Leo The Homeless Coder Is Still Homeless
businessinsider.com
businessinsider.com
During my homeless days I had a laptop for a while. I would do web programming for various online clients on it, and when that got stolen I would work from a local college forging student ids to use library computers.
I made enough for fast food dollar menus, and to keep a little bit of gas in a somewhat-running car I bought for $100.
The bare minimum to keep myself distracted and fed was all I did even though so much more was possible. I told myself I liked the freedom, but in truth I was just too scared and had too low of self esteem to take on a more comfortable lifestyle.
Even when I found a home I picked a ghetto camper in the woods, and took only enough gigs to pay bills. I would make a couple grand on a programming/consulting contract, live on it till it ran out, then take on a new gig.
It took a lot of the right people investing in me over and over, and being patient, before I started to decide that I deserved more, that I wanted more. That it was worth working hard for.
It takes more than just teaching marketable skills to get someone off the streets. It takes them seeing themselves as worthy to do more with their lives. At the end of the day, they have to make that choice to change, and triggering that is going to be different for everyone.
I am sure teaching this man to code was huge for his self-worth, but there are a lot of deeper emotional issues why he is there that are probably going to take a lot of time and patience to uncover one step at a time.
Everyone has a internal "thermostat" of how much they deserve to make. After they get above that, then they feel bad about making more and don't usually do any work.
It's not always hard to separate the two, especially not for an outside observer, but the difference is there, and I think the 'negative' motivation often leads to less happiness in the long run.
I suppose I could throw some random thoughts out there.
I think in general what people did that helped the most, was accept me for who I was without coddling me. Showing me respect, not pity. I hated pity. I thought my balance in my life was fine, and if it got in the way of something I really wanted to do, I would make adjustments. I really valued people that would invite me places they would invite anyone else and let me pull my own weight and make my own mind up each time even if I have said no 20 times prior. Just being invited to social outings even when I had no intention of going, boosted my perceived social value each time.
As people gained my trust, they were able to challenge me on the things I said I wanted out of life, and what present aspects of my lifestyle were incompatible.
I think for me my own pride became my fuel, and a series of "challenge accepted" moments. I could never turn down a well formed challenge or someone telling me I _can't_ do something.
Smaller challenges like "holding a retail job" grew to bigger ones like "CTO", "Senior Software Engineer", "Technical Director" and eventually things I once said would never be possible like "having a healthy relationship" and "Getting married". Once the "small" challenges met success I have ever since been on a journey to find out where my ceiling is. Doing things I thought I could never do has become an addiction now, and not a whole lot scares me anymore.
I also was really stubborn/prideful and not good at accepting help, ever. Still am to a point, but getting better. Sometimes people had to help me in creative ways where I could not stop them easily. There are a number of times where I think people proved they cared about me more than I presently cared about myself, and that gave me the desire to up my own game.
Anyway. I am sure I could go on forever but this is already probably going to be a TLDR anyway.
I am happy to answer any questions here or via email/hangout etc. :)
The idea that homelessness is just a financial problem and that if we come up with a ad-impression friendly narrative, then we can just solve it via a little fame and a little elbow grease is crazy. I guess the system got what it wanted: the Today show got its feel good story for overfed housewives and Today show advertisers got the eyeballs they wanted. Larger, more important, narratives were conveniently ignored.
Meanwhile, the larger narrative on how the US's private healthcare system means huge barriers to entry and especially for mental health issues, gets swept under the rug. Leo doesn't want a bank account for non-rational reasons. A little money and fame aren't going to change that. The whole article seems to skirt around the obvious mental health issues here. Its just incredible we can just pretend they don't exist and come up with ham-handed rationalizations on why Leo doesn't want a bank account. Yeah, its because he's mentally ill and is unable to functional in a normal way.
Media outlets rationalize this with the, probably justified, view that both parties, as well as society at large are benefiting.
Leo very probably wouldn't have gotten close to $10,000 had there been no coverage of his story. You can't blame them for not knowing that he wouldn't be able to take the money.
As for society, we get to have this conversation and some people hopefully get a more nuanced understanding of the problem of homelessness.
You seem to want to change the narrative towards the healthcare system and it's "huge barrier to entry" by saying it's getting swept under the rug. That's an admirable position, but that's a completely different story.
How would it look if they started with Leo still being homeless, then segued arbitrarily into editorializing over health care? People would accuse them of having an agenda, and rightfully so.
In the article, Patrick claims he didn't want media attention. Who knows how well the app would have performed without it. Lets say it made $7,000 instead of $10,000 but Patrick gained the privacy and dignity to work out issues with Leo without the endless media attention. Maybe that would have worked out better. Generally, media attention makes sensitive things of this nature worse, not better.
>As for society, we get to have this conversation
What conversation exactly? Are the people who are watching the Today show talking about mental healthcare? It seems like this is the cheap "make easy money now, even a homeless person can do it" narrative, except with an undercurrent of "hard work fixes all!" Apparently, it doesn't.
>That's an admirable position, but that's a completely different story.
I don't think so. I think the story is so focused on the money, but not the well-being or core issues Leo faces, most of which look like mental illness to me.
>then segued arbitrarily into editorializing over health care?
Heaven forbid we ask why Leo can't handle the idea of a bank account. The idea that its rational and sane to lose $10k is laughable. The guy clearly has problems. The question that's obvious and should be asked for by a compassionate society is why can't Leo get the care he needs? The money, fame, attention, etc are all secondary. Ironically, the money isn't helping him get what he needs because he's literally too dysfunctional to turn it into to healthcare.
That's a stretch. He probably wouldn't have broken a thousand.
> What conversation exactly?
The conversation you and I are having, right now. Multiply that by all the people who have followed this story.
> most of which look like mental illness to me.
You want to make Leo the poster boy for mental illness?
> Heaven forbid we ask why Leo can't handle the idea of a bank account.
They DID ask that question. That you didn't like the answer they got doesn't mean they were being neglectful.
> Ironically, the money isn't helping him get what he needs because he's literally too dysfunctional to turn it into to healthcare.
Money he never would have had in the first place without the free advertising from all the media coverage. There's no irony here. There's not as much cynicism and neglect and opportunism here as you are so eager to point out.
You can take the entire story at face value here. A smart hacker thought he could do some good by teaching a homeless man he saw every day a useful, high-demand skill. The homeless man was receptive but as it turned out, money isn't the solution.
You're making the argument that it's health care that he needs. Maybe you're right. Maybe you should go over there and offer Leo health care. It would be a damn sight better than what you're doing now, accusing well-meaning people who are taking action of neglect and opportunism because they're not jumping to the same conclusions you are. They're not warping the narrative, you are.
Not obvious. Until you get his SSN or otherwise do a background check, you have no idea what's in his past, or how that $10K compares to his legal obligations. There is an unaddressed moral question for society in whether a person in a difficult situation has an implicit right to both a non-zero personal net worth and anonymity.
(again, I don't know Leo's situation either)
In the particular instance where a parent is obligated to labor for the benefit of a child (possibly even one that is a true genetic descendant) for a term of 18 years, however, the government has seen fit to ignore the legal niceties in order to reduce its own welfare burden for supporting single parents.
In other words, the state ignores its own rule because following it would be expensive, the victims are too poor to fight it, and no one likes deadbeat parents enough to fight it for them. Expedience!
Child support is a political beehive, vigorously defended by partisans on either side of the issue. Approach it with any intent, or even none at all, and you could get swarmed and stung just for being nearby. So I say, with a megaphone from a long way away, that whether it is right or wrong, child support laws do appear to be inconsistent with foundation law.
I consider it unlikely that is why Leo does not want his own bank account. It may be a contributing factor, but I think it far more likely that he does not believe banks to be any more trustworthy than the street thugs that steal anything even remotely of value from him and his cohort. Banking may have been a significant contributing factor in his exit from home-having society. In some ways, the bank simply allows different people to take your money.
As long as it is not attached to him directly, perhaps he feels like it is harder for anyone to steal the idea of him having $10000? If he takes possession, it will get spent or stolen, and then it would be gone, along with the idea of having it. But who could really know for sure from an article that features precious little commentary from its main subject? It may be worth more to him as a floor on his self-worth ("Well, I'm worth at least $10000.") than as cash in hand.
There is an optimum point here, but people seem unable to arguee for anything that is not extreme. And that seems to be a problem with our communication in general, not restricted to this one issue.
This is written into English law in the Mental Capacity Act. There was a parliamentary report ("The Cornwall Report") which covered some abuse and some people who had their liberty unreasonably restricted. Importantly people are allowed to make unwise choices if they have the capacity to make that choice and you should not stop them even if you have their best interests at heart.
This is tricky to sort out when working with people with limited capacity and there's some discussion about people not checking that someone actually does have capacity to make choices.
This is not to be critical of Leo. By publishing the app and making the the promotion website and video he is ahead of even many professional developers. I'm more annoyed by the tech hype and the media narrative. The idea is any kid can write a mobile app and solve some of the world biggest problem just like that. Together they create some myth that disappoints if you really look into the detail.
-- http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/03/14/catching-up-...
> Leo doesn't want a bank account for non-rational reasons.
I'd really like to see some discussion on this point.
Specifically, what discrete banking options should be available if someone is homeless, owes child support, and maybe has open warrants someplace.
I don't know the situation in this case of course, but that's not an uncommon scenario.
I used to publish a street paper and have been trying to solve this problem for the past six years. Street papers are theoretically great because they solve many of the problems associated with homelessness. However, their efficacy is being cut because more and more people don't carry cash. Unfortunately, to take part in a cash free economy, you need things like a bank account, credit, or a device.
Another problem was cash management. We would launch an issue and out vendors would start selling. Then, after four hours, they might have made $80. This was problematic because some of the problems that lead to homelessness can usually be exacerbated by a sudden surge of cash.
In my experience, paranoia and/or fear of the system is the biggest barrier to discrete banking. Homeless people are disproportionately affected by laws banning camping in public parks, or that 'close' public parks at 11pm. When society continuously passes laws making it harder for you to live, it doesn't take long before it's hard to trust society. Add in schizophrenia (which is an epidemic amongst homeless populations), and banking is very hard.
Some of the ideas we came up with include:
- selling ads to cover 100% of the magazine's cost, thn 'selling' the paper to vendors for $1 a copy. We'd hold this amount collected in our bank account and hand it out on request. We abandoned this idea because it felt too much like enabling addictive behaviours.
- building a new payment card system. If you buy a magazine, you would put cash onto a vendor's card. Then, we'd have a list of merchants (ie - grocery stores, landlords) who would accept it. Not only is this idea insanely difficult to pull off, but it attacks dignity. A loss of dignity is a cause of continuing homelessness.
This entire question is complex and if you explore it deeply enough, you quickly run up against money laundering/banking regulations. But, if we can solve it, we can solve a huge problem.
Consider social assistance cheques. If you don't have a bank account, you have to use cheque cashing services instead. Cheque cashing companies charge a large premium to cash cheques. In the case of government cheques, there is virtually no risk other than counterfeiting.
Thanks for bringing this up!
Also Patrick could put the money onto a debit gift card.
As I wrote above, there are larger issues here. If Leo can't handle this money, in any form, then he'll need a caretaker. Be that a relative, social services, friend, etc.
This is the beginning and the end of the story. All you need to add for a complete understanding is that change was avoided on all sides. The status quo is, as always, self-preserving. Crucially this includes unchanging moral certainty for the housewives, as well as unchanging poverty for Leo and unchanging profit for the media/various related industries. The circle of life continues.
Of course it is! Much like how the only species that last are the ones that reproduce, any lasting system has trended towards the solution that is stable. The systems that didn't trend towards stable probably fell apart.
It wouldn't be the status quo if it wasn't self-preserving.
I do wonder sometimes if his stuff is deep insight or raving mania. His basic point about "the system" just being a sum of the force vectors representing everyones desire for a stable self is pretty correct I think. A lot of stuff certainly makes sense through that lens, but I suppose that isn't the best heuristic for truth.
I've only seen one or two in my brief winter visits, but my last trip a couple of weeks ago, there was a "tent city" under one of the bridges near Gamla Stan as well as assorted out of the way individuals (camped out near buildings) in Normmalm/Kungsholmen. With nice weather, I did a lot more walking/exploring this last trip.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Williams_%28voice-over_arti...
It's been 8 months.
>Leo doesn't want a bank account for non-rational reasons.
You're making an assumption based on what you think of Leo. Have you met him?
That comment is as narrow minded as the people that yell at homeless people to "stop being lazy and get a job".
This story has the possibility to change perceptions about homeless people and the challenges they face living in our society.
Setting up a new bank account is a pain in the ass (at any bank I've every used). Finding a reasonable place to live can be stressful as well. If you really think about it, the things we do as part of our life can be very frustrating or stressful, and it's even worse if you don't have friends or any kind of support network to help or give advice.
Despite having intelligence and a talent, resulting in an income sufficient to 'get started' on the social ladder and rejoin mainstream society, the prospect is very daunting to Leo.
Even when given access to support and then a 'deadline' to push him (and being accompanied to a bank to deposit the money), it gets too much and he backs out.
Homeless people are not just hopeless drunks or weirdos. They often have an array of complex and intractible fears and issues and are incapable of functioning in mainstream society - even with large amounts of help.
I don't see any blame here - but it does sadden me that someone with so much clear and semi-realized potential can struggle so much. Consider for a moment how homless people less 'fortunate' [I can't help feeling that's the wrong word] must struggle every single day.
I've never thought through the 'teach a man to fish' in this way; life's not actually that simple.
Sadly, I don't see a solution. But I wish there was one.
They give a bunch of justification about humans being creatures of habit. Nonsense. I'm sure Leo has some notions about everything a bank account is going to entail, and it's intimidating, but I don't see why it couldn't be overcome and this article does nothing to explain that. If Patrick can teach him to code, he could teach him the logistics of setting up a bank account, finding an apartment, etc. etc.
If you can easily maintain a few thousand dollars in positive balance, the weird rules around NSF and overdraft fees never really impact you. If you are living paycheck to paycheck, however, a single overdraft can wipe you out.
Here's a few articles that look at why low income individuals may choose to avoid banks:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2013/10/the-h...
Brazilian banks usually have an overdraft limit. That is subject to interest, based on the time the account was negative. Some banks even give you a few days to sort it out before charging interest. Once the limit is exceeded, all operations are simply denied, be that from a ATM, a debit card, automatic bill payments, etc.
Yes, the interest rates are ridiculous, but they only matter if you spend a month or more with a negative balance.
Now, bounced checks are another story and are much more similar to how US overdraft works. Which is why checks are very rarely seen nowadays.
In Africa, technology seems to be solving this problem with mobile money, see e.g. very successful M-Pesa[1].
Perhaps this is a solution the American poor could benefit from, too.
The story looks very suspicious / incomplete because of that. But then again, I'm not in his shoes. Maybe I'd understand if I was.
You're eating burgers from restaurants from "that life", you're sleeping on a park bench from "that life", you're wearing used tshirts from "that life", you're watching tv at the shelter and the news are about the politics from "that life", you're getting napkins from a shopping mall from "that life" ...
This is why I don't get the bank account thing. It's definitely one foot in "that life", but so are a ton of other things in a homeless person's life (as I picture it).
Easier just to have cash. Except that someplace like App Store isn't going to mail you an envelope of cash, they'll want a bank account to deposit in ... and now Leo is dealing with someone else holding his $10,000 and won't give it to him; that alone is enough to crush any faith in the system.
Yes, and I would have liked to read about this instead of reading about some vague uneasiness concerning banks that this poor guy developed by being homeless for so long.
Then it would turn into a story about how the System is giving no chances to a man who deserves a chance, about the "entry fee" to get back into the System, instead of it being about him feeling awkward about what it would mean to open up a bank account like a non-homeless person.
Have you gotten a photo id without a birth certificate?
The article says that this might be complicated because you might need an address, but then it goes on about how it is some kind of mental state of disconnection that prevents this guy from someone realizing the value of the $10k in the bank.
Leo could stay "homeless" if he chooses, but should at least have the comfort of knowing he has a hot meal if he chooses.
It's simply not easy at all to participate in the modern economy if you are a transient or anyone else without a permanent address.
I did find options though. One thing that might work is, find a Catholic church. Some of them will let you have your mail sent there for you if you're homeless. It didn't work for me because I knew I would be taking advantage of a good will service for people who are actually unprivileged.
In a strictly cause-effect sense, of course he has a reason for not wanting a bank account. That is a sentiment and some finite set of causes resulted in him feeling that way. But "for no/whatever reason" is not a philosophical statement, it's just shorthand for "for reasons he/she doesn't want to disclose" or "for reasons he/she isn't even aware of."
If a thousand tiny but unknown (to the reader) experiences have given Mr. Grand a deep emotional aversion to financial institutions, "for whatever reason" is about the best you can do as a description.
For a greatly simplified explanation, consider that studies show positive emotions have a huge impact on psychological resilience, and homeless people do not have significant amounts of positive emotional reinforcement - though they do have plenty of adverse and stressful life experiences. Children who grow up in negative, impoverished, or homeless situations are found to become developmentally stunted, though some of the effects can be reversed in quality foster care.
The result seems to echo the statements made by the project's biggest critics — not everyone wants to be saved. Fixing homelessness is a lot more complicated than everyone thinks.
If you try to help a homeless person, then you must also end all homelessness or accept that you're just a naive failure, apparently.
Not at all. But when you (to some extent) and others (to a much, much greater extent) hold up a project or strategy as being a solution to a problem, it is important for the outcome to be publicized, whether that outcome is success or failure (or some of both).
This situation got a lot of attention when it started, so it needs just as much, if not more, attention now that it has (more or less) concluded. I recall there being a lot of implicit, and some explicit, suggestions that this sort of thing could "scale". Turns out it can't. That's an important piece of knowledge to have for the future.
Edit: formatting
His app is fairly common, and without the "media story" around it he would probably have made a bit more than $20 over the same span of time. Just like most app developers.
I'm usually really critical about the tone-deafness when it comes to tech people and poverty, but I'm not sure what there is to criticize about a friendship between two people that has been so obviously mutually beneficial. Instead of being a symbol of middle-class people reaching out to marginal minorities without society bothering to strengthen the 'safety net' or attempting to mitigate the effects of racism in society, it can be a example of how intercultural friendships can greatly improve your quality of life.
Homelessness is an intensely difficult problem to solve and won't be solved overnight by giving people a laptop and some books.
Of course I have no idea what Patrick will do if it comes down to the deadline but I truly hope he's not going to force some sort of resolution.
Deleted comment
There are ways around it and receiving smaller sums over time might solve the problem but its really up to what Leo's comfortable with.
But to be honest, I know nothing about this Leo guy; for all I know he knows he'll just spend the money on drugs and he's keeping himself away from that temptation on purpose.
No, but he solved what Leo saw as the worst problem of the homeless man by being his friend. He's happy now.
What a nice and insightful follow up though. Too often, we think our job is done and move on to the next keyboard warrior crusade.
This experience is reflection of how we don't always think about how people who are truly less fortunate can be tied to money as much as people who have more of it.
Everyone has the right to have the opportunity to work through their stuff. Not being able to have the basic necessities similarly can prevent you from pursuing one's inner growth, when the next place to eat or sleep is the real struggle.
It's a collective failure of our society in many ways, if we are quick to judge and trivialize anyone's experience of their existence without taking a minute to turn any stranger into a person by learning their story and participating in humanity by treating others with unconditional dignity.
There was good in this journey that should continue:
- The heart was in the right place. Giving in the right mindset is all one can do.
- Something positive came of this, namely someone has learned a new skill. We all feel more empowered when we can create the smallest new habit, let alone a new talent altogether.
- Like everyone deserves, they are working through their stuff.
I can't help but wonder if there's more like this that could be happening in other cities. Ultimately it will reach who is ready to find and take their next step, and it's not our job to create change, only help plant seeds and encourage the gardener to give it the water and sunshine it needs.
At the end of the day only we can learn our own lessons, and we have a choice in supporting and encouraging each other to do so. Sounds hokey to some, but once you have the right supportive circle in your life, there's nothing like it.
Hopefully the sharing of this experience doesn't turn people away from trying to improve it, no effort is perfect the first time.
There are few skills like programming that can turn someone's fortunes around this day in age, whether we are homeless, or not, and everyone deserves an opportunity to see what they can be, and become.
I may be looking at this from a possibility perspective instead of finding doubts and holes.
There may be issues I'm not aware of. Perhaps Leo is a former drug addict and doesn't trust that he can stay clean (or alive for that matter) if he has a sudden influx of cash. Even that could be dealt with though, as his benefactor could simply transfer money to the card in small increments. It just seems that there are easy solutions to whatever issues exist, and that they haven't been explored (based solely on the information in this article).
From my experience around homeless or border-line homeless people, it's always more complicated than it seems.
And yet, simply being kind, even if just acknowledging their existence without making them feel judged, seems to me like a great start. Even if the underlying motivations might be misguided.
Here in The Netherlands we have some systems that help those who are homeless, or those who are in danger of becoming homeless. While there is plenty of criticism, and plenty goes wrong, there are also plenty of examples of people getting back on their feet because we have strong support structures. I really hope stories such as these will help to increase initiatives like that, or at least funding of existing (result-based) programs.
I feel there are some serious societal issues underlying the phenomenon, but something is better than nothing.
Leo has been taught a skill that has earned him money, and one where he can continue to develop this skill and make more money.
Give a man to fish, and today is eating; teach him a fish, and he forevers.
Most HN posters in the U.S. probably haven't experienced true financial stress. It's toxic. It makes you paranoid. Benzos don't help (and they're a terrible long-term solution anyway). You have a constant cold because your immune system is shot. And you never get used to it. It never gets better. The cognitive load is both intense and purely negative. There is no good in it. People who romanticize "poverty" are usually talking about something like grad student life (little money, little expense). Financial stress is as poisonous as ingesting paint thinner, and even a few weeks of it can permanently fuck someone up.
I think that most homeless people have severe mental illness that is not their fault (and that deserves compassion and treatment, not stigma or abuse). If they didn't have it beforehand, they'll have it after a few months of that life.
I think it's damn heroic that Leo was able to summon the cognitive clarity, after that kind of long-term damage, to build something. Unfortunately, that's not going to be enough to get him anywhere near the level of mental health that would enable him to hold down a typical white-collar job. That's a fucking long road.
This is another stigma that's counter-productive. The real number is somewhere between 20-25% suffering from severe mental illness, which is still very high, though not so high when you consider 22% of Americans suffer from some kind of a mental illness (only 6% of Americans are severely mentally ill). Mental illness is only the third largest cause of homelessness for single adults.
To add to your point: poverty causes something like a 13% drop in the IQ, similar to pulling an all-nighter every day for a week.
20-25% is a pretty high number, especially when you compare it to the 6% of Americans with a severe mental illness. I can't find any good estimates for the percent of homeless with any form of mental illness.
A good question (which I can't find an answer to) is what is the percentage of the long term homeless population that suffers from severe mental illness?
Deleted comment
The potential for sex (your analogy)/money is there but the conditions to "release it" aren't met.
Or to use your analogy: he has someone willing to have sex with him, but that person doesn't want to do it on the street - this person just wants to have sex in a proper bed.