

Dislodged in New York - Thevet
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/aug/04/dislodged-new-york-homeless-homme-less/

======
codyb
What a pitiful state of affairs we've let be created for our weakest rungs on
the ladder. I live here in NYC and seeing the homeless just hits me like a
hammer every time, it never gets any better seeing young and old alike with
their signs and their desperation.

And to think, a third of the shelter system works full time. Way to go
America. You dun good. On my facebook all I see is people talking about how
"burger flippers" don't deserve a wage increase. So we've got the poor
fighting the poor for the meagerest of scraps in a society which apparently
consists of people who can only feel validated if they feel better than the
people around them. It truly makes me sad.

~~~
jdonaldson
This guy could do ok pretty much anywhere else. He wants to be in movies, and
take pictures of celebrities, even if those industries aren't willing to
compensate him properly for his time. That is a far cry from flipping burgers.

~~~
rwallace
How exactly does the economics of getting a job flipping burgers in the U.S.
work out these days? Not a rhetorical question, I don't actually know the
answer. Are employers willing to employ fifty-year-olds in such a capacity?
How does the pay compare with cost of housing in any given area? How far would
affordable housing be located from the place of work? After paying for
housing, transport and health insurance as well as other living expenses,
would outgoing still be less than income?

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
Generally speaking the adults doing that stuff are making use of several
welfare benefits. A single woman with two kids flipping burgers is often
living a lifestyle that would require an unsupplemented income of $50K.

~~~
rwallace
Okay, so it sounds like compared to Europe, the U.S. has a thinner safety net
such that welfare alone won't keep you afloat, but it will supplement a low-
wage job such that the combination will keep you afloat?

~~~
alistairSH
Just barely afloat. If you get sick, your car breaks down, or any number of
other things, you can very easily sink.

------
morgante
Yes, homelessness is a problem but they definitely could have chosen a more
sympathetic "victim."

While $15k is by no means a gigantic income, it's enough to live on as a
single person in most parts of the country. Nobody is entitled to a job as a
"photographer" in the most expensive city in the country—if you can't make
ends meet, try doing something else somewhere else. Not buying $200 shoes (5x
what I've ever spent on shoes) would be a good start.

Why does the media continue to insist on using the least sympathetic faces for
societal problems? (See also the fixation on the "plight" of students who have
loans from top-tier colleges when the far more endemic problem is people who
spend thousands on useless degrees from for-profit universities.)

~~~
jpatokal
Put yourself in the guy's shoes for a moment, even if they cost him $200 when
he bought them, presumably long before he became homeless (good shoes well
kept are close to indestructible). He's an aging model (early 40s?),
presumably with no other marketable skills, and he's hustling pretty hard to
keep his head above water. Yes, he clearly made bad choices when he was
younger and that led him to where he is today... but given where he's at
_right now_ , what exactly do you suggest that he do?

~~~
morgante
> what exactly do you suggest that he do?

Move to a cheaper city and get a job which pays a low but dependable income.
If you're willing to be geographically and occupationally flexible, there's
absolutely no reason to end up homeless.

~~~
jpatokal
What such jobs are readily available to early-fifties retired fashion models?
How much are the up-front costs of moving to a new city and acquiring a place
to live?

~~~
morgante
> What such jobs are readily available to early-fifties retired fashion
> models?

He doesn't need a "good" job. He could get an hourly minimum wage job and
already have an equivalent salary to his current job.

Since he has some nominal "fashion" experience, retail might be a good place
to start. I'm sure Brooks Brothers wouldn't mind hiring a former male model to
sell clothes.

> How much are the up-front costs of moving to a new city and acquiring a
> place to live?

Honestly, it's probably an upper limit of $5k (I've moved for far less). But
he got a lump sump payment of $30k for leaving his apartment—equivalent to two
years salary. That's surely enough to move anywhere in the country and find a
decent, affordable housing situation.

~~~
jpatokal
Dude's homeless and living under a tarp on approx $15k/year from odd jobs. Do
you really think he's got $5k socked away in savings? He got that lump sum
_years_ ago.

~~~
morgante
But where did the $30k go?

------
pfisch
This kinda seems like a choice that the subject is making. He could do a less
"glamorous" job and not live in one of the most expensive cities in America if
he wanted to.

------
yummyfajitas
We can act like this is an issue of social services or redistribution or other
cool left wing causes, but this is simply an issue of arithmetic. If we want
to house more people, we need more houses. In spite of what you read in the
newspapers, there is no construction boom:

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Z81YIgZSAAtqpp-6AihL...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Z81YIgZSAAtqpp-6AihL8f1CBXbcFJIlhVy_WMy9XDU/edit#gid=713809792)

Either build more houses or accept that some people will go without.

~~~
morgante
I agree with that viewpoint (major cities need to stop constricting the
housing supply), but arguably it's also a problem of demand entitlement.

There are places in this country where he could have bought a small house with
the $30k buy-out he got. Living in an expensive city and working in an
artistic profession is a _choice_.

------
MattGrommes
It's nuts how much we value a dollar over literally anything else. A
neighborhood of people who've built up a life in an area? Too bad if some rich
people want to invest in a building, you're out by hook or by crook. We've got
to learn that as more people move to cities there are other important things
to living than squeezing every nickle out.

~~~
avz
It isn't that we value the dollar over anything else. It's that the dollar is
a proxy for whatever we value. That makes it universally desired by all people
with their highly diverse ambitions and goals.

------
x0054
Now, come on, this is just downright idiotic. I have a friend in Chicago who
works 40 hours a week as a lube tech, makes about $28k a year, and is able to
support his mother, own a modest house and 2 cars. Is this guy entitled to
live in NY? Is anyone? What's wrong with Chicago, or Kansas City, or any other
fine city in the US. Does every one HAVE to live in NY or LA or SF?

Also, I really get annoyed with the stereotypical evil landlord depictions.
For instance, here is a story about a couple I personally know in LA. They are
Mexican immigrants. They both worked hard their entire life. About 20 years
ago they purchased a house in central LA. for the last 9 years they have been
renting out a portion of their house to a woman and her daughter for $800/mo.
Most of the time they would get rent late, and some months not at all. Now
they want to retire and sell their house, take out the equity, and move to a
cheeper area.

One problem though, they can't. The woman will not move out, and no one wants
to buy the house with a current tenant. First she demanded a $19,000
relocation fee, which is required by the City of LA. But you have to remember,
this is equivelant to her basically living in this place rent free for 2
years. But that's not all, she also said that she will not move out unless
they can find her a little HOUSE (as in with backyard and all), in Santa
Monica, where she can pay no more than $800/mo! Legally they can not evict
her, and can not sell their house and retire. She is literally holding them
hostage. Is that fair?

The point is, no one is entitled to live in NY, SF, or LA. And once you make
the move, you might realize that their plenty of nice places out there in US.

~~~
mschuster91
> Is this guy entitled to live in NY? Is anyone? What's wrong with Chicago, or
> Kansas City, or any other fine city in the US. Does every one HAVE to live
> in NY or LA or SF?

No one wants to leave his home just because some rich asshole decides he wants
to make a shitload of money. (And no, the option to stay is not an option if
your landlord is one of the mentioned mafia-like ones)

~~~
x0054
You mean to say: No one want's to leave someone else's house, especially if
they get to stay there for way, way, below market rate, just because the
actual owner of that house wants to sell that house or fully utilize their
investment.

The problem with SF, NYC, and LA is that more people want to live there than
is currently possible by the housing market. As a result, supply of available
units is overwhelmed by demand. So, if you are looking to blame some one,
blame all those people who want to move to NY and are willing to pay more then
the next guy for an apartment. If no one was renting these apartments for the
price they are currently renting for, the price would fall. That's the
definition of market price.

Further, with the internet connecting us closer and closer, I can not imagine
where this drive to pack as many people as possible within as small of a place
as possible is coming from. I understand that some will argue that high
density community impacts the ecology less because you don't have to drive as
much. Ok, I'll buy that argument, but can't we have more high and medium
density communities in US instead of packing more and more people into the
same 3-4 places around the country.

