Hacker News Reader

Comment by titanomachy | Hacker News Reader

I think "most people in the real world" have at least a few rungs between their current situation and true homelessness. Many people have some sort of family or other community that they could lean on, even in America where family ties are weaker than any other place I know.

I have a couple friends who haven't had steady work in years, and they still eke out a pretty reasonable existence living with friends and family because they are kind and considerate and people don't mind having them around. A lot of street homeless have mental or substance issues that make it hard for them to coexist with other people.

View on HN

"Homeless" is not the same as "living on the street". People living in hotels, temporary trailers (in some places even tiny homes count), living with a friend temporarily, etc are all homeless. Plenty of Americans are much closer than this than you might think working in tech. 50-60% of Americans currently live 'paycheck-to-paycheck' which means the second work stops they're on a timer for missing bills to start coming in.

I've had the luxury, working in tech, to have lost a job and had the opportunity to take a few months off before searching. Even this was incredibly stressful in practice, but I never had to worry about losing my place of living.

> People living in hotels, temporary trailers (in some places even tiny homes count), living with a friend temporarily, etc are all homeless.

You're right. But is a 30-year-old who moves back in with their parents "homeless"?

And yeah, the paycheck-to-paycheck stat blows my mind. Somehow the standard American experience has become the latest model iPhone (financed), a new car (financed), a rented home, 4-5 meals out weekly, and almost zero money in the bank. And all this in a country with some of the weakest social security in the developed world. I'm sure the half-trillion dollars spent on advertising every year has something to do with this.

A phone for internet access is basically mandatory now if you want to work, and depending on where you live so is a car.

I'd be surprised if you had no one around you that didn't have an old android laying around collecting dust. I'm still on an old A52s and it works fine.

i might, but i wouldn't want to rely on something i'm uncertain exists.

A serviceable refurbished Android can be obtained for $50. A new iPhone costs at least $800, which is 100 hours of work at the federal minimum wage.

And a serviceable refurbished iPhone isn't that much more, e.g. https://swappa.com/listings/apple-iphone-se-2nd-gen?carrier=...

ok, but could that mean many people that are assumed to have new devices could actually be using older devices?

Probably. The iPhone users I know mostly replace their phones once every 3 to 5 years, and they don't all buy brand new replacements even then (although some do.)

> You're right. But is a 30-year-old who moves back in with their parents "homeless"?

No, but this is also not ideal for many reasons

I have a friend going through this right now, actually. The biggest challenge is that her parents don't live anywhere near a strong job market. So the decision for her is "be homeless in a place where jobs are available" or "have a home but no access to employers"

It's not ideal

I have been applying since March 2020 out of New Orleans and I have come up with nothing (5-6 first round interviews) so I think that this is a much bigger problem than people think.

> But is a 30-year-old who moves back in with their parents "homeless"?

Depends -- how safe is their parents' home?

That answer can vary, for a lot of reasons.

> Depends

It doesn’t.

> People living in hotels … are homeless

Does that include digital nomads who don’t have a permanent residence?

Yep, they're just winning at homeless

Does that include digital nomads who don’t have a permanent residence?

Since they're not even a rounding error, it doesn't matter.

> Plenty of Americans are much closer than this than you might think working in tech. 50-60% of Americans currently live 'paycheck-to-paycheck' which means the second work stops they're on a timer for missing bills to start coming in.

How is that actually defined by whoever measured it?

The median American has $8000 in transaction accounts and a net worth of $192k. 50-60% of Americans self-report that they’re living paycheck to paycheck, but not everyone understands that to mean “I literally can’t pay the bills if my paycheck doesn’t come on time”.

(Is it deeply uncomfortable to get laid off with $8000 in your account? Without a doubt, especially in an increasingly weak labor market, even if you have home equity or retirement savings you could theoretically dip into to cover what unemployment benefits can’t.)

> "Homeless" is not the same as "living on the street"

The word is being used to invoke that image.

I think you should look this up instead of surveying your guesses about your friends.

A lot of my friends' parents rely on their support. If they lost their jobs their parents would be in trouble, too.

> I have a couple friends who haven't had steady work in years, and they still eke out a pretty reasonable existence living with friends and family

What about their wife and children? Do they get to stay with them too?

No, the people I'm thinking of are childless. They recognize that their level of stability and functioning is not currently high enough to support a family.

I didn't say that they're thriving and living their dream, just that they're still a couple rungs above homeless.

Yeah sorry I was just being facetious

> I think "most people in the real world" have at least a few rungs between their current situation and true homelessness.

This is one of the most out-of-touch HN comments I've seen in a while. Most people are not nearly as privileged as the community on these forums. Not even all the people posting here are fully removed from the risk of being out on their ass. Some have moved from other parts of their home country (think people in the Bay Area who moved for a job and have no family in the same job market). Some have moved from other parts of the world to where they are and have no one upon whom they can impose. Plenty have huge student loans and are so fresh out of school that they're at the edge of the many rounds of layoffs affecting the tech industry in the last few years and lack enough experience on their resumés to land a new position before their finances run out.

I can't believe how tone deaf it is to suggest that most people have multiple rungs upon which to fall back. And I've only been talking about people on these forums, the "fortunate" types.

> I can't believe how tone deaf it is to suggest that most people have multiple rungs upon which to fall back.

There are rungs which are available to the population at large, so all of us have those privileges. For example the armed forces are recruiting. They will put a roof over your head and food in your belly, as well as give you medical coverage.

Not if you’re over 35 they won’t.

> think people in the Bay Area who moved for a job and have no family in the same job market

If they've failed to find a job for long enough that they're about to be homeless, does it really make sense to remain in the most expensive housing market in the country?

I think it's equally out of touch to imply that if you select a random person from across America (the richest country in the world) you will land on someone who is an inch from homelessness, with no close family or community, massive debt, and living in terror of the next layoff. Certainly there are people in that situation, but to imply that it's somehow the median American experience is to caricature the country.

All I said is that "most people" have rungs to fall back on, not "everyone".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com