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 110
    More: Asinine, homeless  
•       •       •

12303 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Apr 2014 at 12:15 PM (15 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-04-16 12:25:08 PM
12 votes:
i59.tinypic.com

Keep it up you greedy f*cking pigs.
2014-04-16 12:45:07 PM
5 votes:
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 12:34:37 PM
5 votes:
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 11:54:00 AM
5 votes:
I don't understand. Why don't these homeless people just sleep in their parents guest homes?
2014-04-16 11:17:49 AM
5 votes:
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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-16 10:28:08 AM
5 votes:
First Debtors prison and now anti-vagrancy laws.  I guess we'll bring back segregation next.
2014-04-16 12:12:48 PM
4 votes:

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 12:06:08 PM
4 votes:

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 11:12:37 AM
4 votes:
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 02:39:38 PM
3 votes:

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 01:25:01 PM
3 votes:
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 01:03:25 PM
3 votes:

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 12:59:59 PM
3 votes:

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 12:59:51 PM
3 votes:
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 12:21:40 PM
3 votes:

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 12:19:24 PM
3 votes:

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 11:26:03 AM
3 votes:

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 01:15:22 PM
2 votes:
www.smbc-comics.com
2014-04-16 01:13:53 PM
2 votes:

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 01:04:19 PM
2 votes:
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 01:03:16 PM
2 votes:

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 12:57:28 PM
2 votes:

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 12:47:05 PM
2 votes:

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 12:43:21 PM
2 votes:
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 12:32:30 PM
2 votes:

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 12:29:33 PM
2 votes:

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 12:24:04 PM
2 votes:

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 12:22:18 PM
2 votes:

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 12:20:47 PM
2 votes:

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 11:03:44 AM
2 votes:
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 11:45:54 PM
1 votes:

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
2014-04-16 11:27:48 PM
1 votes:
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 08:57:10 PM
1 votes:

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 06:18:05 PM
1 votes:

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 06:11:30 PM
1 votes:

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 05:10:26 PM
1 votes:

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 04:51:12 PM
1 votes:

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 04:38:36 PM
1 votes:

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 04:37:16 PM
1 votes:

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 04:28:54 PM
1 votes:

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 03:36:15 PM
1 votes:
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 03:34:11 PM
1 votes:

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 03:17:43 PM
1 votes:

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 03:17:08 PM
1 votes:

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 03:16:51 PM
1 votes:

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 03:10:37 PM
1 votes:
"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 03:10:06 PM
1 votes:

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 02:58:47 PM
1 votes:

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 02:57:36 PM
1 votes:

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 02:50:46 PM
1 votes:

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 02:48:42 PM
1 votes:

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 02:37:03 PM
1 votes:

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 02:24:45 PM
1 votes:

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 02:19:40 PM
1 votes:
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 02:14:32 PM
1 votes:
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 02:12:10 PM
1 votes:
   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 02:11:40 PM
1 votes:

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 02:03:07 PM
1 votes:
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 01:57:41 PM
1 votes:

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 01:56:22 PM
1 votes:

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 01:53:49 PM
1 votes:
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 01:46:13 PM
1 votes:

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 01:45:14 PM
1 votes:

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 01:34:49 PM
1 votes:

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 01:34:02 PM
1 votes:

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 01:33:22 PM
1 votes:

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 01:28:35 PM
1 votes:

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 01:27:44 PM
1 votes:
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 01:26:39 PM
1 votes:
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 01:24:42 PM
1 votes:

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 01:16:51 PM
1 votes:
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 01:15:47 PM
1 votes:
"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 01:13:39 PM
1 votes:
What a homeless person who sleepis in his car might look like.

img.fark.net
2014-04-16 01:13:25 PM
1 votes:

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


bullsheet.files.wordpress.com
2014-04-16 01:12:38 PM
1 votes:

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 01:11:22 PM
1 votes:

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 01:09:23 PM
1 votes:
i188.photobucket.com
2014-04-16 01:06:13 PM
1 votes:

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 01:03:57 PM
1 votes:
2014-04-16 01:02:44 PM
1 votes:

HelloNeuman: Go be poor somewhere else.

[www.wildwomanfundraising.com image 421x357]


img.fark.net
2014-04-16 01:02:07 PM
1 votes:

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 01:01:16 PM
1 votes:

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 01:00:22 PM
1 votes:

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 12:58:33 PM
1 votes:

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 12:57:22 PM
1 votes:
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 12:55:39 PM
1 votes:
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 12:52:12 PM
1 votes:
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 12:48:00 PM
1 votes:
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 12:47:33 PM
1 votes:

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 12:45:57 PM
1 votes:

Shadi: jobs aren't a limited resource.


They are at this point in time.
2014-04-16 12:41:24 PM
1 votes:

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 12:41:08 PM
1 votes:
vpb [TotalFark]

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

California democrats approve.
2014-04-16 12:36:47 PM
1 votes:
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 12:35:46 PM
1 votes:
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 12:34:32 PM
1 votes:
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 12:31:46 PM
1 votes:

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


Put a lot of thought into that statement, eh?
2014-04-16 12:30:34 PM
1 votes:
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 12:30:04 PM
1 votes:

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 12:28:04 PM
1 votes:
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 12:27:50 PM
1 votes:
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 12:27:21 PM
1 votes:

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 12:26:45 PM
1 votes:
Just invent an "appartment" that people can live in for free. It would probably only take a Hack Day or two.
2014-04-16 12:25:42 PM
1 votes:

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


Especially if you have a refrigerator in it.
2014-04-16 12:23:50 PM
1 votes:
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 12:23:49 PM
1 votes:
Build them a parking garage?
2014-04-16 12:17:00 PM
1 votes:

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 11:36:01 AM
1 votes:

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 10:56:44 AM
1 votes:
They might just use the car as a toilet and move on.
2014-04-16 10:39:41 AM
1 votes:
They urinate in there!
2014-04-16 10:23:26 AM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 110 of 110 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report