The Invisible Man: Homelessness in America | Hacker News Reader

The Invisible Man: Homelessness in America

esquire.com

49 pointsqkeast19 comments

The first rule of being homeless: don't look like you're homeless. Generally, try to avoid letting anyone know that you're homeless. (This includes not staying in the same place every night.) The only reason would be if you were foolish enough to think that it's going to unlock some otherwise hidden hospitality in others or access to social services. It won't, or, if so, whatever it does won't be offset by how much it costs you in the long run.

The second rule of being homeless: don't spend $9 a day on beer and an additional $335 a month—a third of your income—on inessentials like coffee, ice, and jugs of spring water. (You shouldn't be trading water for cash unless you live somewhere like Flint, Michigan. If you've already broken rule #1 and people are gawking at you, there's no reason not to let them gawk at you as you fill your reusable water bottle from free/public potable water sources.)

I sympathize with the author, but I'm homeless, and I'm kind of horrified how many stereotypes he's ticking off, including being a guitar-toting writer/artist with a dog in tow. There's a reason why Rosa Parks became the icon of the civil rights movement and Claudette Colvins didn't. (Is that fair? No.)

> In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error is a cognitive attribution bias in which observers underemphasize situational and environmental factors for the behavior of an actor while overemphasizing dispositional or personality factors. In other words, observers tend to overattribute the behaviors of others to their personality (e.g., he is late because he's selfish) and underattribute them to the situation or context (e.g., he is late because he got stuck in traffic). Although personality traits and predispositions are considered to be observable facts in psychology, the fundamental attribution error is an error because it misinterprets their effects.

[Wikipedia]

I sort of think that if someone is sleeping outside, in a wealthy society that has chosen not to ensure basic human necessities for its citizens, then who am I to begrudge them something like beer with which to self-medicate and/or moderate the harshness of their situation? Or the potential enrichment of music and art? Or the simple companionship of a dog?

The man's experiences with constantly being moved on reminded me, as a foreign tourist, of how distinct America is in this regard. I flew into California and did a few weeks of bikepacking there before crossing into Mexico. In spite of wearing clean, new expensive expedition-clothing brands, and having a high-end bike with new, clean premium bags, I was several times apparently taken for homeless: I'm packing away my purchases outside a supermarket, and a police cruiser rolls by and tells me I need to move on; I pop into a petrol station for a snack, and a police officer standing around tells me I need to move on.

And everywhere "No loitering" signs. I wouldn't even know how to say "no loitering" in the European languages that I speak.

In the USA it is illegal to exist outside in one spot for too long. Sad but true.

So true. I once bought nicely worn-out US Army jacket when visiting California, quite fashionable in Europe in 1980's. Could not believe what kind of shit I got. Some shops told me right at the door "please leave now sir".

> "We see right through the unshowered soul living in a car by the beach, or by the Walmart, or by the side of the road. But he’s there, and he used to be somebody"

Do we? No, we don't, not at first, not until we see it enough times to become desensitized to it, and we eventually realize the state/city/population ultimately doesn't care about these people, so we adapt those beliefs too, whether we want to or not.

I watched that happen to many colleagues, friends, family members, and even, regrettably over time, myself.

If you mention the homeless crisis to many people, many of the typical urbanites and suburbanites that populate every major city that is overflowing with homeless and open drug camps, the same people who vote for it to continue and for it to get worse and worse, the ones who vote to fund programs that clearly are making the problem grow and worsen rather than improve, they get very defensive, almost angry that you're bringing it up. Why on earth are you bringing up this topic? Quiet! And if you do talk about it, you better share the acceptable opinions on the subject, anything else is verboten. It's a strange social pressure, completely devoid of humanity.

There seems to be a gofundme set up for the author’s benefit. I can’t vouch for the authenticity of it, but I donated to it anyway https://www.gofundme.com/f/donate-to-empower-patrick-fealeys...

America, you don't know who your homeless people are.

I'm a Forest Service camp host. Homeless people are common guests there. They greatly differ from the popular image of the homeless as destitute, dirty, criminal, and living is appalling hovels. Most of them are clean and well-behaved. They just don't have a place to live. Some are on Social Security, some on pensions, and some work.

The image of the homeless American presented in this article is so striking that most of us miss how common homelessness is among people like you and me.

I have volunteered for a number of organizations dedicated to attaining permanent housing and stable conditions in the community. What tends to surprise a lot of folks is how utterly “normal” most of the unhoused population are, how quickly their situations became so precarious, and how hard every one of them were working to improve their lives.

America seems to anchor its society around a number of “myths” that help to rationalize our ongoing complicity in things I think are non-controversially evil (to be fair, this tendency certainly isn’t unique to America). They run the gamut, from the first Thanksgiving (topical!), to the bootstrap-pulling self-made success story, to Islamic terrorists who hate America for its freedom. I know a lot of that is really reductive, but I still believe these “myths” work to define our cultural identity in ways that aren’t always negative, but tend to leave little room for nuance or appropriate consideration of other perspectives.

There was an incredible limited-run podcast series hosted by the 99% Invisible podcast: According to Need.[0] It tracked the experiences of unhoused people in the Bay Area. Essentially, there's no way to get help if you're in the position of most unhoused people. Some aspect of your situation will disqualify you. Had a couch to sleep on any time in the last 30 days? You don't qualify for a cot in a shelter, even if it was only for one night.

There was also a woman who qualified for a paid apartment, but was afraid to take it because she had a physical limitation that made it difficult to go to the pharmacy and someone at her encampment did that for her. She would be far away from anyone she knew and she feared not getting her meds. Imagine having the dream (four walls and a roof) and still being afraid that it would do you more harm than sleeping outside. As someone diagnosed bi-polar, I understand her fear completely.

Having been broke enough to forage for berries and plums in my neighborhood under cover of darkness, walking miles to go dumpster diving at bakeries and discount grocery stores (I came up empty-handed at every location), spending a dollar a day to get a russet potato because at least that was filling, unable to buy cheap dishes after all the old ones broke because I had to buy paper plates over and over (receiving cheap dishware for xmas was one of the best gifts of my life), walking two miles to a bank branch to cash a check because I needed the money now, not when it'd post, holy crap does it take a lot to live on the edge. And I never ended up on the street.

My life has radically changed in the years since and I was joking with a friend thirty minutes ago about being a snob about my computing and spending money on stuff that's nice to have but unnecessary (10GB ethernet, for example). I'm extremely lucky. I can't imagine how to come back had I not had multiple extreme moments of good luck plus family that was willing to help me out more than a few times. I see the same people carrying a blanket or pacing the same small radius of blocks in downtown Oakland (where I work and live, so I walk to work) every week. In the richest nation in human history. The dichotomy breaks my heart.

We have an utterly broken system and it's only getting worse. And the fact that it hasn't happened to you is as much luck as anything. Millions of people are a life-threatening illness away from having their savings wiped out (I'm in the USA, remember?) or any other number of sudden and unescapable tragedies. Meanwhile, the ultra-wealthy horde their wealth and accumulate more. You know how much it would disrupt their lives to donate half of what they've got to people in need? Not in any way that they could possibly perceive on a daily basis. For these reasons and more, I will never not buy food for someone who asks. I might only give cash when I don't get a bad feeling about someone (even now, I'm still prejudiced against people for things they can't control, such as the appearance of severe mental health issues), but then again, how often do I have cash on me? But ask me to buy you a meal or groceries and I'll get you as much as you can carry.

/rant

0: https://99percentinvisible.org/need/

+1 - This should be the top comment in this thread.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com