookery. That is how Donald Trump got where he is. He got away with criminal activities, breaches or contracts, and not paying employees and threats in order to oppress and suppress any action on those fired. He got away with it but it doesn't change the fact that it was done through unlawful means as well as unethical means. He's not alone in this. 

Much of corporate America has been suppressing salaries tacitly since the 1970s. This is still a fact with a lot of supporting data but like a lot of research, it paints a gestalt picture which you have to connect the dots and can be inferred. It is a complex issue. I do agree with you that people should not begin raising a family or have children while in a state of poverty. They should change their situation if possible. However, there are disagreements I have in how to respond to the situation. The simple fact that no person should or need to have a billion dollars. A billion dollars can employ 20,000 people at $50,000 a year. Warren Buffett has $82.4 Billion. 400 Million is more than enough for his old ass to live on comfortably. 82 BILLION can employ over 1.6 MILLION individuals at $50,000 a year. The top 20 richest individuals worth cumulatively $1.1+ TRILLION. Take a trillion off that top 20 richest individuals net worth and invest it to employing people at $50,000 a year.... that would be easily 20 MILLION people that can be employed. If the top 100 most profitable companies put 10% of their profit of 2019 towards additional hiring at $50K a year.... we are looking at something at least $70 Billion.... at least 1.4 Million employees can be hired. That alone can make a dent in the homeless population. 

Now imagine if more than the top 100 corporations did that. In theory, we can effectively neutralize the homelessness problem by hiring. We can really address the issue with affordable housing and employing more people with a reasonable income at least in the U.S. or at least do a good impact on it.


BulgarBlogger

I agree- its a quid pro quo. However, you have to manage the risk. You start people

BulgarBlogger

I agree! It is a quid pro quo. But employers have to manage the risk. That is why they start people at entey pevel jobs at a lower rate, and they gradually get promoted. Not getting promoted is often a silent indicator for performance.

RickB-Astoria

There is a world scale problem but definitely more can be done. However, we need to take some step but so do the homeless people have to be willing to work because a mass percentage of them are unemployed and therefore are homeless. I see some systemic problem with things like disability which doesn't provide sufficient financial resources so a person they deem is unable to work to live be able to live in either an affordable house or apartment? In general, if they are not able to work full-time in a field they are qualified when the field does not customarily have half-time employment then they are and should be provided sufficient resources for food and reasonable budget for personal items like clothes and maybe some amount to buy some things but not necessarily luxurious but also rent/property taxes, utilities, and any medical related expenses so they don't have to work. Most part-time jobs are minimum wage or close to it. Most jobs or careers that customarily requires college education would be full-time employment... ONLY. For example, most architectural firms do not hire part-timers for their architectural staffing needs. We have quite a few issues that makes things not so simple.

BulgarBlogger

You can't expect that after 40 years of making bad decisions, that because you now matured-up, that because you are older, have more life-experience, and have more expenses to pay, that an employer (say walmart) needs to accomodate a salary that was originally meant for high-schoolers wanting to make a few bucks. It doesn't work that way. That is why I said- you want a hire wage, work for it! And I don't mean it necessarily literally! It starts from developing an appreciation for education, something that cannot necessarily happen without a solid family. But this goes back to the point of money: working three jobs to make ends meet, though may work to just scrape by, does that afford the parent enougn time to reslly parent? And if thet is the case, how is that respondible decidion-making?

RickB-Astoria

I doubt most of the chronically homeless people are homeless because of 40 years of bad decisions on their part. It isn't like children have and right to make decisions without the approval of their parents. However, when they become 18 years old *in much of the U.S.* they are deemed adults and legally may make their own decisions without parents be it getting a GED or taking night school to get their high school diploma. Then we have college. College costs have went up a lot since 1990. In Oregon, it literally went up 200% in just a 2-3 year or so time period from when Measure 5 bill was passed. This was when the percentage of property tax revenue that went to colleges/universities was cut in half. Had Measure 5 not been passed, cost of university would be half of what it is today for tuition. Not $200 a credit but around $100 a credit. Loan amounts would be reduced by something like 20%-30%. Student housing would still count for a bit of the student loans but some of the grant money would go further. 

For example, I could be done with a bachelor's degree because the grant would have gone a little further. I'm not saying my decisions were the best in the world but my student loan debt was not as bad as some especially all the years of college education and credits I have attained. 

There are companies that are essentially laying off workers predominately over 40 years of age if they are not managerial or higher... (otherwise deemed essential employees) because the insurance goes up on people over 40 and again those over 60. There are these tiers in the insurance that essentially are contributing to age discriminatory or like practices relating to age. If insurance was flat rate until full-retirement age, some of these issues wouldn't exist as much. I agree with you on appreciation for education. I do. I might also have a broader perspective of education then just learning in a class room environment such as self-study and learning from experience. If you appreciate the constant process of learning then that is important in my opinion and not so much about how you learn but that you learn. Why is working three jobs to make ends meet.... happening? Shitty employers and Skyrocketing rent. This is what happened in California which has around HALF of the homeless people because of all those places in California jacking up rent to price level that you have to be earning $100,000 a year or more to afford but because careers like architecture and many others even worse don't pay as well as that of lawyers and certain categories of bankers, and some doctors and whatever else. Places that used to be renting at $300 a month in the 1979 are now charging over $2000 a month in various places. Whereas, by inflation, it should only be $1000-$1100.

Reasonably, affordable housing is rent at $1 per sq.ft. for a 300-800 sq.ft. apartment. Affordable housing should be affordable for minimum wage workers and only consume 20-30% of their income and with basic utilities including internet and phone/cell phone being less than 50% of a single renter's income. So if I was working a minimum wage full-time job, the apartment should be in the $500-600 range with some of the basic utilities included. However, internet, phone, and either natural gas or electricity being my responsibility. However, those utilities shouldn't exceed $300. Food and personal expenses and taxes would likely consume another 30% of my income with little to any discretionary expenditure. The apartment should be 400 to 650 sq.ft. A 1 Bedroom unit of about 300-350 sq.ft. should only be costing $300-400 a month in the basic rent. That's a suitable size unit for a single renter apartment. A boyfriend/girlfriend could share the single bedroom and if they both work, will have more discretionary income and more luxury. However, $2000+ a month of rent is $24K to $25K. You need to be earning a bit of income to be making ends meet. Like $60K or more. No place in the U.S. has minimum wage that high so you need to be making a serious income which requires degrees. 

If you get laid off and not able to get re-employed in another workplace in your field would require going back to college/university for another 3-5 years to get the required degree for employment in a new occupational field that pays well. 90% of the workforce of any wage/salary level are not saving money for going back to college/university. They may be trying to save up money so they can put their own children through college and as soon as they get laid off and then can't get re-employed, that money goes right out the window either usually to try to keep up on rent. After 9 or 12 months, usually, they run out of money. Sometimes less and sometimes, a little longer but if they don't get re-employed at a similar level pay.... it hurts. If the only job they can get is minimum wage, they are still bleeding more than they are earning because they can't find less expensive places to live in the area. So either they have to move out to the boon docks where rent might be reasonable but they will have difficulty finding work or they might end up homeless. 

We really have a f---ed up situation that can cause people to have to work 3 jobs. When you are having a family of 3-5..... it's kind of shitty to be living on just $30K to $40K. You kind of need to be keeping a household income of $50K to $60K or more depending on where you live.

RickB-Astoria

Is it responsible to work 3 jobs? If you are doing what it takes to have a roof over your family's heads and food on the table and doing whatever you can.... perhaps. It's irresponsible if you don't even try and then you and the whole family is f---ed.

BulgarBlogger

"When you are having a family of 3-5..... it's kind of shitty to be living on just $30K to $40K. You kind of need to be keeping a household income of $50K to $60K or more depending on where you live."

BulgarBlogger

Why are you having kids if you're in that situation??!!!

RickB-Astoria

Personally, I am not having kids in that situation but I know the experience from that environment. However, it isn't as bad as it is for some people in the world.

BulgarBlogger

You just proved my point. You wouldn't have kids in that situation because you jnow you can't afford it. SO: if others knew they can't afford kids, but have them anyway, they must be pretty arrogant to think someone else (i.e. taxpayers) will flip their bill. To not rely on taxpayers would mean that they would have to deprive children of a lot (raise them in poverty). I not only believe this is akin to child torture, but I also believe it should not be anyone else's respinsibility to finance the lives of other people's kids.

BulgarBlogger

And btw- when i say "you can't afford it", meant "you" figuratively. I have no idea wht your financial situation is.

RickB-Astoria

LONG RESPONSE: Forewarned.

My point, however, is a lot of people aren't having kids WHEN they are unemployed or whatever but usually on their way up in their career field when they were earning at least $40 to $50K from one job. In most situations, at least in the U.S., they are earning at least $40K to $50K or so and working their way up towards the next tier of pay being maybe $65K and then they suddenly get laid off and then not able to get a job in their career because they are "too old" as in over 40 years old because they can hire fresh out of college students for maybe 2/3. In many cases, in the urban environment, a lot of the people homeless and unemployed were making $100K a year in places like Silicon Valley and then the cost of housing doubles to triples in like 5 year time frame and they also get laid off and and not able to get work in the area in their field. 

Architecture is a field where wage/salaries are notoriously low and almost no one really earns a proper pay level to raise a family with just one bread winner working a single job unless they are Principals of the firm. 75% of the work force in architecture earns under $60K even in expensive cities to live in in order to work because if you didn't live there, there is no way you can get to work on time unless you leave to work at 2AM in the morning and MIGHT arrive to work on time at 8AM or something still ridiculous... maybe not quite that bad but still bad. It should be noted that rural communities and small towns away from metropolitan areas tends to have lower pay level but they also tend to have a lower cost of living such as rent so the mileage varies. I can get away with $30-45K a year to raise a family of 4 in a smaller rural community and be ok. Not torture but not luxurious. However, that mileage won't cut it very well in big cities like Portland, OR., Seattle, WA., Los Angeles, CA., San Francisco, CA., Chicago, Ill., New York City, NY., etc. I personally don't feel comfortable raising a family unless I am making at least $50K where I am. Maybe $60K to $70K in a bigger city. It would still not be fancy living but middle class. However, I'm not opposed to both parents working but they shouldn't both have to have a second job be it part-time each. Basically the income of three full-time jobs to raise the household income to adequate level should not be needed in America and preferably ANYWHERE in this world. 

I'm not dillusional to think we can solve the whole world's homelessness problems but developed nations should be able to do this better without resorting to cruelty to either the parents or the children. I agree, with the notion of responsible decision making but I also can not be cruel or mean and people can live happy lives without necessarily earning $100K income if the cost isn't inflated. 

As to what you deprive. Is it torture if you don't buy your child a new game console every 18 months or choose to do it maybe once every 3 years? Same with computers? The leap frog intervals. I don't consider it child torture unless they are deprived of more important things like food/nutrition and some basic stuff. Having to buy the newest and greatest PC every 1 to 2 years isn't necessary but having a up to date mid-range computer that is not more than 5 years old maybe needed so they can succeed in school in this computer age. When I was in grade school, I could get away with a Commodore 128 with the REU and an RS232 cartridge. With it, I could manually code the Postscript for printing on those nice Apple Laserwriter and other Postscript printers. However, I had the computer programming skills to do it. I wouldn't expect my children, if I choose to have any, to have that skill and it would serve this better to be able to use a more newer computer with graphic capabilities. It isn't necessarily child torture/abuse if they don't have everything the kids of Bill Gates would have. 

I don't think most people in the U.S. are choosing to have children when they are not gainfully employed. A lot of it is happening when they are gainfully employed. People are usually blindsided with layoffs especially when they have worked 10-15 or 20 years. Women tend to have children when they are in their 20s and 30s for obvious reasons relating to reproduction. There is a time window that they have children or they will not be able to bear a child. Generally, men don't have that same issue. That may get into other tangent topics like age difference, etc. When do men (and women) in America get to the point of earning $50K to $55K? If we are looking at 40s and 50s, then we are talking about potentially a generational age gap between the genders. That can be itself another controversial topic. Anyway, a lot of relationships are with couples that are age-wise within a few years. Anyway, here's a reference for average salaries by age group: ( https://smartasset.com/retirement/the-average-salary-by-age ) - this does not divy by gender...though. People are likely to be 40+ years old when they start earning $50K+ salary. Women are usually having children before they are 40 years old. Typically, between 25 and 35 and usually before 40 because birthing children after the age of 40 begins to become more problematic and menopause tends to occur between 45 and 55. When you and your wife are about the same age, there is a typical pressure to have children between 25 and 35. You are likely to be earning between $35K and $45K. This aligns with architectural internship and architects in their first 5 years or so of licensure. So, now what? If she's working, the household income wouldn't be too bad but if she has to stop working in order to take care of the children during the first 5-6 years before they are going to public school, which then she might take up a part-time job which is usually minimum wage because there is rarely jobs that are part-time that pays above minimum wage. That might bring another $12K to $15K of income to the aggregate household income of $47K to $60K. 

You might not find yourself laid off until you are 45 to 55 years old. Then you get kicked to the curb with the layoff notice and then it gets difficult to get into the same kind of position when the firms are trying to replace 40+ year old staff with younger 25 to 35 year olds because they can save several thousand dollars a year on salary and indirect labor costs like health insurance and so forth. You may or may not even had completely paid off the student loans you already had from university and you won't be getting any more financial aid grant money as you already have your first bachelor's degree. So going back to college/university is harder to finance. For some, this can result in a bad situation. 

There are systemic problems in America and a lot of developed nations that may be making it harder for people to succeed and are contributing to the cause of homelessness. Being fired at 40-55 can be the kiss of death to a person's career and the disaster that ensues.

BulgarBlogger

Sorry- your first sentence is already questionable. Where did you get that most people are having kids when they are on their way up their career? Your entire argument is based on this crucial piece of information- prove it. You are essentially saying that because people don't know when they'll become poor, that they have kids when times are good. What I am saying is that poor people who start out in poverty have kids anyway and continue that cycle.

RickB-Astoria

Women by an large can only have children before menopause sets in and that is usually before the mid-career point. This maybe a little different age with men but largely most people are in relationship/marriage with people less than 10 year age difference so it can be reasoned with reproductive science and customary data on relationships. I think most people don't have children when they are homeless or unemployed. 

It is true that no one really knows when they are going to get fired except maybe a short amount of time before hand if there is indication the writing is on the wall. A lot of people have kids and virtually 90% of us are beginning our working career little to nothing. It isn't like we all inherit the wealth of our parents before they are dead? Most of us won't have a million dollars set aside by our parents to do whatever with like Donald Trump which actually had more than a million dollars given to him before went to "college". 

Most of us starts with little to $0 or whatever we have from any part-time work we get while in high school or the summer following graduation from High school. We all start there except the lucky percentage that has millionaires to billionaires for parents. I think we can reason that. 

If you want proof, I'm sure someone can throw that up for you to read. The cycle problem exists with some and it repeats but it is not clear cut. There are plenty who started poor and became successful and not necesarily millionaires or billionaires but earning a good family wage/salary.

BulgarBlogger

The idea of getting educated and trained to practice a profession or do a job is that presumably the more experience you get, the more money you get- right? The hope is that you get promoted over the years so you assume more responsibility and get paid more for that responsibility? If you

BulgarBlogger

If you are 35 and are still making $30-40k, you

BulgarBlogger

(sorry-

BulgarBlogger

Sorry- ugh- typing on phone... if you're 35 and still making $30-40k you shouldn't expect that by 50, you're going to be making enough to support a family, because you're probably working a job that isn't meant for that kind of long-term commitment. So what I am arguing is that while it is uncertain when or if someone will get laid off, in most cases, people who do start off on a good footing and eventually get laid off and lose their income, often do not significantly contribute to the volume of the population that is in poverty. The existing population that is in poverty is much greater, and it is the procreation that is occuring withing that impoverished population that expands the universe of poverty.

BulgarBlogger

If you take all

BulgarBlogger

if you take all of the rich people's money away and give it to the poor, eventually, the rich will be rich again, and the poor will be poor again...

RickB-Astoria

Maybe.... maybe not. As long as the rich are taking in more the profit and income then they deserve because they don't work as much or hard as those they employ. It's the systemic problem of depriving the poor fair share of the rewards for their work that the rich is milking off the back of the people that do the work. However, depriving fair and reasonable pay is to oppress the employees from being able to start their own businesses to compete against you and letting the market competition determine the survival of the fittest. That can be another discussion.

RickB-Astoria

Most of the homeless population as defined by living on the street unemployed with no roof over ones head, not children in foster care or some kind of state run orphanage.... which isn't the same in my opinion,... okay.... those that are really homeless and has no apartment, home or otherwise to live and reside at other than bumming it on the streets, under the streets and maybe sleeping in the alcoves of storefronts at night while the stores are closed.... most of them are over the age of 40 by the way. Just from observation, you can generally tell. They are in that situation and that begun when they got canned. Why is it.... hard to say. Honestly, those with felonies can have almost no chance of gainful employment so why aren't they simply euthanized? Who knows... It's not my decision. 

You do realize that most of the rich got rich because they didn't pay what they should and through basically criminal mob like threats suppressed people from challenging them in courts. They did it by crooked practices and used threats of harm if anyone challenged them. They used it in various covert ways. An extreme case lies with Donald Trump used these practices to get his wealth and he sucks as a business man with 4 BANKRUPTCIES in just a 18 month window. I don't call it success and not a vote of confidence as a business man which should have been denied or even barred from running a business given this appear to be more a scheme to get out of debt which he intentionally created the situation... in my opinion and too much time has passed for a proper legal investigation because of statutes of limitations/repose. There should have been criminal investigation done at that time to determine if he is doing this as some kind of criminal mismanagement to defraud his creditors.

RickB-Astoria

In my opinion, people need to be honest both ways. The easiest thing in the world to do but people tend to f--- that up.... rich/poor and anywhere in between.... doesn't make a fucking difference.

BulgarBlogger

"As long as the rich are taking in more the profit and income then they deserve because they don't work as much or hard as those they employ."

BulgarBlogger

I fundamentally disagree with that statement.

BulgarBlogger

At a certain point, you make your money work for you (or should make your money work for you). Classic example: you buy a home and rent it out. However, to get the capital to buy it in the first place- THAT is a lot of work. Being savy at making your moenh work for you is smart, not lazy. And there's nothing wrong with that. And that is whh I said- want to be rich- work for it! And again- its not just working for it in the literal sense: it starts from a young age, when you have to study hard and get educated. Libraries are free- the public has all the access to the information. The internet is at your fingertips. And if parents aren't around to

BulgarBlogger

..afford their kids the attention they deserve, they shouldn't be parents!

RickB-Astoria

Do you think Bill Gates works ~1,280,000 hours a week considering his income is ~32,000x than the average salary of employees at Microsoft?

RickB-Astoria

Several of your points, I do agree with you in fundamental terms but 90% of America aren't born with million dollar bank accounts because you do have to have money to leverage money. The income most people begin with will never be able to be transformed and leveraged like Bill Gates. The supply & demand ratio is pretty tough. It is impossible to be rich like Donald Trump or Bill Gates by being an architect. You won't make that in architecture and you sure the hell won't be able to crowdfund or find VCs investing in an architectural firm. They might in a design-build-developer firm but VCs are not as interested in investing in buildings as they are in tech. The ROI cycle is too long and slow for many. You can only make the money work for you for so far especially in regular workers. It's hard to capitalize and be entrepreneural if you aren't already born or inherited or whatever a large amount of money in the millions. If you aren't already born a millionaire or with multi-millionaire family and friends.... the road is next to impossible to become a billionaire. You have to come into some new emerging field and make a killing in it to get there. That is how it works. If you are in an old profession.... you probably won't become super rich. You might be able to be well to do.

BulgarBlogger

Bill Gates put in his time and now is reaping the benefits. But unlike Steve Jibs, his tax rate is justified by vietue of how much he actually gives to Charityz

BulgarBlogger

Also, I disagree with the fact that you have to be super wealthy to be financially free. The point I was making is that if you put in effort when you are young, you reap the benefits later. And the entire argument that I have consistently making to you is that 90% of the people don't make that effort, and they find themselves in a situation later in life wanting to have kids, etc, and not being able to afford it. And because society sets up certain milestones (going to school, getting a job, buying a house, starting a family, retiring) they are hit with a very sad reality check- that they certainly havn't accomplished what they should have and are now foring those milestones on themselves without being "ready."

BulgarBlogger

Just because the majortybof people are x, y, and z, doesn't mean that their decision making is right. There are lots of uneducated people out there- all propagated by ignorance and perpetual poverty, which is contined by no other than themselves.

RickB-Astoria

Bill Gates, did put in his time but certainly he wasn't alone in it and he reaped more than most will ever get no matter what effort they put in, education, etc. A bit of it is simply timing and luck and entering into a field that is growing and going to enter a boom like the computer industry in the 1970s/80s. It exploded and became what it is today but many aspects of the industry has 'matured' but the same opportunities don't exist so people have to step into new domains that are growing. You aren't going to get that by doing what others already have and are established. You aren't dethroning Microsoft anytime soon from the OS market so do something different. Don't compete directly. Do something new or different and get your seat in the particular niche like AR or VR but don't wait because you snooze... you lose.

So yeah, but keep in mind Bill reaped with a lot from all those people at Microsoft working for him only for a wage/salary. Entrepreneurers... the rich people.... makes businesses not just work for others.

RickB-Astoria

My point is you generally have to have money to leverage money to earn more than you had before. You can't go far being someone's coffee bitch for only a wage or salaries. These rich people only work for others only long enough to start up their own business. Almost all of them are product manufacturer/sellers not service/consultant businesses. The business model is drastically different and investment capital resources is very different. I hear ya. Not everyone can go to college or university. If it was so damn absolute.... why not make it free and required like going to high school for that bachelors degree/undergraduate education.

RickB-Astoria

Pretty much for me, retirement is pretty much out of the question unless you are talking 80-90+ years of age and then maybe.

tduds

My eyes glazed over and I only got like 10% of all of this bullshit but I still completed an Alt-Right Catch Phrase Bingo card for Bulgar.

BulgarBlogger

If demanding responsible procreation that is free from taxpayer obligation, then count me in!

Ooh, please share. I'm always down for a game of bingo. The semester where we covertly distributed final review archispeak bingo cards among a dozen or so friends was probably the most awake I had ever been during final reviews.

tduds

BulgarBlogger's Modest Proposal

threeohdoor

From BB: 1. "No progress w/o suffering" 2. "Poverty equals torture" 3. "Not my responsibility" 4. "Parents don't have self-control." 5. "Perpetual poverty, which is continued by no one other than themselves."

threeohdoor

Quite a sad view on life. Also, indicative of severe narcissism (ie - "It's not my problem, it's Others' problem." Would absolutely love to analyze how much he 'benefits' from the government vs "Them poors". My bet is that is the recipient of a whoooooole lot of public subsidies (perhaps not in the way he thinks...)

tduds

EA: "...based on logic and practicality." "..snowflake.." "..prove it." etc.

tduds

This thread is too far gone to bother countering, and I don't have time to tackle even 10% of the spurious claims here. Just want to say I lost count of how many times Bulgar challenged someone to "prove" something while tossing out wildly anecdotal counterpoints. 

Whenever someone applies unequal scrutiny to different sides in a debate, just give up on the debate. They're letting their conclusions drive their evidence, not the other way around.

BulgarBlogger

what is sad about wanting responsible procreation? What gives other people the right to reach into my pocket as a taxpayer to pay for their kids if they can't afford them?

Nothing is wrong with wanting responsible procreation. What you're advocating for is not promoting responsible procreation. As for reaching into your taxpaying pocket ... welcome to any society that collects taxes. Have you thought about moving to Liberland?

threeohdoor, not only severe narcissism, but severe lack of empathy. I'm pretty sure those are two hallmarks in the profile of any serial killer on those prime time TV crime dramas.

BulgarBlogger

Empathy?? I mean seriously... that's like saying I should have empathy for impulsive serial killers because they just couldn't help themselves but stab someone to death. I have empathy for poor people- just not their decisions as they pertain to feeling entitled to my tax money.

I think you mean you have sympathy for poor people and even that might be a stretch based on what you've written here. Nothing you've written here has shown me that you can empathize with them. Your comment just now being an excellent example on both counts. For the record, the only people I've met that feel entitled to tax money are the people who think they pay too much and feel entitled to get some of it back.

BulgarBlogger

Of course I sympathize with them. I empathize with all the poor children who were products of their parents' selfish acts of wanting to procreate without being able to afford them. And what's wrong with feeling entitled to my own hard-earned money? I don't have a problem paying taxes, as long as my tax money goes to things that are mutually beneficial. Leeches with bad decision-making skills that make more leeches with bad-decision making skills are neither my problem nor my obligation.

tduds

"what is sad about wanting responsible procreation?" 

That's not the disagreement here. The disagreement is that others are advocating incentives while you're advocating punishment. Upon scrutiny, the punishment makes no sense and doesn't do anything to solve the problem you claim exists.

 "What gives other people the right to reach into my pocket as a taxpayer to pay for their kids if they can't afford them?" 

Democratic mandate, mostly. That's the thing about society - you don't get to decide who's "entitled" to participate in it.

"I don't have a problem paying taxes, as long as my tax money goes to things that are mutually beneficial."

It sounds like you mean "as long as my tax money goes to things that I want." Which is 100% entitled Boomer mentality & a large part of the reason shit is so broken right now.

BulgarBlogger

But let me guess- you support politicians who do get to decide how much they reach into my pocket to support people who make bad decisions- right? So even though you personally aren't doing it, you're voting for (and electing) others to do it on your behalf.

tduds

There are so many other ways to decrease birth rates while also lifting people out of poverty & the fact that you're so stuck on this specific idea of punishing people for procreating is self-defeating - in addition to my original point that what you're arguing for is a common justification for eugenics and genocide.

tduds

"you support politicians who do get to decide how much they reach into my pocket to support people who make bad decisions- right?"

This is the job of politicians. There aren't any - and have never been any - politicians who do not do this. I support politicians whose decisions in this matter align with my opinions. As do you.

God, you're so bad at this and you refuse to stop. 

tduds

Really tired of explaining the concept of civilization to entitled old fuckers who think they're smart enough to survive without the safety network they don't realize they have.

BulgarBlogger

No- I'm not for genocide lol. But I am for punishing people who choose to procreate irresponsibly. The children don't need to be punished, but the parents do.

Wow, you're right. I've never seen such empathy so eloquently written. You've really captured the essence of where those leaches are coming from. 

Getting people out of poverty and not living out of a car is not mutually beneficial? I mean even in a selfish narcissistic way this could be spun as benefiting you by getting rid of the people begging for a literal handout on the side of the freeway off-ramp. Just think of how much nicer your commute will be every day when you don't have to look at them through the tinted windows of your fancy car. Surely that's worth a few bucks of your hard-earned cash the greedy tax man pries out of your income.

tduds

I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat "I never said you were for genocide but what you're arguing for is a common justification for eugenics and genocide" before it occurs to you that this is why you've upset people. But I guess I'll keep repeating it.

tduds

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for life. Punish a man for not having fish and something something utopia.

tduds

Also a big LOL at Bulgar convincing himself he's well off enough to suffer the burden of a more progressive tax system. Stop defending billionaires, you'll never be one.

BulgarBlogger

Lol- you are the king of the adhominem. Your arguments do not discredit mine.

tduds

I'm not making arguments I'm trashing you for your dumb eugenics ideas keep up.

tduds

It's not an ad hominem because I'm not saying that your argument is wrong because you're an asshole. I'm saying you're an asshole because of the argument you're making. It's a conclusion, not a counterpoint

lol, tduds, your "give a man a fish ... something something utopia" comment made me recall Supply Side Jesus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8xU-gKK17A

BulgarBlogger

Thank you- I accept I'm an "asshole" to you. 7+ billion people in the world. Can't please everyone.

jla-x

Just wondering how those tax dollars are working to fight homelessness in CA?

jla-x

The more taxes we pay the more we line pockets of bureaucrats and their private sector pals...

tduds

haha "Leprosy is a matter of personal responsibility" 

Thanks for this EA.

RickB-Astoria

BulgarBlogger, welcome to the fact the United States is a REPUBLIC which by definition means we elect representatives to make day to day policies and so forth so we don't have to spend every single hour of every single day having to review things to make decisions on and vote. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, you are taxed based on a tax code. You pay the taxes like all the other tax payers (otherwise... you may go to prison for tax evasion). The elected officials decides how the money is spent. If there is something YOU want to vote on then you get off your dead ass and get signatures to put an item of matter to be voted on by the public at large by ballot. Otherwise, STFU and leave the decision making to the elected officials while you mind your day to day matters. Sure, you can make your complaints to your district's elected representative in U.S. Congress (HofRep or Senate).That is up to you to be heard otherwise, they aren't going to give a f--- and maybe they don't but then you have the choice to vote for someone else during the next election cycle.

More nonsense from jlax. It’s like the official definition of poverty, complete bullshit. 

A family of 4 living on $26k is not “in poverty”. That’s $17 per person per day. Regardless of the difference in cost of living between say, Mississippi and New Jersey. A better definition of poverty would at the very least include everyone eligible for any form of public assistance, but even that would be insufficient.

Reference: Being poor

Oct 23, 19 11:18 am
jla-x

It’s a Wikipedia page pal. I didn’t provide an opinion, just linked to page because the numbers surprised me.

RickB-Astoria

What is curious to me is not Japan but Jordan.

It might be well explained but 0 homelessness is interesting.

Oct 23, 19 12:14 pm
SneakyPete

It's a monarchy.

tduds

It's false data. Or, at the very least, heavily misrepresented ("We have no homelessness because homeless people are thrown in prison" or something)

SneakyPete

When an entire country is controlled by an individual, nothing they say can be taken as fact .

RickB-Astoria

Technically, Sweden is a monarchy but I guess it depends on whether or not the monarchy is a "constitutional monarchy" or an old school dictatorial monarchy.

SneakyPete

Does it, though?

tduds

*tEcHnIcAlLy*

Volunteer

Sweden is a democracy. Elections for the three divisions of the legislative branch are held every four years. The King/Queen has a ceremonial role only, as is common in Europe.

RickB-Astoria

That is what a constitutional monarchy is---basically a democracy-like government with a monarch that is mostly ceremonial where the real authority is in the people and their elected officials including the prime minister. That's what the UK is more or less, these days compared to old days of absolute power monarchies which is basically a "dictatorial monarchy" where the monarch is in all essence a dictator. I think that dictatorial monarch type of government have ceased to exist in Europe by the time of world war II. Now, of course, types of dictatorships do still exists in the world.

atelier nobody
SneakyPete

Thank you, this is interesting.

jla-x

Homelessness isn’t about lack of housing, maybe temporary homelessness is, but chronic homelessness  it’s about mental health and addiction.  My argument I guess is to accept that homelessness is a feature of all societies (unfortunately) and design public space to accommodate that reality.  In other words, allow the homeless to inhabit the public realm.  The public realm should be usable for anyone...street vendors to street living. 

Oct 28, 19 5:20 pm
jla-x

Punishing homelessness or poverty or as some Bulgarian bloggers suggest procreation is the ultimate tyranny. Publishing failure is even more tyrannical than punishing success.

jla-x

*punishing not publishing lol.

Non Sequitur

This reminds me of every second or third graduate thesis from 10+ years ago. Lipstick solution then, lipstick solution it remains today.

jla-x

Better idea?

tduds

Two things: 

"Homelessness isn’t about lack of housing ... it’s about mental health and addiction." It's all of the above + more. There is no silver bullet and any solution needs to be a set of initiatives separately but concurrently tackling a bunch of overlapping causes. 

"homelessness is a feature of all societies (unfortunately) and design public space to accommodate that reality." I kind of agree with this but think it's just shy of a humane solution, which is to design public space to include 'homes' rather than space for homelessness. Subtle philosophical difference but I think a more charitable one. A home not need be a house, but it needs to be a space for comfort and security. I don't have a more specific idea than that - one could easily fill years thesis studios with this pitch.

Non Sequitur

Not really other than not try to solve social issues with street furniture.

jla-x

tduds, I get what you are saying, but some people won’t want to live in homes. A significant portion of the homeless are incapable or unwilling to get off the street. For them, being humane means accepting their presence, providing access to essentials like food and safety, and respecting the space they carve out in the public realm. Homelessness is a disaster in most cities because they are occupying spaces not designed to be occupied like sidewalks. Plazas, parks, and underpasses are made to be hostile rather than accommodating, so they go to sidewalks where it’s relatively safe and open. That’s partly a design problem, and partly a legal problem. Just like ada accommodates physical disability, I would argue that homelessness is a disability of sorts, and accommodations should be encoded into public space
.

jla-x

Spiked benches and non loitering laws followed by police harassment is a form of punishing poverty...a feature of fascism imo. The fascists punish poverty and misfortune...the commies punish success and good fortune...how about not punishing anyone unless they commit an actual violent crime.

JawkneeMusic

it's a top heavying building for space for those who choose homelessness, thus allowing trees to swallow CO2 and habitats for animals.  it could damn easily be done

Oct 28, 19 9:55 pm
tduds

what

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

  • ×Search in: