The article doesn't differentiate between short term homeless and longterm perpetual homeless.
That itself is a good clue that the author is clueless.
That itself is a good clue that the author is clueless.
It's blog spam that can be summarized to something like "here is the problem, upvote to show you agree that this is a problem"
I'm not saying that this article does gratify intellectual curiosity! but the assumption in your question is mistaken.
> Homelessness is best understood as a “flow” problem, not a “stock” problem. Not that many Americans are _chronically_ homeless—the problem, rather, is the millions of people who are precariously situated on the cliff of financial stability, people for whom a divorce, a lost job, a fight with a roommate, or a medical event can result in homelessness. According to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, roughly 207 people get rehoused daily across the county—but 227 get pushed into homelessness. The crisis is driven by a constant flow of people losing their housing.