[Julian658]

I used to work with the homeless population. The #1 cause was child abuse/neglect. Because when that happens, teens run away and live on the streets, or as children are taken from their homes and put in foster homes or group homes they don't like and run away. So these people have zero home support or financial support from parents like most of us did growing up. And to deal with their emotional problems they very often turn to drugs and become addicts, and don't finish high school, and their family is on the street.

Mental illness is a major factor too. Those in these situations with mental illness,, especially schizophrenia, are unable to maintain employment or relationships, and will have a very hard time getting off the streets, and will use drugs to self-medicate. You can't force someone to take proper medications, so they're trapped.

In southern California there are unique problems because of the high influx of Hispanic asylum seekers who don't have legal status or skills so obviously some will end up homeless.

Accepting immigrants that will become homeless is suicidal. However, the SJWs like this sort of chaos to promote socialism.

[Unthinking Majority]

I disagree. It is very simple Unthinking. The scenarios for a possible homeless state are incredibly varied. I happen to think private property and wealth extraction from banks and mortgage industries is about profit from payers for decades. They pay off the mortgage and are in their what? Sixties. They get ill and the Social Security check is low. Inadequate for keeping up with inflation. They do a reverse mortgage to survive and wind up losing the property when they die and it is not inherited wealth. The poor relatives are left with no property that is paid off. The banks win all the time. Banks are about capitalism.

If you think that is not capitalism you are foolish in your thoughts Unthinking.

I have hundreds of examples. You will lose them all. It is about capitalism. Period. The concept of the property is the priority over people in need of security after a lifetime of working and being productive. You can continue with lies all day and night. I don't care. You are wrong. Period.

Property should not be the priority. Human lives should be. But people need to be in a community that helps older people, children, and vulnerable populations be able to do routine maintenance on a property.

Your heartless ways I really dislike. It is unattractive in the extreme Unthinking.

The elderly do not make up a high % of the homeless. Yes obviously there are many varied examples of why people become homeless, at least temporarily.

I do believe in a strong social safety net and social programs and government regulation of capitalism, but i'm saying we need to address why people become homeless and help those people, not simply give them free housing with no strings attached, unless they are disabled to the point they truly can't contribute to society in full-time employment. We need to be compassionate and help people while at the same time not enabling them. There are many, many very kind people in our society who are enablers that do more harm than good.

[B0ycey]

Sure, homelessness worsens the mental issues, no doubt. That is not my issue.

Humans exist in a hierarchy of competence and some people align themselves at the bottom and end up in the gutter. It is our moral duty to help. The question is how?

I suggest building homes in the country side and give the homeless people the job of maintaining the homes and the cafeteria as well as the gym, the swimming pool, and the golf course. In other words they would receive a salary to maintain the compound. I have no problems with that.

However, don't put them in tents in the major cities. Don't provide syringes and drugs. If they do crime put them in jail; do not release them next day. I don't want to walk sidewalks full of human feces.

If i was king I would command my subjects to promote the concept of family values. People with good families never go homeless.

I told you how you can help. Or how the government can help in any case. Build more fucking affordable social homes. As long as homes are built near jobs and not in areas that are isolated from society I don't really care if they are in the inner city or not. As for tents, I would say they are merely the consequence of having nowhere else to put people given homes have not been built. You don't like them, get proactive and demand for a sustainable solution for the homeless crisis.

[Unthinking Majority]

So not mental health which was the claim you made that I brought up? :?:

Child abuse is perhaps the reason minors are on the street. It was when I spoken to them in any case. Although they aren't as common in the UK as adult males on the street because when they are found they are instantly taken into Foster care due to their age. The number one cause of people on the street is family breakdown.

You responded to this quote of mine, but for some reason you ignored child abuse: "The root cause of much homelessness isn't capitalism, it's mental illness and child abuse, which lead to drug addiction."

There's many, many teens on the street who won't stay in foster care, they'd rather be on the street. These people grow up on the street, some stay on the street, especially if they develop drug addiction or have mental illness.

Do you have a link showing relationship breakdown as the #1 cause?

[Julian658]

I told you how you can help. Or how the government can help in any case. Build more fucking affordable social homes. As long as homes are built near jobs and not in areas that are isolated from society I don't really care if they are in the inner city or not. As for tents, I would say they are merely the consequence of having nowhere else to put people given homes have not been built. You don't like them, get proactive and demand for a sustainable solution for the homeless crisis.

The job would be to maintain the homes and surroundings.

[B0ycey]

You responded to this quote of mine, but for some reason you ignored child abuse: "The root cause of much homelessness isn't capitalism, it's mental illness and child abuse, which lead to drug addiction."

There's many, many teens on the street who won't stay in foster care, they'd rather be on the street. These people grow up on the street, some stay on the street, especially if they develop drug addiction or have mental illness.

Do you have a link showing relationship breakdown as the #1 cause?

https://www.homeless.org.uk/facts/understanding-homelessness/causes-of-homelessness

Every case is different. It is very difficult to say what defines a cause although it is usually a family breakdown or argument. But even so, that statement you made was wrong. Besides, a teenager or child that is found on the street is taken into care. Running away from Foster homes isn't common but anyone who doesn't stay or doesn't want to stay then goes into a children's home. They don't stay on the streets. Not until they are at the age of consent in any case. But given you worked with the homeless who were you finding in your soup kitchens? I only ask because there isn't many minors in the UK.

[wat0n]

The causes could perfectly vary by country or even state/province.

Also, both of your explanations are not mutually exclusive. Fleeing home due to sexual abuse is a form of breakdown too.

[Unthinking Majority]

Accepting immigrants that will become homeless is suicidal. However, the SJWs like this sort of chaos to promote socialism.

I would not accept any immigrants or refugees into my country that weren't able to find a decent job to support themselves, I would relocate them to a safe country that better matched their level of education and skills. This seems pretty logical. Some call it heartless.

People accept them because they wish to be compassionate, which is admirable, but my city is filled with young gang members who turn to things like drug trafficking (and the associated violence) and car theft because they grew up in a poor family and with parents who were irresponsible, and they tear down parts of the city with crime and violence. This is unacceptable. And I live in a country with very generous social programs, free health care etc. I have no interest turning my country, or parts of my country, into a developing country, or creating an expensive industry to support those which are incapable of supporting themselves.

[Unthinking Majority]

The causes could perfectly vary by country or even state/province.

Also, both of your explanations are not mutually exclusive. Fleeing home due to sexual abuse is a form of breakdown too.

Yes I agree.

[Julian658]

https://www.homeless.org.uk/facts/understanding-homelessness/causes-of-homelessness

Every case is different. It is very difficult to say what defines a cause although it is usually a family breakdown or argument. But even so, that statement you made was wrong. Besides, a teenager or child that is found on the street is taken into care. Running away from Foster homes isn't common but anyone who doesn't stay or doesn't want to stay then goes into a children's home. They don't stay on the streets. Not until they are at the age of consent in any case. But given you worked with the homeless who were you finding in your soup kitchens? I only ask because there isn't many minors in the UK.

Homelessness depends on the quality of citizens and family and this is variable form country to country. The amazon forest indigenous people would not allow a family member to go homeless. The family has been deteriorating thanks to the left. The right wing is much more family oriented (with exceptions).

[Julian658]

I would not accept any immigrants or refugees into my country that weren't able to find a decent job to support themselves, I would relocate them to a safe country that better matched their level of education and skills. This seems pretty logical. Some call it heartless.

People accept them because they wish to be compassionate, which is admirable, but my city is filled with young gang members who turn to things like drug trafficking (and the associated violence) and car theft because they grew up in a poor family and with parents who were irresponsible, and they tear down parts of the city with crime and violence. This is unacceptable. And I live in a country with very generous social programs, free health care etc. I have no interest turning my country, or parts of my country, into a developing country, or creating an expensive industry to support those which are incapable of supporting themselves.

If I was an SJW I would call you heartless.

[B0ycey]

Homelessness depends on the quality of citizens and family and this is variable form country to country. The amazon forest indigenous people would not allow a family member to go homeless.

But perhaps that should be the case of every society. I think housing should be regarded as a right. Besides, if you don't look after your citizens why should those who lose out accept the social contract? This isn't a Capitalist vs Socialism argument but merely an argument from history. People who were neglected from society and decided to remove themselves from it were known as outlaws. That is where the word originated from FYI. Once you were an outlaw you could do what you liked. Of course, if you got caught you were hung, drawn and quartered. But you shouldn't expect anyone to adhere to social norms if you don't cater for their basic needs.

[Rancid]

I would not accept any immigrants or refugees into my country that weren't able to find a decent job to support themselves, I would relocate them to a safe country that better matched their level of education and skills. This seems pretty logical. Some call it heartless.

People accept them because they wish to be compassionate, which is admirable, but my city is filled with young gang members who turn to things like drug trafficking (and the associated violence) and car theft because they grew up in a poor family and with parents who were irresponsible, and they tear down parts of the city with crime and violence. This is unacceptable. And I live in a country with very generous social programs, free health care etc. I have no interest turning my country, or parts of my country, into a developing country, or creating an expensive industry to support those which are incapable of supporting themselves.

Generally, I agree with these statements. However, often, the kids that end up doing no good are not always due to the parent's irresponsibility. Many of these parents are working two jobs, working weekends, etc. etc. They simply don't see their kids, and thus don't even have the opportunity to raise them right. They often don't have the skills/education to get a 40/hr week job that pays well, so they have to sacrifice more of their time to try and earn money. THis is done at the expense of the family unit. If you are lucky, you have a grand parent that's around to help raise the kids right. This was the situation I grew up in. I basically never saw my parents, both worked two jobs. However, my grandmother lived with us, so I was basically raised by her for most of my younger years (say pre-school through early middle school). Lots of kids don't have even that for guidance.

[Julian658]

But perhaps that should be the case of every society. I think housing should be regarded as a right. Besides, if you don't look after your citizens why should those who lose out accept the social contract? This isn't a Capitalist vs Socialism argument but merely an argument from history. People who were neglected from society and decided to remove themselves from it were known as outlaws. That is where the word originated from FYI. Once you were an outlaw you could do what you liked. Of course, if you got caught you were hung, drawn and quartered. But you shouldn't expect anyone to adhere to social norms if you don't cater for their basic needs.

A strong family is much more efficient than the government. That is why the Amazon indigenous people do a much better job.

[Julian658]

But perhaps that should be the case of every society. I think housing should be regarded as a right. Besides, if you don't look after your citizens why should those who lose out accept the social contract? This isn't a Capitalist vs Socialism argument but merely an argument from history. People who were neglected from society and decided to remove themselves from it were known as outlaws. That is where the word originated from FYI. Once you were an outlaw you could do what you liked. Of course, if you got caught you were hung, drawn and quartered. But you shouldn't expect anyone to adhere to social norms if you don't cater for their basic needs.

Housing is not a right. As a general rule the rights of humans do not cost money to their fellow citizens.

[Rancid]

But perhaps that should be the case of every society. I think housing should be regarded as a right. Besides, if you don't look after your citizens why should those who lose out accept the social contract? This isn't a Capitalist vs Socialism argument but merely an argument from history. People who were neglected from society and decided to remove themselves from it were known as outlaws. That is where the word originated from FYI. Once you were an outlaw you could do what you liked. Of course, if you got caught you were hung, drawn and quartered. But you shouldn't expect anyone to adhere to social norms if you don't cater for their basic needs.

you sure about that? I thought outlaw came from the Vikings. Basically, if you committed a heinous crime, and the elders deemed you guilty. They would declare you outside of the law. Which basically means, that anyone can kill you and not get in trouble with law because that person is outside of the law... or an outlaw.

[B0ycey]

Housing is not a right. As a general rule the rights of humans do not cost money to their fellow citizens.

Then it should be a right as my sentence suggested as it is a basic human need. Besides, only humans live in a society with the notion of cost or payment. I doubt the pride charges the cub to sit in the den in the Serengeti.

[B0ycey]

you sure about that? I thought outlaw came from the Vikings. Basically, if you committed a heinous crime, and the elders deemed you guilty. They would declare you outside of the law. Which basically means, that anyone can kill you and not get in trouble with law because that person is outside of the law... or an outlaw.

Pretty sure Rancid

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw

Can't say whether it came from the Nordic or British but I know enough that it is medieval in origin.

[Rancid]

Guns cost money, and that's a right.

[Unthinking Majority]

Generally, I agree with these statements. However, often, the kids that end up doing no good are not always due to the parent's irresponsibility. Many of these parents are working two jobs, working weekends, etc. etc. They simply don't see their kids, and thus don't even have the opportunity to raise them right. They often don't have the skills/education to get a 40/hr week job that pays well, so they have to sacrifice more of their time to try and earn money. THis is done at the expense of the family unit. If you are lucky, you have a grand parent that's around to help raise the kids right. This was the situation I grew up in. I basically never saw my parents, both worked two jobs. However, my grandmother lived with us, so I was basically raised by her for most of my younger years (say pre-school through early middle school). Lots of kids don't have even that for guidance.

Yes I agree with this. Either way, poverty breeds crime. My city has entire subdivisions filled with poor refugees with high crime rates. How is this in the interests of my country? As long as we can find them refuge in a country where they'll be safe from the danger they're fleeing that's what matters. I don't blame them in any way for coming here, I would do the same in their situation. They're simply being rational.