When was this, specifically? We have a very high rate of labor force participation for both 25-54 and 55+ from a historical perspective. We also have a long-term, historically low unemployment rate (low enough that it is "full employment" by economist standards).
Well it's always going to suck to be poor but at least now they have people telling them it's not their fault and that government owes them a better lifestyle. Heck, they may even be given a house.
1. Increased costs of development - raises housing costs 2. Legalizing drugs - 3. Permissive border policies/sanctuary cities 4. Raising minimum wage - low skilled people cannot find entry level work
In my experience in working with the homeless, a goodly percentage are those who do not wish to avail themselves to shelters and various services because they’re not keen on rules and structure.
The freeze on evictions during Covid has had a lasting impact that is not fixable. The damage has been done. If you legally rent out, you run the risk of losing your property rights to squatters in the event of any unpredictable national emergency. Places like Florida, the Gulf Coast, and SoCal will always have more homeless because the tent in the backlot won't turn you into a popsicle. I have no way tp explain why the homeless in Vermont (or anyone else for that matter) are incapable of fleeing the iceberg that is their state. Then again, my experience with snow is about as long as my experience visiting Mars.
As to 3 and 4, again, we are at full employment with high participation rates stratified by age (i.e., while participation rates lowered, it is because of aging, not because people of the same age are less likely to work). If anything, we have been in a labor shortage post-Covid. And the biggest increase in wages have actually occurred at the lowest levels of income, suggesting that is where the biggest shortage has been.
The issue is primarily one of allocation. We have massive urban areas that are the foundation of jobs in this country. We also have dying rural and small towns that have housing but limited jobs (largely being held up by immigrants coming to take those remaining jobs that Americans don't want, ironically). As such, you have an allocation problem. People in cities without enough housing (supply being lowered even more by AirBnB) and small towns with gluts of housing in areas Americans are leaving. We could have helped this issue by pushing more remote work (letting people spread), but cities and some employers don't want that, as they want the tax revenues and be able to better monitor employees, respectively. So we have too many jobs in cities without people to fill them because we don't have enough housing and areas with housing that are too far from the jobs.
You truly are clueless, and don't care enough about facts to do a simple Google search before doubling down on stupid. Appx 50% of homeless are employed Homelessness Data & Trends Fact: While employment helps people stay housed, it does not guarantee housing. As many as 40%-60% of people experiencing homelessness have a job, but housing is unaffordable because wages have not kept up with rising rents. There is no county or state where a full-time minimum-wage worker can afford a modest apartment. At minimum wage, people have to work [COLOR=var(--color-teal)]86 hours a week[/COLOR] to afford a one-bedroom. Even when people can afford a home, one is not always available. In 1970, the United States had a surplus of 300,000 affordable homes. Today, [COLOR=var(--color-teal)]only 37 affordable homes[/COLOR] are available for every 100 extremely low-income renters. As a result, 70% of the lowest-wage households spend more than half their income on rent, placing them at high risk of homelessness when unexpected expenses (such as car repairs and medical bills) arise.
Sorry but I don't believe that. I know there are sources that will try to drum up support for the homeless and it would fit their agenda to make is seem like the homeless are just normal working people. There is no way 40% of the homeless work.
people living in shelters and in cars and in campers and in in laws garage and even in tents work. you just don't see them from your perch. i grew up in that, and it has gotten much worse since the 70's when I was living in shelters and my mom was working two jobs as a single mom. there is a world out there that you are obviously unfamiliar with. there are also a large number of homeless due to addiction and mental health but a lot of people that are without safe shelter of their own are working daily all around you
Ten million additions to our country increase the need for housing. Full employment/Poor employment…people require a place to live.
same in UK. Neither country has been building enough new houses since 08. First time buyers need to get real with expectations. we could increase supply with increased density and smaller units but everyone thinks they have to have 2k SF +. cheaper starter homes in the 1k SF range on smaller tracts could be built faster and cheaper.
But it certainly suggests that 4 is incorrect. In terms of 3, yes, they require housing. However, construction is also an industry that heavily relies on immigrant labor. If you remove those laborers, construction would likely slow further.
Whether available housing is an affect really depends on the reasons for homelessness. Losing a job, bankruptcy or not having a job that enables paying for housing. Vs saying mentally ill and/or drug addicted and spending funds elsewhere or having no funds. Painting homeless as a poor family or drug addled crazy don’t give a reasonable look into a complex issue.
