There should be a rule whereby charities are required to have a large percentage of their jobs given to the class they're trying to help.

This could help make the size and number of said charities to be self-regulating with the problem they're trying to solve. They will grow in number whilst the problem is large, but as it subsides they naturally go down. All at the same time giving those people who are in need, money that would be otherwise given to people who don't necessarily need it from that source.

> Speaking as someone who has experienced homelessness, for a short while, I believe the only practical solution is to give people housing at the outset before the desire/need to move elsewhere takes root.

Also national support not local. While there are some local issues with homelessness I feel lots of the problems are going to be the same across the country. If it was the same provision everywhere there wouldn't be the same draw towards certain locations.

Honestly by the time you hear these stories the people these stories are about have traveled vast distances through the phases of their homeless experience and you hearing this tale is well past all the results of said attempt to curtail the issue such that it is no longer in present moment a possible solution having run its course. Frankly people who have mismanaged their lives to the point their day to day choices no longer resemble rational thinking cannot be expected to put hard cash to best use at the moment. Eventually there are habits that enevitably become adopted whereby seeking immediate relief by any means that can be had becomes more of a priority than anything else. To someone who sees no end in sight to the nightmare this and only this makes life bareable anymore.

I would think that it might be easier for them to relocate as they'll have limited possessions to transport. I'd guess they'd either hitch a lift with friends or strangers or they might have a vehicle themselves (e.g. a van that they live in).

There’s a massive number of “functioning homeless” - living in cars, couch surfing, etc. They might have low-pay jobs. Or once had white collar jobs but lost almost everything due to medical problems. These are the ones who might be capable of moving.

But yeah, the stereotypical crazy junkie, probably not. But that’s just a stereotype.

Sometimes it's pushed by programs interested in changing the statistics in the most direct way possible - giving people a bus ticket. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/... also "greyhound therapy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_homeless_relocation_pr...

I've read an interview with a man who panhandled for a period of his life, and his hourly income was higher than that of an average waiter.

Although I don't have official sources, when I observe panhandlers in my city, it seems plausible (even evident) to me that with enough persistence, a homeless person can earn more than a waiter.

Of course, I presume that such money is readily wasted, but I wouldn't dismiss a homeless' income as nonexistent.

Cities that don't want them ship them to cities that "want" them

Board a train. That's it. What can they do to you for having no ticket? Literally nothing.

get on a train… 1/2/3 stations later they check your ticket, you ain’t got one, you get kicked off… wait for the next train, 1/2/3 stations later they check your ticket, you ain’t got one, you get kicked off. week or two or three later you made it from Augusta Maine to San Diego :)

i have a friend who helps the local homeless population out (around 5-10) and they are all on government subsidies. like disability or whatever.

Homelessness creates society issues regardless of citizenship. Also, obtaining any reliable ID for many homeless is a non-trivial and costly task on its own. It seems like you're interested in something more limited than simply helping with the homelessness issue.