quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Why?
It doesnt seem that you are capable of understanding what I say.
I called you a "fuckwit", and then said in a second post "You Are".

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

I appreciate your finding that...at the very least, one can see the difficulty not only in defining and in agreeing on the term, but even after that, the counting and estimating.

unfortunately, for me, what it means is taking any numbers about homelessness, especially "staggering ones", with a higher than usual amount of skepticism.

what is the population of the US? about 325 million by now? the numbers can seem staggering cuz there are so many people living in this country.. so the homeless numbers are gonna seem staggering..

in Houston, I have seen homeless people sleeping in the middle of the sidewalk downtown, sleeping on the transit train, lined up all the way around the block in the middle of the day at a homeless shelter, see them with cardboard signs on street corners, see them at the library, etc.... but if you dont see them you wouldnt know there were any homeless people at all.. the ones that have jobs dont want their boss or co-workers to know they are homeless so are careful to not look like they are...

that's to my point a bit---the latter people you describe are what I would call "homeless." definitions that fall short of that start to stretch the depth and despair of the word.

the numbers seem "staggering" because im having a difficult time believing in their veracity--at least in reference to a more meaningful definition of "homeless." and again---even then to an extent.

yes I know this is a large city phenomena but, I live in a rural area where the population of the immediately nearby city and accompanying towns and villages is probably ~40 thousand people. there is no one living on the street, or under bridges or in cars or so far as I can tell, in the woods. there are two shelters, one for women and one for men, and they are relatively small---they are houses where the people in need get bedrooms as opposed to large open floors with cots and only a small handful of people, and less with children, are in them at any given time.

for some people who are motivated/inclined to care about children in general, or the problem of homelessness as it involves children in particular, or maybe even the casual listener, I suspect its its far too easy to believe in the large numbers and not give them the scrutiny and incredulity they might deserve.

it might come down to for me---I wouldn't consider a parent and child who are in transition and who make use of a shelter, friends or especially family temporarily (my premise being most people with kids would still have parents or siblings where a "home" is available), as "homeless" as compared to others who are that on a more permanent basis.

I suspect it (defining the breadth of the problem) starts to really become an issue when government starts to get involved, bureaucracies are created and public monies are allocated to deal with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Why?
It doesnt seem that you are capable of understanding what I say.
I called you a "fuckwit", and then said in a second post "You Are".

I understand your term "fuckwit" as well as you or anyone else.

There is on the other hand not any thinking person who would consider that as explanation for anything.

Fine, sleaze your way out of it, then.

I explained myself and you didn't.

I can assure you I have a good bit more direct experience with the homeless than most people, and I understand from them what is considered acceptable behaviour and not.

But it doesn't even take that to recognize child abuse when I see it, and apparently child services felt the same way in this instance, seeing as they removed the children from that situation, so they are, by your reckoning, "fuckwits" too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Why?
It doesnt seem that you are capable of understanding what I say.
I called you a "fuckwit", and then said in a second post "You Are".

I understand your term "fuckwit" as well as you or anyone else.

There is on the other hand not any thinking person who would consider that as explanation for anything.

Fine, sleaze your way out of it, then.

I explained myself and you didn't.

I can assure you I have a good bit more direct experience with the homeless than most people, and I understand from them what is considered acceptable behaviour and not.

But it doesn't even take that to recognize child abuse when I see it, and apparently child services felt the same way in this instance, seeing as they removed the children from that situation, so they are, by your reckoning, "fuckwits" too.

oh dear, oh dear oh dear.
just keeep digging, would you like to order a backhoe?
There are plenty of times that CPS behave like fuckwits....but they are still needed, they often get it right.
If you want a "pissing match in "homelessness" experience, my past posts speak for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
Yes, you have a different definition of who is homeless and who is not, but if someone is homeless (by govt definition) and they dont have a home address (how can you when you dont know where you will be sleeping/staying tomorrow?) then they are shut out for some/many govt services and sources of help... its a catch 22, you need an address to get help (so you can eventually stand on your own 2 feet) but you need help to get the address (more permanent housing).

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
i agree automation is going to be an increasing concern as time goes by. I have two thoughts that flow from that. one is, one of the things that drives the "need" for automation is people demanding to get paid more than what their jobs are worth. in other words, the 12-15 dollar an hour minimum wage position.

another is, I suspect, and this is already going on to an extent in response to challenging economic times, extended families living together for longer.