A Canadian study gave $7,500 to homeless people. Here’s how they spent it(vox.com)
vox.com
A Canadian study gave $7,500 to homeless people. Here’s how they spent it
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21528569/homeless-poverty-cash-transfer-canada-new-leaf-project
50 comments
Not sure about Canada but in the U.S. it's 30%. Just curious as it's seems contrary to the prevailing narrative out there...why would you assume it's a small fraction?
https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/programs_campaign...
https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/programs_campaign...
I find 30% quite low unless you count the ones that are purely economic and typically are doing things like sleeping in their car or other such things that aren't the typical picture of homelessness.
Technically, I was "homeless" for 7 months in my life--but it was a planned thing, at no point did I ever not have a roof at night, but a few of those nights it was a tent roof.
Technically, I was "homeless" for 7 months in my life--but it was a planned thing, at no point did I ever not have a roof at night, but a few of those nights it was a tent roof.
Because normal people don't end up sleeping in the streets - even poor people.
The people "sleeping on the streets" represent a small fraction of the homeless population. A big chunk (~40% in CA) live in their cars, and the majority are sleeping in shelters (~66% nationwide, which must be lower in CA).
Experiences
In LA's Skid Row, nearly 100% of the homeless have substance abuse issues or severe mental health issues.
In the Netherlands more than 50% all homeless are addicted. 40% have mental health problems [1].
Not that surprising because everyone can get atleast 1200 Euro a month if you can't get a job [1]. And there is a bunch of additional money (like huurtoeslag -> extra money to be able to pay the rent, etc.) you are entitled to if you are in low / no income. So most homeless people here have other problems then just money.
[1] https://www.henw.org/artikelen/gezondheidsproblemen-bij-dakl...
[2] https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/bijstand/vraag-en-a...
Not that surprising because everyone can get atleast 1200 Euro a month if you can't get a job [1]. And there is a bunch of additional money (like huurtoeslag -> extra money to be able to pay the rent, etc.) you are entitled to if you are in low / no income. So most homeless people here have other problems then just money.
[1] https://www.henw.org/artikelen/gezondheidsproblemen-bij-dakl...
[2] https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/bijstand/vraag-en-a...
It's almost as if respecting people's agency and trusting them proves to be the best cause of action. There's always going to be a minority who won't help themselves but the vast majority of people want help and are trying to help themselves.
I think there are several Differentiations that need to be talked about.
For me, living in in Germany, actually, it's pretty difficult to become homeless. One needs to want to be homeless, to become a true homeless. As in general, we have a social net in here. Each one can apply to get Burgergeld (Money for citizens). We're paying the rent and the costs for heating and so on.. so, a homeless is a homeless, because of pride or other reasons. If it happens that one loses his job, can't pay the bills and the monthly rent - one can apply for the money. Also, there are shelters and food stations for the homeless.. so, actually, If you don't want to be homeless, you'll get the help.
On the other side, we still have homeless living on the street. Being ill and dirty. I talked to some random guy, he told me, that he actually want to live on the street. Another guy hast some mental problems and can't use money. In the end he spends all the money for weed and alcohol in the first two days after receiving.
So, we have homeless who went homeless because of the personal life situations. This guys should get all the money they need to build a new life. All the others should get material help, like place to live, educational things and so on...
Yes, it's cruel to say "you get money, you not" - but I don't see a way for the one's who don't want help, that they actually can pull themselves up
For me, living in in Germany, actually, it's pretty difficult to become homeless. One needs to want to be homeless, to become a true homeless. As in general, we have a social net in here. Each one can apply to get Burgergeld (Money for citizens). We're paying the rent and the costs for heating and so on.. so, a homeless is a homeless, because of pride or other reasons. If it happens that one loses his job, can't pay the bills and the monthly rent - one can apply for the money. Also, there are shelters and food stations for the homeless.. so, actually, If you don't want to be homeless, you'll get the help.
On the other side, we still have homeless living on the street. Being ill and dirty. I talked to some random guy, he told me, that he actually want to live on the street. Another guy hast some mental problems and can't use money. In the end he spends all the money for weed and alcohol in the first two days after receiving.
So, we have homeless who went homeless because of the personal life situations. This guys should get all the money they need to build a new life. All the others should get material help, like place to live, educational things and so on...
Yes, it's cruel to say "you get money, you not" - but I don't see a way for the one's who don't want help, that they actually can pull themselves up
Although it’s fair to say our social net needs patching, I find it interesting that I’ve made similar observations in some places here in the United States, especially in places with robust assistance. You might find our history on mental institutions interesting if you’re unfamiliar. They were billed as a solution to the group you describe, and they were initially very popular and widely supported politically. Unfortunately, most people know the rest of the story. The system was rife with abuse and cruelty. I think it left a terrible mark on the idea that we could help such people effectively.
The system is still rife with abuse and cruelty. All the same problems are still there. Mental health workers (not just the doctor) can do whatever they want to the patients, with impunity.
It's a driver of wrongful incarceration and abuse. As like with other issues not everyone is terrible, but there's also abusive people that would never hit anyone, or lie to hurt them. Their abuse is softer, but much more prevalent. For every cop that murders someone there's thousands that throw someone into a wall, prevent them from going to the bathroom, or put the cuffs on tight.
There's also the prevalence of crackpot treatments, albeit with some research behind them. People with ADHD are routinely given medicine that simply doesn't work, sometimes after decades of successful treatment. They will also give you medication that's dangerous not to take, even though you will struggle to get and take your medicine due to the condition.
That's just the tip of the iceberg and what I know about. I'm sure there's much more.
It's a driver of wrongful incarceration and abuse. As like with other issues not everyone is terrible, but there's also abusive people that would never hit anyone, or lie to hurt them. Their abuse is softer, but much more prevalent. For every cop that murders someone there's thousands that throw someone into a wall, prevent them from going to the bathroom, or put the cuffs on tight.
There's also the prevalence of crackpot treatments, albeit with some research behind them. People with ADHD are routinely given medicine that simply doesn't work, sometimes after decades of successful treatment. They will also give you medication that's dangerous not to take, even though you will struggle to get and take your medicine due to the condition.
That's just the tip of the iceberg and what I know about. I'm sure there's much more.
> The system was rife with abuse and cruelty.
As I pointed out in an earlier thread, the prevailing opinion seems to be that the institutions were the source of abuse and cruelty, and that if we could only separate the providers and treatments from the institutions, then we would be magically wonderfully free of future abuse and cruelty. Is it any wonder that that hasn't exactly panned out? Now our mental institutions are simply borderless and invisible. There's nothing new under the sun.
As I pointed out in an earlier thread, the prevailing opinion seems to be that the institutions were the source of abuse and cruelty, and that if we could only separate the providers and treatments from the institutions, then we would be magically wonderfully free of future abuse and cruelty. Is it any wonder that that hasn't exactly panned out? Now our mental institutions are simply borderless and invisible. There's nothing new under the sun.
In the Netherlands a significant portion of homeless are foreign citizens. The safety net purposely excludes them because otherwise you get half of Romania moving here.
>because otherwise you get half of Romania moving here
That was uncalled for. You could have easily made the same point without generalizing a whole nation.
That was uncalled for. You could have easily made the same point without generalizing a whole nation.
I read a comment just yesterday on HN talking about the social safety nets in Germany, and how one barrier for the few homeless people remaining is the bureaucracy involved (however minimal) to enrolling in those systems. So I'm not sure it's always the personal fault of those people
Once you include the screened-out sample of mental illness, it would be better for the whole society to have government provide this basic shelter for the homeless along with reduce basic income than to give outright basic income.
Otherwise, our housing market will take on the extra (hit) economic dynamism for the rest of us (ranging from worker class to middle-class).
Otherwise, our housing market will take on the extra (hit) economic dynamism for the rest of us (ranging from worker class to middle-class).
It's almost like, having a true fixed supply, land is a separate class of economic good and shouldn't be seen the same way as everything else. Georgism ftw
It turns out homeless people are just like you and me. Who knew?
> according to self-reports
A similar study would conclude that everyone in prison is innocent and few obese people over eat.
A similar study would conclude that everyone in prison is innocent and few obese people over eat.
Just like you and me.
After heavy Screening
Minus the ones the screened out?
Homeless is such a broad term. It includes people that most people don’t even know exist.
When people say homeless they are referring to the visible ones on the street.
Most studies and statistics like to use the ones who are homeless on paper. They are the ones who don’t have place to live other than publicly provided facilities. There are entire apartments of people you would otherwise not know are “homeless”, simply because they are not the one paying for their own room and board.
We need a new term. Something to call the people that when somebody says homeless, we invasion in our head.
Homeless is to broad. Nobody thinks you are differently because you got kicked out of your apartment or lost a job and fell behind on mortgage.
In the other hand. The people clogging intersections. Spitting on others, taking shots in public, doing drugs and fuxking on the street, nobody thinks and no study shows 7500 would do anything other than make it worse. Ans that is why this study excluded these people from the study.
Homeless is such a broad term. It includes people that most people don’t even know exist.
When people say homeless they are referring to the visible ones on the street.
Most studies and statistics like to use the ones who are homeless on paper. They are the ones who don’t have place to live other than publicly provided facilities. There are entire apartments of people you would otherwise not know are “homeless”, simply because they are not the one paying for their own room and board.
We need a new term. Something to call the people that when somebody says homeless, we invasion in our head.
Homeless is to broad. Nobody thinks you are differently because you got kicked out of your apartment or lost a job and fell behind on mortgage.
In the other hand. The people clogging intersections. Spitting on others, taking shots in public, doing drugs and fuxking on the street, nobody thinks and no study shows 7500 would do anything other than make it worse. Ans that is why this study excluded these people from the study.
Why would we need to create a different term or to even categorize these two kinds of people differently?
They both deserve and need help. If someone spits on a windshield doesn't mean they deserve less
The type of help they need might be different though. There isn’t a one size fits all solution.
Similar to poor people. I highly recommend Rutger Bregman’s Ted talk about the psychological impact of not having resources on the ability to make good decisions involving resources.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ydKcaIE6O1k
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ydKcaIE6O1k
It's it honest or ethical to say that the money was given to "homeless" people if only a small fraction qualified?
It's like saying that I studied exercise in "men" but then only accepted people aged 25-29 who were above-average height and non-obese. Saying that I helped "men" doesn't tell the whole story. In fact, it misleads.
It's like saying that I studied exercise in "men" but then only accepted people aged 25-29 who were above-average height and non-obese. Saying that I helped "men" doesn't tell the whole story. In fact, it misleads.
How much did it cost per recipient?
When there's a middle man between source and destination (e.g. government), that middle man absorbs cost. Source: tax-payers. Middle man: government. Destination: Some subset of the population selected by the government. I know this was organised by some charity, but when the government is involved, usually that middle mad is incredibly inefficient, and just wastes money all over the place. So the output from the source might be $100. The middle man will spend $40 just to pay for itself, and lose another $30 just by being government. The remainder will go to the subset selected by the middle man. Over a population and repeated cycles, the source runs out of money, the government increases its requirements and losses, and in the end there's nothing left for the selected recipients.
When there's a middle man between source and destination (e.g. government), that middle man absorbs cost. Source: tax-payers. Middle man: government. Destination: Some subset of the population selected by the government. I know this was organised by some charity, but when the government is involved, usually that middle mad is incredibly inefficient, and just wastes money all over the place. So the output from the source might be $100. The middle man will spend $40 just to pay for itself, and lose another $30 just by being government. The remainder will go to the subset selected by the middle man. Over a population and repeated cycles, the source runs out of money, the government increases its requirements and losses, and in the end there's nothing left for the selected recipients.
> Not everyone was eligible for a cash transfer, however. The study only enrolled participants who’d been homeless for under two years, with the idea that early intervention most effectively reduces the risk of people incurring trauma as a result of living without a home. And people with severe mental health or substance use issues were screened out of the initiative. Williams said this was not out of a belief that there are “deserving poor” and “undeserving poor” — a woefully persistent frame on poverty — but out of a desire to avoid creating a risk of harm and to ensure the highest likelihood of success.
Also, not mentioned is if the control group individuals also would have been eligible for the cash transfer.
Also, not mentioned is if the control group individuals also would have been eligible for the cash transfer.
The study paper is linked and seems to say there were 115 participants identified and then assigned into various groups. Table 1 shows the differences in the cash and non cash group.
So the control group met the same conditions - they just missed out via randomisation.
“We screened 732 participants from 22 shelters from four shelter organizations across Metro Vancouver. Our preregistered screening criteria were: age 19 to 65, homeless for less than 2 y (homelessness defined as the lack of stable housing), Canadian citizen or permanent resident, and nonsevere levels of substance use (DAST-10) (21), alcohol use (AUDIT) (22), and mental health symptoms Colorado Symptom Index (CSI) (23) based on predefined thresholds (see SI Appendix, Table S1 in SI Appendix, section 1.3.2). These screening criteria were used to reduce any potential risks of harm (e.g., overdose) from the cash transfer. To ensure accurate responses, the screening survey was conducted under a cover story without any mention of the cash transfer. Of the 732 participants, 229 passed all criteria (31%). Due to loss of contact with 114 participants despite our repeated attempts to reach them, we successfully enrolled 115 participants in the study as the final sample (50 cash, 65 noncash; see Table 1). The sample size was modest but was nonetheless adequately powered to detect statistically significant effects from the preregistered power analysis”
So the control group met the same conditions - they just missed out via randomisation.
“We screened 732 participants from 22 shelters from four shelter organizations across Metro Vancouver. Our preregistered screening criteria were: age 19 to 65, homeless for less than 2 y (homelessness defined as the lack of stable housing), Canadian citizen or permanent resident, and nonsevere levels of substance use (DAST-10) (21), alcohol use (AUDIT) (22), and mental health symptoms Colorado Symptom Index (CSI) (23) based on predefined thresholds (see SI Appendix, Table S1 in SI Appendix, section 1.3.2). These screening criteria were used to reduce any potential risks of harm (e.g., overdose) from the cash transfer. To ensure accurate responses, the screening survey was conducted under a cover story without any mention of the cash transfer. Of the 732 participants, 229 passed all criteria (31%). Due to loss of contact with 114 participants despite our repeated attempts to reach them, we successfully enrolled 115 participants in the study as the final sample (50 cash, 65 noncash; see Table 1). The sample size was modest but was nonetheless adequately powered to detect statistically significant effects from the preregistered power analysis”
The researchers are basically telling you that they initially pruned out 70% of the homeless population for being "unqualified" and then half of the remaining 30% because they were unable or unwilling to maintain contact with a new person in their life. Therefore, only the top 15% of homeless people, in terms of responsibility, are even included in the study, and the other 85% are discarded.
This was interesting near the end... while the cash provided immediate benefits, control participants eventually “caught up” over time. This is consistent with prior work
In my opinion, if the $7500 was truly a game-changer, it would have immediate effect that would accelerate a person's re-introduction to stable society and therefore have multiplicative effects further down the road as they leveraged stable housing, clothing and food to get a job, perhaps attract a partner, etc. The fact that the non-cash recipients "caught up" suggests the exact opposite, seems a bit problematic.
This was interesting near the end... while the cash provided immediate benefits, control participants eventually “caught up” over time. This is consistent with prior work
In my opinion, if the $7500 was truly a game-changer, it would have immediate effect that would accelerate a person's re-introduction to stable society and therefore have multiplicative effects further down the road as they leveraged stable housing, clothing and food to get a job, perhaps attract a partner, etc. The fact that the non-cash recipients "caught up" suggests the exact opposite, seems a bit problematic.
> The fact that the non-cash recipients "caught up" suggests the exact opposite, seems a bit problematic.
The control recipients still received benefits designed to help the homeless so it isn't surprising that they also improved. What is exciting is that the cash:
1) gave much more immediate results, therefore reducing suffering
2) generated net savings via reduced social service use
So we have a method that is better and cheaper for a screen-able subset of the homeless population, it might not be a "game changer" but its an improvement over the status quo worth exploring further.
The control recipients still received benefits designed to help the homeless so it isn't surprising that they also improved. What is exciting is that the cash:
1) gave much more immediate results, therefore reducing suffering
2) generated net savings via reduced social service use
So we have a method that is better and cheaper for a screen-able subset of the homeless population, it might not be a "game changer" but its an improvement over the status quo worth exploring further.
It isn't that the control group "improved," it's that they entirely caught up. The immediate cash did not have long-term (and we're only defining "long-term" as a few months) benefits when compared to the non-cash recipients. Further, this isn't an anomaly, it is consistent with prior work.
And again, the study ignores 85% of the homeless population, you simply cannot extrapolate these results from the highly-responsible/functional group to the wider population.
Finally, the "net societal gain" of $777 was only about 10% of the distributed cash, but ignores the cost of administering such a program and the costs of, and compensation to, the coaches and workshops (the $777 was simply based on "reduced shelter use"). Fully loaded, those costs would almost certainly exceed the modest reported savings.
And again, the study ignores 85% of the homeless population, you simply cannot extrapolate these results from the highly-responsible/functional group to the wider population.
Finally, the "net societal gain" of $777 was only about 10% of the distributed cash, but ignores the cost of administering such a program and the costs of, and compensation to, the coaches and workshops (the $777 was simply based on "reduced shelter use"). Fully loaded, those costs would almost certainly exceed the modest reported savings.
> you simply cannot extrapolate these results from the highly-responsible/functional group to the wider population.
I didn't?
> Finally, the "net societal gain" of $777 was only about 10% of the distributed cash, but ignores the cost of administering such a program and the costs of, and compensation to, the coaches and workshops (the $777 was simply based on "reduced shelter use"). Fully loaded, those costs would almost certainly exceed the modest reported savings.
Half of the cash group didn't receive coaching, and part of the control did, so some of the cost and effect of coaching is priced in. Its unfortunate that the study couldn't include analysis of all four original conditions but its possible the coaching and/or workshops had little effect on outcomes. It would be hard to gauge administrative costs from a small study but cash transfers generally have low administrative costs.
I don't think its a slam dunk but its definitely interesting enough to explore further, either for different levels of intervention or for other parts of the homeless population.
I didn't?
> Finally, the "net societal gain" of $777 was only about 10% of the distributed cash, but ignores the cost of administering such a program and the costs of, and compensation to, the coaches and workshops (the $777 was simply based on "reduced shelter use"). Fully loaded, those costs would almost certainly exceed the modest reported savings.
Half of the cash group didn't receive coaching, and part of the control did, so some of the cost and effect of coaching is priced in. Its unfortunate that the study couldn't include analysis of all four original conditions but its possible the coaching and/or workshops had little effect on outcomes. It would be hard to gauge administrative costs from a small study but cash transfers generally have low administrative costs.
I don't think its a slam dunk but its definitely interesting enough to explore further, either for different levels of intervention or for other parts of the homeless population.
[deleted]
I’m having trouble determining the effectiveness here. The article repeatedly uses the phrase, “no increased spending on temptation goods”.
I’m reading that as, “If the person had an addiction to meth, they still spent the same amount on meth, but they did it from the comfort of a new couch, in new clothes, in a new apartment. Sometimes they spent less on meth.”
Is that a fair interpretation?
Also, how do they know the person is spending money on temptation goods or not? Self-reported?
I’m reading that as, “If the person had an addiction to meth, they still spent the same amount on meth, but they did it from the comfort of a new couch, in new clothes, in a new apartment. Sometimes they spent less on meth.”
Is that a fair interpretation?
Also, how do they know the person is spending money on temptation goods or not? Self-reported?
I was homeless and on the streets between 1997-2003, although not continuously. Early in that period, I mismanaged my funds such that I bounced several checks, my bank closed my checking account, and they filed a report with ChexSystems to ensure that no bank would ever give me an account again, or at least that's what their letter told me.
So I endured several long years without hope of having a bank account. That's surely one major issue for the homeless population. Nowadays you've got to wonder how they access any bank account they might have, with all the mandatory MFA and dwindling number of branches.
I was friends with a lot of people on the streets, and money was a big issue for sure. It was spent on cigarettes and liquor, and if you could save up enough to get a motel for a few days, you definitely went for it, so you'd have a shower and a good night's sleep, but of course a motel is far more expensive than any other housing.
We were friends with a couple, G & E, and E was confined to a wheelchair. He had been a skilled welder. G & E usually had housing, but they also had a peculiar syndrome of being robbed quite often. People would somehow break into their home and steal their trading cards, jewelry, and other valuables. These thieves may even have the correct key to their door. There was apparently nothing the landlord or law enforcement could do, so G & E had to keep purchasing stuff they wanted to replace what was stolen. G & E were also SNAP recipients, but E refused to eat anything but beef, so he'd splurge on big steaks at the grocery store, to the detriment of everything else. They'd also beg a meal off my friend while we were downtown, so she'd get a burger or two for them. They were always begging and busking and panhandling; never enough money.
I know another fellow who has a home, and a car too, I think, and is on a few federal benefit programs, yet every time he's at church, he hits us up for cash. He knows some of these folks are well-heeled and they're good for a $20 bill or so. It seems that he asks at least once of every new friend he makes.
In my own personal experience, I had an adulthood full of mismanaging finances and bills. I made a ridiculous salary but I ate Burger King and lived in a slum, so I could make ends meet. But eventually that lifestyle caught up with me. Then, I learned how to get by with no money, no income at all. As I gradually gained back an income, I still had big urges to spend every penny and I ran out every month. But I made sure not to go into debt and not to be overdrawn. Eventually that discipline of running out to $0 every month became something like a budget, and I began to realize that if I were frugal, and didn't splurge on luxuries, I really could make it through the month. Now that I am employed, I do manage to keep a positive balance in the bank, I pay off a small credit card, and I'm comfortable, but it took a lot of effort and a lot of pain for me to get here.
So I endured several long years without hope of having a bank account. That's surely one major issue for the homeless population. Nowadays you've got to wonder how they access any bank account they might have, with all the mandatory MFA and dwindling number of branches.
I was friends with a lot of people on the streets, and money was a big issue for sure. It was spent on cigarettes and liquor, and if you could save up enough to get a motel for a few days, you definitely went for it, so you'd have a shower and a good night's sleep, but of course a motel is far more expensive than any other housing.
We were friends with a couple, G & E, and E was confined to a wheelchair. He had been a skilled welder. G & E usually had housing, but they also had a peculiar syndrome of being robbed quite often. People would somehow break into their home and steal their trading cards, jewelry, and other valuables. These thieves may even have the correct key to their door. There was apparently nothing the landlord or law enforcement could do, so G & E had to keep purchasing stuff they wanted to replace what was stolen. G & E were also SNAP recipients, but E refused to eat anything but beef, so he'd splurge on big steaks at the grocery store, to the detriment of everything else. They'd also beg a meal off my friend while we were downtown, so she'd get a burger or two for them. They were always begging and busking and panhandling; never enough money.
I know another fellow who has a home, and a car too, I think, and is on a few federal benefit programs, yet every time he's at church, he hits us up for cash. He knows some of these folks are well-heeled and they're good for a $20 bill or so. It seems that he asks at least once of every new friend he makes.
In my own personal experience, I had an adulthood full of mismanaging finances and bills. I made a ridiculous salary but I ate Burger King and lived in a slum, so I could make ends meet. But eventually that lifestyle caught up with me. Then, I learned how to get by with no money, no income at all. As I gradually gained back an income, I still had big urges to spend every penny and I ran out every month. But I made sure not to go into debt and not to be overdrawn. Eventually that discipline of running out to $0 every month became something like a budget, and I began to realize that if I were frugal, and didn't splurge on luxuries, I really could make it through the month. Now that I am employed, I do manage to keep a positive balance in the bank, I pay off a small credit card, and I'm comfortable, but it took a lot of effort and a lot of pain for me to get here.
> So I endured several long years without hope of having a bank account. That's surely one major issue for the homeless population. Nowadays you've got to wonder how they access any bank account they might have, with all the mandatory MFA and dwindling number of branches.
Postal banking could be a good solution to this, and one we already had for more than 50 years.
https://www.campaignforpostalbanking.org/
Postal banking could be a good solution to this, and one we already had for more than 50 years.
https://www.campaignforpostalbanking.org/
>But I made sure not to go into debt and not to be overdrawn.
I wish they would teach home finance in high school more vigorously. I would like it to be a mandatory math class, like Geometry or Algebra; junior or senior year. It's probably more impactful than any math class they teach now.
I'm happy to report that my kid's middle school teaches constitutional law now. Most people 10 years ago didn't even know their rights when dealing with the state, that seems to be changing.
I wish they would teach home finance in high school more vigorously. I would like it to be a mandatory math class, like Geometry or Algebra; junior or senior year. It's probably more impactful than any math class they teach now.
I'm happy to report that my kid's middle school teaches constitutional law now. Most people 10 years ago didn't even know their rights when dealing with the state, that seems to be changing.
> G & E usually had housing, but they also had a peculiar syndrome of being robbed quite often. People would somehow break into their home and steal their trading cards, jewelry, and other valuables. These thieves may even have the correct key to their door. There was apparently nothing the landlord or law enforcement could do, so G & E had to keep purchasing stuff they wanted to replace what was stolen.
What's the subtext? They weren't really being robbed and were perpetually using this lie to beg for money to feed habits that were otherwise beyond their means?
What's the subtext? They weren't really being robbed and were perpetually using this lie to beg for money to feed habits that were otherwise beyond their means?
> What's the subtext? They weren't really being robbed and were perpetually using this lie to beg for money to feed habits that were otherwise beyond their means?
Yes, it's a grift.
> These thieves may even have the correct key to their door.
Says it all.
If the stuff ever existed, most people won't kick in their own door to stage a burglary of it. Most people also won't file false police reports to substantiate a staged burglary either (because that's two crimes).
IME they'll never have talked to the cops (or the landlord), and odds are the burglary story is a lie altogether. If the stuff existed at all, they likely pawned it themselves and can't afford to buy it back and reframe this as "theft."
Nobody would feel safe continuing to sleep anywhere a thieving poltergeist quietly comes and goes undetected, but their top priority is replacing trading cards and jewelry...knowing full well it will be "stolen" again.
This is what professional victimhood looks like!
Yes, it's a grift.
> These thieves may even have the correct key to their door.
Says it all.
If the stuff ever existed, most people won't kick in their own door to stage a burglary of it. Most people also won't file false police reports to substantiate a staged burglary either (because that's two crimes).
IME they'll never have talked to the cops (or the landlord), and odds are the burglary story is a lie altogether. If the stuff existed at all, they likely pawned it themselves and can't afford to buy it back and reframe this as "theft."
Nobody would feel safe continuing to sleep anywhere a thieving poltergeist quietly comes and goes undetected, but their top priority is replacing trading cards and jewelry...knowing full well it will be "stolen" again.
This is what professional victimhood looks like!
No, I don't know whether it was truth or not, but it would seem that any money they could scare up was constantly being allocated to replacing stuff they'd lost, rather than getting ahead.
Just to keep in mind. I assume that's only some (small?) fraction of the homeless.