Hacker News Reader

> I live in LA, and I don't own a car, and many people that live on the street don't either. Does that mean that it's valid to label us both as "carless"?

Yes, that's the exact definition of not possessing a car. The circumstances might be different and reasoning for not having one too, but if both were asked do you own a car the answer is the same.

Would the definition be based on possessing or owning? What if one does possess a place they choose not to use (run away teen)? What about being able to stay in a place but only for a short term?

I know a guy who recently sold his old house and bought a new one, but because of some confusion, ended up not having a home for two weeks. It would seem odd to call him homeless.

If you're not involved in adversarial contract authoring, I don't get the appeal of the "what about this edge case" game.

> Would the definition be based on possessing or owning?

Given that nobody calls people renting apartments homeless, I think this self-answers.

In any case, voluntarily being temporarily in a situation wherein one does not own property in not commonly confused with living on the street for reasons I believe to be fairly obvious. It has to do with that word "voluntarily".

>If you're not involved in adversarial contract authoring, I don't get the appeal of the "what about this edge case" game.

My mind often goes to the boundary cases because that is where the real differences occur at.

For social issues in general, I've seen enough cases of people stretching definitions and using selective definitions that are enough against the norm that the end statement made is purposefully misleading. You might say it is adversarial advertisement authoring.

It might be a useful concept in a limited, technical sense. In a political context, it is an anti-concept because it replaces a correct conceptual understanding with one that doesn't map to reality.

After all, the primary purpose of conceptualization is to give us humans a way to deal with vast complexity of the world. We can only hang onto 3-5 things (maybe seven if you're a genius) in a single mental frame, and we are utterly lost without that. People let their conceptual faculties get hacked all the time by ideologies and manipulative intellectuals! Don't let that happen to you! (I'm maxharris9 on twitter, and my DMs are open. If you want to know more about this just send me a message!)

If anything there should be a more broad term, something that includes people who are housing-unstable. I don't really consider the problem solved if a person worries every day that they might be homeless at the end of the next month!

The term you are looking for is "housing insecurity".

"Roofless" is also a useful term to distinguish people actually sleeping rough from people crashing on friends' couches or in sketchy hostels or maybe squats. It's commonly used in the UK, dunno about elsewhere.

ah yes. i had kinda a 'brain fart' when i wrote this comment. i knew this phrase existed but couldn't remember!

Isn't that like saying we should stop calling people "ill" because there are multiple kinds of illness? I think you're just offended by the term and as such want to stop using it to describe people, instead of seeing it as a descriptor of a problem that needs solving.

"We need labels that strike at the heart of each issue"

That's pretty much the opposite of the "housing first" approach.

While I'd say it's generally been successful, the experiments with housing first programs here in Canada have failed some specific categories of people pretty badly.

In Calgary and London, people with serious mental illness in particular would get an apartment, only to end up facing eviction before long because of conflicts with neighbours or property damage. Some were housed for less than a month before eviction.

Someone with active psychosis, someone with substantial market income but fleeing an abusive partner, and someone with a stable social and personal situation but who simply can't afford rent on their fixed pension, all require different interventions to keep them stably housed in the long run.

"Housing first" has a habit of being "housing only" support, which works for many people but not for everyone.

I understand your point about labeling individuals affected by a wide variety of circumstances. I think this is a case of applying a group term in order to make informed decisions in order to aid people in need of a place to live.

>Does that mean that it's valid to label us both as "carless"?

Sure....I don't own a car, I have zero issue with being labelled as carless. It's very much true. I lack a car, I am carless. My reason for lacking one may very well be different than yours, but the effects of not having cars are probably similar between us. Such as walking, biking or relying on public transit to travel, being limited on locations one can travel based on availability of transport or distance etc.

Edit to include:

>if anything there should be a more broad term, something that includes people who are housing-unstable. I don't really consider the problem solved if a person worries every day that they might be homeless at the end of the next month!

I really like this idea.

Right, but there's a huge distinction between having no car by choice, and having no car (particularly outside of metro areas), but really wanting one, because you can't afford it / have no licence / whatever.

That's his point. I've been hitchhiking before and slept outside loads. It's not meaningful to call that 'homelessness'. Is a nomad homeless?

Someone who simply falls behind on the rent and bounces around friends' sofas is in a very different situation to someone who has serious mental and/or physical health issues and starts to completely fall apart as a person.

I never actually said which kind of carless person I am....it's not by choice. A label is just a way to describe something. People put far too much importance on the meaning behind labels these days. Labels don't have to be all encompassing and exclusive of other labels. They're just a convenient way of grouping and describing things with commonalities.

Calling someone carless or homeless has nothing to do with the reasoning behind it, it's a label for a current state. I agree, though, more fine grained labels should be used for tackling the causes behind these states. But calling someone homeless or carless isn't really offensive in and of itself.

I think a big issue is that the condition of being homeless, in and of itself, leads to further issues. For a start, having zero time to spend on dealing with any of these other issues, but also things like difficulty being to get a bank account.

We should treat this symptom which has multiple causes, because it causes further problems, and is relatively easily treated.

You can have your own opinion and think it's failling, or you can see the results.

every time there's a hopeful article about a progressive policy on hn there's some kind of backwards libertarian hottake in the comments. it's simultaneously offensive and demoralizing. the finnish program (according to the article) has been running since 2008. do you really think your hottake (op to whom you responded) is a novel insight? that you in the 30s of writing that comment cut to the core flaw of the program? do you really think they haven't considered all edges cases by now? or do you think they're incompetent in there assessment? the reality is much simpler: Finland is more progressive and egalitarian than the US and so their measures/metrics for success are informed by a different value system.

I don't really get what's libertarian about a claim that the term "homelessness" conflates issues which are best handled separately. Can you elaborate?

You can't look at items in isolation.

Finland doesn't have an open immigration policy. In fact it's citizen oppose immigration because they wish to preserve what is Finish. Finland is not more progressive in this regard.

Now we can start to understand how Finland could end homelessness. With a free immigration policy this would be more difficult both culturally and in terms of costs.

How does Finland get it's wealth? Through clean energy progressive solar or windpower? No through oil. Adding to the global carbon output daily.

When we peel the layers we realize we are comparing apples to oranges.

>With a free immigration policy this would be more difficult both culturally and in terms of costs.

i don't understand what this has to do with anything? is this unique to the immigration patterns in Finland (that immigrants end up homeless?)

in america the homeless are primarily black and white people (not recent immigrants)

https://endhomelessness.org/resource/racial-disparities-home...

>How does Finland get it's wealth?

this is whataboutism. i never made the claim that finland was a progressive utopia. where do you think the US gets it's wealth? oil and coal

https://openmarkets.cmegroup.com/15157/how-much-does-oil-and...

so can we also get some of that homeless sheltering?

The homeless population in Finland is ethically and culturely similiar to the population which allows them to identify and provide support. The same conditions do not exist in the US.

This doesn't extend to others. Finland doesn't provide the same level of support to the poorest nations. The US does.

How progressive are we if we help ourselves / our families and people who are genetically like us but we don't provide the same support to other poorer nations.

When you look under the hood things are not as black and white. Finland is not as progressive they appear because of the headline.

>The same conditions do not exist in the US.

literally false according to the stats i posted that you didn't read (or discounted).

>How progressive are we if we help ourselves / our families and people who are genetically like us but we don't provide the same support to other poorer nations.

i don't understand? are you mad at finland for not being progressive enough? originally your point was the US couldn't be as progressive as finland is because of oil? and immigrants? i don't think you have a coherent point.

An open immigration and generous foreign aid policy makes the US more progressive in some areas compared to Finland.

No one is mad at Finland for not providing more external support. I hope my discussion points have caused you to open your mind around global progressive policy. It is never as simple as the headline seems.

"Literally false according to the stats i posted that you didn't read (or discounted"

Finland is made up of one ethnic group, the US many. That link had no relation to my point.

>Finland is made up of one ethnic group, the US many. That link had no relation to my point.

here is what you wrote

>The homeless population in Finland is ethically and culturely similiar to the population which allows them to identify and provide support.

if you look at the statistics that i posted you see the the homeless population is primarily black people and white people which is ethnically and culturally similar to the population of the united states (note that black people doesn't mean recent african immigrants but american black people).

I guess I missed where you suggested the alternative.

You'd be surprised how many "diseases" can be treated with the same cure. Mental health issues of all kinds, obesity, heart disease, Alzheimers, and diabetes can all be treated/prevented with exercise and a good diet. At a certain point you have to wonder if a disease is a disease or if it's just what happens when you throw a bunch of explosive wrenches into the complex human machine

This is objectively false. Schizoaffective disorders, bipolar disorder, and most other serious mental illnesses are not treated with diet and exercise, nor is bad diet or poor exercise the cause of serious mental illnesses.

I said CAN be treated. Whether or not mental illnesses are COMMONLY treated that way is another argument. It is a fact that all serious mental illnesses are greatly influenced by diet and exercise, including Schizoaffective disorders and bipolar disorder

And I'm telling you it is literally not a fact that serious mental disorders can be treated with don't and exercise.