If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Local billionaires think it's wrong that there are people who sleep in cars in Silicon Valley because they are homeless, and want to improve their quality of life   (theguardian.com) divider line 433
    More: Asinine, homeless  
•       •       •

12313 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Apr 2014 at 12:15 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



433 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-16 10:23:26 AM  
If you live in a car but have no job, Silicon Valley really isn't the place for you.

Unless you can marry a millionaire VC, that is.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-16 10:28:08 AM  
First Debtors prison and now anti-vagrancy laws.  I guess we'll bring back segregation next.
 
2014-04-16 10:33:06 AM  
That'll teach em
 
2014-04-16 10:39:41 AM  
They urinate in there!
 
2014-04-16 10:56:44 AM  
They might just use the car as a toilet and move on.
 
2014-04-16 11:03:44 AM  
I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.
 
2014-04-16 11:12:37 AM  
Can't we just set up the homeless in work-based communal housing? I believe work will set them free. This place looks legit:

graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2014-04-16 11:17:49 AM  
Keep pushing and the homeless will just do home invasions on these rich people and live there as long as they can stand the smell of the rotting corpses of the previous occupants.
 
2014-04-16 11:26:03 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.


So rather than solving the problem, let's just make sure we don't have to ever see it.
 
2014-04-16 11:27:02 AM  
If you can afford a car you're not poor.
 
2014-04-16 11:32:55 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.


Not sure if serious.
 
2014-04-16 11:36:01 AM  

nekom: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

So rather than solving the problem, let's just make sure we don't have to ever see it.


A homeless person is never really going to be able to afford an apartment in Silicon Valley, no matter how much the city hands out.

It's more humane to send them on to a lower rent area where they have an actual shot at getting off the street.
 
2014-04-16 11:54:00 AM  
I don't understand. Why don't these homeless people just sleep in their parents guest homes?
 
2014-04-16 12:06:08 PM  

Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.


Ok thanks for that brilliant insight.

I'm pretty sure it's cheaper to own a car and eat than pay rent AND own a car and eat
 
2014-04-16 12:12:48 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.


Well, we should certainly restrict the rights of other human beings so the children of others don't feel momentarily uncomfortable.
 
2014-04-16 12:17:00 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.


You are missing a good teaching moment here.  You can use the homeless as examples of what happen if you pursue degrees in the liberal arts.  Scare the little womprats into STEM.
 
2014-04-16 12:18:24 PM  

Methadone Girls: Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.

Ok thanks for that brilliant insight.

I'm pretty sure it's cheaper to own a car and eat than pay rent AND own a car and eat


Depends on the car, and how often it needs repaired.

/former BMW owner
 
2014-04-16 12:19:24 PM  

jwa007: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

You are missing a good teaching moment here.  You can use the homeless as examples of what happen if you pursue degrees in the liberal arts.  Scare the little womprats into STEM.


Which won't bemuch help if we keep importing people who can be pressured to accept artificially low wages since their visa is tied to their employment (Which is BS, since it gives an employer INSANE extra leverage that they do not have over an american citizen).
 
2014-04-16 12:20:47 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: A homeless person is never really going to be able to afford an apartment in Silicon Valley


Exactly! Why don't these people just drive their cars to their vacation homes in Marin? Honestly, they are just being lazy?
 
2014-04-16 12:21:21 PM  
Go be poor somewhere else.

www.wildwomanfundraising.com
 
2014-04-16 12:21:40 PM  

SurfaceTension: Methadone Girls: Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.

Ok thanks for that brilliant insight.

I'm pretty sure it's cheaper to own a car and eat than pay rent AND own a car and eat

Depends on the car, and how often it needs repaired.

/former BMW owner


I didn't realize they were sleeping in beemers. Carry on then.

/They're so not sleeping in beemers
 
2014-04-16 12:22:10 PM  

Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.


Only if it has a tape deck...with a Creedence tape.
 
2014-04-16 12:22:18 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: nekom: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

So rather than solving the problem, let's just make sure we don't have to ever see it.

A homeless person is never really going to be able to afford an apartment in Silicon Valley, no matter how much the city hands out.

It's more humane to send them on to a lower rent area where they have an actual shot at getting off the street.


"I was walking behind this guy on the street; homeless dude comes up and asks him for some money. The guy goes, 'Why'ntcha get a job ya BUM?!' People always say that to homeless guys like it's so easy. This homeless guy was wearing his underwear outside his pants. OUTSIDE his pants. I'm guessing his resume ain't all up-to-date. I'm predicting some problems during the interview process. I'm pretty sure even McDonalds has a 'underwear goes inside the pants' policy."

// "Not that they enforce it really strictly, but technically, I'm sure it's on the books."
 
2014-04-16 12:22:29 PM  
images.amcnetworks.com

Understand their plight.
 
2014-04-16 12:22:33 PM  
I usually expect one of two things from a Fark headline:

1. The headline should make me laugh; or
2. The headline should succinctly disclose the gist of an article I'm too lazy to click on and read.

Subby's headline did neither.
 
2014-04-16 12:22:46 PM  
Why don't they just move their cars to a 24-hour Walmart?  Walmart parking lots are very accommodating of people sleeping in cars.

/I'm 100% serious, it's an option
 
2014-04-16 12:23:49 PM  
Build them a parking garage?
 
2014-04-16 12:23:50 PM  
Moraga was all about having galas to raise money for bum shelters..
until someone suggested building it near them..
then they went berzerk
 
2014-04-16 12:24:04 PM  

jwa007: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

You are missing a good teaching moment here.  You can use the homeless as examples of what happen if you pursue degrees in the liberal arts.  Scare the little womprats into STEM.


I'm working with a guy who has his degree in Mechanical Engineering. He has years of experience under his belt, a hard worker, very friendly guy with a good professional attitude. He just got this job after being unemployed for almost a year. A year of constantly hitting the pavement looking for work. I have my dumb little BS in History but I've never been unemployed with this degree. Never. And now we have this nice job that pays well but ya know, we both get paid the same and neither of us is using our degrees here.
 
2014-04-16 12:24:40 PM  
Hmmm.

I wonder how many of the car dwellers work there?
 
2014-04-16 12:25:08 PM  
i59.tinypic.com

Keep it up you greedy f*cking pigs.
 
2014-04-16 12:25:42 PM  

Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.


Especially if you have a refrigerator in it.
 
2014-04-16 12:26:41 PM  
Err BA in history that is. Meh.
 
2014-04-16 12:26:45 PM  
Just invent an "appartment" that people can live in for free. It would probably only take a Hack Day or two.
 
2014-04-16 12:26:51 PM  

UberDave: Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.

Only if it has a tape deck...with a Creedence tape.


They don't want to be stuck in Lodi again.
 
2014-04-16 12:27:21 PM  

jwa007: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

You are missing a good teaching moment here.  You can use the homeless as examples of what happen if you pursue degrees in the liberal arts.   Scare the little womprats into STEM.



You know the U.S. already graduates more STEM graduates than we have jobs for, right?

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/inquiring-minds-ethan -p erlstein-postdocalypse?fb_action_ids=692395314158529&fb_action_types=o g.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

Quote:
"You've probably heard the claim that the United States needs to produce  morescientists, like Perlstein, to remain competitive with up-and-coming science powerhouses like India and China. It is a familiar litany whenever we hear laments about American science and its disturbing habit of resting on its laurels. But what you rarely hear in this argument is the fact that we don't have nearly enough jobs to put to work the scientists we currently have. "U.S. higher education produces far more science and engineering graduates annually than there are S&E job openings," writes Harvard researcher  , "the only disagreement is whether it is 100 percent or 200 percent more.""
 
2014-04-16 12:27:50 PM  
Didn't read the article (like any good farker) but saw the picture of skid row and was like, "I've been there."  It was interesting (not quite the right word) to see the disparity between homeless living on the street and the next street over is where the $$ lives and they passed an ordinance (law?) that no one can sleep on the streets past x street.  Sad all the way around. :(
 
2014-04-16 12:28:04 PM  
Diogenes

If you can afford a car you're not poor.


You obviously haven't looks at rent/home prices in Silicon Valley.
 
2014-04-16 12:28:09 PM  
Why don't they pass a law that rich people can punch a poor person, but only if they give that $100 to another rich person?

It's that kind of circulation that will make our economy strong again.
 
2014-04-16 12:29:33 PM  

Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.


You don't have to own a car to sleep in one.
 
2014-04-16 12:29:35 PM  
 
2014-04-16 12:30:04 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.



img.fark.net
 
2014-04-16 12:30:34 PM  
I'm no billionaire and I don't want people sleeping in cars in front of my house.

Having said that, I continually see the same "stranded" family in my town panhandling.  Their "stranded" sign is so old it has folds in it.  I see plenty of people giving them money and I'm pretty sure they aren't actually stranded.

RumsfeldsReplacement: Why don't they just move their cars to a 24-hour Walmart?  Walmart parking lots are very accommodating of people sleeping in cars.

/I'm 100% serious, it's an option


This.
 
2014-04-16 12:31:46 PM  
I hear that California is super cool to the homeless. Especially the city of Santa Monica.

Am I to believe this is not true now? What about Redwood? Or Del Ray?
 
2014-04-16 12:31:46 PM  

Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.


Put a lot of thought into that statement, eh?
 
2014-04-16 12:32:30 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: nekom: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

So rather than solving the problem, let's just make sure we don't have to ever see it.

A homeless person is never really going to be able to afford an apartment in Silicon Valley, no matter how much the city hands out.

It's more humane to send them on to a lower rent area where they have an actual shot at getting off the street.

You know who else thought an unpopular minority should be relocated?

Its really so seldom someone actually says something dumb enough to legitimately earn a proper Godwin.....
 
2014-04-16 12:33:08 PM  

bdub77: Can't we just set up the homeless in work-based communal housing? I believe work will set them free. This place looks legit:

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x330]


Wait wait... Arby's makes fries now?
 
2014-04-16 12:34:32 PM  
Stay out of Eugene please.

Attempt no landing here, the goodwill has dried up, and the citizenry are tired of the homeless and the homeless advocates trying to get the city to lift the camping ban in public parks.

I feel for the homeless, and hope they can utilize the many public and private programs we have available to get back on their feet.  The chronic homeless, they have help available if they can actually decide to use it.  Not sure if that is possible for some of the ones with the really bad mental issues, but what can be done for them within the bounds of the law?

I'm actually for what Utah is doing being implemented in Oregon, but I doubt I'd have many supporters.
 
2014-04-16 12:34:37 PM  
1. There will always be unsympathetic douchebags, not the real case.
2. The "anti-homeless" laws being passed are pushed by people profiting from control, misery, and incarceration in a for-profit jail system, still can't believe this issue isn't even discussed especially when we hold the WORLD'S largest inmate population.
3. People are myopic cretins, NIMBY.
 
2014-04-16 12:35:46 PM  
Dear filthy rich idiots,

Start returning some of your pelf back into the economy at someplace besides Neiman Marcus and people wont have to live in their cars.


Economies  *  are  *  wealth redistribution, you doltish twats.


Grow up and let some of the other kids play.  They ain't gonna put it in the casket.  No, seriously.  They ain't.
 
2014-04-16 12:36:35 PM  

jwa007: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

You are missing a good teaching moment here.  You can use the homeless as examples of what happen if you pursue degrees in the liberal arts.  Scare the little womprats into STEM.

Industrial Trade School.

/FTFU
 
2014-04-16 12:36:47 PM  
Isn't it nice how our cities treat those in the greatest need? They tell them to GTFO.

I know someone right here in my hometown who spends an enormous amount of her own time and money, and she's far from rich, doing something she believes in. Existing area programs have proven inadequate, so she's doing it herself.

Besides feeding scores of people multiple times a week, she delivers donated blankets, coats, gloves, etc. to people so they won't freeze to death. How does the city help? They take away that vital clothing and incinerate it. Why? Because sometimes homeless people go inside and can't take a big farking bundle of blankets and such in with them. The public library, among other places, doesn't allow it. So they have to leave their bundles somewhere. The police find, confiscate, and burn them.

She has complained to the city about this and other anti homeless practices numerous times to no avail. The city's real attitude: they want the homeless people to GTFO.

AverageAmericanGuy:
A homeless person is never really going to be able to afford an apartment in Silicon Valley, no matter how much the city hands out.

It's more humane to send them on to a lower rent area where they have an actual shot at getting off the street.


You could RTFA that explains that many cities are passing similar laws. It's not just "high rent" districts, not that it's okay for any city to do it, regardless of their income level.
 
2014-04-16 12:40:49 PM  
It's true, Silicon Valley is the first city to propose banning sleeping in cars.
 
2014-04-16 12:40:54 PM  
It's all well and good to decry the "rich" for not wanting car campers but honestly, would you want a bunch of POS cars parked on your street with sketchy people crashed out inside?

Then again, I live in Canadastan so we give our homeless free apartments and health care.
 
2014-04-16 12:41:08 PM  
vpb [TotalFark]

First Debtors prison and now anti-vagrancy laws. I guess we'll bring back segregation next.

California democrats approve.
 
2014-04-16 12:41:24 PM  

meat0918: Stay out of Eugene please.

Attempt no landing here, the goodwill has dried up, and the citizenry are tired of the homeless and the homeless advocates trying to get the city to lift the camping ban in public parks.

I feel for the homeless, and hope they can utilize the many public and private programs we have available to get back on their feet.  The chronic homeless, they have help available if they can actually decide to use it.  Not sure if that is possible for some of the ones with the really bad mental issues, but what can be done for them within the bounds of the law?

I'm actually for what Utah is doing being implemented in Oregon, but I doubt I'd have many supporters.

So I guess you missed the part of the article where they pointed out that the programs you're referring to are taxed far beyond their capacity already. In some cases trying to help 10 times the number of people they are equipped to.

Now do the one about the lazy homeless bum who makes $400 a day begging while you slave over the frier at McD's thats my favorite.
 
2014-04-16 12:42:25 PM  

FizixJunkee: graduates more STEM graduates than we have jobs for


jobs aren't a limited resource.
 
2014-04-16 12:42:31 PM  
I would recommend a ducebag tax. But the the 1% would be homeless.
 
2014-04-16 12:42:38 PM  
As a practical matter, how would you prove the guy was sleeping? His eyes were closed?
 
2014-04-16 12:43:11 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: If you live in a car but have no job, Silicon Valley really isn't the place for you.

Unless you can marry a millionaire VC, that is.


Sure it is.  I ride BART to work and the programmers are just as stinky as the homeless.  Someone living in a car would fit in just fine.
 
2014-04-16 12:43:21 PM  
I park my old F-150 close to the sidewalk and always leave the doors unlocked. Nothing in it to steal, but I leave a travel pillow and a blanket folded up in case someone needs shelter. We don't have loads of homeless where I live, but there area few. Last week we had a cold snap and the blanket went missing. That's what it's there for. I'll replace it this weekend.
 
2014-04-16 12:43:31 PM  

reillan: bdub77: Can't we just set up the homeless in work-based communal housing? I believe work will set them free. This place looks legit:

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x330]

Wait wait... Arby's makes fries now?


Little known fact: Nazis originally invented the curly-fry potato machine and the strange quasi-cheese substance in Beef 'n' Cheddars, and set up Arby's as a front.  They made the whole thing a really bad trans-lingual pun, figuring Americans would be too stupid to get the joke.   It's pretty disturbing really... people know about the Nazis and Ford, or Nazis and IBM.  Few know the terrible secret behind Horsey Sauce.
 
2014-04-16 12:45:07 PM  
You know, I remember I was once one of the people that used to look down at the homeless and say, why not get a job (that was to the ones that didn't look like they were short on brains) well.. Karma is cruel sometimes, I moved out to San Jose, CA with my friend and because of my bad credit I couldn't move in, so I ended up being homeless, and to make it worse, I was working for Motel 6 making 9.50 and hour 40 hours a week, but again, bad credit = no one will rent to you... sure you can get a ROOM for rent for 500 a month, but I couldn't speak any Spanish and they had 9 kids, I worked the midnight shift so sleeping would have been an issue..

so while I was in the shelter I ran into many others that were in my situation.. I had a great job, but couldn't get a place.. so not all homeless are bums and drug addicts, drunks.. ect.. ok.. a LOT are.. but putting ALL homeless down is not right.. many slept on the 24 hour bus run.. they called it the mobile motel..  and there are just so many beds shelters can have, and guess what, it is first come first served in many of them.. but you have to be sober to get a bed at the Salvation Army one, they give the breath test before you even enter.  I now have a slightly different attitude towards the homeless.. and these "rich" idiots making these remarks.. Oh how I wish you NEVER end up homeless..
 
2014-04-16 12:45:57 PM  

Shadi: jobs aren't a limited resource.


They are at this point in time.
 
2014-04-16 12:46:15 PM  
"The poor are getting fed up with our sh*t."

"Well, I mean, so what?  We didn't take ALL the money.  There's still enough left for most of them for food and some rudimentary shelter."


"Well, not really.  We've pretty much hoovered up most of the liquid economy and shoved it up our twice kissed asses.  Plus, I mean, they're still having babies and stuff, you know."


"Well whose fault is THAT?  Now have Consuelo fetch me a gimlet.  That lazy cow had better start earning her 125.00 a week and bedroom!"
 
2014-04-16 12:47:05 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.



I have to wonder if you were like that before you had kids.
 
2014-04-16 12:47:33 PM  

Shadi: FizixJunkee: graduates more STEM graduates than we have jobs for

jobs aren't a limited resource.


Demand that creates them, and capital that backs the industries that meet the demand, are.
 
2014-04-16 12:48:00 PM  
First... Great headline, subby. Not sure if anyone else caught the misdirection there.

Second, not all cities are responding like this. Salt Lake has implemented a program to provide homeless vets with a place to live, with no strings attached. They did the math and figured out that letting them catch frostbite in the streets cost an average of $16K a year, while giving them an apartment cost about $10K a year.
 
2014-04-16 12:48:42 PM  
*HeavyBreathing.jpg*
 
2014-04-16 12:49:03 PM  
That leaves residential areas, where overnight street parking cannot, as a practical matter, be prohibited.

Author of TFA doesn't seem to be too familiar with the area, as overnight street parking is already illegal in Menlo Park, just next door to Palo Alto.
 
2014-04-16 12:49:51 PM  
Americans sleeping in their own cars literally have nowhere to go.

Turn the key in the ignition and go someplace you can:

1. Get a job.  If you don't have the skills to pay the bills then you're in the wrong damn place and your ass could be working a fracking site,

2. Afford housing.  There's no law that says you have to live in the places with the highest housing costs in the nation like Atherton next door to Larry Ellison. If you want to be a bum go up to Frisco where you can pee and poop on the sidewalks and the Friscans actually like it and the lovely aroma it produces.  It must remind them of Venice. There's always Oakland and Richmond but good luck making it out of there alive.
 
2014-04-16 12:50:30 PM  
Don't worry.  When all of the industry magically comes back and starts using all of those deserted and now useless industrial buildings that the owners are letting rot because "these are for commercial purposes only!", everybody will be wiping their ass on silk.  Any day now!
 
2014-04-16 12:51:02 PM  
i.vimeocdn.com

UNAVAILABLE FOR COMMENT.
 
2014-04-16 12:51:36 PM  

FizixJunkee: Shadi: jobs aren't a limited resource.

They are at this point in time.


They always have been. That's why labor markets have evolved to rely on contracts which allow workers to be fired, rather than contracts for specific, defined work to be completed.
 
2014-04-16 12:52:12 PM  
Of course very resident of Silicon Valley is a billionaire, and they hate the poor.

wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net

Most people I know don't want someone living in a car in their neighborhood.
 
2014-04-16 12:52:36 PM  

Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.


I'll bet they even have refrigerators in their cars
 
2014-04-16 12:53:42 PM  
Why are local billionaires homeless?
 
2014-04-16 12:53:57 PM  
There is a vacated WalMart etc shopping center near me that was bought out by a mega church out of the blue. Never heard of these guys before, but they cater to the very wealthy in the area. It's right across from the mall so this is premium property. On the other side of town is a tent city in the woods with at least 30 children, unless the city has forced them to move.

There is a serious problem with this societal dichotomy at this level of severity, and it cannot continue for long.
 
2014-04-16 12:54:18 PM  
These same cities have resisted efforts to provide more public toilet facilities, often on the grounds that this will make their city a "magnet" for homeless people from other cities

um, no.  The magnet is the weather.
 
2014-04-16 12:54:36 PM  

FizixJunkee: jwa007: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

You are missing a good teaching moment here.  You can use the homeless as examples of what happen if you pursue degrees in the liberal arts.   Scare the little womprats into STEM.


You know the U.S. already graduates more STEM graduates than we have jobs for, right?

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/inquiring-minds-ethan -p erlstein-postdocalypse?fb_action_ids=692395314158529&fb_action_types=o g.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

Quote:
"You've probably heard the claim that the United States needs to produce  morescientists, like Perlstein, to remain competitive with up-and-coming science powerhouses like India and China. It is a familiar litany whenever we hear laments about American science and its disturbing habit of resting on its laurels. But what you rarely hear in this argument is the fact that we don't have nearly enough jobs to put to work the scientists we currently have. "U.S. higher education produces far more science and engineering graduates annually than there are S&E job openings," writes Harvard researcher  , "the only disagreement is whether it is 100 percent or 200 percent more.""


They are talking about PhDs. Im my industry, PhDs are the least employable applicant.
 
2014-04-16 12:55:06 PM  

RumsfeldsReplacement: Why don't they just move their cars to a 24-hour Walmart?  Walmart parking lots are very accommodating of people sleeping in cars.

/I'm 100% serious, it's an option


Do you really think that one of the richest cities in the country is going to have a Walmart?
 
2014-04-16 12:55:29 PM  
I'd like to know where the 99%ers get off telling the 1%ers how to live their lives?
Why to "the rich" have to help "the poor"?  Life is hard, life has choices.  If you are
STUPID, a criminal, drug addict, etc, why is it the responsibility of someone else, to
take care of you?  In nature, the strong survive.  If government would get out of the
way and not punish religious organizations, perhaps we could put things back the
way they were 50 years ago and let THEM be the ones who were helping "the poor".
They could do that, instead of building monuments to themselves called megachurches!
Oh, we can't have RELIGIOUS people helping "the poor", it might turn them religious
and they wouldn't vote for idiots from the government to give them free stuff.
You know, when I was a kid, most "street people" were called BUMS.  Perhaps we'd be
all better off to stop calling them "homeless" and go back to calling most of them tramps
or bums!
 
2014-04-16 12:55:39 PM  
Wow... That is horrible.  It should never be illegal to be homeless.  If you think otherwise then I absolutely hope that your life falls down around you and you find yourself on the streets...

/Libertarian Conservative
 
2014-04-16 12:56:28 PM  
I see a lot of commercials for local homeless shelters, that's no always a bad thing. But there are those use the system, not as a temporary crutch, but have adopted it largely as a supplement to whatever they have that qualifies as a lifestyle.
My wife and I went on a vacation to the Bay area a couple years back, and, speaking from experience, the area was rife with panhandlers. Even when waiting for a bus, they'd come up to you, asking for a handout, and many were not homeless, they just spotted us as tourists, and wanted some additional cash. The homeless infrastructure is quite well built, and while ai do laud them for helping people in hard times, you do have a lot of "users."plus, ythe support leads to dependency  for many.
Just like that episode of "South Park", where the homeless converge on the tow, and ultimately driven in a Pied Piper  fashion, to California.
Even in the Summer, one year in Phoenix was horrible with the homeless. You'd think the high temperatures would kill them off, but no.
 
2014-04-16 12:57:22 PM  
Well, in their car they feel safest of all. They can lock all their doors - it's the only way to live.
 
2014-04-16 12:57:28 PM  

techgeek07: Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.

I'll bet they even have refrigerators in their cars


oklahomaoptions.files.wordpress.com
               What a vacationing middle class family might look like.
 
2014-04-16 12:58:02 PM  

OscarTamerz: 1. Get a job.  If you don't have the skills to pay the bills then you're in the wrong damn place and your ass could be working a fracking site,



What if you can get a job because there aren't any jobs to get?


"In her analysis, EPI economist Heidi Shierholz notes that unemployed workers far outnumber job openings in every sector, which demonstrates that the main problem in the labor market is a broad-based lack of demand for workers-and not, as is often claimed, available workers lacking the skills needed for the sectors with job openings."

http://www.epi.org/press/unemployed-workers-outnumber-job-openings/
 
2014-04-16 12:58:21 PM  
Yep, I see no other solution anymore.  Kill the rich morons.
 
2014-04-16 12:58:33 PM  

Kazahmish: You know, I remember I was once one of the people that used to look down at the homeless and say, why not get a job (that was to the ones that didn't look like they were short on brains) well.. Karma is cruel sometimes, I moved out to San Jose, CA with my friend and because of my bad credit I couldn't move in, so I ended up being homeless, and to make it worse, I was working for Motel 6 making 9.50 and hour 40 hours a week, but again, bad credit = no one will rent to you... sure you can get a ROOM for rent for 500 a month, but I couldn't speak any Spanish and they had 9 kids, I worked the midnight shift so sleeping would have been an issue..


Serious question, why did you move before getting your housing situation locked down?
 
2014-04-16 12:59:45 PM  

bunner: techgeek07: Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.

I'll bet they even have refrigerators in their cars

[oklahomaoptions.files.wordpress.com image 500x402]
               What a vacationing middle class family might look like.



Is it bad that I looked at that picture and thought 'hey, even homeless women wear mom jeans'.
 
2014-04-16 12:59:46 PM  

p51d007: I'd like to know where the 99%ers get off telling the 1%ers how to live their lives?
Why to "the rich" have to help "the poor"?  Life is hard, life has choices.  If you are
STUPID, a criminal, drug addict, etc, why is it the responsibility of someone else, to
take care of you?  In nature, the strong survive.  If government would get out of the
way and not punish religious organizations, perhaps we could put things back the
way they were 50 years ago and let THEM be the ones who were helping "the poor".
They could do that, instead of building monuments to themselves called megachurches!
Oh, we can't have RELIGIOUS people helping "the poor", it might turn them religious
and they wouldn't vote for idiots from the government to give them free stuff.
You know, when I was a kid, most "street people" were called BUMS.  Perhaps we'd be
all better off to stop calling them "homeless" and go back to calling most of them tramps
or bums!


If you read this in a Scrooge McDuck  voice, it's hilarious.
 
2014-04-16 12:59:51 PM  
I do understand the discomfort. I dislike being hastled for money by panhandlers as much as anyone.

So, I give to my local homeless shelters, food bank and charities, and I support policies that increase funding for shelter, job training and mental health services. If people are botherd by people on the street, they need to increase services to help people get off the street, not make laws against trying to survive.
 
2014-04-16 12:59:59 PM  

ScaryBottles: AverageAmericanGuy: nekom: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

So rather than solving the problem, let's just make sure we don't have to ever see it.

A homeless person is never really going to be able to afford an apartment in Silicon Valley, no matter how much the city hands out.

It's more humane to send them on to a lower rent area where they have an actual shot at getting off the street.
You know who else thought an unpopular minority should be relocated?



The US government?
 
2014-04-16 01:00:10 PM  
Them poor folks got it way too good, let's make it even harder for them to survive.  At least move them out of eyesight.
 
2014-04-16 01:00:22 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: nekom: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

So rather than solving the problem, let's just make sure we don't have to ever see it.

A homeless person is never really going to be able to afford an apartment in Silicon Valley, no matter how much the city hands out.

It's more humane to send them on to a lower rent area where they have an actual shot at getting off the street.


As someone who lived in Cupertino from 2010 to 2013, this is true.  It's expensive, and you need to have a job that really requires you being there.  It's not really a "fun" place to live, nor is it anywhere close to affordable.  The South Bay is really meant for business.
 
2014-04-16 01:00:23 PM  

Phonesecs: RumsfeldsReplacement: Why don't they just move their cars to a 24-hour Walmart?  Walmart parking lots are very accommodating of people sleeping in cars.

/I'm 100% serious, it's an option

Do you really think that one of the richest cities in the country is going to have a Walmart?


Yes.  There is one in Mountain View (next to Palo Alto)
 
2014-04-16 01:01:16 PM  

Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: They are talking about PhDs. Im my industry, PhDs are the least employable applicant.


No, not just PhDs.  STEM graduates at any level:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth #. UwkZ6DlYDPI.facebook
 
2014-04-16 01:01:29 PM  
Seriously, if you have a billion dollars, what is forking over a couple mill to assist people? The good PR helps your company and you should make that back in interest within the month.
 
2014-04-16 01:01:49 PM  

LandOfChocolate: Phonesecs: RumsfeldsReplacement: Why don't they just move their cars to a 24-hour Walmart?  Walmart parking lots are very accommodating of people sleeping in cars.

/I'm 100% serious, it's an option

Do you really think that one of the richest cities in the country is going to have a Walmart?

Yes.  There is one in Mountain View (next to Palo Alto)


One right in Milpitas too, and Sunnyvale I believe.
 
2014-04-16 01:02:01 PM  

LandOfChocolate: Kazahmish: You know, I remember I was once one of the people that used to look down at the homeless and say, why not get a job (that was to the ones that didn't look like they were short on brains) well.. Karma is cruel sometimes, I moved out to San Jose, CA with my friend and because of my bad credit I couldn't move in, so I ended up being homeless, and to make it worse, I was working for Motel 6 making 9.50 and hour 40 hours a week, but again, bad credit = no one will rent to you... sure you can get a ROOM for rent for 500 a month, but I couldn't speak any Spanish and they had 9 kids, I worked the midnight shift so sleeping would have been an issue..

Serious question, why did you move before getting your housing situation locked down?


Or, if you're going to work a $9.50/hr job, why not do it in a place with the lowest cost-of-living possible?  Make that money go as far as possible.
 
2014-04-16 01:02:07 PM  

wingedkat: I do understand the discomfort. I dislike being hastled for money by panhandlers as much as anyone.

So, I give to my local homeless shelters, food bank and charities, and I support policies that increase funding for shelter, job training and mental health services. If people are botherd by people on the street, they need to increase services to help people get off the street, not make laws against trying to survive.


It's pretty much a fact that MOST of the money taken in by charities ends up on the ledger as "administrative expenses".
 
2014-04-16 01:02:44 PM  

HelloNeuman: Go be poor somewhere else.

[www.wildwomanfundraising.com image 421x357]


img.fark.net
 
2014-04-16 01:03:16 PM  

bunner: wingedkat: I do understand the discomfort. I dislike being hastled for money by panhandlers as much as anyone.

So, I give to my local homeless shelters, food bank and charities, and I support policies that increase funding for shelter, job training and mental health services. If people are botherd by people on the street, they need to increase services to help people get off the street, not make laws against trying to survive.

It's pretty much a fact that MOST of the money taken in by charities ends up on the ledger as "administrative expenses".


Such as employing people to operate a homeless shelter.
 
2014-04-16 01:03:25 PM  

FizixJunkee: jwa007: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

You are missing a good teaching moment here.  You can use the homeless as examples of what happen if you pursue degrees in the liberal arts.   Scare the little womprats into STEM.


You know the U.S. already graduates more STEM graduates than we have jobs for, right?

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/inquiring-minds-ethan -p erlstein-postdocalypse?fb_action_ids=692395314158529&fb_action_types=o g.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

Quote:
"You've probably heard the claim that the United States needs to produce  morescientists, like Perlstein, to remain competitive with up-and-coming science powerhouses like India and China. It is a familiar litany whenever we hear laments about American science and its disturbing habit of resting on its laurels. But what you rarely hear in this argument is the fact that we don't have nearly enough jobs to put to work the scientists we currently have. "U.S. higher education produces far more science and engineering graduates annually than there are S&E job openings," writes Harvard researcher  , "the only disagreement is whether it is 100 percent or 200 percent more.""


CEOs understand supply and demand. They need STEM majors, so to keep the price low, they work hard to increase the supply. Encourage the smartest of the peasants to go into debt for the degrees. The non dischargeable debt makes them very pliant and eager for a job.

If the wages are still above what the CEO wants to pay, then he has Congress increase the H1B Visa quota. Those guys are contract slaves, and seeing them fill jobs keeps the locals from getting uppity at salary negotiations.
 
2014-04-16 01:03:57 PM  
 
2014-04-16 01:04:19 PM  
You would think those billionaires would understand the value homeless serve in keeping our society from rising up and killing them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpEBOavYqHQ    (some minor bad words)


www.kotzendes-einhorn.de
 
2014-04-16 01:05:25 PM  

probesport: Such as employing people to operate a homeless shelter.


Which will open just as soon as the working class gets off the dime and brings the charity's books up over and above "administrative expenses".  Give 'til it hurts.  Cause we ain't gonna.
 
2014-04-16 01:05:26 PM  

Private_Citizen: CEOs understand supply and demand. They need STEM majors, so to keep the price low, they work hard to increase the supply. Encourage the smartest of the peasants to go into debt for the degrees. The non dischargeable debt makes them very pliant and eager for a job.

If the wages are still above what the CEO wants to pay, then he has Congress increase the H1B Visa quota. Those guys are contract slaves, and seeing them fill jobs keeps the locals from getting uppity at salary negotiations.



You're absolutely right, which is why when the Dad upthread says, "See, kids, this is why you should study STEM. You don't want to end up homeless like this guy, do ya?" I get pissed off.
 
2014-04-16 01:06:13 PM  

OscarTamerz: Turn the key in the ignition and go someplace you can:

1. Get a job.  

2. Afford housing.


Housing is expensive here precisely because it's where the jobs are.  People drive in from cities two hours inland because there isn't enough work out there.  Unfortunately, the homes in those cities still aren't that cheap because they're all large.  Still much cheaper than in the Bay Area, but not easy to afford if you're starting from zero.
 
2014-04-16 01:06:16 PM  

Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.


Big words from a guy who lives in a barrel.
 
2014-04-16 01:06:49 PM  
"To be sure, people living in cars cannot be the best neighbors. Some people are able to acquire old and ugly - but still functioning - recreational vehicles with bathrooms; others do the best they can."

s4.postimg.org
 
2014-04-16 01:07:15 PM  

FizixJunkee: You know the U.S. already graduates more STEM graduates than we have jobs for, right?

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/inquiring-minds-ethan -p erlstein-postdocalypse?fb_action_ids=692395314158529&fb_action_types=o g.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

Quote:
"You've probably heard the claim that the United States needs to produce  morescientists, like Perlstein, to remain competitive with up-and-coming science powerhouses like India and China. It is a familiar litany whenever we hear laments about American science and its disturbing habit of resting on its laurels. But what you rarely hear in this argument is the fact that we don't have nearly enough jobs to put to work the scientists we currently have. "U.S. higher education produces far more science and engineering graduates annually than there are S&E job openings," writes Harvard researcher  , "the only disagreement is whether it is 100 percent or 200 percent more.""


They are talking about PhD's going into Academia. The article even says those 80% that leave academia find jobs elsewhere with only a few remaining unemployed. Judging by the number of applicants I get when I try to hire engineers I would have to agree that we could use a lot more engineers.
 
2014-04-16 01:07:40 PM  

nekom: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

So rather than solving the problem, let's just make sure we don't have to ever see it.


What do you mean?  The problem is that we can see, and hear, and smell the homeless.

Removing them fixes the problem.

I mean, sure, I guess the larger problem is that they exist in the first place, but, I mean, we can't just kill them all! Even though we want to, that wouldn't be moral.
 
2014-04-16 01:08:13 PM  

Dr Dreidel: I'm pretty sure even McDonalds has a 'underwear goes inside the pants' policy."


Yeah, those guys are farking Nazis about it too.
 
2014-04-16 01:08:18 PM  

KidneyStone: RumsfeldsReplacement: Why don't they just move their cars to a 24-hour Walmart? Walmart parking lots are very accommodating of people sleeping in cars.

/I'm 100% serious, it's an option

This.


Maybe that depends from place to place, or maybe they've loosened up in the past 9 or 10 years. I've had a cop wake me up and roust me out of a Walmart parking lot in the middle of the night before, even when I was parked out on the edge where they allowed RVs and campers. "Yeah, but you're not in an RV."
 
2014-04-16 01:09:23 PM  
i188.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-16 01:11:03 PM  
Homelessness is a serious problem and that's why I support certain social programs.

...What?  No I don't care about  those people, I just want social programs to keep them somewhere else so they don't directly ask me for spare change.  Eww, disgusting.

/sarcasm
//But if you helped these people, maybe you wouldn't see them on the streets?
///helping people improves everyones quality of life?  unpossible!!
 
2014-04-16 01:11:22 PM  

carlisimo: OscarTamerz: Turn the key in the ignition and go someplace you can:

1. Get a job.  

2. Afford housing.

Housing is expensive here precisely because it's where the jobs are.  People drive in from cities two hours inland because there isn't enough work out there.  Unfortunately, the homes in those cities still aren't that cheap because they're all large.  Still much cheaper than in the Bay Area, but not easy to afford if you're starting from zero.


we looked in SF and the pretty much all the cities in SV for a house and or condo, we ended up in half moon bay, it was slightly more affordable than every place within 50 miles or cupertino. waiting for Mountainview to be renamed GoogleVille.
 
2014-04-16 01:12:38 PM  

Headso: Keep pushing and the homeless will just do home invasions on these rich people and live there as long as they can stand the smell of the rotting corpses of the previous occupants.


Right.

If that didn't happen in 2009 when literally millions of people were losing their jobs, homes, life savings, and retirement prospects while the government bailed out the banks, airlines, and auto companies, it will never happen.

Americans are far too complacent.
 
2014-04-16 01:13:25 PM  

Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.


bullsheet.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-04-16 01:13:39 PM  
What a homeless person who sleepis in his car might look like.

img.fark.net
 
2014-04-16 01:13:53 PM  

ScaryBottles: You know who else thought an unpopular minority should be relocated?


Most caucasians in the U.S..  They called it Manifest Destiny.
 
2014-04-16 01:14:03 PM  

Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: FizixJunkee: jwa007: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

You are missing a good teaching moment here.  You can use the homeless as examples of what happen if you pursue degrees in the liberal arts.   Scare the little womprats into STEM.


You know the U.S. already graduates more STEM graduates than we have jobs for, right?

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/inquiring-minds-ethan -p erlstein-postdocalypse?fb_action_ids=692395314158529&fb_action_types=o g.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

Quote:
"You've probably heard the claim that the United States needs to produce  morescientists, like Perlstein, to remain competitive with up-and-coming science powerhouses like India and China. It is a familiar litany whenever we hear laments about American science and its disturbing habit of resting on its laurels. But what you rarely hear in this argument is the fact that we don't have nearly enough jobs to put to work the scientists we currently have. "U.S. higher education produces far more science and engineering graduates annually than there are S&E job openings," writes Harvard researcher  , "the only disagreement is whether it is 100 percent or 200 percent more.""

They are talking about PhDs. Im my industry, PhDs are the least employable applicant.


In what industry are the most highly educated individuals the least employable?
 
2014-04-16 01:14:54 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Dr Dreidel: I'm pretty sure even McDonalds has a 'underwear goes inside the pants' policy."

Yeah, those guys are farking Nazis about it too.


Someone's being a Lazy Boy...
 
2014-04-16 01:14:59 PM  

SphericalTime: In what industry are the most highly educated individuals the least employable?


img.groundspeak.com
 
2014-04-16 01:15:22 PM  
www.smbc-comics.com
 
2014-04-16 01:15:47 PM  
"We have, in this new, house of cards digital economy, made billions and billions of dollars with ostensibly free, dodgy services, things we get from China for about .002 on the dollar and lots of ads!"

"So now we can utilize all this capital to create and shape a vibrant, new America where there is true opportunity and access to a comfortable life?"


"No, you dipwad, we're gonna shove it up our asses and have pissing contests with our quarterly reports and buy egregiously expensive crap and set it on fire when we're bored."


"Sorry to hear."
 
2014-04-16 01:16:51 PM  
These people just don't want to keep their heads attached anymore do they? Because they are going to lose them soon if they keep this bullshiat up.
 
2014-04-16 01:16:54 PM  

PocketfullaSass: I park my old F-150 close to the sidewalk and always leave the doors unlocked. Nothing in it to steal, but I leave a travel pillow and a blanket folded up in case someone needs shelter. We don't have loads of homeless where I live, but there area few. Last week we had a cold snap and the blanket went missing. That's what it's there for. I'll replace it this weekend.


Well, you've had good luck... Left the side door unlocked on our van when I lived in Phx. Came out from work to find a homeless guy sleeping in it. He left me a nice puddle of vomit as a 'Thank You'.
 
2014-04-16 01:17:47 PM  
Homeless people are so analog.
 
2014-04-16 01:18:09 PM  
The 1% wants to ban sleeping in cars

So, rich people want it.

Across the United States, many local governments are responding to skyrocketing levels of inequality and the now decades-long crisis of homelessness among the very poor ... by passing laws making it a crime to sleep in a parked car.

The representatives of the People want it.

The largest of them is Los Angeles, the longtime unofficial "homeless capital of America", where lawyers are currently defending a similar vehicle-sleeping law before a skeptical federal appellate court.

Damned activist judges!
 
2014-04-16 01:19:30 PM  

PocketfullaSass: I park my old F-150 close to the sidewalk and always leave the doors unlocked. Nothing in it to steal, but I leave a travel pillow and a blanket folded up in case someone needs shelter. We don't have loads of homeless where I live, but there area few. Last week we had a cold snap and the blanket went missing. That's what it's there for. I'll replace it this weekend.


I was also hungry, so thanks for the gummybears in the glovebox.
 
2014-04-16 01:19:38 PM  

ScaryBottles: meat0918: Stay out of Eugene please.

Attempt no landing here, the goodwill has dried up, and the citizenry are tired of the homeless and the homeless advocates trying to get the city to lift the camping ban in public parks.

I feel for the homeless, and hope they can utilize the many public and private programs we have available to get back on their feet.  The chronic homeless, they have help available if they can actually decide to use it.  Not sure if that is possible for some of the ones with the really bad mental issues, but what can be done for them within the bounds of the law?

I'm actually for what Utah is doing being implemented in Oregon, but I doubt I'd have many supporters.
So I guess you missed the part of the article where they pointed out that the programs you're referring to are taxed far beyond their capacity already. In some cases trying to help 10 times the number of people they are equipped to.

Now do the one about the lazy homeless bum who makes $400 a day begging while you slave over the frier at McD's thats my favorite.


I want a solution beyond a place to sleep, is that too much to ask?

And yes, I'll pay more in taxes to support such a solution.
 
2014-04-16 01:21:13 PM  

purple kool-aid and a jigger of formaldehyde: These people just don't want to keep their heads attached anymore do they? Because they are going to lose them soon if they keep this bullshiat up.


Yes, yes, we know that poor people are dangerous and violent.  That's why prisons exist.

And that's why we want them to just go away!
 
2014-04-16 01:21:28 PM  

nekom: So rather than solving the problem, let's just make sure we don't have to ever see it.


The problem is that it isn't just one problem, making the solution considerably more challenging. I've got a solution, but it involves making me emperor for life.
 
2014-04-16 01:23:45 PM  

sendtodave: purple kool-aid and a jigger of formaldehyde: These people just don't want to keep their heads attached anymore do they? Because they are going to lose them soon if they keep this bullshiat up.

Yes, yes, we know that poor people are dangerous and violent.  That's why prisons exist.

And that's why we want them to just go away!


So prisons exist for the poor?  Huh.  While we're at it, define "away".
 
2014-04-16 01:23:48 PM  
homeless people are gross.  ever see the park in front of city hall in SF?  full of disgusting, dirty homeless people.  try just sitting down and enjoying the day with all those people.  we're talking hundreds.  one of the most successful cities in the world and it friggin looks like a dump.

/too poor for SF, move someplace where you won't be poor
//sam kinison was right, poor people are DUMB!!
 
2014-04-16 01:24:13 PM  
A new thing in my area the past few weeks is the gas-station scam where someone asks for a couple bucks for gas "...to get home" .  First woman I gave a dollar - I watched her drive off w/o putting gas in her car.

Happened again a few days ago except it was a man who said he needed it to get home with his kids in the car.  He got 45 cents.  He also drove off w/o getting gas - I couldn't see kids through the tinted windows.

CSBooboo
 
2014-04-16 01:24:42 PM  

AngryDragon: Headso: Keep pushing and the homeless will just do home invasions on these rich people and live there as long as they can stand the smell of the rotting corpses of the previous occupants.

Right.

If that didn't happen in 2009 when literally millions of people were losing their jobs, homes, life savings, and retirement prospects while the government bailed out the banks, airlines, and auto companies, it will never happen.

Americans are far too complacent.


....................and the wealthy and their supporters are too well armed. Just try living in Pelosi's house.
 
2014-04-16 01:25:00 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: I don't understand. Why don't these homeless people just sleep in their parents guest homes?


Fitting handle for you, Mr. Romney.
 
2014-04-16 01:25:01 PM  
Having lived in my car in Palo Alto, I'm obligated to post something here. My circumstance was slightly different... I was (am) gainfully employed, but found myself in a situation where I didn't have housing. It was a strange feeling being between places. I couch surfed a little bit, but I felt uncomfortable being in other people's good graces and thought to myself I could just tough it out while waiting on the new place. What are you gonna do? Rent a hotel/motel room for a month while waiting for your new place to open up? A month is a long time to live on someone else's couch. Plus, where I worked they had pretty amenable facilities (bathroom with shower).

But I still had to worry about where I parked my car as not to arouse suspicion.

I've lived in the Silicon Valley all my life, and barring the traffic and hipsters, I love the place and have no desire to leave. But it can be very hard to afford to live here. I make good enough money that if I only had myself to worry about, I could easily rent a small place and maybe save up for home ownership... oh nevermind. I'll never be able to afford a home here unless I start earning six figures. Like the rest of the middle class home shoppers, I'll have to look over the hills outside of the valley to get a home.

But our homeless. What to say about the homeless here? Some are aggressive panhandlers, even in residential neighborhoods. Some are just your typical stinky and hopeless downtrodden folk. Some are grifters working the freeway exits and then getting picked up at the day's end. But there definitely more people who got economic-downturned. It's becoming a thing. Living in your car is a way to climb back out... pinching the pennies to keep from losing everything. I could have lived in a motel and racked up some significant debt, hoping to dig my way back out of that. Or I could have sucked it up and just overstayed my welcome at friends' houses (doing what I could to mitigate any resentment... chores around the house, making myself as invisible as I could). I felt like this was a good and conscionable alternative. Now it appears I was just a dirty lawbreaker.

There's no one easy answer to homelessness. I know this. But I also know that Palo Alto is indeed filled with selfish douchebag pricks who feel entitled instead of blessed. Money really does turn people into assholes.
 
2014-04-16 01:25:32 PM  

bunner: So prisons exist for the poor?


Isn't that self evident?

While we're at it, define "away".

Not near me.
 
2014-04-16 01:25:34 PM  

jshine: SphericalTime: In what industry are the most highly educated individuals the least employable?


So McDonalds is refusing to hire people that have passed their McDonalds university sessions?

Yeah, I get not hiring a physics Ph.D. for burger slinging makes sense, but what about at a physics thinktank?
 
2014-04-16 01:26:27 PM  

Private_Citizen: FizixJunkee: jwa007: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

You are missing a good teaching moment here.  You can use the homeless as examples of what happen if you pursue degrees in the liberal arts.   Scare the little womprats into STEM.


You know the U.S. already graduates more STEM graduates than we have jobs for, right?

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/inquiring-minds-ethan -p erlstein-postdocalypse?fb_action_ids=692395314158529&fb_action_types=o g.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

Quote:
"You've probably heard the claim that the United States needs to produce  morescientists, like Perlstein, to remain competitive with up-and-coming science powerhouses like India and China. It is a familiar litany whenever we hear laments about American science and its disturbing habit of resting on its laurels. But what you rarely hear in this argument is the fact that we don't have nearly enough jobs to put to work the scientists we currently have. "U.S. higher education produces far more science and engineering graduates annually than there are S&E job openings," writes Harvard researcher  , "the only disagreement is whether it is 100 percent or 200 percent more.""

CEOs understand supply and demand. They need STEM majors, so to keep the price low, they work hard to increase the supply. Encourage the smartest of the peasants to go into debt for the degrees. The non dischargeable debt makes them very pliant and eager for a job.

If the wages are still above what the CEO wants to pay, then he has Congress increase the H1B Visa quota. Those guys are contract slaves, and seeing them fill jobs keeps the locals from getting uppity at salary negotiations.


He also colludes with his peers at the rest of the major tech employers to keep wages for those skills artificially low.
 
2014-04-16 01:26:31 PM  

Ex-Texan: I see a lot of commercials for local homeless shelters,



encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com


/bullshiat
 
2014-04-16 01:26:39 PM  
FTA: Nationally, 90% of Democrats (and 45% of Republicans) believe the government should act to reduce the rich-poor gap.

Well I'm no farking Republican, and they certainly didn't ask my opinion.

I think it's far more likely that this article is full of shiat, than that I am one of an exceedingly small minority of Democrats.

Just because I support an increase in the minimum wage doesn't mean I think there should be a limit on what you can pay top-earners.

This is probably just more evidence that all polls can be interpreted to say pretty much whatever fits your agenda.
 
2014-04-16 01:26:41 PM  
It's not people living in the cars that is a problem, nor is it the cars, it's the wasted resources that a true fiefdom needs that is a problem. For example, I have several peasants residing in a few various American made automobiles, and I have assigned to them each, a small plot of land (parts of the east acreage adjacent to those nouveau riche neighbors) and they are expected to tend to it, and pay me a sum that is based on the per-existing taxes on that land. in return, I ensure that they will not be attacked by mercenaries (other than my own hirelings). In the long term, I will certainly sire more bastards and eventually, they will establish dominance over the serfs accordingly, and then by proxy will continue to maintain my will upon them as their overlord. There's no sense at all being upset about "homeless" living in "cars" if one sets out to make a positive change.
 
2014-04-16 01:26:46 PM  
"Are there no prisons?  And the workhouses?  Are they still in operation?"
 
2014-04-16 01:27:44 PM  
Sadly, this is probably more helpful than any current program.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6fkyf9UGAE

Poverty is an imbedded structural feature of our current system. It's not a negative side-effect, it's a direct consequence of how the system and law is structured. It's like saying 200 years ago "Slavery bad? I treat my slaves very well, and give them extra food, so you see there is no problem."

You might argue if it's intentional or not, but look at history and tell me when and where society hasn't been like a pyramid, all the wealth and resources in the hands of few and the rest at the bottom.

So please tell me why I'm wrong, or please explain to me (cause I'm stupid) why things have to be this way, and we can't structurally get rid of this.
 
2014-04-16 01:27:54 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: A new thing in my area the past few weeks is the gas-station scam where someone asks for a couple bucks for gas "...to get home" .  First woman I gave a dollar - I watched her drive off w/o putting gas in her car.

Happened again a few days ago except it was a man who said he needed it to get home with his kids in the car.  He got 45 cents.  He also drove off w/o getting gas - I couldn't see kids through the tinted windows.

CSBooboo


Here the scam is that they were evicted from their apartment and need money for a hotel room.  It is the same story from different people that seem to rotate through the same parking lots.

Before that I got a lot of "My car broke down and I don't have any cash and I'm hungry."  It never failed that when I offered to buy them something to eat they would just ask me if they could have the money.
 
2014-04-16 01:28:10 PM  
Those poor billionaires, how do they even get out of bed and face the world baffles me.
 
2014-04-16 01:28:11 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: A new thing in my area the past few weeks is the gas-station scam where someone asks for a couple bucks for gas "...to get home" .  First woman I gave a dollar - I watched her drive off w/o putting gas in her car.

Happened again a few days ago except it was a man who said he needed it to get home with his kids in the car.  He got 45 cents.  He also drove off w/o getting gas - I couldn't see kids through the tinted windows.

CSBooboo



Its a new thing because YOU just saw it, twice.


/We live in a narcissistic society
 
2014-04-16 01:28:35 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: A new thing in my area the past few weeks is the gas-station scam where someone asks for a couple bucks for gas "...to get home" .  First woman I gave a dollar - I watched her drive off w/o putting gas in her car.

Happened again a few days ago except it was a man who said he needed it to get home with his kids in the car.  He got 45 cents.  He also drove off w/o getting gas - I couldn't see kids through the tinted windows.

CSBooboo


There's always been moochers and con artists.  I usually give them a couple of bucks and explain that the BS story doesn't interest me.  The again, it's not like they DON'T need the money, usually.  I mean, apparently, the Walton family has to take in at least 30,000,000.00 a day just to make ends meet and I don't see anybody feeling like a sucker walking out of there with some crappy dish detergent, stuff that takes half a bottle to make any suds, for 1.99, all while making filthy rich people filthy richer.  Now there's a scam.
 
2014-04-16 01:29:10 PM  

SphericalTime: Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: FizixJunkee: jwa007: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

You are missing a good teaching moment here.  You can use the homeless as examples of what happen if you pursue degrees in the liberal arts.   Scare the little womprats into STEM.


You know the U.S. already graduates more STEM graduates than we have jobs for, right?

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/inquiring-minds-ethan -p erlstein-postdocalypse?fb_action_ids=692395314158529&fb_action_types=o g.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

Quote:
"You've probably heard the claim that the United States needs to produce  morescientists, like Perlstein, to remain competitive with up-and-coming science powerhouses like India and China. It is a familiar litany whenever we hear laments about American science and its disturbing habit of resting on its laurels. But what you rarely hear in this argument is the fact that we don't have nearly enough jobs to put to work the scientists we currently have. "U.S. higher education produces far more science and engineering graduates annually than there are S&E job openings," writes Harvard researcher  , "the only disagreement is whether it is 100 percent or 200 percent more.""

They are talking about PhDs. Im my industry, PhDs are the least employable applicant.

In what industry are the most highly educated individuals the least employable?


Geologic related industries. Specifically mineral exploration.
 
2014-04-16 01:30:40 PM  

Ex-Texan: I see a lot of commercials for local homeless shelters, that's no always a bad thing. But there are those use the system, not as a temporary crutch, but have adopted it largely as a supplement to whatever they have that qualifies as a lifestyle.
My wife and I went on a vacation to the Bay area a couple years back, and, speaking from experience, the area was rife with panhandlers. Even when waiting for a bus, they'd come up to you, asking for a handout, and many were not homeless, they just spotted us as tourists, and wanted some additional cash. The homeless infrastructure is quite well built, and while ai do laud them for helping people in hard times, you do have a lot of "users."plus, ythe support leads to dependency  for many.
Just like that episode of "South Park", where the homeless converge on the tow, and ultimately driven in a Pied Piper  fashion, to California.
Even in the Summer, one year in Phoenix was horrible with the homeless. You'd think the high temperatures would kill them off, but no.


well seeing that you visited San Francisco once, clearly you're the expert on the cities homeless and their infrastructure.
 
2014-04-16 01:31:16 PM  

LeroyBourne: Those poor billionaires, how do they even get out of bed and face the world baffles me.


If you make billions in Silicon Valley, you probably don't sleep very often in the first place.
 
2014-04-16 01:31:35 PM  

DoctorCal: PocketfullaSass: I park my old F-150 close to the sidewalk and always leave the doors unlocked. Nothing in it to steal, but I leave a travel pillow and a blanket folded up in case someone needs shelter. We don't have loads of homeless where I live, but there area few. Last week we had a cold snap and the blanket went missing. That's what it's there for. I'll replace it this weekend.

I was also hungry, so thanks for the gummybears in the glovebox.


...would be 5 lbs of sugar-free gummy bears if found in my glovebox.
 
2014-04-16 01:32:28 PM  

sendtodave: bunner:


While we're at it, define "away".


Not near me.


1.bp.blogspot.com

Good luck with that.
 
2014-04-16 01:33:22 PM  

Pangea: Well I'm no farking Republican, and they certainly didn't ask my opinion.


Congratulations, you don't understand statistics and polling.  Do you have any other lack-of-insights to share?

And I can't blame people for not wanting your opinion.
 
2014-04-16 01:33:45 PM  

JudgeSmails: Ex-Texan: I see a lot of commercials for local homeless shelters, that's no always a bad thing. But there are those use the system, not as a temporary crutch, but have adopted it largely as a supplement to whatever they have that qualifies as a lifestyle.
My wife and I went on a vacation to the Bay area a couple years back, and, speaking from experience, the area was rife with panhandlers. Even when waiting for a bus, they'd come up to you, asking for a handout, and many were not homeless, they just spotted us as tourists, and wanted some additional cash. The homeless infrastructure is quite well built, and while ai do laud them for helping people in hard times, you do have a lot of "users."plus, ythe support leads to dependency  for many.
Just like that episode of "South Park", where the homeless converge on the tow, and ultimately driven in a Pied Piper  fashion, to California.
Even in the Summer, one year in Phoenix was horrible with the homeless. You'd think the high temperatures would kill them off, but no.

well seeing that you visited San Francisco once, clearly you're the expert on the cities homeless and their infrastructure.



Speaking of San Francisco's homelessness problems, I'll just leave this here: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Human-waste-shuts-down-BART-esc a lators-3735981.php
 
2014-04-16 01:34:02 PM  

jshine: LeroyBourne: Those poor billionaires, how do they even get out of bed and face the world baffles me.

If you make billions in Silicon Valley, you probably don't sleep very often in the first place.


I wonder.  If each of the billionaires donated 1% of their wealth to helping address homelessness with some method other than relocating them, what would happen?
 
2014-04-16 01:34:49 PM  

bunner: sendtodave: bunner:


While we're at it, define "away".


Not near me.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x294]

Good luck with that.


Australia still has room.  Ship the undesirables there, like in the old days.

Or, just build more prisons, whatever.  That's where we keep our poor.  Out of sight, out of mind, and we can rightfully blame them for being there, so no liberal guilt!
 
2014-04-16 01:35:00 PM  

vartian: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

Well, we should certainly restrict the rights of other human beings so the children of others don't feel momentarily uncomfortable.


Well, we do it for absolutely everything else, so why not?
 
2014-04-16 01:35:16 PM  
A modest proposal: Let's relocate homeless people to the gated communities of the wealthy. A free 24 hour busing program should do the trick.
 
2014-04-16 01:37:00 PM  

patrick767: A modest proposal: Let's relocate homeless people to the gated communities of the wealthy. A free 24 hour busing program should do the trick.


Great idea!

We can arrest them for trespassing then!  And for resisting arrest, of course.
 
2014-04-16 01:37:08 PM  

Kazahmish: You know, I remember I was once one of the people that used to look down at the homeless and say, why not get a job (that was to the ones that didn't look like they were short on brains) well.. Karma is cruel sometimes, I moved out to San Jose, CA with my friend and because of my bad credit I couldn't move in, so I ended up being homeless, and to make it worse, I was working for Motel 6 making 9.50 and hour 40 hours a week, but again, bad credit = no one will rent to you... sure you can get a ROOM for rent for 500 a month, but I couldn't speak any Spanish and they had 9 kids, I worked the midnight shift so sleeping would have been an issue..

so while I was in the shelter I ran into many others that were in my situation.. I had a great job, but couldn't get a place.. so not all homeless are bums and drug addicts, drunks.. ect.. ok.. a LOT are.. but putting ALL homeless down is not right.. many slept on the 24 hour bus run.. they called it the mobile motel..  and there are just so many beds shelters can have, and guess what, it is first come first served in many of them.. but you have to be sober to get a bed at the Salvation Army one, they give the breath test before you even enter.  I now have a slightly different attitude towards the homeless.. and these "rich" idiots making these remarks.. Oh how I wish you NEVER end up homeless..



To me there is a difference between being homeless and a bum.  I hate a bum, I hate being begged for money...I hate the stories they make up and then tell me the next day because they don't remember that I walk by them everyday and have heard their story a hundred times now.  I remember as a kid my mother telling a few guys that if you come do mow the lawn or rake I'll pay you.  They all wanted paid up front and the few who actually showed up to do the job either left after barely starting, or got a meal before starting, said they were going out to work and then took off.

Before anyone jumps my case...I was homeless.  I slept in my car for about 4ish months.  I did not have the money to keep my place AND pay to finish college (I had been barely affording it the whole time).  So I did what I had to.  I went to school from 7am-5pm.  Worked from 5pm to midnightish...then drove to the school gym or a friends house to shower, then off to the parking lot of my first class to sleep a couple hours.

One of my best friends lived in shelter for along time too.  But he never asked for a handout.

We both did what was necessary to improve our situation.  What it has done for me was let me see just how little a person can get by on.  What I see as a luxury many see as a necessity (TV, fridge, AC).  But it makes me really appreciate what I have, where I am and the fact that I'm alive.  Those experiences have made my life a happier one.
 
2014-04-16 01:37:16 PM  

meat0918: I wonder.  If each of the billionaires donated 1% of their wealth to helping address homelessness with some method other than relocating them, what would happen?


They would demand the treasury reimburse them and Wall St. would be shut down for a week and senators would harrumph until they sh*t in their pants.
 
2014-04-16 01:37:26 PM  

meat0918: jshine: LeroyBourne: Those poor billionaires, how do they even get out of bed and face the world baffles me.

If you make billions in Silicon Valley, you probably don't sleep very often in the first place.

I wonder.  If each of the billionaires donated 1% of their wealth to helping address homelessness with some method other than relocating them, what would happen?


and they could down to second harvest and volunteer a few hours a week distributing food to the homeless and soon to be homeless, maybe they'd gain a bit of perspective, probably not but we can always use a few more hands on deck because like Silicon Valley, business is unfortunately good at the food bank.
 
2014-04-16 01:38:32 PM  

meat0918: jshine: LeroyBourne: Those poor billionaires, how do they even get out of bed and face the world baffles me.

If you make billions in Silicon Valley, you probably don't sleep very often in the first place.

I wonder.  If each of the billionaires donated 1% of their wealth to helping address homelessness with some method other than relocating them, what would happen?


Communism.
 
2014-04-16 01:39:41 PM  

meat0918: jshine: LeroyBourne: Those poor billionaires, how do they even get out of bed and face the world baffles me.

If you make billions in Silicon Valley, you probably don't sleep very often in the first place.

I wonder.  If each of the billionaires donated 1% of their wealth to helping address homelessness with some method other than relocating them, what would happen?


I'm not expert on the topic, but my guess would be:

1) Some fraction would be intractably homeless due to choice or mental illness; donations wouldn't change that
2) The rest might be able to get on their feet, but probably would still have to move -- Silicon Valley only has so many jobs that would be suitable for someone with no resume, education, or relevant experience, and you can't hand-hold everyone for years on-end.
3) You'd end up with a massive influx of homeless from other areas who see (2) and want a piece of the pie.  If you're homeless and reasonably intelligent, then moving where the free services & facilities are is a sensible thing to do.
 
2014-04-16 01:40:44 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: EdNortonsTwin: A new thing in my area the past few weeks is the gas-station scam where someone asks for a couple bucks for gas "...to get home" .  First woman I gave a dollar - I watched her drive off w/o putting gas in her car.

Happened again a few days ago except it was a man who said he needed it to get home with his kids in the car.  He got 45 cents.  He also drove off w/o getting gas - I couldn't see kids through the tinted windows.

CSBooboo


Its a new thing because YOU just saw it, twice.


/We live in a narcissistic society


What I do, even if it's not true, I just yell out "MAAAAN I just gave you $2 last night!"  There's a good chance they were trying that shiat in that very area the night before and they do it so much they forget your face.
 
2014-04-16 01:43:32 PM  
You might want to call these guys:

Anna G. Eshoo, whose 18th Congressional District is in the Heart of Silicon Valley
202-225-8104

Mike Honda, whose 17th Congressional District is at least partially in Palo Alto
202-225-2631

Maybe they can enlist Pelosi and Feinstein and put government to work for the little people.

/not leprechauns.
 
2014-04-16 01:43:39 PM  

meat0918: jshine: LeroyBourne: Those poor billionaires, how do they even get out of bed and face the world baffles me.

If you make billions in Silicon Valley, you probably don't sleep very often in the first place.

I wonder.  If each of the billionaires donated 1% of their wealth to helping address homelessness with some method other than relocating them, what would happen?


They would want 100% tax reimbursement and a children's hospital in their name, not stroke their ego, because they feel they should deserve it.
 
2014-04-16 01:43:50 PM  
Next up: a law banning people from sleeping on yachts
 
2014-04-16 01:44:54 PM  

meat0918: jshine: LeroyBourne: Those poor billionaires, how do they even get out of bed and face the world baffles me.

If you make billions in Silicon Valley, you probably don't sleep very often in the first place.

I wonder.  If each of the billionaires donated 1% of their wealth to helping address homelessness with some method other than relocating them, what would happen?


1%??? What is the ROI on that? If it's not at least 18%, you can forget it buddy.
 
2014-04-16 01:45:14 PM  

nekom: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

So rather than solving the problem, let's just make sure we don't have to ever see it.


Frankly, there is no "solving" it. I mean sure some people need a little temporary help, but everyone knows someone who, no matter what you do for them, will simply not be helped (yes it's because they have mental issue, are addicts, whatever).

Look, I'm not wasting any more time/money/effort on "cousin Ryan"... If he doesn't want to help himself and get clean, well the big middle finger he gives us every time we try to get him into rehab is the same thing he gets from me now.  I'm fine with "society" giving him the middle finger as well at this point. He'll be dead some day (soon?) and everyone will say "what a tortured soul", and they'll be right, but in death maybe he'll finally be at rest... personally, I think it's a solid 1-2% of the (any) population that just lives on the fringe and that's firmly where they are no matter what you might think will help them.
 
2014-04-16 01:46:02 PM  

Pangea: FTA: Nationally, 90% of Democrats (and 45% of Republicans) believe the government should act to reduce the rich-poor gap.

Well I'm no farking Republican, and they certainly didn't ask my opinion.

I think it's far more likely that this article is full of shiat, than that I am one of an exceedingly small minority of Democrats.


You are. Do a little research. Those particular numbers are from a Pew Research poll.  Plenty of similar sentiments about the US inequality gap can be found in other polls.
 
2014-04-16 01:46:13 PM  

jshine: meat0918: jshine: LeroyBourne: Those poor billionaires, how do they even get out of bed and face the world baffles me.

If you make billions in Silicon Valley, you probably don't sleep very often in the first place.

I wonder.  If each of the billionaires donated 1% of their wealth to helping address homelessness with some method other than relocating them, what would happen?

I'm not expert on the topic, but my guess would be:

1) Some fraction would be intractably homeless due to choice or mental illness; donations wouldn't change that
2) The rest might be able to get on their feet, but probably would still have to move -- Silicon Valley only has so many jobs that would be suitable for someone with no resume, education, or relevant experience, and you can't hand-hold everyone for years on-end.
3) You'd end up with a massive influx of homeless from other areas who see (2) and want a piece of the pie.  If you're homeless and reasonably intelligent, then moving where the free services & facilities are is a sensible thing to do.


That's easy enough to prevent.

Make it a federal program and as uniform as possible across the states.

You'd still have people go where it is warmer though.
 
2014-04-16 01:47:13 PM  
After reading the thread, it is obvious that the government needs to gather up the homeless and distribute them evenly amongst the HOAs in the city. Then the farkers in this thread will get the new neighbors they love so much, while the people who don't appreciate what they have to offer will no longer have to deal with them. Everybody wins!
 
2014-04-16 01:48:28 PM  

JudgeSmails: meat0918: jshine: LeroyBourne: Those poor billionaires, how do they even get out of bed and face the world baffles me.

If you make billions in Silicon Valley, you probably don't sleep very often in the first place.

I wonder.  If each of the billionaires donated 1% of their wealth to helping address homelessness with some method other than relocating them, what would happen?

and they could down to second harvest and volunteer a few hours a week distributing food to the homeless and soon to be homeless, maybe they'd gain a bit of perspective, probably not but we can always use a few more hands on deck because like Silicon Valley, business is unfortunately good at the food bank.


What a colossal waste of their valuable time.
 
2014-04-16 01:48:50 PM  
Well fark. Fark dumped my link.

Pew Research poll

Income inequality: 90% of Democrats want government action. 45% of Republicans do.
 
2014-04-16 01:49:50 PM  

meat0918: jshine: meat0918: jshine: LeroyBourne: Those poor billionaires, how do they even get out of bed and face the world baffles me.

If you make billions in Silicon Valley, you probably don't sleep very often in the first place.

I wonder.  If each of the billionaires donated 1% of their wealth to helping address homelessness with some method other than relocating them, what would happen?

I'm not expert on the topic, but my guess would be:

1) Some fraction would be intractably homeless due to choice or mental illness; donations wouldn't change that
2) The rest might be able to get on their feet, but probably would still have to move -- Silicon Valley only has so many jobs that would be suitable for someone with no resume, education, or relevant experience, and you can't hand-hold everyone for years on-end.
3) You'd end up with a massive influx of homeless from other areas who see (2) and want a piece of the pie.  If you're homeless and reasonably intelligent, then moving where the free services & facilities are is a sensible thing to do.

That's easy enough to prevent.

Make it a federal program and as uniform as possible across the states.

You'd still have people go where it is warmer though.



Indeed.  If you dumped enough money into it, you could improve the situation.  ...but without allowing for involuntary commitment or imprisonment, you'll never completely eliminate homelessness -- especially in warm climates where there's relatively little disincentive to being homeless.
 
2014-04-16 01:50:59 PM  

meat0918: And yes, I'll pay more in taxes to support such a solution.


They know you will. And they keep throwing taxpayer money at the problem. Spend a few days strolling around San Francisco to see how well that's succeeded in "solving" homelessness.
 
2014-04-16 01:51:07 PM  

patrick767: Well fark. Fark dumped my link.

Pew Research poll

Income inequality: 90% of Democrats want government action. 45% of Republicans do.


Liberal guilt, I'm telling ya.

Republicans hardly ever feel guilty about anything, even about things they directly cause.  But liberals?  They're worse than Catholics!
 
2014-04-16 01:52:53 PM  

BigNumber12: meat0918: And yes, I'll pay more in taxes to support such a solution.

They know you will. And they keep throwing taxpayer money at the problem. Spend a few days strolling around San Francisco to see how well that's succeeded in "solving" homelessness.


He's willing to pay more money to support a solution.

Not necessarily for a solution.

It's like giving more money to cancer research, even though there is no cure for cancer.  It's a feel-good waste.
 
2014-04-16 01:53:22 PM  

meat0918: Stay out of Eugene please.

Attempt no landing here, the goodwill has dried up, and the citizenry are tired of the homeless and the homeless advocates trying to get the city to lift the camping ban in public parks.

I feel for the homeless, and hope they can utilize the many public and private programs we have available to get back on their feet.  The chronic homeless, they have help available if they can actually decide to use it.  Not sure if that is possible for some of the ones with the really bad mental issues, but what can be done for them within the bounds of the law?

I'm actually for what Utah is doing being implemented in Oregon, but I doubt I'd have many supporters.


That's awesome.  How are they avoiding people moving to Utah to score free houses?

/Not that I actually expect you to know.
 
2014-04-16 01:53:49 PM  
Damn I have 2 parking spaces at my place and only use one. I should rent out the other to a homeless person for $20 a month.
 
2014-04-16 01:53:57 PM  
Many rich people get involved by starting a 170(b)(1)(a)(vi) charitable organization with a lofty sounding do-good name and nominating themselves to executive positions.
 
2014-04-16 01:54:20 PM  

Felgraf: jwa007: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

You are missing a good teaching moment here.  You can use the homeless as examples of what happen if you pursue degrees in the liberal arts.  Scare the little womprats into STEM.

Which won't be much help if we keep importing people who can be pressured to accept artificially low wages since their visa is tied to their employment (Which is BS, since it gives an employer INSANE extra leverage that they do not have over an american citizen).


Yeah.

Look, The H1-B guys don't make low enough salaries to the point where it affects your salary to the point where you can't afford rent.  [Insert usual "rent is stupid, taxes are stupid, rent pushes you into such high tax brackets where rent + taxes on income needed to pay rent is more than my parent's combined income" rant here].  You can't do a whole lot ELSE because the rent is too damn high, but the H1-B's are not the main problem anyways.  And besides, I'd much rather that Ragesh be sitting in Cupertino pulling in $60K than in Mumbai pulling in $20K.  Makes it way easier for me to ask for $100K plus signing bonus plus stock.

Despite being in Silicon Valley with the crazy H1-B guys, there's a non-zero chance that I'm a member of the 1% for the next 4 years.  In my early 20's.  (And the land of million-dollar townhouses.  Adjust actual things that you can buy with that money downwards by about 5).  Yeah, I'm not worried.

And the CEO of our company that put me into the 1% was one of those H1-B's.  Yes, bring them here.  Skim India and Brain Drain FTW.

/And since programmers make more than the median wage, H1-B's improve income equality.
//And of course, given that immigrants lower wages, why exactly is the Left so pro-poor/unskilled-people-immigration?
 
2014-04-16 01:54:48 PM  

sendtodave: BigNumber12: meat0918: And yes, I'll pay more in taxes to support such a solution.

They know you will. And they keep throwing taxpayer money at the problem. Spend a few days strolling around San Francisco to see how well that's succeeded in "solving" homelessness.

He's willing to pay more money to support a solution.

Not necessarily for a solution.

It's like giving more money to cancer research, even though there is no cure for cancer.  It's a feel-good waste.


Did you just call cancer research a waste? I can't tell anymore where derp ends and Poe begins.
 
2014-04-16 01:54:50 PM  

sendtodave: BigNumber12: meat0918: And yes, I'll pay more in taxes to support such a solution.

They know you will. And they keep throwing taxpayer money at the problem. Spend a few days strolling around San Francisco to see how well that's succeeded in "solving" homelessness.

He's willing to pay more money to support a solution.

Not necessarily for a solution.

It's like giving more money to cancer research, even though there is no cure for cancer.  It's a feel-good waste.



Actually, outcomes for many cancers have dramatically improved over the years.  In many cases, it is curable now, whereas the same cancer might have been invariably fatal in prior decades.  Cancer research is hardly a waste.
 
2014-04-16 01:55:35 PM  
I just don't understand people, either I'm really stupid, crazy, or both, because to me when people talk about poverty and what they do it sounds to me like this if it were 200 years ago:

-Give money to WSLF, Whip Slaves Less Foundation, where we believe that slaves shouldn't be whipped more than once a week. If you believe in our cause please send us money where a small portion of it will be used to write a strongly worded letter to our representatives in Washington.

-With just as little as a penny a day you too can be the proud sponsor of a hungry slave in South Carolina, be assured that you will receive a letter with a sketch of your sponsored slave. Your money will go towards food, and if you're really generous we might be able to arrange for you to send them your old shoes.

-We asked 100 people if they would help a slave. A staggering 68% said they would, we clearly see that people are concerned about other less fortunately. We also asked them if you think the government should get involved in this issue, unsurprisingly only 18% said yes.
 
2014-04-16 01:56:17 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: I can't tell anymore where derp ends and Poe begins.


Then my job is done here.
 
2014-04-16 01:56:22 PM  

ikanreed: Pangea: Well I'm no farking Republican, and they certainly didn't ask my opinion.

Congratulations, you don't understand statistics and polling.  Do you have any other lack-of-insights to share?

And I can't blame people for not wanting your opinion.


Bullshiat.  There are pretty much no people I know who think the government should enact tighter controls over the salaries that companies can offer.Do you honestly think 90% of Democrats want that?

You might want it, but you're one of the most consistently bleeding-heart posters on this site.

Raising the minimum wage is an innocuous thing on the surface and only 80% of Democrats support it in this poll:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/public-sees-role-for- go vernment-in-reducing-wealth-inequality/2013/12/17/cf10d708-6785-11e3-8 b5b-a77187b716a3_graphic.html

Only a moron could see that number and assume MORE people support government controls to reduce wealth inequality.
 
2014-04-16 01:56:48 PM  

pippi longstocking: Sadly, this is probably more helpful than any current program.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6fkyf9UGAE

Poverty is an imbedded structural feature of our current system. It's not a negative side-effect, it's a direct consequence of how the system and law is structured. It's like saying 200 years ago "Slavery bad? I treat my slaves very well, and give them extra food, so you see there is no problem."

You might argue if it's intentional or not, but look at history and tell me when and where society hasn't been like a pyramid, all the wealth and resources in the hands of few and the rest at the bottom.

So please tell me why I'm wrong, or please explain to me (cause I'm stupid) why things have to be this way, and we can't structurally get rid of this.


I can explain. Things have to be this way, and we can't structurally get rid of this, because society is composed of humans. Legislate against the laws of nature all you want. You would have just as much success if you attempted to ban gravity.
 
2014-04-16 01:56:49 PM  

Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: SphericalTime: Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: FizixJunkee: jwa007: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

You are missing a good teaching moment here.  You can use the homeless as examples of what happen if you pursue degrees in the liberal arts.   Scare the little womprats into STEM.


You know the U.S. already graduates more STEM graduates than we have jobs for, right?

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/inquiring-minds-ethan -p erlstein-postdocalypse?fb_action_ids=692395314158529&fb_action_types=o g.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

Quote:
"You've probably heard the claim that the United States needs to produce  morescientists, like Perlstein, to remain competitive with up-and-coming science powerhouses like India and China. It is a familiar litany whenever we hear laments about American science and its disturbing habit of resting on its laurels. But what you rarely hear in this argument is the fact that we don't have nearly enough jobs to put to work the scientists we currently have. "U.S. higher education produces far more science and engineering graduates annually than there are S&E job openings," writes Harvard researcher  , "the only disagreement is whether it is 100 percent or 200 percent more.""

They are talking about PhDs. Im my industry, PhDs are the least employable applicant.

In what industry are the most highly educated individuals the least employable?

Geologic related industries. Specifically mineral exploration.


Would you be willing to explain why?
 
2014-04-16 01:57:04 PM  

p51d007: I'd like to know where the 99%ers get off telling the 1%ers how to live their lives?
Why to "the rich" have to help "the poor"?  Life is hard, life has choices.  If you are
STUPID, a criminal, drug addict, etc, why is it the responsibility of someone else, to
take care of you?  In nature, the strong survive.  If government would get out of the
way and not punish religious organizations, perhaps we could put things back the
way they were 50 years ago and let THEM be the ones who were helping "the poor".
They could do that, instead of building monuments to themselves called megachurches!
Oh, we can't have RELIGIOUS people helping "the poor", it might turn them religious
and they wouldn't vote for idiots from the government to give them free stuff.
You know, when I was a kid, most "street people" were called BUMS.  Perhaps we'd be
all better off to stop calling them "homeless" and go back to calling most of them tramps
or bums!


HURUHURDUDUERUDURDRRRRRR! I HAZ A THOUGHTZ TOO GUYZ!!!
I'm pregnant Your attempt was bad, and you should feel bad
 
2014-04-16 01:57:36 PM  

Dr Dreidel: AverageAmericanGuy: nekom: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

So rather than solving the problem, let's just make sure we don't have to ever see it.

A homeless person is never really going to be able to afford an apartment in Silicon Valley, no matter how much the city hands out.

It's more humane to send them on to a lower rent area where they have an actual shot at getting off the street.

"I was walking behind this guy on the street; homeless dude comes up and asks him for some money. The guy goes, 'Why'ntcha get a job ya BUM?!' People always say that to homeless guys like it's so easy. This homeless guy was wearing his underwear outside his pants. OUTSIDE his pants. I'm guessing his resume ain't all up-to-date. I'm predicting some problems during the interview process. I'm pretty sure even McDonalds has a 'underwear goes inside the pants' policy."

// "Not that they enforce it really strictly, but technically, I'm sure it's on the books."


 A lot of homeless people also suffer from mental health issues; he was probably one of them.
 
2014-04-16 01:57:41 PM  

Calamityfox: You would think those billionaires would understand the value homeless serve in keeping our society from rising up and killing them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpEBOavYqHQ    (some minor bad words)


[www.kotzendes-einhorn.de image 850x531]


Won't happen.  I have it on good authority that millions of gun owners could never hope to revolt against the government because it has jets, tanks, nukes, etc.
I also understand that the rich own the government.

What chance could poor people have against armed rich people and the government they supposedly own?
 
2014-04-16 01:58:09 PM  
Hobo doing it wrong.
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-04-16 01:58:33 PM  

Pangea: Raising the minimum wage is an innocuous thing on the surface and only 80% of Democrats support it in this poll


20% of Democrats are not true Democrats.
 
2014-04-16 01:59:36 PM  

patrick767: Well fark. Fark dumped my link.

Pew Research poll

Income inequality: 90% of Democrats want government action. 45% of Republicans do.


It's still misleading wording. Hence my initial complaint about polling.

If you ask me whether I support an increase in the minimum wage I'd say yes.

That can only be translated into "supporting government action to reduce income inequality" if you also freeze the wages on the top end. Ask THAT question and see if you get 90% support.
 
2014-04-16 01:59:53 PM  

sendtodave: BigNumber12: meat0918: And yes, I'll pay more in taxes to support such a solution.

They know you will. And they keep throwing taxpayer money at the problem. Spend a few days strolling around San Francisco to see how well that's succeeded in "solving" homelessness.

He's willing to pay more money to support a solution.

Not necessarily for a solution.

It's like giving more money to cancer research, even though there is no cure for cancer.  It's a feel-good waste.


Um, cancer research is actually advancing. But there will always be a certain percentage of the public that will be homeless, either due to choice or disability. And the nicer you make the living conditions by throwing money at the situation, the higher that "choice" percentage is going to be.
 
2014-04-16 02:01:36 PM  

sendtodave: Pangea: Raising the minimum wage is an innocuous thing on the surface and only 80% of Democrats support it in this poll

20% of Democrats are not true Democrats.


97% of all statistics are complete bullshiat.
 
2014-04-16 02:03:07 PM  
There are a lot of homeless shelters with empty rooms every night.

The reason? You have to be sober to use them.

If getting high is more important than a roof over your head that's your choice. But I don't want you sleeping in my dumpster.
 
2014-04-16 02:03:48 PM  
Oh, city don't cry
Oh, city don't cry

Is all your virgin truth turned to lies?
Are all your dreams of freedom monolith?
Is all your peace and justice so much myth?
Oh, city don't cry

Na na, na na, na na, na
Na na, na na, na na, na
Na na, na na, na na, na

Oh, city don't weep
Oh, city don't weep

For even brother Satan has to sleep
And all your tragic idols rest in peace
And beautiful believers, their quiet council keep
So, oh, city don't weep

Na na, na na, na na, na
Na na, na na, na na, na
Na na, na na, na na, na
 
2014-04-16 02:05:02 PM  

umad: You would have just as much success if you attempted to ban gravity.


Just wait until I speak with my elected officials.  Gravity has been allowed to run rampant in this society long enough!
 
2014-04-16 02:05:30 PM  

umad: I can explain. Things have to be this way, and we can't structurally get rid of this, because society is composed of humans. Legislate against the laws of nature all you want. You would have just as much success if you attempted to ban gravity.


I thought as humans we were able to transcend our nature. You're saying no, so I suggest we all go around raping every woman you like, kill whoever looks at you funny, take what you want, and defecate wherever nature calls.
 
2014-04-16 02:06:17 PM  
There's sure a lot of "Hating the rich" on FARK. Well that's one thing I don't have to worry about.

/I'm poor
 
2014-04-16 02:06:33 PM  

armor helix: There are a lot of homeless shelters with empty rooms every night.

The reason? You have to be sober to use them.

If getting high is more important than a roof over your head that's your choice. But I don't want you sleeping in my dumpster.


So your brilliant solution to widespread homelessness caused by addiction is....NIMBY. Why did you even bother posting?
 
2014-04-16 02:10:04 PM  

armor helix: There are a lot of homeless shelters with empty rooms every night.

The reason? You have to be sober to use them.

If getting high is more important than a roof over your head that's your choice. But I don't want you sleeping in my dumpster.


One time my sister tried to give a hobo her left over Chinese food as her and her bf were walking home.  The guy had the balls to say, 'fark that, give me money'  He got nothing.
 
2014-04-16 02:10:49 PM  

armor helix: There are a lot of homeless shelters with empty rooms every night.

The reason? You have to be sober to use them.

If getting high is more important than a roof over your head that's your choice. But I don't want you sleeping in my dumpster.


This.

There are also places that won't take people who are violent, disruptive, etc., come and go at late hours, etc.
 
2014-04-16 02:11:40 PM  

armor helix: There are a lot of homeless shelters with empty rooms every night.

The reason? You have to be sober to use them.

If getting high is more important than a roof over your head that's your choice. But I don't want you sleeping in my dumpster.


That's like providing free nachos for the hungry but not allowing those who test positive for marijuana to have any. As I understand it, getting high is really all you have left to do once you're suffering through life in the weather, no creature comforts and all... so you can't judge if you don't really know.
 
2014-04-16 02:12:10 PM  
   I would like to suggest that anyone who is that upset about the homeless, instead of expecting "the government" to do something about the problem, "adopt" a homeless person or family and get personal. Instead of buying Starbucks every morning, buy your adopted homeless person a breakfast. See that they get 3 meals a day; it doesn't have to be expensive; as you cook your dinner, fix an extra portion for your adoptee. See that they have decent, climate-appropriate clothes (thrift stores and Goodwill sell very nice clothes cheap). if they have no shelter, buy them a decent used tent. These actions would make a greater difference (in your life and theirs) than sitting back and complaining that "someone should do something about it".
   The homeless will always be a problem that cannot be solved as many are mentally ill/drug addicted or just do not wish to follow the rules of society/shelters.

/50 years of throwing money at poverty has not solved it and, in many cases, it took away incentives from the poor to better themselves
 
2014-04-16 02:13:08 PM  

meat0918: jshine: LeroyBourne: Those poor billionaires, how do they even get out of bed and face the world baffles me.

If you make billions in Silicon Valley, you probably don't sleep very often in the first place.

I wonder.  If each of the billionaires donated 1% of their wealth to helping address homelessness with some method other than relocating them, what would happen?


The billionaires would by 1% less rich.  Offering the homeless the same good advice and educational opportunities they already spent their entire lives turning away from, in most cases, isn't going to change many of them.  Remember the wonderful story about the homeless guy with the awesome radio voice?  When I become homeless you can bet it was my fault.  Despite my ability to do so, I have not saved adequately to protect myself from any kind of prolonged down-turn in my life.  Have you?  Most people don't.  If you don't have a $100,000 in the bank, but you've got a car payment because you felt you deserved a new car that your bank account said you didn't earn and you go out to eat every day like I do, STFU about rich people, blacks, whites, men, women, Republicans, Democrats, the tea party or gays being the source of your problems.  I don't have a hard time accepting that my own decisions are responsible for my relative lack of wealth and assets.  I don't know why more people can't accept the same.  We are all basically where we worked to be.  Yeah, there are a few hard luck cases just as there are some lucky winners, but 90% of people live in the circumstances they created.  (I got that number scientifically, out of my butt)
 
2014-04-16 02:13:13 PM  

SphericalTime: Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: SphericalTime: Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: FizixJunkee: jwa007: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

You are missing a good teaching moment here.  You can use the homeless as examples of what happen if you pursue degrees in the liberal arts.   Scare the little womprats into STEM.


You know the U.S. already graduates more STEM graduates than we have jobs for, right?

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/inquiring-minds-ethan -p erlstein-postdocalypse?fb_action_ids=692395314158529&fb_action_types=o g.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

Quote:
"You've probably heard the claim that the United States needs to produce  morescientists, like Perlstein, to remain competitive with up-and-coming science powerhouses like India and China. It is a familiar litany whenever we hear laments about American science and its disturbing habit of resting on its laurels. But what you rarely hear in this argument is the fact that we don't have nearly enough jobs to put to work the scientists we currently have. "U.S. higher education produces far more science and engineering graduates annually than there are S&E job openings," writes Harvard researcher  , "the only disagreement is whether it is 100 percent or 200 percent more.""

They are talking about PhDs. Im my industry, PhDs are the least employable applicant.

In what industry are the most highly educated individuals the least employable?

Geologic related industries. Specifically mineral exploration.

Would you be willing to explain why?


Too academic and not business minded enough. Most positions dont require PhDs so why pay a premium? Plus ego issues.

There are PhDs, just not many. And they are usually managers of the technical side.
 
2014-04-16 02:14:07 PM  

Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.


Please tell me you aren't serious. I had a friend from HS who became homeless after getting out of the army. Before any of his friends knew about it, he'd been living in a piece of junk car he bought with his last $200 because he knew it would at least be shelter and he could lock the doors.  It wasn't exactly a nice or reliable car.
 
2014-04-16 02:14:32 PM  
As an aside, I always hear people complain that we treat our pets and/or animals in general better than the homeless, which when it's true is only because we can.  We can't just stop our car, pick up that homeless person and drop them off at the nearest shelter nor can we adopt them and integrate them into our household (nor would we want into nearly all cases).

Some people WON'T and some people CAN'T follow the rules at shelters, so they end up living on the streets and there isn't a lot we can do about it.  We (individually or as a society) can't just unilaterally institutionalize the ones who can't because they have rights and some will obviously have a problem, but be just on the other side of the legal line.

We have limited leeway in dealing with the ones who could live in a shelter or other housing if they would just follow the rules regarding hours to come and go, cleanliness, loudness, etc.

I wonder what percentage of people in ANY city would vote to ban sleeping in cars, parks, etc. if they had a choice.  I seriously doubt it would just be 1%erss

I'm also curious why people sleeping in their cars aren't being attacked by the left as freeloaders because they get police and fire protection without paying any property taxes.
 
2014-04-16 02:15:26 PM  

pippi longstocking: 1. There will always be unsympathetic douchebags, not the real case.
2. The "anti-homeless" laws being passed are pushed by people profiting from control, misery, and incarceration in a for-profit jail system, still can't believe this issue isn't even discussed especially when we hold the WORLD'S largest inmate population.
3. People are myopic cretins, NIMBY.


I'm sure StealthHippo and AverageAmericanGuy see themselves as completely reasonable folk.
 
2014-04-16 02:17:23 PM  

sendtodave: Pangea: Raising the minimum wage is an innocuous thing on the surface and only 80% of Democrats support it in this poll

20% of Democrats are not true Democrats.


I feel that number is a bit higher but I don't have any links to support it.
 
2014-04-16 02:19:20 PM  
If hobos have started camping in your back 40 - do this: Pour 20 pounds of sugar on the ground where they camp.

I'm pretty sure that those Silicon Valley ants will have a feast, and ensure that anyone sleeping on their food supply will be bitten, stung, harassed.

Now, where to find anteaters...
 
2014-04-16 02:19:40 PM  
If anybody truly thinks that fault or solutions lie within either of our two, make believe political parties, take a good hard look at what either of them has managed to accomplish to date.
 
2014-04-16 02:20:41 PM  

bunner: If anybody truly thinks that fault or solutions lie within either of our two, make believe political parties, take a good hard look at what either of them has managed to accomplish to date.


Well, Al Gore gave us the internet... so yay, Democrats?
 
2014-04-16 02:21:26 PM  

jshine: Silicon Valley only has so many jobs that would be suitable for someone with no resume, education, or relevant experience, and you can't hand-hold everyone for years on-end.


I lost my sympathy for long-term unemployed watching the heart-tugging pieces designed to do otherwise.

Some woman was at a job for 7 months, only to get unemployment insurance for more than 2 years. She was complaining that if they didn't reinstate her benefits, she would have to dip into her savings.

Another man was cut off after receiving unemployment for more than 2 years. He lamented that if he didn't get his benefits back, he might have to take a MENIAL JOB rather than one in his field.

I was laid off on more than one occasion and it farking sucked. I also immediately moved to the first city that I got a decent job offer from. Now my clothes are 2 years old, my car is 14 years old, and I put away 25% of my take home pay every month in order to be prepared for the eventuality that is likely to happen in this day and age.
 
2014-04-16 02:21:27 PM  

special20: If hobos have started camping in your back 40 - do this: Pour 20 pounds of sugar on the ground where they camp.

I'm pretty sure that those Silicon Valley ants will have a feast, and ensure that anyone sleeping on their food supply will be bitten, stung, harassed.

Now, where to find anteaters...


Doesn't this end with starving lions and Claymores full of Semtex?
 
2014-04-16 02:21:34 PM  
I thought California was good to the homeless.
 
2014-04-16 02:23:02 PM  

pedrop357: As an aside, I always hear people complain that we treat our pets and/or animals in general better than the homeless, which when it's true is only because we can.  We can't just stop our car, pick up that homeless person and drop them off at the nearest shelter nor can we adopt them and integrate them into our household (nor would we want into nearly all cases).

Some people WON'T and some people CAN'T follow the rules at shelters, so they end up living on the streets and there isn't a lot we can do about it.  We (individually or as a society) can't just unilaterally institutionalize the ones who can't because they have rights and some will obviously have a problem, but be just on the other side of the legal line.

We have limited leeway in dealing with the ones who could live in a shelter or other housing if they would just follow the rules regarding hours to come and go, cleanliness, loudness, etc.

I wonder what percentage of people in ANY city would vote to ban sleeping in cars, parks, etc. if they had a choice.  I seriously doubt it would just be 1%erss

I'm also curious why people sleeping in their cars aren't being attacked by the left as freeloaders because they get police and fire protection without paying any property taxes.


I'm glad you did not bring up spaying & neutering.
 
2014-04-16 02:23:05 PM  

armor helix: There are a lot of homeless shelters with empty rooms every night.

The reason? You have to be sober to use them.

If getting high is more important than a roof over your head that's your choice. But I don't want you sleeping in my dumpster.


Good thing people can't get addicted to those substances, or else what you said would sound heartless and cruel to people who find themselves caught up in a painful circle that many are unable to break free from.
 
2014-04-16 02:23:52 PM  

jigger: I thought California was good to the homeless.


There's only so many fruits and veggies you can pick with a baccalaureate.  Not to mention, try finding a Model T and a mattress for the roof
 
2014-04-16 02:23:56 PM  

Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.


BWAH HAH HAH.   $1.2 Million for a Frigging townhouse.  And they all sold for cash offers.

If you want to be middle-class, stay out of blue states.
If you want to be rich, move to a blue state and then get lucky.


/Hong Kong exodus FTFail.
 
2014-04-16 02:24:45 PM  

pippi longstocking: umad: I can explain. Things have to be this way, and we can't structurally get rid of this, because society is composed of humans. Legislate against the laws of nature all you want. You would have just as much success if you attempted to ban gravity.

I thought as humans we were able to transcend our nature. You're saying no, so I suggest we all go around raping every woman you like, kill whoever looks at you funny, take what you want, and defecate wherever nature calls.


You thought wrong. Individuals, maybe. The entire herd? Hell no. We are, and always will be stupid and selfish apes.
 
2014-04-16 02:24:57 PM  

Lee451: 50 years of throwing money at poverty has not solved it and, in many cases, it took away incentives from the poor to better themselves


You understand we've been "throwing money at the problem" for a hundred times that long (at least)?

So either we can throw up our hands and continue letting people live without regular living accommodations, or we can keep attacking the problem - and if you can suggest ways of helping homeless people that don't involve spending money, I think everyone in the world is all ears - using the only means available.

// and if you really can't see an appreciable difference between the homelessness of the 1950s and the homelessness of today - or the compounding problems both then and now - there's no point in discussing it further
 
2014-04-16 02:26:01 PM  

pedrop357: I'm also curious why people sleeping in their cars aren't being attacked by the left as freeloaders because they get police and fire protection without paying any property taxes.


Because you're the common clay of the new west?
 
2014-04-16 02:26:19 PM  

meyerkev: Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.

BWAH HAH HAH.   $1.2 Million for a Frigging townhouse.  And they all sold for cash offers.

If you want to be middle-class, stay out of blue states.
If you want to be rich, move to a blue state and then get lucky.

/Hong Kong exodus FTFail.


May want to revisit that map.
 
2014-04-16 02:26:23 PM  

special20: armor helix: There are a lot of homeless shelters with empty rooms every night.

The reason? You have to be sober to use them.

If getting high is more important than a roof over your head that's your choice. But I don't want you sleeping in my dumpster.

That's like providing free nachos for the hungry but not allowing those who test positive for marijuana to have any. As I understand it, getting high is really all you have left to do once you're suffering through life in the weather, no creature comforts and all... so you can't judge if you don't really know.


Not quite.  It's not 1:1, but people with serious alcohol/drug problems also tend to be huge problems in places like shelters.

ALSO, shelters or other facilities that allow people with drug problems to live there risk prosecution, license revocation, tax status changes, or civil seizure under crackhouse statutes.
 
2014-04-16 02:26:53 PM  

meyerkev: And of course, given that immigrants lower wages, why exactly is the Left so pro-poor/unskilled-people-immigration?


I don't know that the Left is "pro-poor-immigration" as much as they're "anti-treating-people-like-animals".

I don't think people should be working in the US if they are not legally allowed to do so. Their status allows employers to violate labor laws and standards, which affects the entire labor market. But I also don't think we should be shipping off some American kid's parents because they didn't fill out proper paperwork 20 years ago.

Putting them on the books and requiring employers to pay them accordingly would do a lot to reduce the downward pressure on wages, and would be a hell of a lot cheaper and humane than rounding them up and throwing them in prisons to await deportation.

The Right (and by "Right" I mean the US Chamber of Commerce and other Republican bankrollers) would rather maintain the status quo and continue to have an underclass of cheap, exploitable labor.
 
2014-04-16 02:27:32 PM  

umad: We are, and always will be stupid and selfish apes.


Social dominance theory argues that societies producing stable economic surplus contain three qualitatively distinct systems of group-based hierarchy: (1) an age system, in which adults have disproportionate social power over children; (2) a gender system, in which men have disproportionate social, political, and military power compared to women; and (3) an arbitrary-set system, in which groups constructed on ''arbitrary'' bases, that is, on bases not linked to the human life-cycle, have differential access to things of positive and negative social value. Arbitrary-set groups may be defined by social distinctions meaningfully related to power, such as (in various contexts) nationality, ''race'', ethnicity, class, estate, descent, religion, or clan. Parallel trimorphic structures (based on age, sex, and coalitions) are found in chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and baboons (Kawanaka, 1982, 1989; Nadler, 1988; Rowell, 1974; Strier, 1994). Such a social organisation may help primate societies transmit skills, knowledge, and ideas, while also transmitting roles and power.
 
2014-04-16 02:28:28 PM  

Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: Too academic and not business minded enough. Most positions dont require PhDs so why pay a premium? Plus ego issues.

There are PhDs, just not many. And they are usually managers of the technical side.


Only non-PHD at my company, but...

There's a (semi-deserved IMO) stereotype that the sort of person who's spent the last 5-10 years of their life getting a PHD is way too academic, and has no idea how to function in the real world.  Because they've been writing papers instead of doing internships.  So it's at best a mild gain, unless you can find a research position at a large company.

Sweet spot is a Master's IMO.

/There's also a known problem where 1 professor must generate more than 1 PHD Grad Student.  Since this growth rate is both faster than the population and the economy, it's therefore obvious that academia in it's current form is a massive Ponzi scheme, and that most PHD's will experience downwards mobility compared to the school where they got their PHD's from if they want to stay in academia.
//Which is why Cornell is the *worst* school that they have their PHD's from.
 
2014-04-16 02:28:42 PM  

The_Hairy_Gooch: p51d007: I'd like to know where the 99%ers get off telling the 1%ers how to live their lives?
Why to "the rich" have to help "the poor"?  Life is hard, life has choices.  If you are
STUPID, a criminal, drug addict, etc, why is it the responsibility of someone else, to
take care of you?  In nature, the strong survive.  If government would get out of the
way and not punish religious organizations, perhaps we could put things back the
way they were 50 years ago and let THEM be the ones who were helping "the poor".
They could do that, instead of building monuments to themselves called megachurches!
Oh, we can't have RELIGIOUS people helping "the poor", it might turn them religious
and they wouldn't vote for idiots from the government to give them free stuff.
You know, when I was a kid, most "street people" were called BUMS.  Perhaps we'd be
all better off to stop calling them "homeless" and go back to calling most of them tramps
or bums!

HURUHURDUDUERUDURDRRRRRR! I HAZ A THOUGHTZ TOO GUYZ!!!
I'm pregnant Your attempt was bad, and you should feel bad


so 0 / 10 is now I'm pregnant.... cool!
 
2014-04-16 02:31:16 PM  
et's say this is a building.

[  ]


Let's say they used to make stuff there and now it's abandoned and some fat bastard is letting it rot because he wants 2,000,000.00 for something nobody has any use for anymore.Let's say we turn the water and electric on, do some buildouts, install about 40 sh*tters and showers, some security measure, windows and staff it with some unemployed folks with social services degrees.


NO WAIT COMMONISM RADICAL UN - BOOTSTRAPPY DEFEATIST!  When the last, sad, venal little man whose head is firmly up the mid 20th century's ass is laughed out of town and his ash heaps are resurrected into useful shelter, there might be some hope.  And then, if the people stuffing 90% of the liquid economy up the vaunted family rear ends get off the dime, there might be actual hope.  The rest of this is pissing up a rope.  And, yeah, so is coddling drunks and crackheads.  But then again, so is coddling thieves and corporate pirates.
 
2014-04-16 02:31:20 PM  

pippi longstocking: Sadly, this is probably more helpful than any current program.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6fkyf9UGAE

Poverty is an imbedded structural feature of our current system. It's not a negative side-effect, it's a direct consequence of how the system and law is structured. It's like saying 200 years ago "Slavery bad? I treat my slaves very well, and give them extra food, so you see there is no problem."

You might argue if it's intentional or not, but look at history and tell me when and where society hasn't been like a pyramid, all the wealth and resources in the hands of few and the rest at the bottom.

So please tell me why I'm wrong, or please explain to me (cause I'm stupid) why things have to be this way, and we can't structurally get rid of this.


At some point some very rich people are going to end up getting a lethal education in the difference between power and authority.  You can get away with a lot of things, but creating a system where you have a permanent underclass that is allowed to own firearms is a pretty dangerous practice.
 
2014-04-16 02:31:26 PM  

The_Hairy_Gooch: The_Hairy_Gooch: p51d007: I'd like to know where the 99%ers get off telling the 1%ers how to live their lives?
Why to "the rich" have to help "the poor"?  Life is hard, life has choices.  If you are
STUPID, a criminal, drug addict, etc, why is it the responsibility of someone else, to
take care of you?  In nature, the strong survive.  If government would get out of the
way and not punish religious organizations, perhaps we could put things back the
way they were 50 years ago and let THEM be the ones who were helping "the poor".
They could do that, instead of building monuments to themselves called megachurches!
Oh, we can't have RELIGIOUS people helping "the poor", it might turn them religious
and they wouldn't vote for idiots from the government to give them free stuff.
You know, when I was a kid, most "street people" were called BUMS.  Perhaps we'd be
all better off to stop calling them "homeless" and go back to calling most of them tramps
or bums!

HURUHURDUDUERUDURDRRRRRR! I HAZ A THOUGHTZ TOO GUYZ!!!
I'm pregnant Your attempt was bad, and you should feel bad

so 0 / 10 is now I'm pregnant.... cool!


Knocked up.
 
2014-04-16 02:31:31 PM  
Some of the things my community does right:

* a centrally located space that feeds the homeless and hungry a hot meal every day
* a large community garden that gets fresh, healthy food to those most in need
*a resource center and shelter for battered women and children
*good public transportation & free bus passes to help people in need
*mental health care through MHMR
*several good thrift stores and programs to help people get clothes to interview/work/go to school in
*a centrally located workforce commission
*community safe spaces for itinerant workers
*several programs for substance abuse issues
*VA on the bus route
*Salvation Army shelter
*Community centers that open their doors to the poor and elderly when the weather is too hot or too cold
*Good resources for LGBT people
*Habitat for Humanity
*We're about to open a new, large space that will house a ton of charitable and governmental agencies that focus on getting help to people who need it

That's just off the top of my head. Y'all have these types of things in your communities, and almost every one of these organizations could use an extra pair of hands or a couple of hours of volunteer time. Put aside the worry that the one unkempt dude panhandling at the gas station might be a grifter, and try helping someone out. Almost everybody needs a helping hand sometimes. Wouldn't you want that if it was you or a loved one out there sick or hurt or hungry?
 
2014-04-16 02:32:41 PM  

littlett's: Just wait until I speak with my elected officials.  Gravity has been allowed to run rampant in this society long enough!


What are you complaining about? From the look of things, you've never seen a G in your life. ;)
 
2014-04-16 02:32:57 PM  

LeroyBourne: armor helix: There are a lot of homeless shelters with empty rooms every night.

The reason? You have to be sober to use them.

If getting high is more important than a roof over your head that's your choice. But I don't want you sleeping in my dumpster.

One time my sister tried to give a hobo her left over Chinese food as her and her bf were walking home.  The guy had the balls to say, 'fark that, give me money'  He got nothing.


I offered a panhandler and actual handful of silver change...probably about $4 worth.

He said "I prefer paper."

He got neither.
 
2014-04-16 02:33:32 PM  
I think a lot more of the homeless would be willing to accept mental health/addiction treatment if it didn't instantly make you about as much of a pariah as homelessness made you, and if, you know, the local treatment facility a) had open beds and b) wasn't likely to kill you in your sleep.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/poor-care-called-factor-in-fo ur -deaths-at-mental-health-complex-b99183920z1-240225111.html
 
2014-04-16 02:33:38 PM  

meat0918: Stay out of Eugene please.

Attempt no landing here, the goodwill has dried up, and the citizenry are tired of the homeless and the homeless advocates trying to get the city to lift the camping ban in public parks.

I feel for the homeless, and hope they can utilize the many public and private programs we have available to get back on their feet.  The chronic homeless, they have help available if they can actually decide to use it.  Not sure if that is possible for some of the ones with the really bad mental issues, but what can be done for them within the bounds of the law?

I'm actually for what Utah is doing being implemented in Oregon, but I doubt I'd have many supporters.


Too bad.  Liberal policy breeds more homelessness.

Now the rich liberals are mad because they have to look at those less fortunate?  fark off.
 
2014-04-16 02:34:21 PM  

Lee451: I would like to suggest that anyone who is that upset about the homeless, instead of expecting "the government" to do something about the problem, "adopt" a homeless person or family and get personal. Instead of buying Starbucks every morning, buy your adopted homeless person a breakfast. See that they get 3 meals a day; it doesn't have to be expensive; as you cook your dinner, fix an extra portion for your adoptee.


That is actually a super cool idea. Thanks for the suggestion.
 
2014-04-16 02:35:03 PM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: These same cities have resisted efforts to provide more public toilet facilities, often on the grounds that this will make their city a "magnet" for homeless people from other cities

um, no.  The magnet is the weather.


One time I was watching a documentary about winter living conditions is North Dakota and one old timer said "well, we don't have a homeless problem here.."   I LOLd, but this situation is sad now.
 
2014-04-16 02:35:21 PM  

bunner: Let's say they used to make stuff there and now it's abandoned and some fat bastard is letting it rot because he wants 2,000,000.00 for something nobody has any use for anymore.Let's say we turn the water and electric on, do some buildouts, install about 40 sh*tters and showers, some security measure, windows and staff it with some unemployed folks with social services degrees.


Seems a lot like

meat0918: what Utah is doing


It gives them a real place to live, its cost effective, and satisfies NIMBYs.  Win-win-win.

I expect abound 50% of the US population to live in free government housing by 2030.  98% by 2050.
 
2014-04-16 02:35:32 PM  

jigger: I thought California was good to the homeless.


The homeless population density of SF is roughly the normal population density of the state of South Carolina.  I feel sorry for that homeless guy.   I hate all of those homeless people for the same reasons as that guy was having major troubles in India.  Especially when they shut down the subway because the escalator is clogged with homeless guy shiat.

/And CA is generally pretty nice.  If nothing else, the weather is nice.  The state wouldn't have a third of this nation's welfare recipients if it wasn't.
 
2014-04-16 02:37:03 PM  

bunner: Let's say they used to make stuff there and now it's abandoned and some fat bastard is letting it rot because he wants 2,000,000.00 for something nobody has any use for anymore.Let's say we turn the water and electric on, do some buildouts, install about 40 sh*tters and showers, some security measure, windows and staff it with some unemployed folks with social services degrees.


That's nice in theory, but as usual, reality gets in they way.  Many times, it's the reality other people with similarly lofty ideas created.

Is that building zoned for residential?  One reason they may have trouble selling it is that it's not (yet?) zoned for a use that others might find desirable and there may infrastructure problems that preclude it's alternative use.

How old is it, does it have sufficient fire protection for 40+ residents, can the water and sewer service handle 40+ residents in that building, what's the power like, are there nearby schools for children, is the rest of the area heavy industrial which can mean noise and air pollution?
 
2014-04-16 02:38:05 PM  

pedrop357: I'm also curious why people sleeping in their cars aren't being attacked by the left as freeloaders because they get police and fire protection without paying any property taxes.


The right is who typically would be more likely to do that sort of blaming.
 
2014-04-16 02:39:38 PM  

Pangea: pedrop357: I'm also curious why people sleeping in their cars aren't being attacked by the left as freeloaders because they get police and fire protection without paying any property taxes.

The right is who typically would be more likely to do that sort of blaming.


Not true at all.  The left can be counted on to chime into any discussion about taxes with biatching about roads, schools, police, fire, and Somalia.
 
2014-04-16 02:40:03 PM  
The homeless deserve housing, food, and health care.

However, they smell, are annoying and are typically mentally instable, so not in Palo Alto, Menlo Park,or Los Altos, please, and especially not Atherton.   Maybe in East Palo Alto, Vallejo, or Oakland or hippy-dippy Santa Cruz.
 
2014-04-16 02:41:01 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-04-16 02:41:24 PM  

bonobo73: The homeless deserve housing, food, and health care.

However, they smell, are annoying and are typically mentally instable, so not in Palo Alto, Menlo Park,or Los Altos, please, and especially not Atherton.   Maybe in East Palo Alto, Vallejo, or Oakland or hippy-dippy Santa Cruz.


Feel free to give them all the housing, food, and health care you can afford.
 
2014-04-16 02:43:07 PM  

Dr Dreidel: // and if you really can't see an appreciable difference between the homelessness of the 1950s and the homelessness of today - or the compounding problems both then and now - there's no point in discussing it further


The other day my mom was telling me about growing up in the 1950s in Cleveland.

They used to see lots of fires out by the dump. That was were the homeless used to set up camp and live. I'm sure that experience wasn't limited to just one city in the cold northeast.
 
2014-04-16 02:43:39 PM  

pedrop357: bunner: Let's say they used to make stuff there and now it's abandoned and some fat bastard is letting it rot because he wants 2,000,000.00 for something nobody has any use for anymore.Let's say we turn the water and electric on, do some buildouts, install about 40 sh*tters and showers, some security measure, windows and staff it with some unemployed folks with social services degrees.

That's nice in theory, but as usual, reality gets in they way.  Many times, it's the reality other people with similarly lofty ideas created.

Is that building zoned for residential?  One reason they may have trouble selling it is that it's not (yet?) zoned for a use that others might find desirable and there may infrastructure problems that preclude it's alternative use.

How old is it, does it have sufficient fire protection for 40+ residents, can the water and sewer service handle 40+ residents in that building, what's the power like, are there nearby schools for children, is the rest of the area heavy industrial which can mean noise and air pollution?


Oh, dear!  There's a rail line 4 blocks way!  How will they get sleep?  My guess is a washed ass under a roof with a sh*tter and a minifridge and a small lamp to fill out job applications with an address beats a 94 Toyota.
 
2014-04-16 02:43:45 PM  

Pangea: LeroyBourne: armor helix: There are a lot of homeless shelters with empty rooms every night.

The reason? You have to be sober to use them.

If getting high is more important than a roof over your head that's your choice. But I don't want you sleeping in my dumpster.

One time my sister tried to give a hobo her left over Chinese food as her and her bf were walking home.  The guy had the balls to say, 'fark that, give me money'  He got nothing.

I offered a panhandler and actual handful of silver change...probably about $4 worth.

He said "I prefer paper."

He got neither.


Who ever said beggars can't be choosers?
 
2014-04-16 02:48:17 PM  

MaliFinn: At some point some very rich people are going to end up getting a lethal education in the difference between power and authority.  You can get away with a lot of things, but creating a system where you have a permanent underclass that is allowed to own firearms is a pretty dangerous practice.


Increasingly, that permanent underclass is often branded with a criminal record, and subjected to the criminal justice system, removing them from that demographic.

All going according to plan?
 
2014-04-16 02:48:42 PM  

bunner: pedrop357: bunner: Let's say they used to make stuff there and now it's abandoned and some fat bastard is letting it rot because he wants 2,000,000.00 for something nobody has any use for anymore.Let's say we turn the water and electric on, do some buildouts, install about 40 sh*tters and showers, some security measure, windows and staff it with some unemployed folks with social services degrees.

That's nice in theory, but as usual, reality gets in they way.  Many times, it's the reality other people with similarly lofty ideas created.

Is that building zoned for residential?  One reason they may have trouble selling it is that it's not (yet?) zoned for a use that others might find desirable and there may infrastructure problems that preclude it's alternative use.

How old is it, does it have sufficient fire protection for 40+ residents, can the water and sewer service handle 40+ residents in that building, what's the power like, are there nearby schools for children, is the rest of the area heavy industrial which can mean noise and air pollution?

Oh, dear!  There's a rail line 4 blocks way!  How will they get sleep?  My guess is a washed ass under a roof with a sh*tter and a minifridge and a small lamp to fill out job applications with an address beats a 94 Toyota.


I love that you ignored the rest of the post for the noise pollution part.

You realize that zoning rules have precluded building things in noisy areas without asking any of the prospective residents if they even care, right?  If I have a nice plot of land near an airport and I wan to zone it residential, the noise issue alone can be the thing that they use to deny me.  What those possible future residents may or may not want isn't always taken into consideration.

Oh wait, you just came up a lofty idea without considering the logistics of it.  This is, unsurprisingly, a lot like the people who make zoning regs so restrictive in the first place.
 
2014-04-16 02:50:35 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Lee451: 50 years of throwing money at poverty has not solved it and, in many cases, it took away incentives from the poor to better themselves

You understand we've been "throwing money at the problem" for a hundred times that long (at least)?

So either we can throw up our hands and continue letting people live without regular living accommodations, or we can keep attacking the problem - and if you can suggest ways of helping homeless people that don't involve spending money, I think everyone in the world is all ears - using the only means available.

// and if you really can't see an appreciable difference between the homelessness of the 1950s and the homelessness of today - or the compounding problems both then and now - there's no point in discussing it further


I guess you missed the part of my post that suggested "adopting" a homeless person and trying to make a difference in their lives.


By throwing money at the problem I was referring to the "Great Society" program and that the poor/homeless just keep increasing.


/America has the wealthiest poor in the world, especially if you compare the poor here and the poor in India or some other 3rd world nation. Most people considered poor have a car, modern appliances, internet capabilities, and frequently, nice furniture from Rent-a-Center, you get the idea.

Pangea: Lee451: I would like to suggest that anyone who is that upset about the homeless, instead of expecting "the government" to do something about the problem, "adopt" a homeless person or family and get personal. Instead of buying Starbucks every morning, buy your adopted homeless person a breakfast. See that they get 3 meals a day; it doesn't have to be expensive; as you cook your dinner, fix an extra portion for your adoptee.

That is actually a super cool idea. Thanks for the suggestion.


Thank you. This could humanize the homeless and allow those of us who aren't poor to appreciate what we have. Not to mention the good feeling you get when you help someone
 
2014-04-16 02:50:46 PM  

MaliFinn: At some point some very rich people are going to end up getting a lethal education in the difference between power and authority. You can get away with a lot of things, but creating a system where you have a permanent underclass that is allowed to own firearms is a pretty dangerous practice.


Not really.  I've been told repeatedly here that the rich own the government, and separately told even more often that gun owners could never hope to successfully revolt against the government.

If gun owners can't make a difference against the government, how are poor people going to make one against some or lot of those gun owners AND the government?
 
2014-04-16 02:51:14 PM  

p51d007: I'd like to know where the 99%ers get off telling the 1%ers how to live their lives?
Why to "the rich" have to help "the poor"?  Life is hard, life has choices.  If you are
STUPID, a criminal, drug addict, etc, why is it the responsibility of someone else, to
take care of you?  In nature, the strong survive.  If government would get out of the
way and not punish religious organizations, perhaps we could put things back the
way they were 50 years ago and let THEM be the ones who were helping "the poor".
They could do that, instead of building monuments to themselves called megachurches!
Oh, we can't have RELIGIOUS people helping "the poor", it might turn them religious
and they wouldn't vote for idiots from the government to give them free stuff.
You know, when I was a kid, most "street people" were called BUMS.  Perhaps we'd be
all better off to stop calling them "homeless" and go back to calling most of them tramps
or bums!


Bread and circuses, my friend. That army of serfs in the field doing cheap labor to funnel goods to the middle class, who then shovel cash up to the rich owners, will only do so as long as there is food in their bellies and cheap, tawdry, and/ or violent entertainment available (thanks, Game of Thrones). When enough of them are deprived of even those reminders of their human dignity, they will get angry, organize, and rip the rest of us limb from limb. 100 to 1 is terrible odds, even if the 1 has a lot of guns.

Did you see Qaddafi's demise? That's what you're imposing on the upper classes if you can't pretend to have enough compassion to drop some crumbs once in awhile.
 
2014-04-16 02:51:34 PM  

armor helix: There are a lot of homeless shelters with empty rooms every night.

The reason? You have to be sober to use them.

If getting high is more important than a roof over your head that's your choice. But I don't want you sleeping in my dumpster.


People are often unemployable/homeless due to mental illness.  The drugs and alcohol are what's called "self medicating".

I blame the queers and what they're doing to the soil, myself.
 
2014-04-16 02:51:42 PM  

bunner: special20: If hobos have started camping in your back 40 - do this: Pour 20 pounds of sugar on the ground where they camp.

I'm pretty sure that those Silicon Valley ants will have a feast, and ensure that anyone sleeping on their food supply will be bitten, stung, harassed.

Now, where to find anteaters...

Doesn't this end with starving lions and Claymores full of Semtex?


...what if we just skip right to the Claymores? Are the homeless sleeping in armored vehicles? I think not, sir... I think they are not.
 
2014-04-16 02:52:36 PM  

pedrop357: I love that you ignored the rest of the post for the noise pollution part.


I didn't ignore it.  I pretty much dismissed a lot of zoning regulations as archaic, useless gerrymandering tools in a post modern world where an entire corporation can fit on two server blades.


pedrop357: Oh wait, you just came up a lofty idea without considering the logistics of it.



Nah, we're just working off of differently prioritized to do lists.


pedrop357: This is, unsurprisingly, a lot like the people who make zoning regs so restrictive in the first place.


You mean the ones you're adamantly in support of?
 
2014-04-16 02:53:21 PM  
The homeless need to be studied to see what nutrients they possess that can be extracted and exported.
 
2014-04-16 02:54:08 PM  

Hector Remarkable: The homeless need to be studied to see what nutrients they possess that can be extracted and exported.


And then the 1%.  I hear gold is popular.
 
2014-04-16 02:54:32 PM  

pedrop357: Pangea: pedrop357: I'm also curious why people sleeping in their cars aren't being attacked by the left as freeloaders because they get police and fire protection without paying any property taxes.

The right is who typically would be more likely to do that sort of blaming.

Not true at all.  The left can be counted on to chime into any discussion about taxes with biatching about roads, schools, police, fire, and Somalia.


Those bastards! How dare they mention things paid for with taxes in discussions about taxes! Have they no shame?!
 
2014-04-16 02:55:00 PM  
AverageAmericanGuy: "It's more humane to send them on to a lower rent area where they have an actual shot at getting off the street."

*send them*? I'm pretty sure the area cities didn't *bring them* in the first place. So they might want to rethink any plan that involves their being able to make decisions for them.
That approach is going to ultimately lead to them being "sent on" to prisons. Which is one of the more expensive options available.
 
2014-04-16 02:56:25 PM  

UberDave: Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.

Only if it has a tape deck...with a Creedence tape.


Preferably one with "Lodi" on it. "Fortunate Son" works too.
 
2014-04-16 02:57:36 PM  

bunner: I didn't ignore it. I pretty much dismissed a lot of zoning regulations as archaic, useless gerrymandering tools in a post modern world where an entire corporation can fit on two server blades.


You can ignore them, but any contractors you hire to retrofit this seized building and the government will not.

bunner: pedrop357: This is, unsurprisingly, a lot like the people who make zoning regs so restrictive in the first place.

You mean the ones you're adamantly in support of?


I'm actually not in support of a lot of zoning or building regs in their current form.

I was pointing out how people just like you with lofty ideas about how to prevent/encourage something are the ones who made the inflexible and, in some cases, outright oppressive rules that would kill any hopes for your project.
 
2014-04-16 02:58:16 PM  
The 1% wont rest until the labor is in China, the debt is fully shouldered by the working poor and it's Victorian England, here.  And you best hope you don''t get any bird sh*t on your silk top hat, guv.
 
2014-04-16 02:58:47 PM  

Wendy's Chili: pedrop357: Pangea: pedrop357: I'm also curious why people sleeping in their cars aren't being attacked by the left as freeloaders because they get police and fire protection without paying any property taxes.

The right is who typically would be more likely to do that sort of blaming.

Not true at all.  The left can be counted on to chime into any discussion about taxes with biatching about roads, schools, police, fire, and Somalia.

Those bastards! How dare they mention things paid for with taxes in discussions about taxes! Have they no shame?!


Yep, now if we could just get them to be consistent and rail against these people "leeching off the rest of us" the way they do with others, I'd be quiet about it.
 
2014-04-16 03:00:14 PM  

pippi longstocking: umad: I can explain. Things have to be this way, and we can't structurally get rid of this, because society is composed of humans. Legislate against the laws of nature all you want. You would have just as much success if you attempted to ban gravity.

I thought as humans we were able to transcend our nature. You're saying no, so I suggest we all go around raping every woman you like, kill whoever looks at you funny, take what you want, and defecate wherever nature calls.


And I especially like your choice of using rape, murder, theft, and public defecation as examples of things that humans have transcended. Those things certainly never happen in this day and age. I do agree with you that ending poverty is just as easy as ending any of the things you mentioned. I don't think that is what you were shooting for though.
 
2014-04-16 03:01:07 PM  
why I went there without making sure of housing is no longer relevant.. it happened.. bad choice on my part, but I am sure no one here makes mistakes right? lol.. I am not trying to place blame or anything.. all I am trying to say is that sometimes the reasons people end up homeless aren't the ones most people think of..  it opened my eyes to the stigma of "Homeless" once placed on a person it is hard to shake..  I must give San Jose, CA credit, at that time there were people that would look out for the homeless, every day a huge box of donuts would be placed in a park.. and you would think that the homeless would grab as many as they could.. nope.. just a couple ppl did here and there.. most took 2 and walked away..

you will ALWAYS run into the scammers.. but it is easy to spot them.. a true homeless person would not blink when you offer then a uneaten half of a sandwich.. they would be all thankful.. and since that time I have tried to help people now and then when I have a couple extra bucks.. because what would I end up doing with it? blow it on a 2 liter of soda? 2 bucks can buy a lot of raman noodles..
 
2014-04-16 03:01:15 PM  

pedrop357: I was pointing out how people just like you with lofty ideas about how to prevent/encourage something are the ones who made the inflexible and, in some cases, outright oppressive rules that would kill any hopes for your project.


So, you're holding forth on the wone true way by busting my chops and assigning ideas to me that are largely projections of your POV onto me for the benefit of your Legion of Fans™ so that they won't be mislead by not heeding your offhand dismissal thereof?  Man, you're gonna change the world.  Are you done now?  Cause, uh, seriously.
 
2014-04-16 03:01:30 PM  

Lee451: I guess you missed the part of my post that suggested "adopting" a homeless person and trying to make a difference in their lives.


I had started something about "Suppose we decided that a small subset of us could better handle the affairs of the whole group than could the whole group itself. Now suppose that these delegates agreed that whichever side of a question got more support from the delegates would be the side that 'won out' (subject to other, more specific rules."

So now we've created a legislation based on Representative Democracy, just like we have in the US.

Now suppose that duly-elected legislature decided on how to raise and disburse funds for the needy, in accordance with the charter given them.

Now we're in the 1960s. Congrats, we've done what you asked, only in a way that actually benefits a large swath of those affected by the problem, rather than relying on charities (which were in the 1960s and still are today insufficient to meet the challenges the problems of homelessness present).

By throwing money at the problem I was referring to the "Great Society" program and that the poor/homeless just keep increasing.

And I reiterate: "if you can't see an appreciable difference between the homelessness of the 1950s and the homelessness of today - or the compounding problems both then and now - there's no point in discussing it further." So I guess this'll be my last response, if'n you can't even see that.

/America has the wealthiest poor in the world, especially if you compare the poor here and the poor in India or some other 3rd world nation. Most people considered poor have a car, modern appliances, internet capabilities, and frequently, nice furniture from Rent-a-Center, you get the idea.

So obviously, we should do nothing more, because SOME homeless people drive 20-year-old beaters and can afford a $30/month cell phone, and because we haven't relegated them to third-world poverty we're doing all we can.
 
2014-04-16 03:02:23 PM  

pedrop357: bunner: I didn't ignore it. I pretty much dismissed a lot of zoning regulations as archaic, useless gerrymandering tools in a post modern world where an entire corporation can fit on two server blades.

You can ignore them, but any contractors you hire to retrofit this seized building and the government will not.

bunner: pedrop357: This is, unsurprisingly, a lot like the people who make zoning regs so restrictive in the first place.

You mean the ones you're adamantly in support of?

I'm actually not in support of a lot of zoning or building regs in their current form.

I was pointing out how people just like you with lofty ideas about how to prevent/encourage something are the ones who made the inflexible and, in some cases, outright oppressive rules that would kill any hopes for your project.


So in this thread you've told us we can improve the homeless problem by...

...wait for it....

reducing regulations and lowering taxes.

Even though we've been trying that solution since the early 80s, it's sure to work if we just hold the course!
 
2014-04-16 03:03:10 PM  

Pharmdawg: Bread and circuses, my friend. That army of serfs in the field doing cheap labor to funnel goods to the middle class, who then shovel cash up to the rich owners, will only do so as long as there is food in their bellies and cheap, tawdry, and/ or violent entertainment available (thanks, Game of Thrones). When enough of them are deprived of even those reminders of their human dignity, they will get angry, organize, and rip the rest of us limb from limb. 100 to 1 is terrible odds, even if the 1 has a lot of guns.


Actually, the serfs will still do their work as long as they are getting more for it than what they could otherwise get if they had stayed in the third world.

Do you know why Chinese workers are willing to do mind numbing factory work for such low pay?   Because it beats the shiat out of being a subsistence level peasant farmer. That's their alternative.

What do you call the workers that are between the peasants and the capitalists?  Oh.  Those factory workers are China's "middle" class.  Low middle, but they aren't subsistence level.

Bringing it back home, those migrant field workers?  Either they pick our vegetables and send the profit back home, where their families are now "rich," or they pick their one vegetables back home and get nowhere.

When looked at from that angle?  They won't be revolting any time soon.

You're more likely to see a revolution of the upper-middle class here, and it won't be a communist one.
 
2014-04-16 03:05:34 PM  
I know how they feel - my GF had made do her in the butt last night, and I had to wash my cock off in the sink. It's not my fault she didn't feel like walking to the bathroom to get a nice warm cloth afterward. Sheesh! I felt taken advantage of. At least I got to admire my abs in the mirror.

*tooth sparkle"
 
2014-04-16 03:06:17 PM  

special20: I know how they feel - my GF had made do her in the butt last night, and I had to wash my cock off in the sink. It's not my fault she didn't feel like walking to the bathroom to get a nice warm cloth afterward. Sheesh! I felt taken advantage of. At least I got to admire my abs in the mirror.

*tooth sparkle"


Always relevant.
 
2014-04-16 03:07:09 PM  

pedrop357: Some people WON'T and some people CAN'T follow the rules at shelters, so they end up living on the streets and there isn't a lot we can do about it. We (individually or as a society) can't just unilaterally institutionalize the ones who can't because they have rights and some will obviously have a problem, but be just on the other side of the legal line.


No link*, sorry, but I remember reading an interesting study somewhere about how removing some of the rules from shelters(such as you having to be sober) can actually help the situation and reduce costs - between police interactions, jail, court, damage/vandalism, and medical it's cheaper to provide them housing despite them being souses.  They'll either die or dry out eventually, which is normally only a few years away by the time they hit that low.  It helps even more if said housing is permanent enough that It doesn't count as a 'shelter' anymore.

I might lean libertarian, but I'm also a fiscal hawk that's willing to look into secondary effects.  If you can convince me that providing shelter for everybody will actually decrease government/social costs, we should do it.

*Can't remember enough details to find it through all the cruft.
 
2014-04-16 03:07:22 PM  

special20: I know how they feel - my GF had made do her in the butt last night, and I had to wash my cock off in the sink. It's not my fault she didn't feel like walking to the bathroom to get a nice warm cloth afterward. Sheesh! I felt taken advantage of. At least I got to admire my abs in the mirror.

*tooth sparkle"


I almost appreciate the comic relief.  Almost because you're not really good with this.  Take care.  *click*  :  )
 
2014-04-16 03:08:21 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Lee451:
/America has the wealthiest poor in the world, especially if you compare the poor here and the poor in India or some other 3rd world nation. Most people considered poor have a car, modern appliances, internet capabilities, and frequently, nice furniture from Rent-a-Center, you get the idea.

So obviously, we should do nothing more, because SOME homeless people drive 20-year-old beaters and can afford a $30/month cell phone, and because we haven't relegated them to third-world poverty we're doing all we can.


Exactly what more should we be doing?  Preferably, give some specifics.

When people are talking about how terrible we are as a society to the poor, it's at least worth gaining a little perspective and pointing out that the overwhelming majority of them are far better off than the poor in other countries and on par with the upper class in some 2nd and even 1st world countries.

As a nation, our poor are treated better and are richer than the poor in nearly every other country.

We can do more, but there are limits to what we can do without essentially creating more "poor" to be taken care of and at least some goal should be set so we can use our money to the best effect.

We also have to accept that at least a non-trivial amount of homeless people choose to be that way in the face of alternatives, and another non-trivial amount simply can't NOT be homeless-the junction of their rights, disabilities, and inability to function in anything more organized and/or structured leaves them with nowhere else to live.
 
2014-04-16 03:09:17 PM  

pedrop357: MaliFinn: At some point some very rich people are going to end up getting a lethal education in the difference between power and authority. You can get away with a lot of things, but creating a system where you have a permanent underclass that is allowed to own firearms is a pretty dangerous practice.

Not really.  I've been told repeatedly here that the rich own the government, and separately told even more often that gun owners could never hope to successfully revolt against the government.

If gun owners can't make a difference against the government, how are poor people going to make one against some or lot of those gun owners AND the government?


Starving people don't try to change the system.  They shoot things until their stomach is full.
 
2014-04-16 03:10:06 PM  

Pangea: So in this thread you've told us we can improve the homeless problem by...

...wait for it....

reducing regulations and lowering taxes.

Even though we've been trying that solution since the early 80s, it's sure to work if we just hold the course!


Really?

The moron I was replying to had a great idea to retrofit an unused building to serve as a housing solution for homeless people and didn't care one bit that the zoning regulations would kill that idea very quickly.  The current system of zoning and building regs pretty much everywhere in this country doesn't allow for cheap 'substandard' housing that is immensely better than being homeless.
 
2014-04-16 03:10:37 PM  
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

― John Steinbeck

You could substitute rebellion for socialism with no change.  Americans refuse to impose anything on millionaires because they insist they will become one one day and don't want to have to live by those rules.

/you won't become a millionaire
 
2014-04-16 03:11:47 PM  

pedrop357: As a nation, our poor are treated better and are richer than the poor in nearly every other country.


I think that's a byproduct of our overall higher wealth, not necessarily a result of policy.

But, the idea holds.  We live in a global market, now.  Everything equalizes.

We need to use the second and third world as our definition of "poor," and compare against that.

From that point of view, we are all rich.  It can't last.
 
2014-04-16 03:11:56 PM  
It's not so much that we're terrible with the poor as that we allowed a small collection of banksters, brokers and other Cayman holiday thieves to dismantle and pocket entire economic sectors and, as long as we came through ok, we let them.  Thusly creating a metric moose load of poor people.  And we happily and vehemently blamed anybody we were told to blame except the people telling us who was to blame.
 
2014-04-16 03:12:43 PM  

Adss2009: you won't become a millionaire


It's possible if you can come up with $100k, and have a decade or so.
 
2014-04-16 03:13:23 PM  

pedrop357: The moron I was replying to had a great idea to retrofit an unused building to serve as a housing solution


Thanks for letting the other shoe drop so loudly.  One more and you can dance with the mods, Demosthenes.
 
2014-04-16 03:15:17 PM  

FizixJunkee: jwa007: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

You are missing a good teaching moment here.  You can use the homeless as examples of what happen if you pursue degrees in the liberal arts.   Scare the little womprats into STEM.


You know the U.S. already graduates more STEM graduates than we have jobs for, right?

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/inquiring-minds-ethan -p erlstein-postdocalypse?fb_action_ids=692395314158529&fb_action_types=o g.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

Quote:
"You've probably heard the claim that the United States needs to produce  morescientists, like Perlstein, to remain competitive with up-and-coming science powerhouses like India and China. It is a familiar litany whenever we hear laments about American science and its disturbing habit of resting on its laurels. But what you rarely hear in this argument is the fact that we don't have nearly enough jobs to put to work the scientists we currently have. "U.S. higher education produces far more science and engineering graduates annually than there are S&E job openings," writes Harvard researcher  , "the only disagreement is whether it is 100 percent or 200 percent more.""


And that is because of the following:

1) US domestic S&E jobs are being given to foreign workers with visas, instead of to US workers with degrees. This is done under the false pretense that there are not enough qualified STEM applicants in the US. This runs counter to the quoted source above, which claims we have more STEM graduates than jobs.

2) The remaining S&E jobs are being outsourced to other other countries

3) It's all about cheap labor. The corporations will feed the masses whatever fake studies needed to justify their hiring of cheap foreign workers over US workers.
 
2014-04-16 03:16:51 PM  

Adss2009: You could substitute rebellion for socialism with no change. Americans refuse to impose anything on millionaires because they insist they will become one one day and don't want to have to live by those rules.


There are a lot of things I'm never going to be, but I won't be imposing rules on them I wouldn't want to live with if I were in their shoes.  It's called principles.  It's not right to do things to people simply because they aren't you.

BTW, we impose a lot of things on millionaires right now, the first thing being higher tax brackets which they can and do escape by donating to legally recognized charities.  If we're unhappy with them having lower tax rates, we can always raise their tax rates even more and watch their donations to those legally recognized charities drop OR if we're upset that the charities they donated to aren't doing what we think charities should do, we can alter the definition of charity.
 
2014-04-16 03:17:08 PM  

Wendy's Chili: meyerkev: And of course, given that immigrants lower wages, why exactly is the Left so pro-poor/unskilled-people-immigration?

I don't know that the Left is "pro-poor-immigration" as much as they're "anti-treating-people-like-animals".

I don't think people should be working in the US if they are not legally allowed to do so. Their status allows employers to violate labor laws and standards, which affects the entire labor market. But I also don't think we should be shipping off some American kid's parents because they didn't fill out proper paperwork 20 years ago.

Putting them on the books and requiring employers to pay them accordingly would do a lot to reduce the downward pressure on wages, and would be a hell of a lot cheaper and humane than rounding them up and throwing them in prisons to await deportation.

The Right (and by "Right" I mean the US Chamber of Commerce and other Republican bankrollers) would rather maintain the status quo and continue to have an underclass of cheap, exploitable labor.


We did that, in 1986.  The result was millions of more illegals. People in Mexico read the newspaper...some are even usando el internet.
 
2014-04-16 03:17:27 PM  

bunner: pedrop357: The moron I was replying to had a great idea to retrofit an unused building to serve as a housing solution

Thanks for letting the other shoe drop so loudly.  One more and you can dance with the mods, Demosthenes.


This is me making my scared face.
 
2014-04-16 03:17:43 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Of course very resident of Silicon Valley is a billionaire, and they hate the poor.

[wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net image 245x285]

Most people I know don't want someone living in a car in their neighborhood.


More accurately, most people don't want someone who lives in a car pooping in their garden and tossing their empties on the sidewalk.

Prior to Reagan the federal government housed, fed, and clothed the vast majority of folks who are unable to support themselves due to mental illness. Link These days we force them to live on the street or in prison, then we somehow complain that the cost of both is excessive for the taxpayer. My gut tells me that the cost of restoring taxpayer funded residential facilities would be a bargain by comparison. It might also greatly the improve the lives of folks living on our streets.

/have stepped in human poop twice now
 
2014-04-16 03:18:26 PM  

bunner: Hector Remarkable: The homeless need to be studied to see what nutrients they possess that can be extracted and exported.

And then the 1%.  I hear gold is popular.


I'm gonna go right ahead and include the elderly, and the mentally ill, or, as they like to be called, 'little people'.

There may be tungsten in their tongues.
 
2014-04-16 03:19:14 PM  

Loreweaver: 1) US domestic S&E jobs are being given to foreign workers with visas, instead of to US workers with degrees. This is done under the false pretense that there are not enough qualified STEM applicants in the US. This runs counter to the quoted source above, which claims we have more STEM graduates than jobs.2) The remaining S&E jobs are being outsourced to other other countries3) It's all about cheap labor. The corporations will feed the masses whatever fake studies needed to justify their hiring of cheap foreign workers over US workers.


And that's because for the 19th and 20th centuries, we were endlessly instilled with the notion that if you write paychecks, you're an owner and if you cash a paycheck, you're property and it is the duty of property to offer the greatest return to the owner, and gratefully, even if it's oppressive, offers a worthless and static existence and is at their own expense.  Slavery just keeps jumping down the dirty clothes chute and emerging in a new clown suit.
 
2014-04-16 03:19:50 PM  

LeroyBourne: One time my sister tried to give a hobo her left over Chinese food


Not even hobos are willing to take such a massive risk of contracting "social diseases."
 
2014-04-16 03:20:34 PM  

JohnnyApocalypse: Having lived in my car in Palo Alto, I'm obligated to post something here. My circumstance was slightly different... I was (am) gainfully employed, but found myself in a situation where I didn't have housing. It was a strange feeling being between places. I couch surfed a little bit, but I felt uncomfortable being in other people's good graces and thought to myself I could just tough it out while waiting on the new place. What are you gonna do? Rent a hotel/motel room for a month while waiting for your new place to open up? A month is a long time to live on someone else's couch. Plus, where I worked they had pretty amenable facilities (bathroom with shower).

But I still had to worry about where I parked my car as not to arouse suspicion.

I've lived in the Silicon Valley all my life, and barring the traffic and hipsters, I love the place and have no desire to leave. But it can be very hard to afford to live here. I make good enough money that if I only had myself to worry about, I could easily rent a small place and maybe save up for home ownership... oh nevermind. I'll never be able to afford a home here unless I start earning six figures. Like the rest of the middle class home shoppers, I'll have to look over the hills outside of the valley to get a home.

But our homeless. What to say about the homeless here? Some are aggressive panhandlers, even in residential neighborhoods. Some are just your typical stinky and hopeless downtrodden folk. Some are grifters working the freeway exits and then getting picked up at the day's end. But there definitely more people who got economic-downturned. It's becoming a thing. Living in your car is a way to climb back out... pinching the pennies to keep from losing everything. I could have lived in a motel and racked up some significant debt, hoping to dig my way back out of that. Or I could have sucked it up and just overstayed my welcome at friends' houses (doing what I could to mitigate any resentment... chores around the hou ...


Palo Alto should also pass a law making it illegal to live in any dwelling that is worth less than 2.5 million.
 
2014-04-16 03:20:50 PM  

bunner: It's pretty much a fact that MOST of the money taken in by charities ends up on the ledger as "administrative expenses".


If people had any idea, just how little of the money they give to some of these charities, actually went to helping the cause, they'd stop giving.

I am only giving to the American Red Cross, and Toys for Tots, because of their demonstrable acts of giving.

pippi longstocking: Sadly, this is probably more helpful than any current program.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6fkyf9UGAE

Poverty is an imbedded structural feature of our current system. It's not a negative side-effect, it's a direct consequence of how the system and law is structured. It's like saying 200 years ago "Slavery bad? I treat my slaves very well, and give them extra food, so you see there is no problem."

You might argue if it's intentional or not, but look at history and tell me when and where society hasn't been like a pyramid, all the wealth and resources in the hands of few and the rest at the bottom.

So please tell me why I'm wrong, or please explain to me (cause I'm stupid) why things have to be this way, and we can't structurally get rid of this.


Kindly peddle your common sense elsewhere.

There will always be people who don't make the best life choices. Many will end up homeless, victims of their own making. I am getting a kick out of those in this thread who have been homeless, and have a job.

Seattle has hipsters living in tents, because the price of rent is almost as bad as SV. There are shelters, that have room, but they don't allow pets, drugs, or violence.

This may change, as a recent legal amendment will allow for civil commitment of some of these victims of society.

Yes, I do feel heartless because I can't help everyone, and because I think some people should be protected from themselves, but that is also the most compassionate thing we can do.

Just like I beseech people to spay and neuter stray animals, not to feed them, as it attracts problem pests, I'd ask others to spay, or neuter their weird friends.
 
2014-04-16 03:22:26 PM  

pedrop357: bunner: pedrop357: The moron I was replying to had a great idea to retrofit an unused building to serve as a housing solution

Thanks for letting the other shoe drop so loudly.  One more and you can dance with the mods, Demosthenes.

This is me making my scared face.


This is me pointing out that the preponderance of the ostensibly high minded users of this forum come here for the singular purpose of blowing dime store insults at people from behind their mother's skirts and try to palm it off as some sort of unimpeachable posture of intellectual rectitude.  Kind of pathetic, really.  But if it's the only thing i one's life that gives one leeway to be a jerk, and being a jerk is how they get their sense of self worth, I suppose pathetic is inconsequential.
 
2014-04-16 03:22:42 PM  

Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.


1. Person works, buys car.
2. Car is paid off.
3. Person is laid off from job, can't pay rent, moves into car
4. Internet forum poster Diogenes types stupid remark in response to news story.

The world continues to spin.

/what, you think everything purchased and paid for by someone when they are working miraculously disappears if they lose their job?
//physics doesn't work like that
 
2014-04-16 03:24:05 PM  

BigNumber12: meat0918: And yes, I'll pay more in taxes to support such a solution.

They know you will. And they keep throwing taxpayer money at the problem. Spend a few days strolling around San Francisco to see how well that's succeeded in "solving" homelessness.


The solution to lowering homelessness will involving lowering income inequality.

Or do what Utah does nationwide, and just give people that are having trouble a home and a caseworker.  Might actually be cheaper than jail.
 
2014-04-16 03:25:38 PM  

caddisfly: Prior to Reagan the federal government housed, fed, and clothed the vast majority of folks who are unable to support themselves due to mental illness.


Against their will. Funny how people always forget that part. Surely Nurse Ratched would fix them right up, or at least keep them out of our sight, which is what all of you actually want.
 
2014-04-16 03:26:48 PM  

meat0918:  Might actually be cheaper than jail.



It is amazingly cheaper than jail.  Just not as profitable.  Jails, I might add, are largely not the sort of places that zoning and housing authorities would be likely to pronounce long term habitable.  They sho nuff pay a lot of bills, though.  Homelessness is, fyou see, like anything that survives more than a week in America, an industry.
 
2014-04-16 03:27:09 PM  

pedrop357: Adss2009: You could substitute rebellion for socialism with no change. Americans refuse to impose anything on millionaires because they insist they will become one one day and don't want to have to live by those rules.

There are a lot of things I'm never going to be, but I won't be imposing rules on them I wouldn't want to live with if I were in their shoes.  It's called principles.  It's not right to do things to people simply because they aren't you.

BTW, we impose a lot of things on millionaires right now, the first thing being higher tax brackets which they can and do escape by donating to legally recognized charities.  If we're unhappy with them having lower tax rates, we can always raise their tax rates even more and watch their donations to those legally recognized charities drop OR if we're upset that the charities they donated to aren't doing what we think charities should do, we can alter the definition of charity.


There are a lot of things that we impose on people that we wouldn't want done if we were in that position.  Case in point: these people outlawing sleeping in cars.  I'm pretty sure these residents wouldnt be so cavalier about banning sleeping in cars if the situations were switched.  Millionaires, for some reason though, seem to get a large amount of sympathy from average americans when raising tax rates. I don't think that the higher tax rates cost as much to the rich as these bans/arrests cost to the homeless person.

Point being: No one fancies themselves as poor so we screw them. Everyone fancies themselves on the road to extreme wealth so don't mess with the rich.

/i'm speaking in generalities, obviously
 
2014-04-16 03:29:29 PM  

bunner: special20: I know how they feel - my GF had made do her in the butt last night, and I had to wash my cock off in the sink. It's not my fault she didn't feel like walking to the bathroom to get a nice warm cloth afterward. Sheesh! I felt taken advantage of. At least I got to admire my abs in the mirror.

*tooth sparkle"

I almost appreciate the comic relief.  Almost because you're not really good with this.  Take care.  *click*  :  )


Uh huh, "almost" is how I got into the wrong hole in the first place last night.
 
2014-04-16 03:29:41 PM  
Tired of not being invited to the soup kitchens?
 
2014-04-16 03:31:10 PM  

Another Government Employee: UberDave: Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.

Only if it has a tape deck...with a Creedence tape.

They don't want to be stuck in Lodi again.


thats a giggle
 
2014-04-16 03:31:27 PM  

Adss2009: Everyone fancies themselves on the road to extreme wealth so don't mess with the rich.


I call this the Getaway Car Delusion.


1.  I am being bent and greased by utter, thieving pricks in nice suits.
2.  The seem to be allowed to pull this sh*t and even get well compensated for it, so, if I play along
3.  I might get a spot at the trough and thereby be let in the club and get a seat in the Getaway Car.  Ha ha.  No.
 
2014-04-16 03:34:11 PM  

Big_Fat_Liar: meat0918: jshine: LeroyBourne: Those poor billionaires, how do they even get out of bed and face the world baffles me.

If you make billions in Silicon Valley, you probably don't sleep very often in the first place.

I wonder.  If each of the billionaires donated 1% of their wealth to helping address homelessness with some method other than relocating them, what would happen?

The billionaires would by 1% less rich.  Offering the homeless the same good advice and educational opportunities they already spent their entire lives turning away from, in most cases, isn't going to change many of them.  Remember the wonderful story about the homeless guy with the awesome radio voice?  When I become homeless you can bet it was my fault.  Despite my ability to do so, I have not saved adequately to protect myself from any kind of prolonged down-turn in my life.  Have you?  Most people don't.  If you don't have a $100,000 in the bank, but you've got a car payment because you felt you deserved a new car that your bank account said you didn't earn and you go out to eat every day like I do, STFU about rich people, blacks, whites, men, women, Republicans, Democrats, the tea party or gays being the source of your problems.  I don't have a hard time accepting that my own decisions are responsible for my relative lack of wealth and assets.  I don't know why more people can't accept the same.  We are all basically where we worked to be.  Yeah, there are a few hard luck cases just as there are some lucky winners, but 90% of people live in the circumstances they created.  (I got that number scientifically, out of my butt)


I don't have a car payment, I will never buy a new car, and I was a razor's edge away from living in a car with my family because I risked it all and moved out of Michigan and headed West without actually having a job lined up because I couldn't get a goddamn interview with any companies out here until I moved here.

We lived with my wife's parents until I landed a part time min wage job that I was making so little at I needed a piece of paper from my family saying they were helping supporting us in order to get into low income housing, but I was making too much to get added to the Section 8 waiting list.

I'm making well above the median income average for the area now, a little low for a software dev nationally but I am not complaining about what I get paid, because I don't really want the stress involved with a job like meyerkev has.

Plus I don't like the Bay Area.  Too many people, but it's a nice place to visit.  Coastal NorCal is nice too, but there are no jobs for me in the Fortuna/Eureka/Arcata area, and while the area is nice, the people are a little..... off.
 
2014-04-16 03:36:15 PM  
BigNumber12: LeroyBourne: One time my sister tried to give a hobo her left over Chinese food

Not even hobos are willing to take such a massive risk of contracting "social diseases."


I think he just insulted your sister. Or is your sister the disease-ridden whore he makes her out to be?
 
2014-04-16 03:36:35 PM  

pedrop357: Exactly what more should we be doing? Preferably, give some specifics.


Bump up taxes on the top bracket (I'm in favor of creating a super-high bracket, both for wages and cap gains, taxed at 45%) so that we can afford to spend more on food assistance (SNAP), UI, housing (I liked those links about building/retrofitting unused buildings - combine that with using renter-workers, or partnering with local businesses to run slates of interviews, etc, to give it some zest), cell phones and subsidized internet (to look for jobs - and I don't necessarily mean in every unit, though that'd be best obviously - and help keep them), and a reinstatement of the mental-health treatment rules Reagan did away with.

Also single-payer health insurance, to make sure everyone knows they really don't need to worry about INSURANCE, they need to worry about CARE.

pedrop357: We can do more, but there are limits to what we can do without essentially creating more "poor" to be taken care of and at least some goal should be set so we can use our money to the best effect.


Yes, if we taxed every rich person 100%, and every poor person 0%, we'd flip sides every year. In the real world however, few people (if any) slip down a bracket or two simply because of a tax bill.

// I'm also a big fan of clearing administrative overhead as much as possible, I'd bet there's lots of waste in that part of the programs
// but it's not about my ideas or Lee's; it's about welfare continuing to be a legitimate focus of government, even after the Great Society and giving fridges to 99.6% of homeless people, even though we haven't "solved" the problem yet
 
2014-04-16 03:39:04 PM  

2KanZam: Before anyone jumps my case...I was homeless. I slept in my car for about 4ish months.


For me, it was sleeping in a sugar beet field, in Idaho, in January.

I was never so happy as to find any job, as I was then.

meat0918: I wonder. If each of the billionaires donated 1% of their wealth to helping address homelessness with some method other than relocating them, what would happen?


Odd thing about handing out free money, you will never have enough to satisfy demand.

TheIndependent: Look, I'm not wasting any more time/money/effort on "cousin Ryan"...


For me, it's a sister. To be fair, she has reasons, just ask her. The reasons haven't changed much over the last 30 years.
 
2014-04-16 03:40:12 PM  
utownmissions.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-04-16 03:40:51 PM  

Hector Remarkable: BigNumber12: LeroyBourne: One time my sister tried to give a hobo her left over Chinese food

Not even hobos are willing to take such a massive risk of contracting "social diseases."

I think he just insulted your sister. Or is your sister the disease-ridden whore he makes her out to be?


I could roll with left over chinese food is a euphemism for sexy times, but I'm not an avg guy.
/c'mon baby, give me some of your left over chinese food
 
2014-04-16 03:41:27 PM  

bunner: And that's because for the 19th and 20th centuries, we were endlessly instilled with the notion that if you write paychecks, you're an owner and if you cash a paycheck, you're property and it is the duty of property to offer the greatest return to the owner, and gratefully, even if it's oppressive, offers a worthless and static existence and is at their own expense.  Slavery just keeps jumping down the dirty clothes chute and emerging in a new clown suit.


I just got an email today asking for a justification for a system upgrade in terms of how much headcount it would reduce.

Exchanging one piece of property for another.
 
2014-04-16 03:42:11 PM  

Slam1263: Odd thing about handing out free money, you will never have enough to satisfy demand.


I'm going to be honest, private charity sucks at meeting the demand for charity.

Amazingly though, government programs seem to do a better job meeting the need than private charity.  I wonder why that is?

Food stamps is a great example of this.
 
2014-04-16 03:42:24 PM  

Pangea: ikanreed: Pangea: Well I'm no farking Republican, and they certainly didn't ask my opinion.

Congratulations, you don't understand statistics and polling.  Do you have any other lack-of-insights to share?

And I can't blame people for not wanting your opinion.

Bullshiat.  There are pretty much no people I know who think the government should enact tighter controls over the salaries that companies can offer.Do you honestly think 90% of Democrats want that?

You might want it, but you're one of the most consistently bleeding-heart posters on this site.

Raising the minimum wage is an innocuous thing on the surface and only 80% of Democrats support it in this poll:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/public-sees-role-for- go vernment-in-reducing-wealth-inequality/2013/12/17/cf10d708-6785-11e3-8 b5b-a77187b716a3_graphic.html

Only a moron could see that number and assume MORE people support government controls to reduce wealth inequality.


Can I just say: derp.  Derpy derp.  You went "they didn't ask me" as if it mattered for numbers.  I wasn't pretending majorities are always right, I wasn't even saying that the polling data provided was accurate.  Just that your assertion that it mattered that anyone polled you was about as mindless and pointless as opinions can come.  You haven't changed my mind about that at all.
 
2014-04-16 03:44:40 PM  
bunner:

3.  I might get a spot at the trough and thereby be let in the club and get a seat in the Getaway Car.  Ha ha.  No.

That implies that I'm trying to get a seat in the "Getaway Car" or am concerned about the "trough".
 
gad
2014-04-16 03:44:44 PM  

Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.


Sometimes that's your last possession. And that was incredibly ignorant of you to say.
 
2014-04-16 03:45:42 PM  

Joe Blowme: [utownmissions.files.wordpress.com image 400x300]


If a homeless person.. has a funny sign.. He hasn't been homeless that long. A REAL homeless person is too hungry, to be funny.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-04-16 03:46:27 PM  

Adss2009: bunner:

3.  I might get a spot at the trough and thereby be let in the club and get a seat in the Getaway Car.  Ha ha.  No.

That implies that I'm trying to get a seat in the "Getaway Car" or am concerned about the "trough".


I implied nothing whatsoever upon you or your actions or reasons therefore, nor could I, as I am vastly unaware of them.
 
2014-04-16 03:52:13 PM  

bonobo73: The homeless deserve housing, food, and health care.

However, they smell, are annoying and are typically mentally instable, so not in Palo Alto, Menlo Park,or Los Altos, please, and especially not Atherton.   Maybe in East Palo Alto, Vallejo, or Oakland or hippy-dippy Santa Cruz.


Bakersfield
 
2014-04-16 03:52:45 PM  

sendtodave: Exchanging one piece of property for another.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-04-16 03:53:45 PM  

sendtodave: I just got an email today asking for a justification for a system upgrade in terms of how much headcount it would reduce.

Exchanging one piece of property for another.


"Dear Corporate Overlords:

If we continue running Win95 and don't upgrade to Win7, the risk to headcount is that everyone realizes how much cheap bastardry you engage in for no discernible purpose, and jumps ship.

Signed,
A Geek Who's Tired of Explaining to You That People Need Tech to do Their Jobs"

// had bosses who refused to upgrade hardware and software until an entire group threatened to quit
// because low-level stock laptops can't handle AutoCAD served over a network, dumbass!
 
2014-04-16 03:55:43 PM  

Pangea: I was laid off on more than one occasion and it farking sucked.


Me too -- twice in 3 years.  If you work in start-ups in Silicon Valley, that's just part of life.  You deal with it, and always recognize that the best job might be in another area.
 
2014-04-16 03:56:19 PM  

Fusilier: bonobo73: The homeless deserve housing, food, and health care.

However, they smell, are annoying and are typically mentally instable, so not in Palo Alto, Menlo Park,or Los Altos, please, and especially not Atherton.   Maybe in East Palo Alto, Vallejo, or Oakland or hippy-dippy Santa Cruz.

Bakersfield


That's just cruel...
 
2014-04-16 03:58:02 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Signed,A Geek Who's Tired of Explaining to You That People Need Tech to do Their Jobs"


"MAKE THE BLINKY THINGS GO ZOOM AND GIMMIE MOAR MUNNY NAO!!1!1!"
 
2014-04-16 04:02:17 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: armor helix: There are a lot of homeless shelters with empty rooms every night.

The reason? You have to be sober to use them.

If getting high is more important than a roof over your head that's your choice. But I don't want you sleeping in my dumpster.

So your brilliant solution to widespread homelessness caused by addiction is....NIMBY. Why did you even bother posting?


I don't think they proposed any solution. Merely stated part of the problem.

If we are going out on a limb to infer peoples positions on a solution where none was stated I would have to assume that your "solution" is to have homeless people live in dumpsters. That seems quite a bit more inhumane than his sentiment.
 
2014-04-16 04:03:03 PM  

caddisfly: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Of course very resident of Silicon Valley is a billionaire, and they hate the poor.

[wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net image 245x285]

Most people I know don't want someone living in a car in their neighborhood.

More accurately, most people don't want someone who lives in a car pooping in their garden and tossing their empties on the sidewalk.

Prior to Reagan the federal government housed, fed, and clothed the vast majority of folks who are unable to support themselves due to mental illness. Link These days we force them to live on the street or in prison, then we somehow complain that the cost of both is excessive for the taxpayer. My gut tells me that the cost of restoring taxpayer funded residential facilities would be a bargain by comparison. It might also greatly the improve the lives of folks living on our streets.

/have stepped in human poop twice now


A few years back I was in D.C. at the Corner of North Capital & H, right around the corner from Union Station. It was January, clear and cold, and right about sunset. Commuters were pouring out onto the streets headed home. A guy bundled against the cold (perhaps wearing his complete wardrobe), stopped right in the middle of the sidewalk, lowered his trousers and dropped a deuce.  People (including me) just gave him as wide a berth as they possibly could and kept on trucking.
 
2014-04-16 04:06:48 PM  

The first thing I looked at: UrukHaiGuyz: armor helix: There are a lot of homeless shelters with empty rooms every night.

The reason? You have to be sober to use them.

If getting high is more important than a roof over your head that's your choice. But I don't want you sleeping in my dumpster.

So your brilliant solution to widespread homelessness caused by addiction is....NIMBY. Why did you even bother posting?

I don't think they proposed any solution. Merely stated part of the problem.

If we are going out on a limb to infer peoples positions on a solution where none was stated I would have to assume that your "solution" is to have homeless people live in dumpsters. That seems quite a bit more inhumane than his sentiment.


I was mocking them. It's clear from the tone that the point of the post was casting moral judgement as a rationalization for the suffering of homeless addicts. Half the problem we have in dealing with problems like poverty is a Puritanical culture that deems empathy a flaw and glorifies sociopathic greed. The means aren't lacking nearly so much as the will.
 
2014-04-16 04:07:35 PM  

SphericalTime: armor helix: There are a lot of homeless shelters with empty rooms every night.

The reason? You have to be sober to use them.

If getting high is more important than a roof over your head that's your choice. But I don't want you sleeping in my dumpster.

Good thing people can't get addicted to those substances, or else what you said would sound heartless and cruel to people who find themselves caught up in a painful circle that many are unable to break free from.


Some people are addicted and make the choice to try and fight it.

Some people are addicted and make the conscious choice to live with it, knowing that it means they will sleep on the sidewalk. What do you do for people in that category? They don't want "help". They want drug/booze money.
 
2014-04-16 04:07:42 PM  

littlett's: EdNortonsTwin: A new thing in my area the past few weeks is the gas-station scam where someone asks for a couple bucks for gas "...to get home" .  First woman I gave a dollar - I watched her drive off w/o putting gas in her car.

Happened again a few days ago except it was a man who said he needed it to get home with his kids in the car.  He got 45 cents.  He also drove off w/o getting gas - I couldn't see kids through the tinted windows.

CSBooboo

Here the scam is that they were evicted from their apartment and need money for a hotel room.  It is the same story from different people that seem to rotate through the same parking lots.

Before that I got a lot of "My car broke down and I don't have any cash and I'm hungry."  It never failed that when I offered to buy them something to eat they would just ask me if they could have the money.


The latest one I saw was the girl needed money for laundry.
 
2014-04-16 04:07:48 PM  

pedrop357: Adss2009: You could substitute rebellion for socialism with no change. Americans refuse to impose anything on millionaires because they insist they will become one one day and don't want to have to live by those rules.

There are a lot of things I'm never going to be, but I won't be imposing rules on them I wouldn't want to live with if I were in their shoes.  It's called principles.  It's not right to do things to people simply because they aren't you.

BTW, we impose a lot of things on millionaires right now, the first thing being higher tax brackets which they can and do escape by donating to legally recognized charities.  If we're unhappy with them having lower tax rates, we can always raise their tax rates even more and watch their donations to those legally recognized charities drop OR if we're upset that the charities they donated to aren't doing what we think charities should do, we can alter the definition of charity.


People with ready cash are also amazingly mobile and inclined to understand what their options are. States like New Jersey, New York, and Maryland are bleeding millionaires.
 
2014-04-16 04:10:43 PM  

Dr Dreidel: sendtodave: I just got an email today asking for a justification for a system upgrade in terms of how much headcount it would reduce.

Exchanging one piece of property for another.

"Dear Corporate Overlords:

If we continue running Win95 and don't upgrade to Win7, the risk to headcount is that everyone realizes how much cheap bastardry you engage in for no discernible purpose, and jumps ship.

Signed,
A Geek Who's Tired of Explaining to You That People Need Tech to do Their Jobs"

// had bosses who refused to upgrade hardware and software until an entire group threatened to quit
// because low-level stock laptops can't handle AutoCAD served over a network, dumbass!


Other way.  We need the upgrade, they want to know how much staff it will reduce by getting it.

That is to say, for them, it's more worth it if it sheds jobs.
 
2014-04-16 04:10:57 PM  

Pangea: Dr Dreidel: // and if you really can't see an appreciable difference between the homelessness of the 1950s and the homelessness of today - or the compounding problems both then and now - there's no point in discussing it further

The other day my mom was telling me about growing up in the 1950s in Cleveland.

They used to see lots of fires out by the dump. That was were the homeless used to set up camp and live. I'm sure that experience wasn't limited to just one city in the cold northeast.


Are you sure those fires weren't the river?
 
2014-04-16 04:13:28 PM  

meat0918: Slam1263: Odd thing about handing out free money, you will never have enough to satisfy demand.

I'm going to be honest, private charity sucks at meeting the demand for charity.

Amazingly though, government programs seem to do a better job meeting the need than private charity.  I wonder why that is?

Food stamps is a great example of this.


For every dollar handed out in Foodstamps, the government overhead eats $5. Soc Sec, $3 dollars of overhead to give $1.

Honestly, I don't mind paying taxes, as a business owner, I pay more in taxes, and fees, than I pay in wages for any 3 employees. I'd rather pay my employees more. I don't take a wage, and I am hoping things improve in the future.

My only complaint is the amount of waste, and that the average Farker can't be bothered to read.
 
2014-04-16 04:16:19 PM  

LeroyBourne: Hector Remarkable: BigNumber12: LeroyBourne: One time my sister tried to give a hobo her left over Chinese food

Not even hobos are willing to take such a massive risk of contracting "social diseases."

I think he just insulted your sister. Or is your sister the disease-ridden whore he makes her out to be?

I could roll with left over chinese food is a euphemism for sexy times, but I'm not an avg guy.
/c'mon baby, give me some of your left over chinese food



bangers, beans, and mash
 
2014-04-16 04:18:37 PM  

The first thing I looked at: SphericalTime: armor helix: There are a lot of homeless shelters with empty rooms every night.

The reason? You have to be sober to use them.

If getting high is more important than a roof over your head that's your choice. But I don't want you sleeping in my dumpster.

Good thing people can't get addicted to those substances, or else what you said would sound heartless and cruel to people who find themselves caught up in a painful circle that many are unable to break free from.

Some people are addicted and make the choice to try and fight it.

Some people are addicted and make the conscious choice to live with it, knowing that it means they will sleep on the sidewalk. What do you do for people in that category? They don't want "help". They want drug/booze money.


It's pretty clear your don't actually understand addiction.
 
2014-04-16 04:22:01 PM  

Slam1263: meat0918: Slam1263: Odd thing about handing out free money, you will never have enough to satisfy demand.

I'm going to be honest, private charity sucks at meeting the demand for charity.

Amazingly though, government programs seem to do a better job meeting the need than private charity.  I wonder why that is?

Food stamps is a great example of this.

For every dollar handed out in Foodstamps, the government overhead eats $5. Soc Sec, $3 dollars of overhead to give $1.

Honestly, I don't mind paying taxes, as a business owner, I pay more in taxes, and fees, than I pay in wages for any 3 employees. I'd rather pay my employees more. I don't take a wage, and I am hoping things improve in the future.

My only complaint is the amount of waste, and that the average Farker can't be bothered to read.


Actually it's the opposite. The administration of food stamps is a fraction of the cost of money spent on food. And the economic activity created by food stamps is something like twice what are created by tax cuts.

Didn't want to let that slip by without saying the truth.
 
2014-04-16 04:26:26 PM  

sendtodave: Other way. We need the upgrade, they want to know how much staff it will reduce by getting it.

That is to say, for them, it's more worth it if it sheds jobs.


Oh, I got that, but it may help to explain to them that "doing nothing" is also a choice, and one that might cost more in headcount than a new purchase would save.

Like, if you bought a server that could handle top-flight payroll software, you could fire the 5 grabassers in HR (and keep Harriet for the annual sexual harassment seminar), but if you don't upgrade the dev team's boxen, they'll quit, and you lose far more in productivity than you'd save by headcount-reducing server magic.

I think of it as the same problem from the opposite side - matching The Tech to The Job. Sometimes that means buying tech and "selling" (firing) people, sometimes vice-versa.
 
2014-04-16 04:27:19 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: The first thing I looked at: UrukHaiGuyz: armor helix: There are a lot of homeless shelters with empty rooms every night.

The reason? You have to be sober to use them.

If getting high is more important than a roof over your head that's your choice. But I don't want you sleeping in my dumpster.

So your brilliant solution to widespread homelessness caused by addiction is....NIMBY. Why did you even bother posting?

I don't think they proposed any solution. Merely stated part of the problem.

If we are going out on a limb to infer peoples positions on a solution where none was stated I would have to assume that your "solution" is to have homeless people live in dumpsters. That seems quite a bit more inhumane than his sentiment.

I was mocking them. It's clear from the tone that the point of the post was casting moral judgement as a rationalization for the suffering of homeless addicts. Half the problem we have in dealing with problems like poverty is a Puritanical culture that deems empathy a flaw and glorifies sociopathic greed. The means aren't lacking nearly so much as the will.


And I was mocking you for reading what you wanted to instead of what was written.

I've had conversations with career drunks who chose the bottle over treatment, chose the bottle over their jobs and chose the bottle over having a home, all according to them. Should they be locked up and treated against their will? Everyone has problems, some much more severe than others but everyone still makes choices.

Oh and please, lets hear the plan to fix the homeless problem.
 
2014-04-16 04:27:30 PM  

SphericalTime: Slam1263: meat0918: Slam1263: Odd thing about handing out free money, you will never have enough to satisfy demand.

I'm going to be honest, private charity sucks at meeting the demand for charity.

Amazingly though, government programs seem to do a better job meeting the need than private charity.  I wonder why that is?

Food stamps is a great example of this.

For every dollar handed out in Foodstamps, the government overhead eats $5. Soc Sec, $3 dollars of overhead to give $1.

Honestly, I don't mind paying taxes, as a business owner, I pay more in taxes, and fees, than I pay in wages for any 3 employees. I'd rather pay my employees more. I don't take a wage, and I am hoping things improve in the future.

My only complaint is the amount of waste, and that the average Farker can't be bothered to read.

Actually it's the opposite. The administration of food stamps is a fraction of the cost of money spent on food. And the economic activity created by food stamps is something like twice what are created by tax cuts.

Didn't want to let that slip by without saying the truth.


So...............if every American (including our illegal friends in the shadows) receives food stamps, the economic activity that will ensue as a result will make us all farking rich?
 
2014-04-16 04:27:32 PM  

probesport: meyerkev: Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.

BWAH HAH HAH.   $1.2 Million for a Frigging townhouse.  And they all sold for cash offers.

If you want to be middle-class, stay out of blue states.
If you want to be rich, move to a blue state and then get lucky.

/Hong Kong exodus FTFail.

May want to revisit that map.


1) Slight fixup.  By blue state, I mean NE and Left Coast.  We don't really have a good term for that and that term was bad.  "Really blue state"?

2) Average income in MS is ~$35K household.  Which admittedly sucks.  Flip side of that is that if I had to make $35K/year in any state, it'd probably be Mississippi or similar levels of suckage.  Because I can do way more on $35K in MS than in CA.

Move me up to an average Midwestern state (or better yet, reasonably well-trained professional married to other reasonably well-trained professional in Midwestern state), and yeah sure, I'm stuck on Midwestern wages, but I'm doing it in a Midwestern real estate market.

Meanwhile, average household income in SF is $68K.  Which after taxes becomes $48K and rent is $36K/year.  In exchange, I'm an evil 1%er if I get really, really lucky.

Sure, I'll never get rich in MS, but I can get middle-class pretty easy.

Which was sort of my point.
 
2014-04-16 04:28:54 PM  

SphericalTime: Slam1263: meat0918: Slam1263: Odd thing about handing out free money, you will never have enough to satisfy demand.

I'm going to be honest, private charity sucks at meeting the demand for charity.

Amazingly though, government programs seem to do a better job meeting the need than private charity.  I wonder why that is?

Food stamps is a great example of this.

For every dollar handed out in Foodstamps, the government overhead eats $5. Soc Sec, $3 dollars of overhead to give $1.

Honestly, I don't mind paying taxes, as a business owner, I pay more in taxes, and fees, than I pay in wages for any 3 employees. I'd rather pay my employees more. I don't take a wage, and I am hoping things improve in the future.

My only complaint is the amount of waste, and that the average Farker can't be bothered to read.

Actually it's the opposite. The administration of food stamps is a fraction of the cost of money spent on food. And the economic activity created by food stamps is something like twice what are created by tax cuts.

Didn't want to let that slip by without saying the truth.


Last I looked, for every $1 spent on food stamps, $1.67 was the ROI

www.motherjones.com
 
2014-04-16 04:30:05 PM  

SphericalTime: The first thing I looked at: SphericalTime: armor helix: There are a lot of homeless shelters with empty rooms every night.

The reason? You have to be sober to use them.

If getting high is more important than a roof over your head that's your choice. But I don't want you sleeping in my dumpster.

Good thing people can't get addicted to those substances, or else what you said would sound heartless and cruel to people who find themselves caught up in a painful circle that many are unable to break free from.

Some people are addicted and make the choice to try and fight it.

Some people are addicted and make the conscious choice to live with it, knowing that it means they will sleep on the sidewalk. What do you do for people in that category? They don't want "help". They want drug/booze money.

It's pretty clear your don't actually understand addiction.


Ok champ, if you say so.

If you understand it so well, what should be done?
 
2014-04-16 04:31:20 PM  

Slam1263: For every dollar handed out in Foodstamps, the government overhead eats $5. Soc Sec, $3 dollars of overhead to give $1.


Citation?  I thought food stamps were one of the more efficient programs out there?

Brookings says $35.8B in cost, $4.8-5.7B in overhead.  Using the worst number that FLIPS your ratio - for every $5.28 paid out there's $1 in overhead.  $6.46 if you use the lower figure for expenses.

The really bad ratios, as I understand it, is school grants because schools will hire people to get grants so long as they can get more in grants than it costs to employ them.  So they'd hire a guy for $100k($150k with benefits) to pull in $200k in grants.  Then it costs another $20k or so for the feds to hire somebody to process and grant the grants that the dude gets.  $50k of benefit for the school bought at ~$220k worth of expense to the government.
 
2014-04-16 04:31:48 PM  

Fusilier: SphericalTime: Slam1263: meat0918: Slam1263: Odd thing about handing out free money, you will never have enough to satisfy demand.

I'm going to be honest, private charity sucks at meeting the demand for charity.

Amazingly though, government programs seem to do a better job meeting the need than private charity.  I wonder why that is?

Food stamps is a great example of this.

For every dollar handed out in Foodstamps, the government overhead eats $5. Soc Sec, $3 dollars of overhead to give $1.

Honestly, I don't mind paying taxes, as a business owner, I pay more in taxes, and fees, than I pay in wages for any 3 employees. I'd rather pay my employees more. I don't take a wage, and I am hoping things improve in the future.

My only complaint is the amount of waste, and that the average Farker can't be bothered to read.

Actually it's the opposite. The administration of food stamps is a fraction of the cost of money spent on food. And the economic activity created by food stamps is something like twice what are created by tax cuts.

Didn't want to let that slip by without saying the truth.

So...............if every American (including our illegal friends in the shadows) receives food stamps, the economic activity that will ensue as a result will make us all farking rich?


It's actually pretty sound economic theory.

If you give money to the people most likely to spend it, you generate economic activity.

If you give money to the people most likely to save it, you wasted your money.
 
2014-04-16 04:37:16 PM  

The first thing I looked at: UrukHaiGuyz: The first thing I looked at: UrukHaiGuyz: armor helix: There are a lot of homeless shelters with empty rooms every night.

The reason? You have to be sober to use them.

If getting high is more important than a roof over your head that's your choice. But I don't want you sleeping in my dumpster.

So your brilliant solution to widespread homelessness caused by addiction is....NIMBY. Why did you even bother posting?

I don't think they proposed any solution. Merely stated part of the problem.

If we are going out on a limb to infer peoples positions on a solution where none was stated I would have to assume that your "solution" is to have homeless people live in dumpsters. That seems quite a bit more inhumane than his sentiment.

I was mocking them. It's clear from the tone that the point of the post was casting moral judgement as a rationalization for the suffering of homeless addicts. Half the problem we have in dealing with problems like poverty is a Puritanical culture that deems empathy a flaw and glorifies sociopathic greed. The means aren't lacking nearly so much as the will.

And I was mocking you for reading what you wanted to instead of what was written.


I read mostly moral judgement and disdain. Don't think I'm wrong in that.

I've had conversations with career drunks who chose the bottle over treatment, chose the bottle over their jobs and chose the bottle over having a home, all according to them. Should they be locked up and treated against their will? Everyone has problems, some much more severe than others but everyone still makes choices.

Oh and please, lets hear the plan to fix the homeless problem.


We're slowly creeping towards it, and it's not one solution, as there isn't one simple root cause for homelessness. It basically comes down to increasing the safety net to the level of Nordic countries, such that you've got to fall pretty hard to crash through it. Saner drug laws, universal healthcare, increased funding for job training and rehabilitation as opposed to incarceration for addicts, and a new CCC-style job corps would be great steps forward.
 
2014-04-16 04:38:36 PM  

meat0918: Fusilier: SphericalTime: Slam1263: meat0918: Slam1263: Odd thing about handing out free money, you will never have enough to satisfy demand.

I'm going to be honest, private charity sucks at meeting the demand for charity.

Amazingly though, government programs seem to do a better job meeting the need than private charity.  I wonder why that is?

Food stamps is a great example of this.

For every dollar handed out in Foodstamps, the government overhead eats $5. Soc Sec, $3 dollars of overhead to give $1.

Honestly, I don't mind paying taxes, as a business owner, I pay more in taxes, and fees, than I pay in wages for any 3 employees. I'd rather pay my employees more. I don't take a wage, and I am hoping things improve in the future.

My only complaint is the amount of waste, and that the average Farker can't be bothered to read.

Actually it's the opposite. The administration of food stamps is a fraction of the cost of money spent on food. And the economic activity created by food stamps is something like twice what are created by tax cuts.

Didn't want to let that slip by without saying the truth.

So...............if every American (including our illegal friends in the shadows) receives food stamps, the economic activity that will ensue as a result will make us all farking rich?

It's actually pretty sound economic theory.

If you give money to the people most likely to spend it, you generate economic activity.

If you give money to the people most likely to save it, you wasted your money.


Where this world view stumbles is that no one gives me my money. I earn it. Despite what Mr. Obama says, I built that.
When my efforts stop being of personal benefit, I'm inclined to work less and devote time and energy to other things.
 
2014-04-16 04:41:39 PM  

Fusilier: meat0918: Fusilier: SphericalTime: Slam1263: meat0918: Slam1263: Odd thing about handing out free money, you will never have enough to satisfy demand.

I'm going to be honest, private charity sucks at meeting the demand for charity.

Amazingly though, government programs seem to do a better job meeting the need than private charity.  I wonder why that is?

Food stamps is a great example of this.

For every dollar handed out in Foodstamps, the government overhead eats $5. Soc Sec, $3 dollars of overhead to give $1.

Honestly, I don't mind paying taxes, as a business owner, I pay more in taxes, and fees, than I pay in wages for any 3 employees. I'd rather pay my employees more. I don't take a wage, and I am hoping things improve in the future.

My only complaint is the amount of waste, and that the average Farker can't be bothered to read.

Actually it's the opposite. The administration of food stamps is a fraction of the cost of money spent on food. And the economic activity created by food stamps is something like twice what are created by tax cuts.

Didn't want to let that slip by without saying the truth.

So...............if every American (including our illegal friends in the shadows) receives food stamps, the economic activity that will ensue as a result will make us all farking rich?

It's actually pretty sound economic theory.

If you give money to the people most likely to spend it, you generate economic activity.

If you give money to the people most likely to save it, you wasted your money.

Where this world view stumbles is that no one gives me my money. I earn it. Despite what Mr. Obama says, I built that.
When my efforts stop being of personal benefit, I'm inclined to work less and devote time and energy to other things.


So someone gives you money.

Got it.
 
2014-04-16 04:41:45 PM  

OOBE Juan Kenobi: Next up: a law banning people from sleeping on yachts

I know you were trying to be funny, but actually this is already a rule in many, many areas. At minimum, most marinas don't allow for you to live on your boat (be it because of insurance or municipal code). Typically you're only allowed to stay onboard 15 days out of the month and have to have a regular residence. There are "liveaboards" allowed in some marinas, but they have to pay more for using that as their mailing address.

Many folks who live on board their boat move from one place to the next, typically because of these rules.

In some areas now, even if you're anchoring overnight, you have to pay a fee if you want to say more than a couple days.

/lives on a boat for part of the year
 
2014-04-16 04:46:41 PM  

Felgraf: jwa007: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

You are missing a good teaching moment here.  You can use the homeless as examples of what happen if you pursue degrees in the liberal arts.  Scare the little womprats into STEM.

Which won't bemuch help if we keep importing people who can be pressured to accept artificially low wages since their visa is tied to their employment (Which is BS, since it gives an employer INSANE extra leverage that they do not have over an american citizen).


We are looking right at you HP!


One of the worst offenders of visa fraud!
 
2014-04-16 04:46:58 PM  

meat0918: Fusilier: meat0918: Fusilier: SphericalTime: Slam1263: meat0918: Slam1263: Odd thing about handing out free money, you will never have enough to satisfy demand.

I'm going to be honest, private charity sucks at meeting the demand for charity.

Amazingly though, government programs seem to do a better job meeting the need than private charity.  I wonder why that is?

Food stamps is a great example of this.

For every dollar handed out in Foodstamps, the government overhead eats $5. Soc Sec, $3 dollars of overhead to give $1.

Honestly, I don't mind paying taxes, as a business owner, I pay more in taxes, and fees, than I pay in wages for any 3 employees. I'd rather pay my employees more. I don't take a wage, and I am hoping things improve in the future.

My only complaint is the amount of waste, and that the average Farker can't be bothered to read.

Actually it's the opposite. The administration of food stamps is a fraction of the cost of money spent on food. And the economic activity created by food stamps is something like twice what are created by tax cuts.

Didn't want to let that slip by without saying the truth.

So...............if every American (including our illegal friends in the shadows) receives food stamps, the economic activity that will ensue as a result will make us all farking rich?

It's actually pretty sound economic theory.

If you give money to the people most likely to spend it, you generate economic activity.

If you give money to the people most likely to save it, you wasted your money.

Where this world view stumbles is that no one gives me my money. I earn it. Despite what Mr. Obama says, I built that.
When my efforts stop being of personal benefit, I'm inclined to work less and devote time and energy to other things.

So someone gives you money.

Got it.


Apparently you don't get it. You (or anyone) can give me money if you want to. I will not perform work for you. A perceptive person might see a difference here
 
2014-04-16 04:48:44 PM  

meat0918: Actually it's the opposite. The administration of food stamps is a fraction of the cost of money spent on food. And the economic activity created by food stamps is something like twice what are created by tax cuts.


Yep, he got the ratio backwards.  I would have been quicker but I wanted to find a source.  Then I had to do calculations because it didn't look at it from that perspective.

Last I looked, for every $1 spent on food stamps, $1.67 was the ROI

[www.motherjones.com image 428x958]


1.  ROI is different than the overhead percentage, whether the program is efficient at getting it into the intended hands.
2.  I've always advocated for the work-share, infrastructure, and making it cheaper for businesses to hire people, but it's good seeing confirmation that they're good ideas(in general).
 
2014-04-16 04:50:56 PM  

Fusilier: Apparently you don't get it. You (or anyone) can give me money if you want to. I will not perform work for you. A perceptive person might see a difference here


The original comment about where government money is best spent is completely unrelated to what work you expect to get out of the stimulus. Welfare (tax cuts) for the wealthy are a total drain on the economy, as the wealthy are not likely to spend any more than they would have, as they're already teetering at the top of Maslow's hierarchy of need. Welfare for those on the lowest rungs of society has an immediate stimulative effect, as they're needs are largely not being met. It's a better ROI for government dollars.
 
2014-04-16 04:51:12 PM  

Fusilier: Where this world view stumbles is that no one gives me my money. I earn it. Despite what Mr. Obama says, I built that.
When my efforts stop being of personal benefit, I'm inclined to work less and devote time and energy to other things.


It's a liberal thing, only outcomes and intentions are relevant.

To them, the government handing money they collect via taxes to people is no different than an employer handing money to a person.

Also, when the government reduces taxes on someone, that's the same as the government giving them money.  The money the government "gives" to people should be spent and not saved.

We wonder why we have such huge problems with debt and bankruptcy in this country, yet so many people ridicule people who save as well as the overall concept of saving, and try to redefine the concept of earning an income by blurring the lines between money earned and money distributed via a social welfare program.

Whenever a person is suggested to be 'hoarding' their money or needlessly saving it, they should just say that they're preserving it for future generations.
 
2014-04-16 04:58:04 PM  

pedrop357: Fusilier: Where this world view stumbles is that no one gives me my money. I earn it. Despite what Mr. Obama says, I built that.
When my efforts stop being of personal benefit, I'm inclined to work less and devote time and energy to other things.

It's a liberal thing, only outcomes and intentions are relevant.

To them, the government handing money they collect via taxes to people is no different than an employer handing money to a person.

Also, when the government reduces taxes on someone, that's the same as the government giving them money.  The money the government "gives" to people should be spent and not saved.

We wonder why we have such huge problems with debt and bankruptcy in this country, yet so many people ridicule people who save as well as the overall concept of saving, and try to redefine the concept of earning an income by blurring the lines between money earned and money distributed via a social welfare program.

Whenever a person is suggested to be 'hoarding' their money or needlessly saving it, they should just say that they're preserving it for future generations.


Actually, this liberal wants to see all income earned below 20,000 to be exempt from taxation.

Some go higher than that, and want to see the first 50K or 100K exempt from taxation.

The stimulative effect would be tremendous, and most people would get to keep more of their money.  I say most, because I'd also remove the cap on the Social Security tax, making it a sliding scale for benefits, and adding another tax bracket for the ultra wealthy.
 
2014-04-16 04:58:58 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Fusilier: Apparently you don't get it. You (or anyone) can give me money if you want to. I will not perform work for you. A perceptive person might see a difference here

The original comment about where government money is best spent is completely unrelated to what work you expect to get out of the stimulus. Welfare (tax cuts) for the wealthy are is a total drain on the economy, as the wealthy are not likely to spend any more than they would have, as they're already teetering at the top of Maslow's hierarchy of need. Welfare for those on the lowest rungs of society has an immediate stimulative effect, as they're their needs are largely not being met. It's a better ROI for government dollars.


FTFM
 
2014-04-16 05:01:07 PM  

meat0918: ScaryBottles: meat0918: Stay out of Eugene please.

Attempt no landing here, the goodwill has dried up, and the citizenry are tired of the homeless and the homeless advocates trying to get the city to lift the camping ban in public parks.

I feel for the homeless, and hope they can utilize the many public and private programs we have available to get back on their feet.  The chronic homeless, they have help available if they can actually decide to use it.  Not sure if that is possible for some of the ones with the really bad mental issues, but what can be done for them within the bounds of the law?

I'm actually for what Utah is doing being implemented in Oregon, but I doubt I'd have many supporters.
So I guess you missed the part of the article where they pointed out that the programs you're referring to are taxed far beyond their capacity already. In some cases trying to help 10 times the number of people they are equipped to.

Now do the one about the lazy homeless bum who makes $400 a day begging while you slave over the frier at McD's thats my favorite.

I want a solution beyond a place to sleep, is that too much to ask?

And yes, I'll pay more in taxes to support such a solution.


Apologies then I agree 100%
 
2014-04-16 05:09:15 PM  

meat0918: Actually, this liberal wants to see all income earned below 20,000 to be exempt from taxation.

Some go higher than that, and want to see the first 50K or 100K exempt from taxation.

The stimulative effect would be tremendous, and most people would get to keep more of their money. I say most, because I'd also remove the cap on the Social Security tax, making it a sliding scale for benefits, and adding another tax bracket for the ultra wealthy.


I hate the idea of anyone over 18 having a 0% tax burden because I think anyone of voting age should have "skin in the game" , though I'll admit the savings in overhead from no longer collecting taxes on those with <$20,000 income would probably make it worth it from a monetary standpoint.

Social security has contribution caps because there are benefit caps.  Removing the contribution cap without the benefit cap would, however, convert social security into just another tax and spending measure without any real connection between contributor and recipient.  That should make the debates about eliminating it a little easier once people can't say that they only get what they put in.

When you say "adding another tax bracket for the ultra wealthy", do you want to tax wealth or income?  Taxing income at really high rates was done in the past with limited success.  If you want to tax wealth itself, I'd be curious to know how you propose to do that.
 
2014-04-16 05:10:16 PM  

meat0918: I want a solution beyond a place to sleep, is that too much to ask?

And yes, I'll pay more in taxes to support such a solution.


Don't need to pay more taxes.  You can do what I do right now and support various local food banks, rescue missions, and homeless shelters.
 
2014-04-16 05:10:26 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: If you live in a car but have no job, Silicon Valley really isn't the place for you.

Unless you can marry a millionaire VC, that is.


I don't agree. I've known people who live in cars and have jobs, around here. Housing and rental costs around here are absurdly high, and not everyone who's homeless is jobless. There is such a thing as productive homelessness.
 
2014-04-16 05:15:08 PM  

pedrop357: When you say "adding another tax bracket for the ultra wealthy", do you want to tax wealth or income?  Taxing income at really high rates was done in the past with limited success.  If you want to tax wealth itself, I'd be curious to know how you propose to do that.


Capital gains should be taxed at/near income. Wall Street isn't doing much for the common person anyway, and as a vehicle for retirement savings/pensions, we can do better. The wealthy benefit to a ridiculously higher degree by promoting passive income over earned income.
 
2014-04-16 05:15:57 PM  

pedrop357: meat0918: I want a solution beyond a place to sleep, is that too much to ask?

And yes, I'll pay more in taxes to support such a solution.

Don't need to pay more taxes.  You can do what I do right now and support various local food banks, rescue missions, and homeless shelters.


No you cannot, and the food banks were hit hard after congress cut food stamps.  They do not have enough to go around, and yes, I donate to the food bank.  I've donated both fresh produce when available and timed right (i.e. delivered the day before the food bank is open) and money.

To answer your other question about how you tax wealth.

Estate taxes used to do a good job of that.
 
2014-04-16 05:16:10 PM  

Firethorn: 1.  ROI is different than the overhead percentage, whether the program is efficient at getting it into the intended hands.


Well yes, but ROI is kind of the point.  At least as long as we're pre-post-scarcity.  Because positive ROI things

If 80% of your 2x return program is waste (and overhead), then I'd rather that you fixed the waste, but I won't be biatching about the program as a concept.  (IE: I really wish we had better mass transit (37 MPH average speed.  No wonder the traffic sucks), and at the same time, I'm appalled at the sheer amount of waste Caltrain has, but that doesn't mean I hate Caltrain in general).

If in turn, only 5% of your "Let's burn a giant pile of money in Times Square" plan is overhead, it's still a stupid plan.
 
2014-04-16 05:16:33 PM  

smd31: Didn't read the article (like any good farker) but saw the picture of skid row and was like, "I've been there."  It was interesting (not quite the right word) to see the disparity between homeless living on the street and the next street over is where the $$ lives and they passed an ordinance (law?) that no one can sleep on the streets past x street.  Sad all the way around. :(


It's like that in the west coast city where I live as well. In the shadow (as in the shadow) of blocks of brand new million dollar crackerbox condos are entire families of homeless people, some within spitting distance... if the condo dwellers cared to (or could) open the window.
I often wondered what it would feel like to sit in a place like that and be able to turn my $1000 easy recliner just a little to the right... so that I could see mom, and grandma, and the two kids sitting on a blanket in front of the storefront church, with everything they own wrapped up in just two sheets and a shopping cart.

That is the ass-kicker here. There is almost no transition in many places between the have-everythings and the have-nothings because the places downtown and elsewhere that the have-nothings have been living in for decades have been taken over by developers and their bajillion-dollar nightmares. Parking lots, open grassy areas, older buildings (here anything that was built before 1960 is an "older building"), nowhere is safe from their claws. As a result there are only bits and chunks and pieces of ground where these poors can exist, and even those are subject to frequent harassment and arrest due to the influence of the condo cavepeople.

Farking sad.
 
2014-04-16 05:21:08 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: pedrop357: When you say "adding another tax bracket for the ultra wealthy", do you want to tax wealth or income?  Taxing income at really high rates was done in the past with limited success.  If you want to tax wealth itself, I'd be curious to know how you propose to do that.

Capital gains should be taxed at/near income. Wall Street isn't doing much for the common person anyway, and as a vehicle for retirement savings/pensions, we can do better. The wealthy benefit to a ridiculously higher degree by promoting passive income over earned income.


Fair enough, BUT we would see a lot more short term investing and even more focus on making money in the short term.  I don't see that as a good thing for the economy.

Publicly traded corporations and banks basically do everything for the common person.  Look around and see how many incredibly useful and beneficial things are made by or separated by 1 degree from a large corporation or financed by a large bank.
 
2014-04-16 05:22:37 PM  

pedrop357: I hate the idea of anyone over 18 having a 0% tax burden because I think anyone of voting age should have "skin in the game" , though I'll admit the savings in overhead from no longer collecting taxes on those with <$20,000 income would probably make it worth it from a monetary standpoint.


I hate it too, but if we're collecting taxes in order to pay for their welfare, then we're just being inefficient because of deadweight losses.

/And given that 1 40-hour min-wage job pays like $15K, it's not *that* hard to get to $20K at some point in your lifetime.
//And yes, I get that 40-hour min-wage job is a complete oxymoron.
 
2014-04-16 05:24:50 PM  

pedrop357: UrukHaiGuyz: pedrop357: When you say "adding another tax bracket for the ultra wealthy", do you want to tax wealth or income?  Taxing income at really high rates was done in the past with limited success.  If you want to tax wealth itself, I'd be curious to know how you propose to do that.

Capital gains should be taxed at/near income. Wall Street isn't doing much for the common person anyway, and as a vehicle for retirement savings/pensions, we can do better. The wealthy benefit to a ridiculously higher degree by promoting passive income over earned income.

Fair enough, BUT we would see a lot more short term investing and even more focus on making money in the short term.  I don't see that as a good thing for the economy.

Publicly traded corporations and banks basically do everything for the common person.  Look around and see how many incredibly useful and beneficial things are made by or separated by 1 degree from a large corporation or financed by a large bank.


I'm all ears on how we can encourage corporations to make better long term viability decisions.  We could outsource our phone service to India and save money in the short term, but we'd lose customers because, well, our customers value having the people that have installed the system being the guy they call when they have a problem.

It helps we are not publicly traded.
 
2014-04-16 05:27:50 PM  

meyerkev: pedrop357: I hate the idea of anyone over 18 having a 0% tax burden because I think anyone of voting age should have "skin in the game" , though I'll admit the savings in overhead from no longer collecting taxes on those with <$20,000 income would probably make it worth it from a monetary standpoint.

I hate it too, but if we're collecting taxes in order to pay for their welfare, then we're just being inefficient because of deadweight losses.

/And given that 1 40-hour min-wage job pays like $15K, it's not *that* hard to get to $20K at some point in your lifetime.
//And yes, I get that 40-hour min-wage job is a complete oxymoron.


That oxy-moron is a reality for some people.
 
2014-04-16 05:28:49 PM  

pedrop357: UrukHaiGuyz: pedrop357: When you say "adding another tax bracket for the ultra wealthy", do you want to tax wealth or income?  Taxing income at really high rates was done in the past with limited success.  If you want to tax wealth itself, I'd be curious to know how you propose to do that.

Capital gains should be taxed at/near income. Wall Street isn't doing much for the common person anyway, and as a vehicle for retirement savings/pensions, we can do better. The wealthy benefit to a ridiculously higher degree by promoting passive income over earned income.

Fair enough, BUT we would see a lot more short term investing and even more focus on making money in the short term.  I don't see that as a good thing for the economy.


Short term gains and quarterly profits are already driving an extremely volatile stock market. I think you could structure new cap gains tax laws to de-incentivize that kind of speculation. Something like you get x tax rate if you hold your stock for y period of time and, and the basic lower rate after that.

Publicly traded corporations and banks basically do everything for the common person.  Look around and see how many incredibly useful and beneficial things are made by or separated by 1 degree from a large corporation or financed by a large bank.

That's cause they hold all the capital. I think you've got the cause and effect backwards. There's something to be said for economies of scale, but corporations have also been very successful in promoting and buying legislation that favors them.
 
2014-04-16 05:32:28 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: pedrop357: UrukHaiGuyz: pedrop357: When you say "adding another tax bracket for the ultra wealthy", do you want to tax wealth or income?  Taxing income at really high rates was done in the past with limited success.  If you want to tax wealth itself, I'd be curious to know how you propose to do that.

Capital gains should be taxed at/near income. Wall Street isn't doing much for the common person anyway, and as a vehicle for retirement savings/pensions, we can do better. The wealthy benefit to a ridiculously higher degree by promoting passive income over earned income.

Fair enough, BUT we would see a lot more short term investing and even more focus on making money in the short term.  I don't see that as a good thing for the economy.

Short term gains and quarterly profits are already driving an extremely volatile stock market. I think you could structure new cap gains tax laws to de-incentivize that kind of speculation. Something like you get x tax rate if you hold your stock for y period of time and, and the basic lower rate after that.

Publicly traded corporations and banks basically do everything for the common person.  Look around and see how many incredibly useful and beneficial things are made by or separated by 1 degree from a large corporation or financed by a large bank.

That's cause they hold all the capital. I think you've got the cause and effect backwards. There's something to be said for economies of scale, but corporations have also been very successful in promoting and buying legislation that favors them.


Introduce a random delay on submission for high speed trades.
 
2014-04-16 05:41:19 PM  

pedrop357: UrukHaiGuyz: pedrop357: When you say "adding another tax bracket for the ultra wealthy", do you want to tax wealth or income?  Taxing income at really high rates was done in the past with limited success.  If you want to tax wealth itself, I'd be curious to know how you propose to do that.

Capital gains should be taxed at/near income. Wall Street isn't doing much for the common person anyway, and as a vehicle for retirement savings/pensions, we can do better. The wealthy benefit to a ridiculously higher degree by promoting passive income over earned income.

Fair enough, BUT we would see a lot more short term investing and even more focus on making money in the short term.  I don't see that as a good thing for the economy.

Publicly traded corporations and banks basically do everything for the common person.  Look around and see how many incredibly useful and beneficial things are made by or separated by 1 degree from a large corporation or financed by a large bank.


Was going to say this.

1) Short-term capital gains is taxed as income.  Done.
2) Almost no other country in the world taxes long-term capital gains as income.  (Belgium's at ZERO percent, and I actually admire the elegance of Canada's approach of treating $1 of capital gains as 50c of regular income).
3) There's a definite baby with bathwater issue here.  EVERYTHING is funded by somebody's money.  Everything.  Savings is investment by definition.   http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/03/economic-consequences-of-income-inequ a lity/ (Ironically, this is probably the single best argument for and against income inequality I've read ever, though I'm sitting in Silicon Valley, home of Option 3A).

And I don't know how much you value say Google, but I think that getting Google and Facebook and Netflix etc, etc, etc is *probably* worth the mild inequality.  There's a lot of free shiat/good work coming out of Silicon Valley.

/Admittedly, I'm in Silicon Valley and if I can keep you guys from getting your way until AFTER I'm a millionaire, that'd be great.  So hold off like 5 years.  Because I get $400K over the next three, hang onto $250K after taxes (CA capital gains tax rates SUCK), and then yeah.
 
2014-04-16 05:43:09 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: AverageAmericanGuy: If you live in a car but have no job, Silicon Valley really isn't the place for you.

Unless you can marry a millionaire VC, that is.

I don't agree. I've known people who live in cars and have jobs, around here. Housing and rental costs around here are absurdly high, and not everyone who's homeless is jobless. There is such a thing as productive homelessness.


Well, Bless their hearts, but I'd never choose to live that way. If a job does not pay enough to at a bare minimum keep a roof over my head, and food on my table, I'd feel like I was being exploited, and would be on the next bus out of town headed somewhere I could make that happen.
 
2014-04-16 05:48:25 PM  

meat0918: That oxy-moron is a reality for some people.


Meaning that acc. to common knowledge, a job that pays minimum wage *certainly* isn't going to give you 40 hours.  It's either going to give you 29.5 or 60 (in one memorable personal experience).

So I was preempting the inevitable "But a minimum wage job doesn't give you 40 hours and you have to work 3 of them with a 4-hour bus ride in between to make ends meet" comments.
 
2014-04-16 05:49:42 PM  

rewind2846: smd31: Didn't read the article (like any good farker) but saw the picture of skid row and was like, "I've been there."  It was interesting (not quite the right word) to see the disparity between homeless living on the street and the next street over is where the $$ lives and they passed an ordinance (law?) that no one can sleep on the streets past x street.  Sad all the way around. :(

It's like that in the west coast city where I live as well. In the shadow (as in the shadow) of blocks of brand new million dollar crackerbox condos are entire families of homeless people, some within spitting distance... if the condo dwellers cared to (or could) open the window.
I often wondered what it would feel like to sit in a place like that and be able to turn my $1000 easy recliner just a little to the right... so that I could see mom, and grandma, and the two kids sitting on a blanket in front of the storefront church, with everything they own wrapped up in just two sheets and a shopping cart.

That is the ass-kicker here. There is almost no transition in many places between the have-everythings and the have-nothings because the places downtown and elsewhere that the have-nothings have been living in for decades have been taken over by developers and their bajillion-dollar nightmares. Parking lots, open grassy areas, older buildings (here anything that was built before 1960 is an "older building"), nowhere is safe from their claws. As a result there are only bits and chunks and pieces of ground where these poors can exist, and even those are subject to frequent harassment and arrest due to the influence of the condo cavepeople.

Farking sad.


Sounds like a third world environment.
 
2014-04-16 05:51:42 PM  

meyerkev: nd I don't know how much you value say Google, but I think that getting Google and Facebook and Netflix etc, etc, etc is *probably* worth the mild inequality.  There's a lot of free shiat/good work coming out of Silicon Valley.


It's pretty ridiculous to think those things wouldn't exist in a more equal society. With a more robust safety net, I'd argue you'd have many many more potential garage tech entrepreneurs, since without having to worry about scrambling towards an upper class income just to avoid the uncertainty of a middle class wage they could circuit bend/program to their hearts content without a crushing fear of imminent poverty.

VC's and angel investors don't have much with speculators riding whatever next ill-thought bubble.
 
2014-04-16 05:52:30 PM  
*don't have much to do with
 
2014-04-16 05:55:49 PM  

umad: pippi longstocking: Sadly, this is probably more helpful than any current program.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6fkyf9UGAE

Poverty is an imbedded structural feature of our current system. It's not a negative side-effect, it's a direct consequence of how the system and law is structured. It's like saying 200 years ago "Slavery bad? I treat my slaves very well, and give them extra food, so you see there is no problem."

You might argue if it's intentional or not, but look at history and tell me when and where society hasn't been like a pyramid, all the wealth and resources in the hands of few and the rest at the bottom.

So please tell me why I'm wrong, or please explain to me (cause I'm stupid) why things have to be this way, and we can't structurally get rid of this.

I can explain. Things have to be this way, and we can't structurally get rid of this, because society is composed of humans. Legislate against the laws of nature all you want. You would have just as much success if you attempted to ban gravity.


I don't think this is true.  Homeless people shot up in the 80's when we decided to stop paying for the mentally ill to be in institutions.  Before that I saw almost no homeless.  I believe this is more than anecdotal, statistics would bear this out.
 
2014-04-16 05:56:32 PM  

Fusilier: Some 'Splainin' To Do: AverageAmericanGuy: If you live in a car but have no job, Silicon Valley really isn't the place for you.

Unless you can marry a millionaire VC, that is.

I don't agree. I've known people who live in cars and have jobs, around here. Housing and rental costs around here are absurdly high, and not everyone who's homeless is jobless. There is such a thing as productive homelessness.

Well, Bless their hearts, but I'd never choose to live that way. If a job does not pay enough to at a bare minimum keep a roof over my head, and food on my table, I'd feel like I was being exploited, and would be on the next bus out of town headed somewhere I could make that happen.


On that point I agree.

And the kicker is, they are being exploited.  If everyone demanded a wage that allowed them to put a roof over their heads (not necessarily a nice roof, but a place to live other than your car or a tent), the employers would have no choice but to offer such a wage.
 
2014-04-16 05:56:50 PM  

pedrop357: Fusilier: Where this world view stumbles is that no one gives me my money. I earn it. Despite what Mr. Obama says, I built that.
When my efforts stop being of personal benefit, I'm inclined to work less and devote time and energy to other things.

It's a liberal thing, only outcomes and intentions are relevant.



The difference between a liberal and a conservative is that liberals think they should help people who can't help themselves, and conservatives think they should help themselves.
 
2014-04-16 06:00:03 PM  

Fusilier: Some 'Splainin' To Do: AverageAmericanGuy: If you live in a car but have no job, Silicon Valley really isn't the place for you.

Unless you can marry a millionaire VC, that is.

I don't agree. I've known people who live in cars and have jobs, around here. Housing and rental costs around here are absurdly high, and not everyone who's homeless is jobless. There is such a thing as productive homelessness.

Well, Bless their hearts, but I'd never choose to live that way. If a job does not pay enough to at a bare minimum keep a roof over my head, and food on my table, I'd feel like I was being exploited, and would be on the next bus out of town headed somewhere I could make that happen.


1) So I've heard, but sadly don't have a cite, that the average Hispanic household in the Valley makes $20K/year.  Given that I had 12 people from 4 separate families cramming into a 2 BR in my complex, I can believe it.

2) Rent is stupid.  Admittedly, I'm deliberately on transit, but even off transit, it's stupid.  There's about a million more people than rooms so the prices are stupid.  And then traffic is really stupid (And while transit to SF is not terrible, transit to the Valley just sucks), which combines with geography to make "the bits near workplaces" even more stupid.

3) There's a lot of "Go work at startup for stock, make no money*, and then get stock, which may or may not be worth anything" people.  This actually makes a non-zero amount of sense, because making almost nothing and then paying capital gains on the windfall, is notably cheaper than actually making that same money over 20 years.

* I took a $40K paycut to come here.  Worked out brilliantly, but.
 
2014-04-16 06:00:31 PM  

RisaTravelAgent: I don't think this is true.  Homeless people shot up in the 80's when we decided to stop paying for the mentally ill to be in institutions.  Before that I saw almost no homeless.  I believe this is more than anecdotal, statistics would bear this out.


And as I said later in the thread, yes, it was awesome when we locked the mentally ill away against their will in order to keep them out of our sight. It was simple and cost effective. Just lobotomize the unruly ones and then keep them all fed, doped up, and in clean diapers. Bang up solution to the problem that was. No issues with human rights at all.
 
2014-04-16 06:06:25 PM  

Fusilier: Some 'Splainin' To Do: AverageAmericanGuy: If you live in a car but have no job, Silicon Valley really isn't the place for you.

Unless you can marry a millionaire VC, that is.

I don't agree. I've known people who live in cars and have jobs, around here. Housing and rental costs around here are absurdly high, and not everyone who's homeless is jobless. There is such a thing as productive homelessness.

Well, Bless their hearts, but I'd never choose to live that way. If a job does not pay enough to at a bare minimum keep a roof over my head, and food on my table, I'd feel like I was being exploited, and would be on the next bus out of town headed somewhere I could make that happen.


If you're in the tech industry, moving away from SC is generally not a great option unless you  really don't have any other options, particularly if you've got a specialized skill set.  Sure, you  can move to Modesto in the hopes that you can find some job that's better than meth dealer, but why do that if you can muddle along for six months in the hope of finding a position that actually matches your skills and which would, ultimately, pay better than a position outside of the Valley?

Bear in mind that these sorts of situations aren't generally permanent. Most of the homeless population are only temporarily homeless. These aren't typically the homeless you encounter, however, because they're too busy trying to line up jobs (or simply working) to be out panhandling.  They've generally suffered some deep financial loss that makes it impossible for them to pay rent, but they're still employable. Living in a car is just a way to cut costs until you can either store up enough funds or can find yourself a better job.
 
2014-04-16 06:11:30 PM  

The first thing I looked at: SphericalTime: The first thing I looked at: SphericalTime: armor helix: There are a lot of homeless shelters with empty rooms every night.

The reason? You have to be sober to use them.

If getting high is more important than a roof over your head that's your choice. But I don't want you sleeping in my dumpster.

Good thing people can't get addicted to those substances, or else what you said would sound heartless and cruel to people who find themselves caught up in a painful circle that many are unable to break free from.

Some people are addicted and make the choice to try and fight it.

Some people are addicted and make the conscious choice to live with it, knowing that it means they will sleep on the sidewalk. What do you do for people in that category? They don't want "help". They want drug/booze money.

It's pretty clear your don't actually understand addiction.

Ok champ, if you say so.

If you understand it so well, what should be done?


Honestly? Legalize a whole range of psychedelics that have shown marked potential for treating a range of problems from fear of death to addiction (http://iceers.org/docs/science/ayahuasca/Halpern%20et%20al_2008_Evid en ce_Health_Safety_Ayahuasca.pdf & http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/lsd-anxiety-study-psychother a py-_n_4906596.html are ok examples.)  Build more low-income housing in wealthy areas overflowing with homeless. Treat addiction as a health concern and not a law-enforcement issue.

But you probably just want them to "go away" amirite? Maybe to some farm, where there's lots of room to run and other animals to play with but it's too far for us to visit? Rocks are free, why don't you start bashing homeless/addicts heads? You'd be a hero to your peers.
 
2014-04-16 06:18:05 PM  

MaliFinn: pedrop357: Fusilier: Where this world view stumbles is that no one gives me my money. I earn it. Despite what Mr. Obama says, I built that.
When my efforts stop being of personal benefit, I'm inclined to work less and devote time and energy to other things.

It's a liberal thing, only outcomes and intentions are relevant.


The difference between a liberal and a conservative is that liberals think they should help people who can't help themselves, and conservatives think they should help themselves.


When it comes to economic matters, I believe it is essential to put on my own oxygen mask first. Unless my household micro- economy is firing on all cylinders, I can not choose to help anyone else, and YOU can not tax income that I don't have.
 
2014-04-16 06:27:01 PM  

meyerkev: Fusilier: Some 'Splainin' To Do: AverageAmericanGuy: If you live in a car but have no job, Silicon Valley really isn't the place for you.

Unless you can marry a millionaire VC, that is.

I don't agree. I've known people who live in cars and have jobs, around here. Housing and rental costs around here are absurdly high, and not everyone who's homeless is jobless. There is such a thing as productive homelessness.

Well, Bless their hearts, but I'd never choose to live that way. If a job does not pay enough to at a bare minimum keep a roof over my head, and food on my table, I'd feel like I was being exploited, and would be on the next bus out of town headed somewhere I could make that happen.

1) So I've heard, but sadly don't have a cite, that the average Hispanic household in the Valley makes $20K/year.  Given that I had 12 people from 4 separate families cramming into a 2 BR in my complex, I can believe it.

2) Rent is stupid.  Admittedly, I'm deliberately on transit, but even off transit, it's stupid.  There's about a million more people than rooms so the prices are stupid.  And then traffic is really stupid (And while transit to SF is not terrible, transit to the Valley just sucks), which combines with geography to make "the bits near workplaces" even more stupid.

3) There's a lot of "Go work at startup for stock, make no money*, and then get stock, which may or may not be worth anything" people.  This actually makes a non-zero amount of sense, because making almost nothing and then paying capital gains on the windfall, is notably cheaper than actually making that same money over 20 years.

* I took a $40K paycut to come here.  Worked out brilliantly, but.


Well that's a choice. Some people elect to move to the Yukon, live in an unheated cabin and pan for gold. Their reality tv show might be more interesting than yours, but then maybe not. You are entrepreneurial and a risk-taker. That's a very conservative and very American path. Glad it's worked out. The folks who are truly in the $shidte are the people doing menial jobs providng you service. It's probably fine for the people who actually own those service businesses, but a very poor choice for their wage slaves.
 
2014-04-16 06:31:11 PM  

meyerkev: Felgraf: jwa007: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

You are missing a good teaching moment here.  You can use the homeless as examples of what happen if you pursue degrees in the liberal arts.  Scare the little womprats into STEM.

Which won't be much help if we keep importing people who can be pressured to accept artificially low wages since their visa is tied to their employment (Which is BS, since it gives an employer INSANE extra leverage that they do not have over an american citizen).

Yeah.

Look, The H1-B guys don't make low enough salaries to the point where it affects your salary to the point where you can't afford rent.  [Insert usual "rent is stupid, taxes are stupid, rent pushes you into such high tax brackets where rent + taxes on income needed to pay rent is more than my parent's combined income" rant here].  You can't do a whole lot ELSE because the rent is too damn high, but the H1-B's are not the main problem anyways.  And besides, I'd much rather that Ragesh be sitting in Cupertino pulling in $60K than in Mumbai pulling in $20K.  Makes it way easier for me to ask for $100K plus signing bonus plus stock.

Despite being in Silicon Valley with the crazy H1-B guys, there's a non-zero chance that I'm a member of the 1% for the next 4 years.  In my early 20's.  (And the land of million-dollar townhouses.  Adjust actual things that you can buy with that money downwards by about 5).  Yeah, I'm not worried.

And the CEO of our company that put me into the 1% was one of those H1-B's.  Yes, bring them here.  Skim India and Brain Drain FTW.

/And since programmers make more than the median wage, H1-B's improve income equality.
//And of course, given that immigrants lower wages, why exactly is the Left so pro-poor/unskilled-people-immigration?


Any underemployed psych majors want to tackle this screed?
 
2014-04-16 06:31:32 PM  
Meh. Just place big "Google Driverless Car Prototype" stickers on the homeless people's cars, and wait for the Occupy whackjobs to smash them and set them on fire.

Also, put up a webcam to catch and convict the Occupiers for criminal vandalism.
 
2014-04-16 06:32:57 PM  

lewismarktwo: meyerkev: Felgraf: jwa007: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.

You are missing a good teaching moment here.  You can use the homeless as examples of what happen if you pursue degrees in the liberal arts.  Scare the little womprats into STEM.

Which won't be much help if we keep importing people who can be pressured to accept artificially low wages since their visa is tied to their employment (Which is BS, since it gives an employer INSANE extra leverage that they do not have over an american citizen).

Yeah.

Look, The H1-B guys don't make low enough salaries to the point where it affects your salary to the point where you can't afford rent.  [Insert usual "rent is stupid, taxes are stupid, rent pushes you into such high tax brackets where rent + taxes on income needed to pay rent is more than my parent's combined income" rant here].  You can't do a whole lot ELSE because the rent is too damn high, but the H1-B's are not the main problem anyways.  And besides, I'd much rather that Ragesh be sitting in Cupertino pulling in $60K than in Mumbai pulling in $20K.  Makes it way easier for me to ask for $100K plus signing bonus plus stock.

Despite being in Silicon Valley with the crazy H1-B guys, there's a non-zero chance that I'm a member of the 1% for the next 4 years.  In my early 20's.  (And the land of million-dollar townhouses.  Adjust actual things that you can buy with that money downwards by about 5).  Yeah, I'm not worried.

And the CEO of our company that put me into the 1% was one of those H1-B's.  Yes, bring them here.  Skim India and Brain Drain FTW.

/And since programmers make more than the median wage, H1-B's improve income equality.
//And of course, given that immigrants lower wages, why exactly is the Left so pro-poor/unskilled-people-immigration?

Any underemployed psych majors want to tackl ...


I was hoping to hear from a BA in feminist puppet theatre.
 
2014-04-16 06:38:04 PM  

gerrymander: Meh. Just place big "Google Driverless Car Prototype" stickers on the homeless people's cars, and wait for the Occupy whackjobs to smash them and set them on fire.

Also, put up a webcam to catch and convict the Occupiers for criminal vandalism.


WTF are you on about?

Teamsters are against that, not Occupiers.
 
2014-04-16 06:41:17 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I don't see this as a 1% problem. Homeless people on the street just bother the us 95% ers that have to walk our kids to school because the pan handlers creep the kids out.


You know that the word "homeless" means "without a home", right? While most "creepy panhandlers" might be homeless, most homeless aren't creepy panhandlers. If you lost your home right now, I doubt you'd turn into an un-bathed, mentally ill "creepy panhandler". You'd probably look and act the same as you do now around other people.
 
2014-04-16 06:55:37 PM  

lewismarktwo: Any underemployed psych majors want to tackle this screed?


Did I say Psych majors?

The implication of the H1-B thing is that hiring H1-B programmers and engineers drives down the wages of American programmers and engineers.

And I'm saying that:

a) It's not to a degree worth mentioning.  It's certainly not the direct cause of "Can't afford rent".  My super-below-market-straight-out-of-college-at-a-startup salary could pay rent.  And student loans.  And a car payment.  And beer vodka money.  Not taking the startup would've paid off all my student loans immediately.
b) I'd much rather compete with Ragesh making $50K in SF than making $20K in Mumbai.  And I actually know a couple of Ragesh's and they make about what I do.  That's not to say that there aren't flaws with H1-B (Among other things, the good Ragesh's are good, and I'd really like to be able to hire them away, which I can't), but yes, on balance, I like H1-B.
c) Ragesh from 15 years ago is my boss.  He came to America, got his PHD, worked at a big company for a few years, and then founded the company that made me my fortune.
d) Also, the more Ragesh's we have here, the more Ragesh's aren't in India trying to move Silicon Valley out of the USA.

So yeah, can I have some more please?
 
2014-04-16 07:08:05 PM  
In San Antonio they just write them a ticket every time they catch them f*cking up, which they don't pay of course.  So eventually they get caught again, and the judge says:  "Well, you got 6 tickets here worth $1800, why not just leave town and we'll forget the whole thing, okay?

They bus them to Corpus Christi where the weather is nicer and the handouts are more generous.  Put together with all the wetbacks and rust belt refugees we already have, it makes it impossible for anyone to get a start in this community.
 
2014-04-16 07:32:18 PM  

Fusilier: meat0918: It's actually pretty sound economic theory.

If you give money to the people most likely to spend it, you generate economic activity.

If you give money to the people most likely to save it, you wasted your money.

Where this world view stumbles is that no one gives me my money. I earn it. Despite what Mr. Obama says, I built that.
When my efforts stop being of personal benefit, I'm inclined to work less and devote time and energy to other things.


My favorite part of this response is how it wildly misses addressing anything meat0918 was saying about the effectiveness of food stamps.
 
2014-04-16 07:43:56 PM  

pedrop357: Fusilier: Where this world view stumbles is that no one gives me my money. I earn it. Despite what Mr. Obama says, I built that.
When my efforts stop being of personal benefit, I'm inclined to work less and devote time and energy to other things.

It's a liberal thing, only outcomes and intentions are relevant.

To them, the government handing money they collect via taxes to people is no different than an employer handing money to a person.

Also, when the government reduces taxes on someone, that's the same as the government giving them money.  The money the government "gives" to people should be spent and not saved.

We wonder why we have such huge problems with debt and bankruptcy in this country, yet so many people ridicule people who save as well as the overall concept of saving, and try to redefine the concept of earning an income by blurring the lines between money earned and money distributed via a social welfare program.

Whenever a person is suggested to be 'hoarding' their money or needlessly saving it, they should just say that they're preserving it for future generations.


"Outcomes" are a liberal thing?  I mean, I agree with that, but it's funny to see someone who isn't a liberal say it.  After all, it's pretty much ceding the "common sense" ground to the left.

I guess the easiest way to understand this is to turn it around: for a conservative, it doesn't matter what the outcome is.  As a conservative, you can do anything you want, and it doesn't matter what you intend to happen or what actually happens (because those are dirty liberal concerns) as long as . . . you achieve ideological purity?  Is that it?

But if there's a problem and you want to fix it, then you shouldn't be looking for effective methods of solving the problem (again, because the only idiots that care about results are liberals!) you should just blindly follow what the arbiters of your ideology say.

There are all these crazy conservative ideas about how to fix problems, but it's been clear for nearly two decades that only liberals care about what actually works.
 
2014-04-16 07:53:40 PM  

Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.


if your car is paid off but not worth much, why sell it when you can sleep in it and use it to get to job interviews?
 
2014-04-16 07:54:17 PM  
There's plans, actions, promises, schemes, ideologies, intentions, points of view, hopes and there's results.  And I guarantee you that most of the first 8 are pretty much fish titties useless when held up to the results.  34 years of trickle down, feed the rich, job creators, corporate welfare and and brick wall of "fu*k you, suck it up" from the people selling those listless, 8th grade lunch table notions to anybody who complains has gotten us, precisely, here.  Votes and all.  If you still think the answers or even people who give a f*ck about the questions are nestled in the carefully cupped hands of our ragged, assless, redundant and vestigial method of "governance", you're delusional.

This is the government.
www.steinski.com


This is a vote.
www.mycvf.org
Take off those shoes, Cinderella.


Your carriage has been repo'd and your gown is covered in soot.
 
2014-04-16 07:55:42 PM  
I visited a friend today in Electra, Texas, between Wichita Falls and Amarillo; there were many vacant houses, and he said they could be picked up for around $5,000 each, but there were no buyers.  Seems to me you could afford that on a welfare check, and in a few short years, the house is all yours.

Maybe the answer is to move them to small towns, everywhere I go I see empty houses in small towns which nobody wants.

There are 3 million homeless and 18 million vacant houses in Amerika, you do the math.
 
2014-04-16 07:59:39 PM  

olddinosaur: There are 3 million homeless and 18 million vacant houses in Amerika, you do the math.


And most of those homes are places where either nobody has to nickels to throw into a hat because there's no work, or there's enough crime to make a mafia don shiat his pants.  Or both.
 
2014-04-16 08:00:59 PM  

umad: RisaTravelAgent: I don't think this is true.  Homeless people shot up in the 80's when we decided to stop paying for the mentally ill to be in institutions.  Before that I saw almost no homeless.  I believe this is more than anecdotal, statistics would bear this out.

And as I said later in the thread, yes, it was awesome when we locked the mentally ill away against their will in order to keep them out of our sight. It was simple and cost effective. Just lobotomize the unruly ones and then keep them all fed, doped up, and in clean diapers. Bang up solution to the problem that was. No issues with human rights at all.


Yeah, because there's no middle ground at all between "lock people up against their will" and "toss all the mentally ill out onto the streets." Do you realize most people in mental institutions are there voluntarily and can leave any time they want?
 
2014-04-16 08:04:44 PM  
During my time at a jr university near shallow alto I knew several homeless graduate students , including some interns at stanford medical center. Yes the doctors treating you in the er. The stanford er sucks, a friend nearly died waiting on care. I myself was nearly homeless trying to find an apartment between finishing school and starting a job due to a lack of vacancies. /shallow alto can bite me
 
2014-04-16 08:06:15 PM  

olddinosaur: I visited a friend today in Electra, Texas, between Wichita Falls and Amarillo; there were many vacant houses, and he said they could be picked up for around $5,000 each, but there were no buyers.  Seems to me you could afford that on a welfare check, and in a few short years, the house is all yours.

Maybe the answer is to move them to small towns, everywhere I go I see empty houses in small towns which nobody wants.

There are 3 million homeless and 18 million vacant houses in Amerika, you do the math.


Welfare is largely for families with children. A single adult will probably be able to food stamps from the government, and that's it. As the article says, waiting lists for subsidized housing already have thousands of people on them. Do you really think if the homeless could collect welfare, they'd be living on the streets? Do you think that if a person had $5,000 dollars on them, they'd be out on the streets right now?
 
2014-04-16 08:11:05 PM  

bunner: olddinosaur: There are 3 million homeless and 18 million vacant houses in Amerika, you do the math.

And most of those homes are places where either nobody has to nickels to throw into a hat because there's no work, or there's enough crime to make a mafia don shiat his pants.  Or both.


I am currently on a road trip through the lesser highways, one of many such trips I have taken.  Everywhere I go in small towns I see vacant houses, boarded--up stores and an all--around atmosphere of desertion.  There is no work in small towns---but very little crime either.

Conversely, last year I was in Key West, where a "cheap" apartment is $3000+ and the cheapest hotel I could find---a dump---was $177 in the off season.  There were tons of homeless assembling every morning at Mickey D's, and except for the crappy clothes, shaggy beards and long hair, they were as "normal" as anyone else in Key West.  They just didn't have very much---or want very much, they were content to lie on the beach and vegetate.
 
2014-04-16 08:13:34 PM  

olddinosaur: Key West, where a "cheap" apartment is $3000+ ... they were content to lie on the beach and vegetate.


Heh, that's the other point.

At what point is being homeless a good decision?  Not "I'm broke as fark", but "A PO box is $X, an apartment is $Y, and gas is $Z.  How much money can I make in one year?"
 
2014-04-16 08:17:55 PM  
I believe you.  I did some gigs down there and it's the last vestige of the "hey, it's warm here.  Let's get smashed silly and chill, brah" crowd, and they all have a "philosophy" that they feel is justification for it.  Lazy will always find it's lowest common denominator.  And greed will always try and justify itself with equally lame, utter bullsh*t.  The bullshiat excuses are just easier to palm off in a 3,000.00 suit from he back of a 190,000.00 car.  It makes you look like you're doing something useful.
 
2014-04-16 08:22:48 PM  

meyerkev: olddinosaur: Key West, where a "cheap" apartment is $3000+ ... they were content to lie on the beach and vegetate.

Heh, that's the other point.

At what point is being homeless a good decision?  Not "I'm broke as fark", but "A PO box is $X, an apartment is $Y, and gas is $Z.  How much money can I make in one year?"


When I was in Atchison Kansas two years ago, everywhere I went I saw hundreds of vacant houses, many quite large and quite nice.  A friend of mine bought a 2--story 3+2 in a nice neighborhood, older but sturdy, 1800 sq. ft. for $18,000.  At the same time they spent $7 million for a high rise for low income people, enough to buy 4 houses for every low income family, and the mortgage would still be less than they pay in subsidized rent.  Even if the project lost money it would not have lost the whole $7 million, and the people would have homes which they own, not rented apartments.

The solution is to get government out of the housing industry, because they will only funk it up like they have for education, agriculture, urban renewal, poverty, public safety and everything else.
 
2014-04-16 08:27:54 PM  
olddinosaur: The solution is to get government out of the housing industry, because they will only funk it up like they have for education, agriculture, urban renewal, poverty, public safety and everything else.
 
2014-04-16 08:49:07 PM  

Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.


Implying you can't have owned the car before being kicked out on the streets.

Logic, how does it work?
 
2014-04-16 08:57:10 PM  

SphericalTime: "Outcomes" are a liberal thing? I mean, I agree with that, but it's funny to see someone who isn't a liberal say it. After all, it's pretty much ceding the "common sense" ground to the left.

I guess the easiest way to understand this is to turn it around: for a conservative, it doesn't matter what the outcome is. As a conservative, you can do anything you want, and it doesn't matter what you intend to happen or what actually happens (because those are dirty liberal concerns) as long as . . . you achieve ideological purity? Is that it?


Ideological purity could be rephrased as "principles".  Conservatives, libertarians, want to do good things, but not violate certain principles to do it.  As for intentions dominating, that's almost entirely a liberal thing.

The one thing I see very strongly in liberal policies (but not exclusively liberal policies) is that not even outcomes, but intentions are the only thing that matters, very little time seems to be put into good, proper, or fair methods/means, and virtually no time is expended understanding alternate means to pursue the same ends.

When a politician takes the position that as long as "it worked" or they mean/meant well, it's OK, I can bet on them being Democrat/liberal.

The post that I was replying to was replying to someone else who just couldn't understand the difference between companies 'giving' their employees money and the government giving people money.
 But if there's a problem and you want to fix it, then you shouldn't be looking for effective methods of solving the problem (again, because the only idiots that care about results are liberals!) you should just blindly follow what the arbiters of your ideology say.

 There are all these crazy conservative ideas about how to fix problems, but it's been clear for nearly two decades that only liberals care about what actually works.


Yes, and that's the problem.

Two people care about how to get people from point A to point B.  One of them wants to build a road around existing properties, the other wants to simply make it a straight line right through dozens of houses.  They both want the same thing with differing methods.  They can both claim it worked, but only can one really claim that they did it without stepping on everyone to do it.

As an aside, the only thing more infuriating than this "ends/intentions justify the means" thinking is the idea that their way is the only way. I've seen, read and spoken to far too many a liberal who thinks that the way to do %goodthing% is 'this' way, and  anyone who opposes doing it a different way actually opposes %goodthing%.  Alternate methods are rarely discussed except to point out how imperfect or hard they might be, even if the original proposal was also similarly or more imperfect and/or costly or difficult to maintain in the long run.
 
2014-04-16 09:01:27 PM  

The first thing I looked at: SphericalTime: The first thing I looked at: SphericalTime: armor helix: There are a lot of homeless shelters with empty rooms every night.

The reason? You have to be sober to use them.

If getting high is more important than a roof over your head that's your choice. But I don't want you sleeping in my dumpster.

Good thing people can't get addicted to those substances, or else what you said would sound heartless and cruel to people who find themselves caught up in a painful circle that many are unable to break free from.

Some people are addicted and make the choice to try and fight it.

Some people are addicted and make the conscious choice to live with it, knowing that it means they will sleep on the sidewalk. What do you do for people in that category? They don't want "help". They want drug/booze money.

It's pretty clear your don't actually understand addiction.

Ok champ, if you say so.

If you understand it so well, what should be done?


Wanting to stop but being unable to fight compulsion is one of the hallmarks of addiction. It's not a case of what "should be done", because if anyone knew that, addiction wouldn't be nearly so rampant.
 
2014-04-16 09:06:16 PM  

The_Original_Roxtar: Diogenes: If you can afford a car you're not poor.

if your car is paid off but not worth much, why sell it when you can sleep in it and use it to get to job interviews?


This isn't to single you out per se, but to all the same comments... unfortunately, Diogenes trolled you all too well. You have to read the bulk of his posts to understand that this was snark. It's a more subtle "they're not poor, they have refrigerators" comment.
 
2014-04-16 10:16:25 PM  
If those homeless werent so lazy they would form the front lines in the class war.  They're not even valuable enough for fodder at this rate.
 
2014-04-16 10:16:50 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: The first thing I looked at: UrukHaiGuyz: The first thing I looked at: UrukHaiGuyz: armor helix: There are a lot of homeless shelters with empty rooms every night.

The reason? You have to be sober to use them.

If getting high is more important than a roof over your head that's your choice. But I don't want you sleeping in my dumpster.

So your brilliant solution to widespread homelessness caused by addiction is....NIMBY. Why did you even bother posting?

I don't think they proposed any solution. Merely stated part of the problem.

If we are going out on a limb to infer peoples positions on a solution where none was stated I would have to assume that your "solution" is to have homeless people live in dumpsters. That seems quite a bit more inhumane than his sentiment.

I was mocking them. It's clear from the tone that the point of the post was casting moral judgement as a rationalization for the suffering of homeless addicts. Half the problem we have in dealing with problems like poverty is a Puritanical culture that deems empathy a flaw and glorifies sociopathic greed. The means aren't lacking nearly so much as the will.

And I was mocking you for reading what you wanted to instead of what was written.

I read mostly moral judgement and disdain. Don't think I'm wrong in that.

I've had conversations with career drunks who chose the bottle over treatment, chose the bottle over their jobs and chose the bottle over having a home, all according to them. Should they be locked up and treated against their will? Everyone has problems, some much more severe than others but everyone still makes choices.

Oh and please, lets hear the plan to fix the homeless problem.

We're slowly creeping towards it, and it's not one solution, as there isn't one simple root cause for homelessness. It basically comes down to increasing the safety net to the level of Nordic countries, such that you've got to fall pretty hard to crash through it. Saner drug laws, universal healthcare, increased funding for job training and rehabilitation as opposed to incarceration for addicts, and a new CCC-style job corps would be great steps forward.


There wasn't moral judgement or disdain in my original post. I was stating that people who choose to be addicts and live on the street aren't going to be getting help from me to do it.

We have a relatively large homeless population where I live (Monterey County, CA). Most of the homeless people that I've seen are lazy, con artist, self entitled jerks. They will turn down food if they think they can get money out of you. They will crap on your property, wipe their ass and then leave the whole mess right there. They use drugs and leave the syringes wherever the hell they want. My comment was directed at those people. Until you've had to clean up human fecal matter on your property please stfu about people that have being "morally judgmental."

Yes, I do realize that some people are homeless through no fault of their own. They aren't the ones using intravenous drugs, stealing everything that isn't tied down, using intravenous drugs on our property and having violent tirades on the sidewalks.
 
2014-04-16 10:44:47 PM  

armor helix: We have a relatively large homeless population where I live (Monterey County, CA). Most of the homeless people that I've seen are lazy, con artist, self entitled jerks. They will turn down food if they think they can get money out of you. They will crap on your property, wipe their ass and then leave the whole mess right there


You also just described the real estate mortgage banking industry.  All kidding aside, yeah, a lot of people who are homeless are sh*bags, wackos, and piss lazy.  Now, that seems to be a fair assessment, but think back at when the word "homeless" started to become common in the American lexicon as a "new thing".
 
2014-04-16 11:22:46 PM  
The liberals want to mass produce poor people to keep themselves in power, let them care for them.
The 1% are in charge of creating jobs, paying the taxes, providing our infrastructure, an preventing us from living like every other left leaning state on the planet, not sheltering political peasants.
 
2014-04-16 11:27:48 PM  
I have been homeless, right after college. Got a job in a biker bar to get quick cash. It was a low cost of living place but it still took a couple weeks to get first and last months rent.
For 10 years after finding a job I worked 80 hours a week so I would never be helpless again. I still feel that fear.

You will never get back on your feet with rents of $2500 per month. Ever.

A successful program would provide housing and job training in areas where we have a shortage , like skilled labor,and then relocation for the familyto somewhere that needs workers.

It would cost more in the short run but reduce so many costs long term.
 
2014-04-16 11:45:54 PM  

meyerkev: lewismarktwo: Any underemployed psych majors want to tackle this screed?

Did I say Psych majors?

The implication of the H1-B thing is that hiring H1-B programmers and engineers drives down the wages of American programmers and engineers.

And I'm saying that:

a) It's not to a degree worth mentioning.  It's certainly not the direct cause of "Can't afford rent".  My super-below-market-straight-out-of-college-at-a-startup salary could pay rent.  And student loans.  And a car payment.  And beer vodka money.  Not taking the startup would've paid off all my student loans immediately.
b) I'd much rather compete with Ragesh making $50K in SF than making $20K in Mumbai.  And I actually know a couple of Ragesh's and they make about what I do.  That's not to say that there aren't flaws with H1-B (Among other things, the good Ragesh's are good, and I'd really like to be able to hire them away, which I can't), but yes, on balance, I like H1-B.
c) Ragesh from 15 years ago is my boss.  He came to America, got his PHD, worked at a big company for a few years, and then founded the company that made me my fortune.
d) Also, the more Ragesh's we have here, the more Ragesh's aren't in India trying to move Silicon Valley out of the USA.

So yeah, can I have some more please?


media.giphy.com
 
2014-04-17 12:51:38 AM  

pedrop357: SphericalTime: "Outcomes" are a liberal thing? I mean, I agree with that, but it's funny to see someone who isn't a liberal say it. After all, it's pretty much ceding the "common sense" ground to the left.

I guess the easiest way to understand this is to turn it around: for a conservative, it doesn't matter what the outcome is. As a conservative, you can do anything you want, and it doesn't matter what you intend to happen or what actually happens (because those are dirty liberal concerns) as long as . . . you achieve ideological purity? Is that it?

Ideological purity could be rephrased as "principles".  Conservatives, libertarians, want to do good things, but not violate certain principles to do it.  As for intentions dominating, that's almost entirely a liberal thing.


That's a massive kind of bull----, liberals have principles too, albeit slightly different ones than conservatives.  Something that conservatives don't seem to recognize, which kind of ticks me off.

pedrop357: The one thing I see very strongly in liberal policies (but not exclusively liberal policies) is that not even outcomes, but intentions are the only thing that matters, very little time seems to be put into good, proper, or fair methods/means, and virtually no time is expended understanding alternate means to pursue the same ends.

Nice way to take back the bit that I turned into a compliment.  This is obviously still bull though, because it's liberals that are constantly whining about the methods and the means.  They're the ones that are upset about torture used to get information from terror suspects, they're the ones that put together studies and regulatory agencies to make sure that major projects will work and get done correctly.  They're the ones that talk about the best way to do tax breaks and government spending and they're the "bleeding hearts" that actually care about the effects policies have on all those poor people. They're the ones that spend all of their time and energy looking not only at the intent and the outcome but the methods.

Isn't it sad that liberals have the good intentions, the concerns about the means, and demand that the government actually accomplish what it tries to do?  And the conservative position . . . well, it has none of that, not the compassion, not the dedication to make sure things are done right, or that what they do is effective.

Man, it's almost like conservatives have _nothing_ positive about their politics.

pedrop357: When a politician takes the position that as long as "it worked" or they mean/meant well, it's OK, I can bet on them being Democrat/liberal.

The post that I was replying to was replying to someone else who just couldn't understand the difference between companies 'giving' their employees money and the government giving people money.


No, that's just the assumption that you made after trying to drive the argument off of the actual point.

pedrop357: Two people care about how to get people from point A to point B.  One of them wants to build a road around existing properties, the other wants to simply make it a straight line right through dozens of houses.  They both want the same thing with differing methods.  They can both claim it worked, but only can one really claim that they did it without stepping on everyone to do it.

As an aside, the only thing more infuriating than this "ends/intentions justify the means" thinking is the idea that their way is the only way. I've seen, read and spoken to far too many a liberal who thinks that the way to do %goodthing% is 'this' way, and  anyone who opposes doing it a different way actually opposes %goodthing%.  Alternate methods are rarely discussed except to point out how imperfect or hard they might be, even if the original proposal was also similarly or more imperfect and/or costly or difficult to maintain in the long run. 

Ah, no.  Liberals are almost never the ones that want to build a road through a dozen properties instead of around, what with all that liberal concern about legality, proper oversight, and public hearings.  But you've missed the much, much bigger point:

Liberals build a road from point A to point B.  Conservative build a road from point A to point Q, where Q is not even in the same time zone as B.  You don't care that the economy gets better under Democratic presidents, you don't care that abortions are down under Obama and deportations are way up, you don't care that Obama ended Osama bin Laden and a war that Bush couldn't.

You just hate that we're succeeding at all the things that conservatives claim they want but can't figure out how to do, from economics to defense.

It's funny because I can't think of a single Republican position that Democrats aren't better at.  We all know that the Republicans in congress know that too, because they spend all of their time desperately trying to stall absolutely everything that the Democrats do so that America can't see their enemies succeed.

You know where those policy debates you want to see are happening?  They're all happening among Democrats and the few Republicans that are willing to work with them.  That's why Health Reform was adopted from a Republican idea.  That's why Democratic proposals have passed the House in violation of the Hassert Rule with Speaker Boehner's vote.  That's why the DREAM act is stalled by the Republicans, budgets are being passed first in the Senate, and why anything in government has gotten down in the last year.

We don't oppose %goodthings%, but we've finally learned that conservatives don't care.  If we're going to work toward those good things, we'll have to work on them with other liberals.  The conservatives have taken their balls and scurried home to hide.
 
2014-04-17 12:59:52 AM  

voristrupp: I have been homeless, right after college. Got a job in a biker bar to get quick cash. It was a low cost of living place but it still took a couple weeks to get first and last months rent.
For 10 years after finding a job I worked 80 hours a week so I would never be helpless again. I still feel that fear.

You will never get back on your feet with rents of $2500 per month. Ever.

A successful program would provide housing and job training in areas where we have a shortage , like skilled labor,and then relocation for the familyto somewhere that needs workers.

It would cost more in the short run but reduce so many costs long term.


You're suggesting we relocate people out of the bay area?

There are tons of jobs here in silicon valley, that's why the rent is high. Too many cities offer tickets "home" to the homeless. Most take a vacation, then come right back.

A number of states and cities actively encourage the mentally ill and homeless to come to CA. I worked in a mental hospital in college, and i met people who were handed bus fare in TX, and told to come here because we have better mental health svcs.

There's a crapload of money in palo alto. The city could afford to provide more services.

But palo alto is notorious for being stingy.

They have a huge park that you can only enter if you provide proof of being a resident. A municipal park! They did that because they wanted neighboring poorer cities to help them to pay for it, and the other cities rightfully laughed them off.

Btw, i happen to know quite a few of the homeless sheltered in cars in palo alto, and the law is on hold for the moment, while they are going through lawsuits. Least, that's the last i heard.

For some small minority of employable folks, i can see shipping them off to a lower rent area where they have a job set up working.

For the majority of cases, you're just shifting the problem to a poorer municipality, that is less able to provide services.
 
Esn
2014-04-17 05:32:26 AM  

que.guero: It's all well and good to decry the "rich" for not wanting car campers but honestly, would you want a bunch of POS cars parked on your street with sketchy people crashed out inside?

Then again, I live in Canadastan so we give our homeless free apartments and health care.


Yeah... right, funny.

Health care, sure (though the things covered by OHIP are ever-decreasing as the years pass). Free apartments - not very much.

It's not only homeless people who'd benefit from being allowed to park overnight and sleep in cars - it's also travelers and workers with not much money. Basically, anybody who wants to be frugal. And please consider: expressly allowing homeless people to sleep in cars will mean that they'll be able to afford to travel to where the jobs are, secure in the knowledge that they won't have to immediately spend that money on an apartment! If there are too many homeless in a place, the humane thing to do is not to FORCE them out, but to give them the means to go where they'll have a better chance.

Anyway, homelessness is caused by capitalism (there were no homeless in communist countries). The Silicon Valley libertarians are going about this entirely the wrong way - since homelessness is a side effect of capitalism, it follows that injecting even more capitalism into society (as they're trying to do) will only increase the numbers and misery of the homeless.
 
2014-04-17 11:07:10 AM  

Need_MindBleach: umad: RisaTravelAgent: I don't think this is true.  Homeless people shot up in the 80's when we decided to stop paying for the mentally ill to be in institutions.  Before that I saw almost no homeless.  I believe this is more than anecdotal, statistics would bear this out.

And as I said later in the thread, yes, it was awesome when we locked the mentally ill away against their will in order to keep them out of our sight. It was simple and cost effective. Just lobotomize the unruly ones and then keep them all fed, doped up, and in clean diapers. Bang up solution to the problem that was. No issues with human rights at all.

Yeah, because there's no middle ground at all between "lock people up against their will" and "toss all the mentally ill out onto the streets." Do you realize most people in mental institutions are there voluntarily and can leave any time they want?


Do you realize he is talking about the ones who aren't currently in a mental institution voluntarily? Of course not because you are a farking moron. They don't want to be there. He wants them there. Just what the fark do you think it is that he is proposing?
 
2014-04-17 11:47:45 AM  

Esn: Anyway, homelessness is caused by capitalism (there were no homeless in communist countries).



Since a lot of people who were vagrants, drifters, panhandlers, etc. ie., undesirables are/were imprisoned, killed, or shipped off to labor camps, I suppose it's technically accurate to say that there's no homelessness in those countries.  It's probably no 0%, just extremely low.

The Silicon Valley libertarians are going about this entirely the wrong way - since homelessness is a side effect of capitalism, it follows that injecting even more capitalism into society (as they're trying to do) will only increase the numbers and misery of the homeless.

There's nothing libertarian about forbidding people from sleeping in their own vehicles parked on land they're allowed to be on.

/I can't help but wonder if this post is a just a decent troll
 
2014-04-17 12:57:55 PM  

umad: caddisfly: Prior to Reagan the federal government housed, fed, and clothed the vast majority of folks who are unable to support themselves due to mental illness.

Against their will. Funny how people always forget that part. Surely Nurse Ratched would fix them right up, or at least keep them out of our sight, which is what all of you actually want.


Link
 
2014-04-17 04:01:40 PM  

Dwindle: The liberals want to mass produce poor people to keep themselves in power,


:  /


:  \


:  |



You, uh, actually believe this, don't you?
 
2014-04-17 04:45:22 PM  

olddinosaur: The solution is to get government out of the housing industry, because they will only funk it up like they have for education, agriculture, urban renewal, poverty, public safety and everything else.


So where are all the tycoons of private industry lining up to take over to create housing that anyone can afford? Food enough for everyone? Education for anyone who can make it to class? Them Jorb Creatorstm are really on their toes, aren't they?

Beuller? Beuller?

Not the solution. If the private sector was the answer the government would never have had to step up to the plate in the first place. Private commerce existed long before governments. But ya see, the private sector doesn't do jack sh*t unless there's profit in it. Not a knock on the private sector, that's just how it works. As a result, things that need to be done for people without expectation of payment from those people are things that the private sector is averse to. One of those things is housing, an essential need for us human beings.

The private sector will let a house, apartment, condo, studio, hovel, hut, yurt, lean-to, tent, mansion or other structure sit empty forever before permitting someone who desperately needs to be indoors use it to escape all the badness that is "outside" without their pound of flesh.
If you can tell us all how the "free market" and the private sector can solve the problem of chronic homelesness in this, the richest nation that has ever existed in the history of humankind, I'm sure that Nobel prize will be dispatched to your front door posthaste.
Until then, your flaccid anti-government rants are naught but a waste of keystrokes.

And that goes double for sycophants like bunner, who parrot without solutions.
 
2014-04-17 09:29:20 PM  

rewind2846: And that goes double for sycophants like bunner, who parrot without solutions.


Get a job.  Seriously?  Anybody who agrees with a pronouncement of one obviously failed solution is a sycophant?  This is your grasp upon the unimpeachable lectern of intellectual acuity?  Blowing me sh*t?  Find something to do.  You suck at this, Erato.
 
Displayed 433 of 433 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report