So, he has spent less than 1/3rd of what he'd need for an apartment on 2 items that provide him income, entertainment and transportation and you're complaining that he doesn't "look homeless enough."
EDIT: the "energy drink" in one picture is a monster branded water bottle, but in another picture there are clearly cans of Monster on the bench.
True but you have to feed them.
I find such remarks incredibly annoying given the importance of the "digital divide" in separating rich from poor. Criticizing a homeless person for hanging onto a laptop as their only path out of poverty amounts to hatred and a desire to keep them a permanent member of the underclass with no way out. I value my computer far more than I valued the crappy apartment I was evicted from. I always have.
So no a $400 laptop does not approach the cost of rent.
"'Poor' in America - A Heritage Foundation report proves that as long as 'poor' Americans have refrigerators and the strength to brush flies off their eyeballs, they're not really poor."
When was the last time you met the eyes of one of these good-for-nothing, lazy, bad-smelling, disgusting … things?
If you can't even meet eyes with a homeless person, let alone really observing the person, you can't even put yourself into their shoes, feel what they feel, and see the world from their eyes. If you can't do that, then you lack empathy.
And when you lack empathy, that's the seed of prejudice.
Or how about this article, posted here on Hacker News: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/These-young-SF-profess...
Those are startup founders that live in RVs … because rent is too high in the Bay Area.
There are indeed homeless people who are mentally or emotional unstable. Not all homeless people are like that. And there are mentally and emotionally unstable people who live in homes. And then, there are systemic problems where rent prices have driven people out of affordable homes.
As to the point about how having laptops point to a confusion in Maslow's Hierarchy, I think that demonstrates more of the commenter's lack of understanding of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
It is true that shelter is at the bottom of the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. It is part of the human need to seek physical security, and is the foundation for the higher level needs. However, "shelter" is so much more than an apartment or a house. An apartment and a house are socially approved shelter. Shelter is anything that will help you maintain homeostasis. It can be a cave. It can be survival shelter in the woods. It can be under a freeway bridge. It can be in a cardboard box. It includes clothing.
When you are in survival mode, you are not thinking about socially-approved shelter. You are seeking any shelter. People who go out into the woods without a lot of training in wilderness survival tends to flounder around when things go bad. Their minds, being unable to accept the situation as-is, keep thinking that civilization will save them somehow, and cling to that. "If only I can get out of these woods or find a ranger, I would be safe." Instead of "Oh shit, a bad storm is coming, I need to get under covers NOW."
Likewise, having talked to some of the homeless, I was told how you can pick out the newly homeless. They have so much pride (and shame), it kept them from receiving help -- food, or shelter, or whatever. They are clinging to behaviors that are socially-approved. Social approval is higher up on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Believe me, if you were somewhere public and you hear gunshots, and you felt your life threatened, you will probably run. And you won't be thinking that the place you are running to is private property or not.
Finally, comments like these suggest that the commenters have not examined their concepts thoroughly or looked into their own feelings about this.
People who live outside the socially-approved box are threatening to people living inside the box. This threat goes beyond the surface, "oh, he is going to mug me." The aversion and disgust that keeps people from empathizing with the homeless comes from pack behavior. Humans tend to aggregate in groups, reject outsiders, and severely punish anyone who betray the pack.
This punishment is exactly the kind of reflexive emotional response risk-averse people have when you tell them about startup idea. "What's wrong with these people? They must be crazy!"
It is also the emotional reaction that leads to comments like, "If he can afford a better laptop than I, he can afford an rent. There must be something wrong about him."
That's bullshit.
That's a fairly vile perspective to project onto someone you're trying to have a productive conversation with.
Please treat folks on hn with a bit more respect.
Does everyone on HN have this aversion? No. I can't even see your faces, hear your voice. But everyone has some kind of aversion. There is often something vile lurking within the depths of people's hearts. It's ugly. I wrote that to give you the reader, a sense of empathy for the people who turn away in disgust from another human being, and believe me, I've seen that kind of reaction in person.
I've seen it in people walking down the street being solicited by the homeless. I've seen it in mothers and fathers turning away from their children. I've seen it in politicians, and activists. I've seen it all sorts of ordinary people.
I don't know if you react that way. You might. You might not. You might even react this way, and don't even know it.
The only way to be truly respectful is not to hide this, but to bring this ugliness out into the open, to really look at it, and to accept that you have these feelings -- whatever those feelings are -- arising from you. Who knows? You might find the deeper root causes for those feelings.
For the most part, the able bodied young "travelers" that seem to infest this town from time to time are generally met with scorn. The mother with two kids living out of an RV and wanting to avoid the crazy / disturbed street people - met with compassion and care.
I think it would be better if we all acted as if hn were populated by people much closer to the former end of that spectrum.
Every moment you to avert your attention, you are treating a person as a thing. You stop seeing the person and react to the aversion instead.
This is something that happens with pretty much everyone.
The difference here is for me, I am seeing people who, from time to time, will have aversions, and will in that moment treat that person as a thing. For you, it seems to be an unforgivable act that once committed, can never, ever be redeemed. I think that latter is another form of typecasting, don't you think?
I think it is useful to recognize that each of us have done this in the past, as a way of being aware of what is happening in the present moment. So that, when you do find yourself walking down the street, and you are busy, rushing to somewhere else, and someone asks you for change: do you at least stop, look at that person in the eyes, and sincerely tell that person, "No, I don't have change for you. Sorry."?
The question is, is by watching the youtube videos or clicking on the apps for bitcoins, giving enough return? Or is it really a case of being inside a "tunnel" and there are more effective means?
If there are more effective means, does this person necessarily want to live better? We can't assume that someone who is homeless "wants" to be homeless (not unless you talk to that person and observe that person), though we can say that the choices he is make is likely to keep him in a scarcity trap that results in being homeless.
I don't cast my eyes aside because I am disgusted. I cast my eyes aside because I see myself through his eyes- just another selfish anglo that won't show charity- and I am too ashamed to look him in the eye.