Yeah, the same way e.g. some people "choose to starve" because they value their notion of dignity more than e.g. getting paid for sexual services, even if they have the looks and they could always resort to that.
People thinking it's just some kind of "choice" really don't understand the problem.
First, let's ignore the (important) fact that the supposed "road to riches" by skipping town/state etc is statistically nothing to write home about even for those that do make the choice. Millions of immigrants that didn't do anything for themselves can attest to that, and the same goes for the rural poor going into the city.
The real problem is the disproportionate amount of such hard choices imposed upon the poor compared to the cushioned people. For some, that's par for the course of being poor, and goes without saying. I'd say that those can't even see the problem.
Cushioned middle/upper middle class/rich people get to value the same things (family, regional ties) just as much or even more, without having to make any sacrifice, just for the sake of (predominantly) being born into such privilege.
They play life in easy mode.
As Anatole France put it, "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread".
(Even worse are the occasional outliers, those who managed to get out of these circumstances -- always a small minority will manage of course -- and attribute it all to their hard work and great choices, and blame the lazy and stupid poor majority for not following on their path).
It's not the poor people's fault that they don't try 2x to 10x harder -- in fact tons work harder than any finger pointing, "hard working" middle/upper class person who criticises them.
Proud of their 60 and 80 hour work weeks programming or doing some office job? Cute, have them try balancing two shitty manual labor low wage gigs, perhaps plus kids and commuting, and also having nothing much to show for it.
Here's how a huge part of the "other half" lives and what they have to put up with, if anyone cares:
>This seems unlikely. Illegal Mexican immigrants have far less, yet don't usually end up homeless.
For a lot of them, that's because they value those things that prevent them from getting rich: family, relatives, etc, so get a support net from that. But even so,
from what I can find:
"Forty percent of the United States homeless populations are under the age of 18, and Hispanics make up 20 percent of the total homeless population".
"African-American and Latino New Yorkers are disproportionately affected by homelessness. Approximately 58 percent of New York City homeless shelter residents are African-American, 31 percent are Latino, 7 percent are white, less than 1 percent are Asian-American, and 3 percent are of unknown race/ethnicity.".
"People of color – particularly African-Americans – are a minority that is particularly overrepresented. According the PBS Homeless Fact and Figures ’07, 41% are non-Hispanic whites (compared to 76% of the general population), 40% are African Americans (compared to 11% of the general population) 11% are Hispanic (compared to 9% of the general population) and 8% percent are Native American (compared to 1% of the general population)."
Again, my claim is that most economic migrants - with far more disadvantages than any American - do not wind up homeless. The fact that 20% of homeless are Hispanic does not mean that 20% of Hispanics are homeless. P(A | B) != P(B |A).
Still missing the very point though.
For the rich person it's NOT a problem, because they can always chose to keep their family ties. If they want to severe them, it's because they don't care for them. And if they want to foster them more, they can.
A poor person, on the other hand, might care very much about their family or community ties, but still have to make the hard choice to severe them, because else they'll starve, can't make ends meet, etc.
It's the difference between a whim and a hard choice. Poor people don't get to have whims. Or rather, they do, but they pay for them disproportionately.
It's like comparing the choice of some privileged SV startup kid to relocate to Thailand and work from the beech, to some Syrian or Mexican immigrant.
Not even the same ballpark.
>Again, my claim is that most economic migrants - with far more disadvantages than any American - do not wind up homeless.
Hispanic immigrants (and other poor immigrants) are used to be sleeping 10 of them in the same small house (or room) -- and thus not be counted as "homeless".
Also (due to their strong family/community culture derided here as inconsequential in the pursuit of wealth) have extended families taking care of new arrivals (cousins, etc). That's a safety net that the white american's don't much have.
At least the poor Mexicans can leave their family/community and have some extended family/community help them for a couple of years where they end up (which is why most end up in the same few states). That has been documented thoroughly, and has been the case with immigrants (and not just hispanics either) back to the late 19th/early 20th century even.
In contrast, the poor white americans leaving their home state to find work elsewhere would face a different situation -- not only leaving the only community they knew, but not getting into any extended support network on the destination either.
Even so, the stats still showed more hispanics between the homeless than the national average of hispanics in the population. And we have to account also for the undocumented, which doesn't show anywhere, either as homeless or not. There are calculated to be around 11 million "illegal immigrants" -- with a large percentage of them non registered in the system yet.