Homeless in San Francisco: Nate the Great | Hacker News Reader

Homeless in San Francisco: Nate the Great

priceonomics.com

38 pointsvijayr12 comments

To wish to work in order to obtain the minimum requisites for living such as food, and be locked in this dead-end must be unimaginably frustrating. The capacity of human adaptation is amazing given the lifestyle Nate (and others) endure for so long.

Its not like hunting or harvesting is longer an option, and all other legitimate alternatives are increasingly out of reach (e.g. cant get a job because you smell "funky", and can't get a bath because you don't have a job). The story about the stabbing in the homeless shelter only closes more doors.

And IMHO, this problem only really becomes a problem, when those who can solve the problem are affected: bums on touristic spots, bums in public bathrooms, mugging, drug-dealing, etc. So how is this scenario NOT an incentive for someone like Nate to purposely make himself a problem, either for direct benefit (e.g. stolen money) or the indirect one (e.g. better shelters to get bums out of the street)?

Unfortunately becoming a problem would most-likely just land him in jail; with a longer record, and conveniently out of sight for much longer. Not to mention that in jail there could be the possibly of a rougher crowd than the shelter that had the stabbing he witnessed. It's truly a vicious cycle.

Jobs are already increasingly difficult to come by for low skill persons. Add a conviction into the mix (whether justified or not), and most businesses won't see a good risk/value proposition from that hire.

This, in turns, leads to recidivism in many cases as people unable to find any opportunity will acquire their essential needs by whatever means.

What can be done about it, though, is very difficult. I'm curious if the occasionally tried "hire-a-felon" programs [i.e. Work Opportunity Tax Credit] that governments do to try to sweeten the pot have much beneficial impact or not.

I think part of the problem is that it takes several different types of programs working together to make things right. "Hire-a-felon" isn't going to work by itself for people like Nate because he is most likely not a very clean person (sleeping in an alley and wearing shoes you found in the street makes it hard to stay "presentable"), probably doesn't have a reliable way to get to work, and doesn't have anything he can do with his pay after. Even if he remained sleeping in alleys, in order to really have a job, Nate also needs access to a clean set of clothes, a place to shower, a place to keep his money, an alarm clock (so he doesn't get fired for being late), etc.

As the author points out in the comments, even though Nate is a vet, he is not really in a position to get the help he needs because he can't really jump through the hoops they require. This is sad. We should be looking at low barrier ways to get the assistance to those that deserve it.

Knowing that somewhere someone conspired to sneak up to a sleeping homeless dude and fill his tin with $300 in $0.25 coins without waking him -- reaffirms my faith in the race.

gl breaking the cycle Nate.

Social justice should not depend solely on charity. Nate, like so many others, deserve - even if only a little - better.

In our age, there is no excuse for anyone not to have food, a shower, a roof and clean clothes. Every Qassam missile fired from Gaza would feed him for months (estimated cost US$800). Every ABM used to shot down a Qassam would probably buy him a house.

It doesn't appear to be due to lack of resources, but a mix of personal choice and cultural stigma. He can't find a job but avoids the homeless shelter designed to help him.

I don't know if it's the same in the USA, but I met quite a few homeless people here that avoid shelters when they can out of fear of being mugged, robbed, or stabbed. That said, their fear might not be justified.

From what I read, I got the impression that avoiding them for Nate, is a part of "not playing the game". I'd imagine, not going there reduces his chances of more contact with aggressive law enforcement agents, thieves and drugs.

In which case, it seems an understandable choice.

I also suppose it can be depressing to be in shelters. And difficult if you're an introvert.

Indeed. The environment appears to be quite hostile, I would refuse to live in or pay any social contribution in a town that judges certain streets only fit for certain classes of people. That way bad things lie.

crickets

Reply on news.ycombinator.com