Homelessness Is a Housing Problem(sightline.org)
sightline.org
Homelessness Is a Housing Problem
https://www.sightline.org/2022/03/16/homelessness-is-a-housing-problem/
97 comments
Absolutely. I have personal experience with having a family member who was homeless due to mental health issues. Unfortunately, housing was not the solution for them nor was it the right solution. They were homeless for a couple of years before volunteering to be committed. Due to their illness, it was not safe to house them with family or around others who are on the road to recovery.
The system is slow and challenging to navigate and eventually (after several years) my mother was able to navigate the system to become a court appointed guardian.
On the other side, I have also been in government appointed committees that set housing policy and have had to listen to many “experts” explain that housing is the solution for homelessness and their suggestions is usually along the lines of “relax the codes and permitting process so builders can build more homes”. Needless to say, I’m somewhat sceptical of this argument but that is probably mostly due to my own bias.
Imho, I think our tax money should be going to social services and universal healthcare.
The system is slow and challenging to navigate and eventually (after several years) my mother was able to navigate the system to become a court appointed guardian.
On the other side, I have also been in government appointed committees that set housing policy and have had to listen to many “experts” explain that housing is the solution for homelessness and their suggestions is usually along the lines of “relax the codes and permitting process so builders can build more homes”. Needless to say, I’m somewhat sceptical of this argument but that is probably mostly due to my own bias.
Imho, I think our tax money should be going to social services and universal healthcare.
These can both be true at the same time. Yes, the biggest cause of homelessness is mental health and addiction but lack of affordable housing is the also contributing. The only city on the planet with falling housing costs is Tokyo. Tokyo also has the best urban planning policies in the world.
In America, our extremely restrictive zoning is massively limiting what can be built. In most Californian cities it can cost over $500k just for planning approval and environmental review. That's before any building materials, cost of labor, hiring architects, etc. Simply to be allowed to building something.
This is not sustainable. The fact that it's easier and cheaper to build a new development on virgin, untouched land then to upzone a single family house into a duplex is tragic.
In America, our extremely restrictive zoning is massively limiting what can be built. In most Californian cities it can cost over $500k just for planning approval and environmental review. That's before any building materials, cost of labor, hiring architects, etc. Simply to be allowed to building something.
This is not sustainable. The fact that it's easier and cheaper to build a new development on virgin, untouched land then to upzone a single family house into a duplex is tragic.
"In America, our extremely restrictive zoning is massively limiting what can be built. In most Californian cities it can cost over $500k just for planning approval and environmental review. That's before any building materials, cost of labor, hiring architects, etc. Simply to be allowed to building something."
I agree that there is generally a lot of red tape around building things, and this is generally true of most developed nations. Your example of California is sort of the extreme for the US. There are vast areas of the US where zoning is not nearly as restrictive and permits are not nearly as expensive. In a lot of the US, converting from single family to duplex is not forbidden.
The real question is about population distribution. People choose to live in the restrictive areas. Maybe some don't have a choice because that's where the jobs are. It seems there is some self correcting market effect to this in that some companies are choosing not to stay in California with the high cost of living, taxes, and regulations. If there's really enough support, there's really nothing stopping like minded companies from forming their own city in a new area, or even reinvigorating the Appalachian cities that were once much larger than they currently are (Pittsburgh and Google are a slight example).
Just a point about Tokyo. The average dwelling is under 300 sqft. Perhaps the reason that housing is increasingly expensive in places like SF, or even the US in general, is that the housing size has drastically increased over time as has the preference for more amenities. Now I'll agree that the zoning/code tends to set a minimum size limit of about 600 sqft in many places, but even then, consumer choices make it a moot point since nobody want to buy a house that small (and people in many small NYC apartments complain about size too). So even if we change zoning/codes, we still have a culture problem that doesn't necessarily fit with Tokyo's system.
I agree that there is generally a lot of red tape around building things, and this is generally true of most developed nations. Your example of California is sort of the extreme for the US. There are vast areas of the US where zoning is not nearly as restrictive and permits are not nearly as expensive. In a lot of the US, converting from single family to duplex is not forbidden.
The real question is about population distribution. People choose to live in the restrictive areas. Maybe some don't have a choice because that's where the jobs are. It seems there is some self correcting market effect to this in that some companies are choosing not to stay in California with the high cost of living, taxes, and regulations. If there's really enough support, there's really nothing stopping like minded companies from forming their own city in a new area, or even reinvigorating the Appalachian cities that were once much larger than they currently are (Pittsburgh and Google are a slight example).
Just a point about Tokyo. The average dwelling is under 300 sqft. Perhaps the reason that housing is increasingly expensive in places like SF, or even the US in general, is that the housing size has drastically increased over time as has the preference for more amenities. Now I'll agree that the zoning/code tends to set a minimum size limit of about 600 sqft in many places, but even then, consumer choices make it a moot point since nobody want to buy a house that small (and people in many small NYC apartments complain about size too). So even if we change zoning/codes, we still have a culture problem that doesn't necessarily fit with Tokyo's system.
>On the other side, I have also been in government appointed committees that set housing policy and have had to listen to many “experts” explain that housing is the solution for homelessness and their suggestions is usually along the lines of “relax the codes and permitting process so builders can build more homes”.
This an artefact of lobbying by the building industry who can absolutely rake in profits building luxury housing but are restricted in terms of where they can do it.
It will absolutely nothing for the supply of affordable housing unless luxury housing is taxed to death and building affordable housing is engineered to be profitable, but they'll fight that tooth and nail. Nobody exchanges 16% profit margins for 4% willingly.
It might even make things worse if the stripped regulations are about mandating % of affordable homes in new developments (which theyd fucking LOVE) and it will probably ensure quality goes down the tubes.
Only public housing will actually solve the supply issue. Singapore is the best model here.
This an artefact of lobbying by the building industry who can absolutely rake in profits building luxury housing but are restricted in terms of where they can do it.
It will absolutely nothing for the supply of affordable housing unless luxury housing is taxed to death and building affordable housing is engineered to be profitable, but they'll fight that tooth and nail. Nobody exchanges 16% profit margins for 4% willingly.
It might even make things worse if the stripped regulations are about mandating % of affordable homes in new developments (which theyd fucking LOVE) and it will probably ensure quality goes down the tubes.
Only public housing will actually solve the supply issue. Singapore is the best model here.
Have you been around public housing? The idea in theory is great, but in the US and in Puerto Rico it is a hub of drugs, alcohol, crime, government dependency, broken families, youth gangs and a slew of other things concentrated into a single area - destroys nearby culture and societal cohesiveness as well as corrupts large swathes of otherwise bright and successful young people that reside within them.
Does it? Is the alternative really that much better, or do people blame it for things it doesn't cause as an excuse to not pay for it?
If I look into this argument, am I going to find research supporting the idea that, counterintuitively, taking away public housing helps these problems? Or am I going to find real estate developers pushing a narrative to rationalize taking from the poor, selling to the rich, and making tons of money by doing so?
What's hiding under this rock? You're telling me it's butterflies, but I have a feeling it's actually centipedes.
If I look into this argument, am I going to find research supporting the idea that, counterintuitively, taking away public housing helps these problems? Or am I going to find real estate developers pushing a narrative to rationalize taking from the poor, selling to the rich, and making tons of money by doing so?
What's hiding under this rock? You're telling me it's butterflies, but I have a feeling it's actually centipedes.
I'm not proposing we take away public housing, but I encourage you to visit any of the public housing or even section 8 majority neighborhoods and just walk around for a while to take in the scenery and decipher what is narrative and what is reality. Government projects (no pun intended) can operate poorly and have negative effects that people don't want to participate in or fund without it being some grand narrative or conspiracy by "the rich"
I think the GP has made a cogent argument. Having Lived near public Housing in NeWY0rk for many Years, I always found it uncomfortable seeing these homeless people gather around doing NOthing.
I h4ppenedToo bump into someOF these folKs 0noccasion. N0ne of Them HAd a CLear view of thEir LiVes. Having to DepenD on some0ne for their living is 0neTHeeng, n0tHavin a CLeer V1eWOF THeiR L1Ves is quite AnooTHa.
I am SAD.
I h4ppenedToo bump into someOF these folKs 0noccasion. N0ne of Them HAd a CLear view of thEir LiVes. Having to DepenD on some0ne for their living is 0neTHeeng, n0tHavin a CLeer V1eWOF THeiR L1Ves is quite AnooTHa.
I am SAD.
Yeah, I lived for 6 years in Singaporean public housing. Still the highest quality housing I've ever lived in and the safest. No private housing in any other country has ever been as good.
90% of the country is public housing. It used to be third world and have a serious drug problem. It built proper public housing, is first world and it has no drug problem.
America is moving in the reverse direction and accelerating. The odd publicly funded methadone clinic wont stem the tide.
Private housing is good in theory but in practice it leads to ever rising rents, drug addicted homelessness and a parasitic coke addled landlord class taxing away 40% of a median income while doing the bare minimum in repairs.
90% of the country is public housing. It used to be third world and have a serious drug problem. It built proper public housing, is first world and it has no drug problem.
America is moving in the reverse direction and accelerating. The odd publicly funded methadone clinic wont stem the tide.
Private housing is good in theory but in practice it leads to ever rising rents, drug addicted homelessness and a parasitic coke addled landlord class taxing away 40% of a median income while doing the bare minimum in repairs.
There is a rising consensus from a lot of young left wing people in the united states that is unknowingly becoming drawn towards Singapore style politics. A lot of the large government programs and initiatives they rally for within a society emphasizing individual freedom and a democratic republic result in rampant corruption and social dependence - and a benevolent dictatorship among a bureaucratic class becomes the foremost solution to the problems arising from these government ran social programs.
Im not at all drawn towards Lee Kuan Yew. He's a thug.
This particular policy was stolen from Singaporean communists in the 1950s out of a kind of desperate pragmatism. Lee Kuan Yew didnt really want to do it but he wanted the commies to win even less. They airbrushed that part out later.
It was similar in America in the 50s. When the ruling classes were desperately afraid of communists you got social housing, medical care, subsidized education and the middle class thrived and could easily afford cars, homes and education.
No more though.
All that bollocks about individual freedom (freedom to pay more rent!) was used to drive you into poverty while a state that works on "spreading liberal values" with tanks decided to trash the 4th amendment because what American elites really thing is that too much freedom = terrorism.
It's all rather ironic.
This particular policy was stolen from Singaporean communists in the 1950s out of a kind of desperate pragmatism. Lee Kuan Yew didnt really want to do it but he wanted the commies to win even less. They airbrushed that part out later.
It was similar in America in the 50s. When the ruling classes were desperately afraid of communists you got social housing, medical care, subsidized education and the middle class thrived and could easily afford cars, homes and education.
No more though.
All that bollocks about individual freedom (freedom to pay more rent!) was used to drive you into poverty while a state that works on "spreading liberal values" with tanks decided to trash the 4th amendment because what American elites really thing is that too much freedom = terrorism.
It's all rather ironic.
There is a concern among right wing people that by placing more and more people in government housing and programs, they will vote more and more in favor of state and federal power from promise of funding and/or more personal support, which will place people in powerful positions that see no issue with eroding and diluting the power of the US's constitutional freedoms (btw I don't see individual freedom as bollocks or a direct reason for higher prices on housing, see the local government building regulations that for economic, environmental, nimbyism, but mostly to retain prices of housing for existing home owners or ensure a luxury condo is still profitable after it's construction).
You are absolutely correct that the powers that be despise the 4th amendment along with most of the bill of rights that are designed to protect individuals from government by limiting it's ability to intervene. Even today you can see otherwise innocuous groups of people socially being labeled as "domestic terrorists" in the US for opposing restrictions on a whole array of government laws and programs that they see as overreaching and infringing on their constitutional rights.
I'd recommend the TV-show "show me a hero" for an interesting take on this stereotype.
The show is about a town that started of with 'concentrated public housing' with these kinds of problems. Then by court mandate they need to move public housing into the rich neighborhoods. The city hires an expert who suggests a few small locations to help the neighborhood integrate.
Most of this show is about the political fallout of this situation. Because a majority of the residents of the town did _not_ want any low income housing.
The show is fictional, but based on a real story and a real town where this happened.
Most of this show is about the political fallout of this situation. Because a majority of the residents of the town did _not_ want any low income housing.
The show is fictional, but based on a real story and a real town where this happened.
Luxury apartments rarely stay that way long term. It’s a similar model as cars where used ends up moving down market.
I agree. From my experience, a city does not have the budget for public housing, the free market doesn’t value it, and raising property taxes to pay for it is usually contentious.
So that leaves federal funding. Might as well use my taxes to provide funding for public housing projects.
So that leaves federal funding. Might as well use my taxes to provide funding for public housing projects.
That's largely by design. The campaign to end public housing has been going on for decades on multiple fronts.
It's not an exaggeration or even unfair to say that sociopathic wealthy lobbyists (like, e.g. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation) are both causes of the current homeless crisis and seeking to exacerbate it.
It's not an exaggeration or even unfair to say that sociopathic wealthy lobbyists (like, e.g. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation) are both causes of the current homeless crisis and seeking to exacerbate it.
In the language of my country's homeless charities, there are "rough sleepers" - people who are literally sleeping in shop doorways and on park benches - but there's a much larger number of the "hidden homeless" - people who are sleeping on an accommodating friend or family member's couch, or some other temporary arrangement like the government paying for them to stay in a bed and breakfast.
Rough sleepers may well have untreated addiction and mental illness problems - there's a reason they've exhausted the patience of their loved ones - but many people among the hidden homeless have simply been priced out of the housing market.
Rough sleepers may well have untreated addiction and mental illness problems - there's a reason they've exhausted the patience of their loved ones - but many people among the hidden homeless have simply been priced out of the housing market.
I think you make a great distinction between the visible and invisible homeless, and that the solutions to those two problems are totally different.
Part of the problem here is that “homeless” has a pretty broad technical definition, while what ordinary people mean by “homeless” is specifically the highly visible indigent. They’re not thinking of the single mom at the woman’s shelter whose lost her apartment. There are two separate problems which both need to be addressed.
> These policy experts need to sit down with social workers, case managers, ER and
psychiatric center physicians and staff.
> The most visible homeless people that are the jarring entropy in American cities are always going to be the low functioning indigent population with mental health and/or addiction issues.
The most visible homeless are also a small minority of the people who deal with Homelessness in America - which is why they are addressing housing. California had a homeless population of 150,000 in 2021 [1], most whom were not living on the sidewalk & dealing with drug and/or psychiatric problems.
[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/homeless-po...
> The most visible homeless people that are the jarring entropy in American cities are always going to be the low functioning indigent population with mental health and/or addiction issues.
The most visible homeless are also a small minority of the people who deal with Homelessness in America - which is why they are addressing housing. California had a homeless population of 150,000 in 2021 [1], most whom were not living on the sidewalk & dealing with drug and/or psychiatric problems.
[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/homeless-po...
For sure. It’s definitely a good thing to provide subsidized housing for the poor. Poverty mitigation is wonderful!
But I believe the public wants the visible homeless cared for in a more responsible way.
But I believe the public wants the visible homeless cared for in a more responsible way.
I suspect we all broadly agree here. Your point just feels...not irrelevant, but...odd.
It's not that there are two types of homeless people, and people are one or the other. The "visible homeless" are a progression from the invisible, semi/temporarily homeless.
I've known people who started down the path of homelessness (and one who spent some time in that state and got out). Poverty in general, and housing instability are two causes of that transition.
If you can afford rent, afford basic comforts and stability, maintain health coverage and afford healthcare, you're not going to suddenly jump into sleeping under a highway and raving at pedestrians. There's a long journey to that state. We want to prevent that initial slide into temporary homelessness that precedes long-term homelessness, and all the issues that frequently arise with it.
When the ship is sinking, and someone says "we need to plug the hole", you don't respond with "No, bail harder!" Sure, bail harder, but the issue isn't that the people trying to plug the hole are missing the core issue.
It's not that there are two types of homeless people, and people are one or the other. The "visible homeless" are a progression from the invisible, semi/temporarily homeless.
I've known people who started down the path of homelessness (and one who spent some time in that state and got out). Poverty in general, and housing instability are two causes of that transition.
If you can afford rent, afford basic comforts and stability, maintain health coverage and afford healthcare, you're not going to suddenly jump into sleeping under a highway and raving at pedestrians. There's a long journey to that state. We want to prevent that initial slide into temporary homelessness that precedes long-term homelessness, and all the issues that frequently arise with it.
When the ship is sinking, and someone says "we need to plug the hole", you don't respond with "No, bail harder!" Sure, bail harder, but the issue isn't that the people trying to plug the hole are missing the core issue.
It seems more likely that the public wants to feel less bad about / unsafe around the visible homeless.
Hence a way to get them out of sight without massive mistreatment would probably be enough to make the general public happy.
Put differently, my thesis is that the public cares about people who need the most help, not because they feel they deserve that help the most. Instead I think its because those who need the most help are also the most visible. This primarily makes the public feel unsafe, and secondarily makes it harder to ignore the problem.
An effect of this is that the non-visible homeless are de-prioritized for help for reasons of PR. That does not necessarily mean these non-visible homeless deserve more priority, just that their current level of priority could only be right be 'accident'.
Put differently, my thesis is that the public cares about people who need the most help, not because they feel they deserve that help the most. Instead I think its because those who need the most help are also the most visible. This primarily makes the public feel unsafe, and secondarily makes it harder to ignore the problem.
An effect of this is that the non-visible homeless are de-prioritized for help for reasons of PR. That does not necessarily mean these non-visible homeless deserve more priority, just that their current level of priority could only be right be 'accident'.
For sure. Local politicians may lose elections based on how they deal with this minority “visible” population. Efforts to put up more low income housing would help a different cohort that resides under the same umbrella.
The intermittent homeless (or invisible homeless) are the majority and the cheapest to correct. They are also more likely to include children and can help prevent intergenerational issues.
That group can be helped by public housing.
That group can be helped by public housing.
I see a paper with this many graphs and you know that they are completely missing the point. They have tried to measure a phenomenon based on a reductive description of the problem. Defining "homelessness" to mean "not living in a house" means that you cluster a huge amount of people into that category, and you end up trying to solve a different problem.
I'm all for increasing housing supply to drive down the cost of housing, but that's a completely different problem. That solution may drive down your metrics of "homelessness" but it's obvious that a different solution is necessary to address the "visible homeless".
I'm all for increasing housing supply to drive down the cost of housing, but that's a completely different problem. That solution may drive down your metrics of "homelessness" but it's obvious that a different solution is necessary to address the "visible homeless".
Alan Graham. founder of Community First Village, a 27-acre community in East Austin that provides affordable, permanent housing for the homeless believes that the single greatest cause of homelessness is “a profound, catastrophic loss of family,” whether by forces like death or divorce, or institutional failures in the criminal justice and foster care systems.
“The Community First Village is the recognition that human beings need to be in relationship with each other, and that housing will never solve homelessness but community will,”
Does housing availability have an effect on homeless, sure. But addiction, mental health, and trauma, play a much more prevalent role.
I'm far from am expert in this topic, this just reflects my understanding. I'd love to hear a different point of view.
“The Community First Village is the recognition that human beings need to be in relationship with each other, and that housing will never solve homelessness but community will,”
Does housing availability have an effect on homeless, sure. But addiction, mental health, and trauma, play a much more prevalent role.
I'm far from am expert in this topic, this just reflects my understanding. I'd love to hear a different point of view.
Community first is a wonderful initiative. Everyone always comes up with grandiose solutions to many world problems but it’s amazing how “community” is usually a good fix for many issues.
All of these things interact and affect one another. Say you're living in some common marginal situation working a low-wage job with high rent. Some event happens where suddenly you require a few hundred dollars, nothing serious for most of us here but the sort of thing that happens every year or two - maybe your ancient car you have to use to commute to your job conks out, maybe you have a common medical issue requiring care and time off work, maybe your dental work can no longer be ignored, maybe you need an abortion because the idea of having a child in this situation is too ridiculous to even consider. This shock makes you short on rent. Maybe you're able to recover the next month, but maybe not. Ideally you have family you can fall back on. If not, now you're homeless.
Without housing it is massively more difficult and time-consuming to perform basic maintenance acts like showering, shaving, defecating, or feeding yourself. Think of any camping trip you've gone on. It's easy to start slipping at your job and you're much more likely to be fired. But say you really hustle and actually keep your job, like many unhoused people.
Without a safe place to retreat to & relax, without a quiet place to sleep undisturbed by cars roaring by, you enter a spiral. Your mental health, already not great after years of stress associated with your marginal financial situation, decreases markedly and then drops off a cliff. You become deeply depressed or are unlucky enough to finally trigger more serious mental health disorders that have been lurking, waiting for the chance to rear their heads. It's very easy to stop showing up for your job here, but you still manage to put yourself together and drag yourself over there pretty well. Your coworkers start to complain about the way you smell. Your physical health begins to deteriorate.
At any stage of this process your plunge could have been arrested by a supportive family. And at any stage in this process your plunge could have been massively accelerated by the introduction of drug use. Once mental health starts to go, self-medicating seems more and more appealing. Few joys are left available to you. For most unhoused people, it's only a matter of time.
Once you are addicted to drugs all of the difficulties enumerated above are multiplied. It is extremely difficult to kick drugs in the best of times (how many of us know of some well-off family with a black sheep child who has been to family-funded rehab nearly double-digit times?) and now there is basically no incentive nor ability to do so. Mental health issues are also extremely difficult to heal. Many of us here have been depressed and understand how difficult it is to recover even in good economic circumstances.
The absolute best you can hope for upon escaping all of this is to return to a marginal low-wage high-rent existence doing its best to kick you back down the cycle.
The #1 takeaway here is that people like to talk about homeless people with mental health or drug addiction issues, and it is impossible not to admit the simple truth - their recovery is impossible without being given housing. A safe place to retreat, rest, and convalesce.
Without housing it is massively more difficult and time-consuming to perform basic maintenance acts like showering, shaving, defecating, or feeding yourself. Think of any camping trip you've gone on. It's easy to start slipping at your job and you're much more likely to be fired. But say you really hustle and actually keep your job, like many unhoused people.
Without a safe place to retreat to & relax, without a quiet place to sleep undisturbed by cars roaring by, you enter a spiral. Your mental health, already not great after years of stress associated with your marginal financial situation, decreases markedly and then drops off a cliff. You become deeply depressed or are unlucky enough to finally trigger more serious mental health disorders that have been lurking, waiting for the chance to rear their heads. It's very easy to stop showing up for your job here, but you still manage to put yourself together and drag yourself over there pretty well. Your coworkers start to complain about the way you smell. Your physical health begins to deteriorate.
At any stage of this process your plunge could have been arrested by a supportive family. And at any stage in this process your plunge could have been massively accelerated by the introduction of drug use. Once mental health starts to go, self-medicating seems more and more appealing. Few joys are left available to you. For most unhoused people, it's only a matter of time.
Once you are addicted to drugs all of the difficulties enumerated above are multiplied. It is extremely difficult to kick drugs in the best of times (how many of us know of some well-off family with a black sheep child who has been to family-funded rehab nearly double-digit times?) and now there is basically no incentive nor ability to do so. Mental health issues are also extremely difficult to heal. Many of us here have been depressed and understand how difficult it is to recover even in good economic circumstances.
The absolute best you can hope for upon escaping all of this is to return to a marginal low-wage high-rent existence doing its best to kick you back down the cycle.
The #1 takeaway here is that people like to talk about homeless people with mental health or drug addiction issues, and it is impossible not to admit the simple truth - their recovery is impossible without being given housing. A safe place to retreat, rest, and convalesce.
> I'd love to hear a different point of view.
Not enough to read the article, I guess.
Not enough to read the article, I guess.
Yeah, the article explicitly controls out the parent’s assertion and yet they show up handwaving. I’m glad I’m not the only one who was frustrated.
I want to defend this article since a lot of people in the comments are bashing it. There are a few facts here that point to housing prices as the primary driver in homelessness rates:
- as an example in the article, King County WA has a homelessness rate 5x of Miami-Dade County.
- Why is that? Florida is obviously not more generous with subsidies or financial help to homeless people, it’s not a climate where people can’t live outside, it doesn’t have way more mental health issues than Seattle
- if you look at the homelessness rates in cities they correspond strongly with rents. Mental illness rates don’t seem to change much between cities.
It’s true that the thing that causes people to become homeless is often a crisis of some kind - adiction or mental health, job loss, etc. What people in the comments here aren’t doing is modeling what happens in a place where housing is cheap vs housing is expensive. In a place where housing is cheap, addiction or mental health issues might mean you can keep living in your shitty apartment and making rent; life is less precarious. Mentally ill people talk to themselves in the comfort of their own home! Obviously there are people who are homeless even in low cost of living areas and they need support to find shelter, but if rich areas built enough housing to lower prices, some amount of the homelessness crisis would be solved “for free.”
It’s true that the thing that causes people to become homeless is often a crisis of some kind - adiction or mental health, job loss, etc. What people in the comments here aren’t doing is modeling what happens in a place where housing is cheap vs housing is expensive. In a place where housing is cheap, addiction or mental health issues might mean you can keep living in your shitty apartment and making rent; life is less precarious. Mentally ill people talk to themselves in the comfort of their own home! Obviously there are people who are homeless even in low cost of living areas and they need support to find shelter, but if rich areas built enough housing to lower prices, some amount of the homelessness crisis would be solved “for free.”
It’s better than free. If you simply stop restricting (upward) development, you also get way more tax revenue and can sustain your infrastructure better.
This is just obviously not true. Sure, there are people that sleep in their car and could probably use somewhere to stay. However the visible majority of homeless in California, let’s say the “dramatic” homeless, are absolutely not just a house away from normalcy.
Tale as old as time, California charters a hotel to house the homeless and it turns into a drug orgy smearing shit on the walls paradise.
Yeah yeah, the only difference between the aggressive homeless person screaming and smashing water bottles against plate glass store windows and me is that I have a roof over my head. Look around and give me a break with that nonsense.
Tale as old as time, California charters a hotel to house the homeless and it turns into a drug orgy smearing shit on the walls paradise.
Yeah yeah, the only difference between the aggressive homeless person screaming and smashing water bottles against plate glass store windows and me is that I have a roof over my head. Look around and give me a break with that nonsense.
In just a few years, several countries went from "lower middle class can afford housing" to "lower middle class can barely meet wage requirements to be allowed to rent". The typical lower middle class job is still the same serviceable white collar job it was before, including many junior-medior software developers outside the SV bubble (read: anywhere age 20-35). There are very little signs momentum will slow down. From my understanding, things aren't much different in the US.
Sounds like the problem isn't as easy as "just get a better job bro".
Sounds like the problem isn't as easy as "just get a better job bro".
> The typical lower middle class job is still the same serviceable white collar job it was before, including many junior-medior software developers outside the SV bubble (read: anywhere age 20-35).
Where in US junior-medium level software engineers make $35k/year? This is around median individual income, so should square put one in lower middle class or above.
Where in US junior-medium level software engineers make $35k/year? This is around median individual income, so should square put one in lower middle class or above.
Lol at developers anywhere in the US being lower middle class.
I'm sympathetic to the argument you're making, but temper that position with the knowledge that the rates of homelessness aren't the same everywhere -- they're higher where housing is more expensive.
Most things aren't monocausal. Drug addiction causes people to make bad choices that result in loss of employment and isolation from more stable friends and family. If that happens to you in a place where you and all your addict buddies can pile into a trailer on a plot of land nobody cares about, then you won't be homeless. If it happens to you in the middle of a high-COL city like San Francisco, then you might find yourself on the street.
Does that mean "high housing prices" put you on the street or was it the result of your addiction?
Surely it's both, in some sense.
Most things aren't monocausal. Drug addiction causes people to make bad choices that result in loss of employment and isolation from more stable friends and family. If that happens to you in a place where you and all your addict buddies can pile into a trailer on a plot of land nobody cares about, then you won't be homeless. If it happens to you in the middle of a high-COL city like San Francisco, then you might find yourself on the street.
Does that mean "high housing prices" put you on the street or was it the result of your addiction?
Surely it's both, in some sense.
Very late follow-up: https://twitter.com/aaronAcarr/status/1504619986580557829
>let’s say the “dramatic” homeless, are absolutely not just a house away from normalcy.
Yeah, coz these people got into a vicious spiral of homelessness -> drugs -> crazy -> drugs -> crazy that played out over many years.
They're not a house a way from normalcy but a housing is still a prerequisite for them slowly returning to normalcy and to prevent others from joining their drug fueled nightmare.
It's absolutely not a coincidence that San Fran has the highest property prices and the craziest homeless.
Yeah, coz these people got into a vicious spiral of homelessness -> drugs -> crazy -> drugs -> crazy that played out over many years.
They're not a house a way from normalcy but a housing is still a prerequisite for them slowly returning to normalcy and to prevent others from joining their drug fueled nightmare.
It's absolutely not a coincidence that San Fran has the highest property prices and the craziest homeless.
The difference between you and that person is one of material circumstances. You are not fundamentally different from them.
Ah, the old "there's no such thing as moral failings" canard. I.e. "you didn't choose to not ruin your body with hard drugs and STDs, nor did the crack hobo shitting in the crosswalk over there choose the opposite, it's solely a result of economics/racism/$(popular politics of the day). Now stop complaining and give us your tax money."
[deleted]
> homeless person screaming and smashing water bottles against plate glass store windows and me is that I have a roof over my head
I am sorry, but you are part of the problem because, whether realising or not, you are perpetuating the. toxic idea that you must be a highly productive, psycologically stable member or society before you 'deserve' a roof over your head.
I've lived in a poor country, we had plenty of alcoholics, drug addicts, wife beaters and other assorted assholes as neighbours, none of them were homeless becauae housing was cheap.
It also does not take a PHD in psycology to realise that if you take one of them, and make them live on the street for a few years, their condition will deteriorate.
The fact thay you have to prove that housing and housing-less are connected just shows how deep our collective head is up the arse of this new, late-stage-capitalist, neoliberal bullshit. I am not sure any CCP propaganda can be as effective.
The system is plain self destructive - half the population reports that they can't afford to have kids, and the #1 expence is housing. How are you gonna have evil capitalist paradise if all the wage slaves die out? Oh, wait, what do we care, the whole planet is gonna burn up regardless.
People call Chinese government evil, byt as least they have a plan that goes beyong the next quarterly report.
I am sorry, but you are part of the problem because, whether realising or not, you are perpetuating the. toxic idea that you must be a highly productive, psycologically stable member or society before you 'deserve' a roof over your head.
I've lived in a poor country, we had plenty of alcoholics, drug addicts, wife beaters and other assorted assholes as neighbours, none of them were homeless becauae housing was cheap.
It also does not take a PHD in psycology to realise that if you take one of them, and make them live on the street for a few years, their condition will deteriorate.
The fact thay you have to prove that housing and housing-less are connected just shows how deep our collective head is up the arse of this new, late-stage-capitalist, neoliberal bullshit. I am not sure any CCP propaganda can be as effective.
The system is plain self destructive - half the population reports that they can't afford to have kids, and the #1 expence is housing. How are you gonna have evil capitalist paradise if all the wage slaves die out? Oh, wait, what do we care, the whole planet is gonna burn up regardless.
People call Chinese government evil, byt as least they have a plan that goes beyong the next quarterly report.
You don't have to be highly productive to deserve a house, you just have to be net positive productive.
I don't think anyone (well some people) is against society extending a credit to help people get back on their feet, but the issue is that historically it just becomes net negative producers now being even more negative by virtue of having a living space paid for with little signs of improvement. The credit just gets written off as a compounding loss.
I suggest watching Soft White Underbelly on YT, he does tons of homeless interviews and outreach trying to get people back on their feet. The solution is definitely not "just throw houses and therapy at the problem"
I don't think anyone (well some people) is against society extending a credit to help people get back on their feet, but the issue is that historically it just becomes net negative producers now being even more negative by virtue of having a living space paid for with little signs of improvement. The credit just gets written off as a compounding loss.
I suggest watching Soft White Underbelly on YT, he does tons of homeless interviews and outreach trying to get people back on their feet. The solution is definitely not "just throw houses and therapy at the problem"
Kicking grandma out onto the street because she isn't meeting her quarterly Key Performance Indicators and is not net positive productive
"net negative producers now being even more negative by virtue of having a living space paid for with little signs of improvement"
I will accept this argument the day we finally remove net negative producers from society, like Wells Fargo, which comes up with new financial fraud every year, and gets away with it.
Or snake oil salesmen that sell supplements that don't even contain whats written on the package, polluters, Tabacco and other assorted merchants of addiction and death that are all net negative to society to make a tidy profit.
Additionally - if you commit murder, you get food and housing, but if you refuse to work, you starve to death?
What would it cost us to make sure everyone has access to basic food like rice, 0.3% of GDP?
I will accept this argument the day we finally remove net negative producers from society, like Wells Fargo, which comes up with new financial fraud every year, and gets away with it.
Or snake oil salesmen that sell supplements that don't even contain whats written on the package, polluters, Tabacco and other assorted merchants of addiction and death that are all net negative to society to make a tidy profit.
Additionally - if you commit murder, you get food and housing, but if you refuse to work, you starve to death?
What would it cost us to make sure everyone has access to basic food like rice, 0.3% of GDP?
>What would it cost us to make sure everyone has access to basic food like rice, 0.3% of GDP?
If a homeless person trades their rice for money/drugs, do you propose giving them even more rice, or just letting them starve?
If a homeless person trades their rice for money/drugs, do you propose giving them even more rice, or just letting them starve?
So because 20-30% of homeless people have drug problems we should let the rest of them suffer so as not to waste resources?
I never said that? When that 20-30% use of a vastly disproportionate amount of the resources then I think we should create solutions that are more focused on those who actually need it, instead of blanket "just build more houses bro" solutions.
No, we should focus on 'lets dismantle the financial pyramid scheme" because it would help 70% of homeless people and 90% of society as a whole.
Also because eventually this mug's game will collapse and make us all miserable. We've already been forcing people back into offices just to prop up fantasy property values in city centers.
Also because eventually this mug's game will collapse and make us all miserable. We've already been forcing people back into offices just to prop up fantasy property values in city centers.
Responding to you… just because.
So somebody deserves housing because they are net positive to society? Bob here sells lemonade to thirsty Bitcoin miners so we must appropriate the labor of society via taxes and build him housing? Can’t get behind that idea. Nobody deserves housing at the expense of another person’s forced labor aka taxes.
Nobody? What about people who are permanently disabled, orphans and abandoned children? Is your sence of right and wrong coming from 18th century britain?
There are at least 3 types of homelessnes and each of these types have different solution:
1) people who have drug and mental issues
2) people (and families) who do not have drug and metal issues but just bad luck (lost job, released from jail and cannot find job, etc.)
3) people want be to transient (runaways, hanging out and traveling, etc.). Members of this group slowly become group one.
I have a strong opinion that there needs to 3 different solutions which should NOT be mixed (I.e., do not provide shared housing for the first group and second group).
1) people who have drug and mental issues
2) people (and families) who do not have drug and metal issues but just bad luck (lost job, released from jail and cannot find job, etc.)
3) people want be to transient (runaways, hanging out and traveling, etc.). Members of this group slowly become group one.
I have a strong opinion that there needs to 3 different solutions which should NOT be mixed (I.e., do not provide shared housing for the first group and second group).
Group 2 also easily decays into group 1, depending on whether they receive help at that stage or not.
Just to add to the other person who replied to you - group 2 causes much of group 1.
Yes.
And group 2 is so easy to take care. But we are putting them into the same shelters as group 1 or doing some “let’s build affordable housing“. We need readlily available and free housing for these people - with transport and consoling. However this requires coordination on the state level and some help from businesses: sometime housing is not available in the same county but maybe neibouring county might have.
"Why do some US cities struggle more with homelessness? A new book explores a key component of the issue: housing supply."
It's a Captain Obvious class of article, hopefully the next one will explore the correlation between thirst and water deprivation
It's a Captain Obvious class of article, hopefully the next one will explore the correlation between thirst and water deprivation
It's important coz otherwise capital will decide which way the correlation flows and big money is (literally) invested in homelessness being caused by mental illness and drugs.
This is a question a lot like "does hiking the minimum wage cause unemployment?" in that a lot of private wealth hinges upon the public believing a plausible falsehood. Rigorous scientific study can offset that.
This is a question a lot like "does hiking the minimum wage cause unemployment?" in that a lot of private wealth hinges upon the public believing a plausible falsehood. Rigorous scientific study can offset that.
Well large areas of american public policy are built on the idea that homelessness is caused by the poor choices of individual homeless people and that shaming them more will solve it.
So it may be obvious but it still needs to be repeated and reinforced.
So it may be obvious but it still needs to be repeated and reinforced.
I know people who work on sustainable & affordable housing as well as homelessness. It's generally understood that we need more housing. A lot more. And some huge fraction of the "unhoused" (?) is due to affordability (ever rising rents).
Confirming this folk theory with hard data and analysis will prove very useful in the ongoing policy battles.
(A lot of political hobbyists continue to mindlessly repeat value-based and morality tale stories, when simple economics explains quite a bit.)
Confirming this folk theory with hard data and analysis will prove very useful in the ongoing policy battles.
(A lot of political hobbyists continue to mindlessly repeat value-based and morality tale stories, when simple economics explains quite a bit.)
I wish it was useful. Models have shown this for decades. Data doesn’t change the root cause - land owners don’t want competition from other land owners in housing.
Parts of the piece I'd have hoped would be reflected in the discussion:
> First, the people sleeping on the street only represent a subset of the total population of people experiencing homelessness. In the 2020 count, chronic homelessness (what policy makers call being homeless for at least a year and living with some kind of physical or mental disability, including mental illness, a chronic health condition, and substance use disorder) accounted for less than 30 percent of the homeless cases in King County, while the chronic unsheltered population made up less than 17 percent of total cases. Second, we know that mental health and drug use can be both a cause of homelessness and a consequence. The trauma associated with homelessness is significant; that drug use and mental illness might result from this experience is not surprising. Research confirms this relationship.
> Despite this complexity, the fundamental question remains: Does variation in rates of these individual risk factors like poverty explain variation in rates of homelessness witnessed across the country? In other words, do we have more homelessness in Seattle because we have more poor people or more drug users? Our research suggests the answer is no.
There follow some supporting graphs, etc.
> Individual risk factors help account for who in a given city might lose their housing at any given point in time, but housing markets—rents and vacancy rates—set the context in which those risk factors are expressed. Without looking at housing markets, you can’t explain why Seattle has a much higher rate of homelessness than Chicago, Minneapolis, or Dallas. The fundamental conclusion is that the consequences of individual vulnerabilities are far more severe in locations with less accommodating housing markets.
> First, the people sleeping on the street only represent a subset of the total population of people experiencing homelessness. In the 2020 count, chronic homelessness (what policy makers call being homeless for at least a year and living with some kind of physical or mental disability, including mental illness, a chronic health condition, and substance use disorder) accounted for less than 30 percent of the homeless cases in King County, while the chronic unsheltered population made up less than 17 percent of total cases. Second, we know that mental health and drug use can be both a cause of homelessness and a consequence. The trauma associated with homelessness is significant; that drug use and mental illness might result from this experience is not surprising. Research confirms this relationship.
> Despite this complexity, the fundamental question remains: Does variation in rates of these individual risk factors like poverty explain variation in rates of homelessness witnessed across the country? In other words, do we have more homelessness in Seattle because we have more poor people or more drug users? Our research suggests the answer is no.
There follow some supporting graphs, etc.
> Individual risk factors help account for who in a given city might lose their housing at any given point in time, but housing markets—rents and vacancy rates—set the context in which those risk factors are expressed. Without looking at housing markets, you can’t explain why Seattle has a much higher rate of homelessness than Chicago, Minneapolis, or Dallas. The fundamental conclusion is that the consequences of individual vulnerabilities are far more severe in locations with less accommodating housing markets.
There's a strong disincentive to cast homelessness as a housing problem: property prices.
Nobody particularly minds if a bit of money is spent on mental health services or drug addiction therapy but money spent on new social housing in your area that uses your tax money to reduce the value of your home and potentially bring people you wouldnt want as neighbors?
Yeah, people arent keen on that. Even ordinary, caring "lefty" people hate that idea.
The 1% also dont want to put downward pressure on the value of their property portfolios with extra housing or upward pressure on wages and they own the media and think tanks so mental health/drugs cause homelessness rather than are caused by homelessness when they discuss it.
Or, it gets cast as a lack of personal responsibility for the right wing press.
Either way the only working solution is the least politically palatable, so cities run by people who care end up just building a methadone clinic or something because that's all you'll be allowed to do.
Then the right wing and liberal press will take a shit on them because what little they were able to do on a tiny budget didnt really solve anything.
Nobody particularly minds if a bit of money is spent on mental health services or drug addiction therapy but money spent on new social housing in your area that uses your tax money to reduce the value of your home and potentially bring people you wouldnt want as neighbors?
Yeah, people arent keen on that. Even ordinary, caring "lefty" people hate that idea.
The 1% also dont want to put downward pressure on the value of their property portfolios with extra housing or upward pressure on wages and they own the media and think tanks so mental health/drugs cause homelessness rather than are caused by homelessness when they discuss it.
Or, it gets cast as a lack of personal responsibility for the right wing press.
Either way the only working solution is the least politically palatable, so cities run by people who care end up just building a methadone clinic or something because that's all you'll be allowed to do.
Then the right wing and liberal press will take a shit on them because what little they were able to do on a tiny budget didnt really solve anything.
I like how people who talk about personal responsebility always talk about someone else's responsebility to avoid themselves taking on responsebility for the state of the world/society/their neighbourhood and no-one ever calls them out on it!
How is this hypocritical? If someone says “[xyz] is your responsibility, not mine”, how is that inconsistent with their worldview on personal responsibility? They don’t just love responsibility for sake of it and don’t simply want as much as they can for themselves.
My city in Poland offers help to homeless people.
There is only one condition.
For them to stop drinking.
They never do.
For them to stop drinking.
They never do.
This reminds me of wet shelters. [1] I'd encourage people interested in this topic to read up on them. It's fascinating. They provide alcoholics with alcohol. Usually a scheme like 1 - 2 drinks per hour, on the house, if they abstain from outside alcohol and drugs and otherwise obey the shelter rules.
The results are (to me) quite counter-intuitive. For some drinkers, if you give them a rate-limited but ultimately unrestricted supply of booze, and tie access to it to good behaviour -- but not abstention -- they actually stabilize their intake and start slowly decreasing it over time. They tend to keep coming to the shelter (free booze!). Participants in wet shelters drink less than on the streets as they're rate-limited. Their health generally improves. Some eventually even wean themselves off this way. The cyclical nature of drug addiction when in poverty means complete chaos, withdrawal, then binging again. Just giving them booze interrupts that.
This ties into my pet hypothesis (not exactly revolutionary, I know) that homeless people, as well as drug addicts, quite rationally really, seek to avoid immediate chaos, disorientation, and pain. Drug withdrawal is chaos and pain (of a completely intolerable kind for some) and so is avoided, even at enormous longer-term cost.
(Similar results with stabilization, improved health and self-tapering have been seen with providing heroin addicts access to opiates, too. [2] The % that exit such programs sober who stay sober is higher than pretty much any other form of drug addiction treatment. Makes one wonder if we're going about addiction the wrong way.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_reduction#Alcohol
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin-assisted_treatment
The results are (to me) quite counter-intuitive. For some drinkers, if you give them a rate-limited but ultimately unrestricted supply of booze, and tie access to it to good behaviour -- but not abstention -- they actually stabilize their intake and start slowly decreasing it over time. They tend to keep coming to the shelter (free booze!). Participants in wet shelters drink less than on the streets as they're rate-limited. Their health generally improves. Some eventually even wean themselves off this way. The cyclical nature of drug addiction when in poverty means complete chaos, withdrawal, then binging again. Just giving them booze interrupts that.
This ties into my pet hypothesis (not exactly revolutionary, I know) that homeless people, as well as drug addicts, quite rationally really, seek to avoid immediate chaos, disorientation, and pain. Drug withdrawal is chaos and pain (of a completely intolerable kind for some) and so is avoided, even at enormous longer-term cost.
(Similar results with stabilization, improved health and self-tapering have been seen with providing heroin addicts access to opiates, too. [2] The % that exit such programs sober who stay sober is higher than pretty much any other form of drug addiction treatment. Makes one wonder if we're going about addiction the wrong way.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_reduction#Alcohol
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin-assisted_treatment
You presumably know at least a few housed people in your life with drinking problems. Why don't they just quit drinking? Why do you think it would be easier to quit drinking while also not having housing?
"Homelessness Is a Housing Problem"
Tautology? That doesn't really help us fix it, or even understand it. You could give people housing, but that's not going to fix the underlying causes, and may not be the best help we can give some of the individuals. That could be inability to get or hold a job due to criminal history or mental health, jobs that don't pay enough to afford living expenses (more about market/job structure than simply raising minimum wage, although reforms around that can make sense), etc. Now for some segment of the homeless population, possibly a fairly large one, giving someone an address can help them get a job and get back on their feet - I'm thinking Norway's (or was it Sewden?) model, but other structural issues would have to be addressed to make that work, like how the "justice" and healthcare (substance abuse and mental health especially) system are structured as well as social conventions/stigmas related to them.
Tautology? That doesn't really help us fix it, or even understand it. You could give people housing, but that's not going to fix the underlying causes, and may not be the best help we can give some of the individuals. That could be inability to get or hold a job due to criminal history or mental health, jobs that don't pay enough to afford living expenses (more about market/job structure than simply raising minimum wage, although reforms around that can make sense), etc. Now for some segment of the homeless population, possibly a fairly large one, giving someone an address can help them get a job and get back on their feet - I'm thinking Norway's (or was it Sewden?) model, but other structural issues would have to be addressed to make that work, like how the "justice" and healthcare (substance abuse and mental health especially) system are structured as well as social conventions/stigmas related to them.
Step one is to stop restricting housing growth so that the subset of people who are on the edge don’t fall off.
Then it gets easier for a lot of existing systems to help people who are capable of getting back into (cheaper) housing to do so.
And then we can focus on people who really need more care because we won’t be actively making things way worse the way we are with our housing policies now.
Then it gets easier for a lot of existing systems to help people who are capable of getting back into (cheaper) housing to do so.
And then we can focus on people who really need more care because we won’t be actively making things way worse the way we are with our housing policies now.
I don't know about this. Most places aren't very restrictive. The big cost is labor and materials. Both of these are constrained resources. Any rapid increase will lead to even higher costs. Again, preferences of the people with the money to actually build new construction will be to buy run down houses to remodel or level and start over, with large area and expensive options of course. I don't really see anything indicating the housing supply at the low end of the spectrum would increase, nor that overall prices would drop given that inputs would increase.
No offense intended, but yes, you definitely don’t know about this.
Most cities with high demand allow nothing more dense than houses on 2/3 or more of their land. It is easy to falsify your argument about personal preference because people are willing to pay much more per sqft for condos in the center than houses at the edge.
Most cities with high demand allow nothing more dense than houses on 2/3 or more of their land. It is easy to falsify your argument about personal preference because people are willing to pay much more per sqft for condos in the center than houses at the edge.
Homelessness is a feature, not a bug, it's the stick. Nobody would work wearing diapers in Amazon warehouses for miserable wages if they weren't afraid of lacking food and becoming homeless.
I think the point here is that we're making a feature request to remove that.
I'm not sure the BDFL is benevolent enough to accept it though. And since the USSR fork fiasco, I'm not sure we have many options left[1]…
[1] no pun intended
[1] no pun intended
Those trend line fits are hilarious. Unmodeled confounding factors, anyone? I especially like where they choose if something should be a log-linear fit vs. a linear fit. And the 95% confidence interval only containing less than 10% of the samples. These guys are amazing. And Greg Colburn is a professor! Good job, guys. Go find other work.
"Don't be snarky."
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The confidence is for the slope of the regression line. Are you objecting to something the interval is not trying to accomplish or am I missing something (entirely possible)?
A one-dimensional affine fit (usually called a linear fit) contains two parameters: a slope and an offset. Both have error bounds, and the offset error bounds on this data would be huge. Data presentation that is not intended to deceive would have shown the vertical spread of the estimate too. But that spread would have been so wide that it would reveal that the fit is terrible and that reasonable conclusions cannot be drawn from these model fits. This is not scientific work. It is ideological policy advocacy dressed up as data science.
I think you are conflating two different things. The R^2 is incredibly poor for all the plots. That's essentially what you are complaining about. However, you can still have a very low R^2 but a statistically significant slope. While I agree that the article needs more support due to only doing univariate analysis and potentially missing huge confounders, your complaint is not valid. Here is code for basically random points that have a tight slope coefficient:
import numpy as np
import statsmodels.api as sm
n = 1000
desired_R2 = 0.05
mu = 0
sigma_noise = 0.1
sigma = np.sqrt(sigma_noise*2*(desired_R2/(1-desired_R2)))
X = np.random.normal(mu, sigma, n)
noise = np.random.normal(0, sigma_noise, n)
y = X + noise
X = sm.add_constant(X)
model = sm.OLS(y, X).fit()
model.summary()
import numpy as np
import statsmodels.api as sm
n = 1000
desired_R2 = 0.05
mu = 0
sigma_noise = 0.1
sigma = np.sqrt(sigma_noise*2*(desired_R2/(1-desired_R2)))
X = np.random.normal(mu, sigma, n)
noise = np.random.normal(0, sigma_noise, n)
y = X + noise
X = sm.add_constant(X)
model = sm.OLS(y, X).fit()
model.summary()
No, I'm complaining that they plotted slope-only 95th percentile error bounds, which is visually deceptive. If they had plotted the vertical spread as well, it would have been clear to the reader that the model they chose to explain the data (a linear regression model), does not fit the data at all. That is also clear from the R^2 values, but that is hidden in a difficult-to-interpret numerical value. So the model is not well suited to modelling the data and all conclusions drawn from that model are unfounded. The slope value and its confidence interval are essentially meaningless because the data is not actually modelled by an affine model, so it is nonsensical to talk about the slope estimate and its uncertainty, as the data is not describable by a slope. Models must fit the data well enough to be plausible in order to be useful aids to understanding the data. These models don't come even close to that standard and should not have been used. Any data scientist worth their salt knows this. The authors either know this and went ahead with it anyway, in which case they are dishonest. Or they don't know this, in which case they should not be using such methods, as their incompetence is made plain for the world to see.
But you can literally see the spread of the data points. I think you are complaining about nothing and maybe not understanding the article. They are showing plots with low R^2 and claiming these variables in a vacuum do not predict homelessness (which is in agreement with what you are saying). Then they present two plots, having much higher (but still low) R^2 and make the innocuous claim that median rent is the single greatest predictor that they found. Of course, this analysis is very simple and any model trying to explain homelessness should contain many variables including things like the climate of the city. But to complain that the confidence interval of the slope is uninterpretable is silly. Any data scientist worth their salt understands this is simply a visual representation of the confidence interval outputted by the regression.
You are avoiding the question of whether it is appropriate to present the results of a linear regression on data that is so poorly explained by a linear relationship.
Random looking balls of data points don't have slopes. It is invalid to perform a linear fit on data that does not derive in large part from a linear generative process. And presenting a fit from a model that is facially absurd to apply is bad data science. Whether or not an informed reader would discount the absurd model fit is not material to whether it is appropriate to present such a fit.
They could have binned the data and plotted percentile bands. They could have used a non-parametric density estimator. There are lots of things they could have done to summarize the data and make some sense of the ball of points. But linear regression with slope error bars is not an appropriate choice. That it is easy to compute linear fits, and that it helped them make their point is not justification.
Random looking balls of data points don't have slopes. It is invalid to perform a linear fit on data that does not derive in large part from a linear generative process. And presenting a fit from a model that is facially absurd to apply is bad data science. Whether or not an informed reader would discount the absurd model fit is not material to whether it is appropriate to present such a fit.
They could have binned the data and plotted percentile bands. They could have used a non-parametric density estimator. There are lots of things they could have done to summarize the data and make some sense of the ball of points. But linear regression with slope error bars is not an appropriate choice. That it is easy to compute linear fits, and that it helped them make their point is not justification.
> linear regression on data that is so poorly explained by a linear relationship.
That is exactly what they are saying. This is from TFA:
> The graphics above demonstrate that variation in rates of homelessness cannot be explained by variation in rates of individual factors such as poverty and mental illness.
They are, in my words, saying "Look at this plot, the x-axis has no bearing on the y-axis. To give you a sense of how bad it is, we fit a line to it and it is exactly 0 useful." I don't know why you are focusing so hard on the plots without reading their words. You are in agreement with TFA. Now, for the plot with R^2 of 0.55, that clearly has some positive relationship to it.
As for your last paragraph, I disagree 100%. They are trying to find an explanatory variable, not "summarize the data". By showing all the points, it is evident there is no relationship. As you have continuously pointed this out, the plot achieved its goal. In my opinion, the line is a nice touch for statisticians to know that no illusions from scaling of the axes are playing tricks.
That is exactly what they are saying. This is from TFA:
> The graphics above demonstrate that variation in rates of homelessness cannot be explained by variation in rates of individual factors such as poverty and mental illness.
They are, in my words, saying "Look at this plot, the x-axis has no bearing on the y-axis. To give you a sense of how bad it is, we fit a line to it and it is exactly 0 useful." I don't know why you are focusing so hard on the plots without reading their words. You are in agreement with TFA. Now, for the plot with R^2 of 0.55, that clearly has some positive relationship to it.
As for your last paragraph, I disagree 100%. They are trying to find an explanatory variable, not "summarize the data". By showing all the points, it is evident there is no relationship. As you have continuously pointed this out, the plot achieved its goal. In my opinion, the line is a nice touch for statisticians to know that no illusions from scaling of the axes are playing tricks.
The idea that "homelessness" is about a lack of homes is a dumb idea that just won't die. Those who promote it endlessly simply will not go out in the world and use their own senses to determine for themselves that it isn't true. Here's how you do it: go out and talk to the "homeless" and keep notes as to whether homelessness is probably that person's primary problem. The results: upwards of 90% of those surveyed will have some other main problem, and it will almost certainly be addiction, mental illness, or both.
All of a sudden, it stops being a mystery why "homelessness" is a perennial problem: because we're misusing the term "homeless" for two of the most intractable problems in the human world. Calling those people "the homeless" is like calling cancer patients "the hairless".
When I lived in a different place, I went on long walks. I started buying little care packages to give to those who were suffering out on the street. I gave an older woman a package and she was grateful and we had a nice exchange. The next time I tried, she almost attacked me. Think her primary problem is lack of a home? Lack of a home is just one symptom of her real problems.
All of a sudden, it stops being a mystery why "homelessness" is a perennial problem: because we're misusing the term "homeless" for two of the most intractable problems in the human world. Calling those people "the homeless" is like calling cancer patients "the hairless".
When I lived in a different place, I went on long walks. I started buying little care packages to give to those who were suffering out on the street. I gave an older woman a package and she was grateful and we had a nice exchange. The next time I tried, she almost attacked me. Think her primary problem is lack of a home? Lack of a home is just one symptom of her real problems.
Homelessness is caused by:
1) Drug addiction (addicts and the mentally ill are no longer rational actors and it's cruel to treat them as such, stop paying them to sleep on the sidewalk)
2) Immigration (like it or not, pumping up demand weather they're paying for it or the government makes housing much more expensive for everyone.)
3) Cheap credit (Everyone knows how this works and worse still it directly effects the most disadvantaged while funneling their money to the wealthy.)
4) High cost of construction labor
5) Material supply chain issues (which is largely the same as the last two, it's all just inflation.)
6) Expensive regulation that adds to construction cost (zoning, building codes etc.)
Housing is part of it but not the only part. Some of these things could be easily fixed in ways that benefit everyone who lives here (housed or not.) No one in charge wants to though and you should be asking why.
1) Drug addiction (addicts and the mentally ill are no longer rational actors and it's cruel to treat them as such, stop paying them to sleep on the sidewalk)
2) Immigration (like it or not, pumping up demand weather they're paying for it or the government makes housing much more expensive for everyone.)
3) Cheap credit (Everyone knows how this works and worse still it directly effects the most disadvantaged while funneling their money to the wealthy.)
4) High cost of construction labor
5) Material supply chain issues (which is largely the same as the last two, it's all just inflation.)
6) Expensive regulation that adds to construction cost (zoning, building codes etc.)
Housing is part of it but not the only part. Some of these things could be easily fixed in ways that benefit everyone who lives here (housed or not.) No one in charge wants to though and you should be asking why.
Specifically in regards to 2: Canada constructed 244,025 new homes in 2021[0] (this includes new condos and apartments). By comparison, Canada allowed 401,000 new permanent residents through immigration in 2021[1]. Now obviously some of those immigrants are going to be families that only need one home, but basically almost all of the new housing supply being created in Canada is so small that it could be bought up by the new permanent resident population. And that's before you get into temporary visas, asylum seekers, illegal immigrants, and foreign investors buying up housing as a store of wealth and letting it sit vacant, and we haven't even gotten into the demand from the rising generation of young Canadians looking to enter the housing market.
0: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-canadian-ho...
1: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/ne...
0: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-canadian-ho...
1: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/ne...
I believe that homelessness is only a housing problem for a percentage of people who are temporarily "down on their luck" and need a place to stay while they find a job. For the normal person who had a string of simultaneous bad things happen to them (car broke down, water heater exploded, they fell down the stairs and couldn't work for a months, etc) that caused their finances to die, most normal people have the ability to recover from that, especially with some assistance.
But there's no helping the mentally ill or drug addicts with a house. You could gift them a mansion, and they'll find a hammer and tear up the walls either looking for demons hiding in the walls to kill, or trying to find wiring or metal scrap to sell for drugs.
But there's no helping the mentally ill or drug addicts with a house. You could gift them a mansion, and they'll find a hammer and tear up the walls either looking for demons hiding in the walls to kill, or trying to find wiring or metal scrap to sell for drugs.
> I believe that homelessness is only a housing problem for a percentage of people who are temporarily "down on their luck" and need a place to stay while they find a job.
I agree. (I'd change "only" to "mostly", but close enough.)
But I also recognize that people aren't born in whatever state they're in, and it seems apparent that getting into "down on your luck" homeless state is the first step into being part of the drug-addicted, mentally unstable homeless population.
Do you suppose those drug addicts were born addicted? Do you suppose no home owners are mentally ill? There has to be a path from largely functional, housed, and employed, to on the street, on drugs, and mentally unstable. Pretending such a path doesn't exist is comforting for those of us who haven't started down it, but it's certainly not going to give us an accurate understanding of the world.
Stop looking at a snapshot of people and look at the progression.
I agree. (I'd change "only" to "mostly", but close enough.)
But I also recognize that people aren't born in whatever state they're in, and it seems apparent that getting into "down on your luck" homeless state is the first step into being part of the drug-addicted, mentally unstable homeless population.
Do you suppose those drug addicts were born addicted? Do you suppose no home owners are mentally ill? There has to be a path from largely functional, housed, and employed, to on the street, on drugs, and mentally unstable. Pretending such a path doesn't exist is comforting for those of us who haven't started down it, but it's certainly not going to give us an accurate understanding of the world.
Stop looking at a snapshot of people and look at the progression.
>>it seems apparent that getting into "down on your luck" homeless state is the first step into being part of the drug-addicted, mentally unstable homeless population.
I think it's the opposite. Many drug addicts start off housed, either with family or on their own. As their addiction takes over their lives they lose their job and burn bridges with their family and eventually end up on the street. I've seen examples of families of addicts are loving and would house them in a minute if it wasn't for their addition and toxic behavior.
I think it's the opposite. Many drug addicts start off housed, either with family or on their own. As their addiction takes over their lives they lose their job and burn bridges with their family and eventually end up on the street. I've seen examples of families of addicts are loving and would house them in a minute if it wasn't for their addition and toxic behavior.
The most visible homeless people that are the jarring entropy in American cities are always going to be the low functioning indigent population with mental health and/or addiction issues.
These people have no choice but to be visible. They obviously can’t succeed in their current state. Where can someone go who has baseline mental health issues, has been low SES for their entire life, and has no real support network? When this type of person is in crisis a shelter isn’t going to be a safe convalescent house to get mental health treatment and stability/sobriety.
The US is woefully inadequate here. We let our lowest functioning and least supported (as in support network of family and friends) members of society walk the streets panhandling by day and sleeping in the dirt by night.
US cities need convalescent facilities and long term psychiatric facilities for the indigents who are mentally unable to tackle their own enormous critical problem and for the ones who are long term addicted and need strong support. (Long term alcohol use and amphetamine use lead to different kinds of psychosis. Wernicke/Korsakoff and amphetamine induced psychosis respectively. These people are not sound enough of mind to do this without long term facilities. We don’t have those in the US anymore. Unsupervised public housing is not the answer for these people. Perhaps for the less apparent higher functioning and invisible poor it is.