Elderly falling into homelessness - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15286656
More baby boomers are falling into HOMELESSNESS thanks to death of spouse, expensive medical emergency or soaring rents - and many are too frail to climb bunk beds in shelters

The fastest-growing segment of the homeless population is people aged over 65
Rising rent prices and soaring medical bills forcing seniors from their homes and onto the streets

"The fact that we are seeing elderly homelessness is something that we have not seen since the Great Depression," said Dennis Culhane, a University of Pennsylvania social policy professor.

Hot spots for senior homelessness include Miami, Denver and Columbus, Ohio.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... orida.html , Harriet Alexander, Daily Mail, 12 September 2023

related thread: Worrying statistics about American's retirement future
#15286662
That's party due to the attack on the nuclear family. The close family unit has been shredded and so older people no longer have their children assisting them as they get older. This is a particularly Western problem, moreso than other places.
#15286666
Godstud wrote:That's party due to the attack on the nuclear family. The close family unit has been shredded and so older people no longer have their children assisting them as they get older. This is a particularly Western problem, moreso than other places.


Actually you have a point. The West have a lot to learn in regards to this. The parents look after the children when they are young and then in return the children look after the adults when they are older. However, because of the way society is (two working parents having to do multiple jobs) the only solution is to tax more and invest in social care for the elderly. Or as the thread says, more retirement homes for them at the very least.
#15286674
Tax more? Fuck that! People are already taxed to death in the West.

How do people have higher quality of life and more money than in the West, when they pay almost no taxes? The taxes only line the pockets of the rich, and politicians. More taxes is the worst solution.

More social care for the elderly? No. That's not a solution, either. That's like putting a band-aid on a bullet wound and not addressing what caused the wound in the first place. Things are only going to get worse unless we address social issues, and change how the culture is changing, for the worse.

People attack Conservative values, as if they are the problem, instead of seeing them as the solution that they actually are. We don't need to abandon progress, but some things have worked for a millennia for a reason.
#15286677
Godstud wrote:Tax more? Fuck that! People are already taxed to death in the West.

How do people have higher quality of life and more money than in the West, when they pay almost no taxes? The taxes only line the pockets of the rich, and politicians. More taxes is the worst solution.

More social care for the elderly? No. That's not a solution, either. That's like putting a band-aid on a bullet wound and not addressing what caused the wound in the first place. Things are only going to get worse unless we address social issues, and change how the culture is changing, for the worse.

People attack Conservative values, as if they are the problem, instead of seeing them as the solution that they actually are. We don't need to abandon progress, but some things have worked for a millennia for a reason.


When I say tax more, I mean for the nation to receive more tax revenue and that doesn't necessarily mean tax the ordinary worker but close tax loop holes, tax corporations and increase the higher tax threshold. And when I say tax more, I also mean that the money is spent on social programs, not lining pockets.

However, yes, it would be far better if we could turn the clock back and have single income families and then we could have the traditional family way which I'm assuming you have in Thailand. But it isn't that simple today given most families need both parents to work and what's worse they also have to do overtime. I don't like elderly homes and I would prefer to stay out of one myself. But I have to accept that given the conditions in society of the West in which the bourgeois greed have poisoned the 'correct way' for most families, it is far easier to put a bandaid on a bullet than ripping up society and starting over again right now.
#15286682
It isn't greed that has changed things. It's the degradation of traditional families and the family culture. Greed has always existed.

The ideologies being touted as making everyone happy are ones of hedonism and self-gratification. No wonder no one cares about the elderly when selfishness is the culture being pushed.
#15286685
Godstud wrote:It isn't greed that has changed things. It's the degradation of traditional families and the family culture. Greed has always existed.

The ideologies being touted as making everyone happy are ones of hedonism and self-gratification. No wonder no one cares about the elderly when selfishness is the culture being pushed.


When I say greed, I mean the top 1% have lobbied government in policies that ultimately have changed the family dynamic. It isn't a coincidence that American society changed with the introduction of Reaganomics. But even so, I don't agree that people don't care about the elderly now. I just don't think we should penalise families who are working all hours of the day just to keep a roof over their heads when their parents suffer from a mental illness such as diamentia. Being elderly is the luck of genetics. Some can live perfectly on their own and others need a lot of care. If society didn't require two working parents to survive like it was like three decades ago, then the argument of traditional values would be stronger. And perhaps that is why living in the Global South in some ways is a blessing. But that isn't the case today. We are living in a cost of living crisis right now and wrapping the bullet is a much more realistic option in fixing this problem... especially if the other opinion is they become homeless if you did nothing.

But on a lighter note away from this topic, I would prefer the West to return to many of the values it lost, become more religious if you will. Or perhaps at least hold those values. Because whatever your opinion is on what we should do with the elderly, we need to show more love overall.
#15286706
Inflation has eaten into older people's retirement savings, as well as being part of the reason rents are up.

A lot of those on the Left view inflation as "free money", but don't think about where it's coming from.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Nationalize the housing industry.

Is that really going to solve the problem? There's a crisis because there's a dire shortage of affordable housing. A lot of this stems from a housing shortage in general, relative to immigration-fueled population growth.

Let's suppose you "nationalized" the housing industry. You'd still have a shortage of homes - not enough homes for every person who wants one. This is basic economics - when you implement price-fixing, it leads to shortages. I suppose then you'd implement some sort of lottery system to determine which lucky people on the waiting list get the housing.

In a free market, rent levels and home prices don't go up unless demand outstrips supply. When there isn't enough of something, people start bidding up the price trying to get it.
#15286708
Puffer Fish wrote:Is that really going to solve the problem? There's a crisis because there's a dire shortage of affordable housing. A lot of this stems from a housing shortage in general,


Yea, it will.

relative to immigration-fueled population growth.


No, you tried this claim before with me and we both saw the evidence does not support any anti-immigration platform.

Let's suppose you "nationalized" the housing industry. You'd still have a shortage of homes - not enough homes for every person who wants one. This is basic economics - when you implement price-fixing, it leads to shortages. I suppose then you'd implement some sort of lottery system to determine which lucky people on the waiting list get the housing.

In a free market, rent levels and home prices don't go up unless demand outstrips supply. When there isn't enough of something, people start bidding up the price trying to get it.


Then this is why housing needs to be treated as a social service and not a market good or service.

Then market forces and economic forces can be either nullified or dealt with in more ways than the market allows.
#15286719
@Pants-of-dog You could only nationalize housing if the government could be trusted. It cannot. The Canadian government can't be trusted not to fuck over the general population. They even managed to steal from the RCMP and get away with it.

Immigration and Feminism is pushed to keep labour costs perpetually low. The larger the labour pool, the less they have to pay people.
#15286747
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then this is why housing needs to be treated as a social service and not a market good or service.

Then market forces and economic forces can be either nullified or dealt with in more ways than the market allows.

What is stopping you from getting together with a group of people as a co-op and building your own housing?

How would government be different from that?

I think you just want someone else to do it.
#15286767
Puffer Fish wrote:Is that really going to solve the problem? There's a crisis because there's a dire shortage of affordable housing. A lot of this stems from a housing shortage in general, relative to immigration-fueled population growth.


But national housing solved the housing crisis after WW2. Why do you think it would fail today?

You are not wrong that the problem we have today is due to shortages, but are you aware why shortages exist? The truth is many building projects are either delayed or prevented mainly because those who have invested in real estate have lobbied for their prevention as high rents are to their advantage (especially in the US). The private sector doesn't want to increase their portfolio because that involves investment. What they want instead is increased yields with the investment they already have and shortages in homes drives up rents. But this wasn't always the case. When the government (UK) was actively building homes in the 50s, 60s and 70's, housing was affordable. The problem occurred mainly in the 80's when the government stopped building new homes. The private sector took over and homes weren't built. Today, even the Tories understand this problem. They are actually trying to build more homes. But when you have lost 4 decades of house building, this is going to take a lot of time to fix. Those over the Atlantic are far behind on this logic. Canada especially and to be frank Trudeau needs to go.
#15286772
What was the tax rate after WW2?
For tax years 1944 through 1951, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 91%, increasing to 92% for 1952 and 1953, and reverting to 91% 1954 through 1963.

That's why they could do it.

Then again, you didn't have runaway inflation. You could have a single income and buy a home, as well.
#15286774
Godstud wrote:What was the tax rate after WW2?
For tax years 1944 through 1951, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 91%, increasing to 92% for 1952 and 1953, and reverting to 91% 1954 through 1963.

That's why they could do it.

Then again, you didn't have runaway inflation. You could have a single income and buy a home, as well.


People didn't really buy homes back then. After WW2 there was rationing for nearly a decade after the war to control inflation. And those were the rates for the top tax tier and most definitely didn't affect most people given their circumstances at the time. But this is irrelevant in terms of housing anyway. After WW2 we needed housing and the government built them. First prefabs, than social urban estates. Back then housing was affordable. And it remained affordable until homes weren't being built because the sector moved to the private sector. To reverse this trend it would make perfect sense to hand the sector back to the government. But it would require the government to still build homes so I guess it depends how much you trust the government to do the right thing.
#15286778
@Neo I am against increasing taxes. I am for more transparency in how governments are spending our money. Right now they give it to other countries for weapons and other things that most people would be against. The level of corruption in Western governments makes 3rd World Dictators look like amateurs.
#15286784
Godstud wrote:@Pants-of-dog You could only nationalize housing if the government could be trusted. It cannot. The Canadian government can't be trusted not to fuck over the general population.


And yet we do, with our health. After all, the medical industry has been nationalized.

They even managed to steal from the RCMP and get away with it.


Good.

Immigration and Feminism is pushed to keep labour costs perpetually low. The larger the labour pool, the less they have to pay people.


Lol, no.

——————-

Puffer Fish wrote:What is stopping you from getting together with a group of people as a co-op and building your own housing?


Many things, actually.

But even if one group did this, it would have almost no impact on housing prices.

Why do you not simply get together with people and build houses for old people?

How would government be different from that?


In may ways.

Much like a military is different from a street gang.

I think you just want someone else to do it.


I have helped build more homes with my two hands than most of the rest of PoFo put together. I then earned my white hardhat. So yes, I would do it. And I would hire as many feminists and immigrants as possible.
#15286790
Stealing retirement benefits from people who worked for them was good???!! :eh: WTF is wrong with you? :knife: It's your tax money that went into someone else's pockets.

Immigration and feminism have created a far larger labour pool. Those are facts. Of course, you live in a Lalaland and have abandoned common sense and reason. :moron:

@FiveofSwords " Britney Spears " We[…]

Well there isn't anything 'complicated' about you[…]

Blah blah blah. What a shit post. The stock marke[…]

@wat0n @Pants-of-dog I am not buying the no[…]