▲ 53 points
back
38 comments
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.
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.
He's spent his entire working life in NYC. All of the contacts he's made throughout his career are there. Furthermore, there are not many places as good as NYC for work, in general, and certainly not in his field--and do you think he has much of a chance of starting over in a new career at his age? Or is getting another chance only limited to failed entrepreneurs who have blown through multiple million-dollar rounds of investment--should everyone else be flipping burgers in a small town somewhere as soon as they fail?
And let's not forget that presumably the majority of his friends are there, and possibly family, considering that he's from NJ originally. He is, like many Americans, between a rock and a hard place--and in fact faring better than a lot of other people if you put them in his position. I'm rather impressed by this guy in fact.
The reality is, we choose the society we want to have, and how we treat the people at the bottom shows us what we have chosen. Whenever talk of the absence of a real social safety net in the U.S. comes up the response is rhetoric about how people's expectations are off and how this kind of social safety net equates to socialism, which is a poison ideology that rots away the motivation to work hard. But when I look at the reality of contemporary America what I see are people at the ends of their ropes, working multiple jobs just to barely stay afloat, being taxed for being poor through fees and fines, and wealth accruing to people who already have the resources to do well. There has to be a better way.
>The reality is, we choose the society we want to have, and how we treat the people at the bottom shows us what we have chosen. Whenever talk of the absence of a real social safety net in the U.S. comes up the response is rhetoric about how people's expectations are off and how this kind of social safety net equates to socialism, which is a poison ideology that rots away the motivation to work hard. But when I look at the reality of contemporary America what I see are people at the ends of their ropes, working multiple jobs just to barely stay afloat, being taxed for being poor through fees and fines, and wealth accruing to people who already have the resources to do well.
Well, if you look at the rhetoric, the ideology that's been propagated among the people, what you find is that it's all about how working hard is the true good in life. No limit is stated past which it becomes overwork, nor are any guidelines stated for actually compensating work -- only for ensuring that there is work. Even today we still hear talk about "job creation", or in other words, making more work happen.
America let the neoliberal genie out of the bottle: if you make a wish for hard work, don't be surprised to find yourself a peon. Neoliberalism is doing exactly what it has always said it does.
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?
I spent some time helping with an English as a Second Language classes here, hanging out with the students, and helping with job searches. (ESL classes here are mostly 30-60 year old, new immigrants, 90% without a green card.)
It's hard to understand at first how cheaply people can actually live. $700 a month for one person is enough for a car, phone, lodging, and food. And emergency rooms are "free" if you are sick. (The car has rust, the phone is prepaid, and the lodging is a spare room in someone's house. But it's way better than the previous life in another country.)
McDonald's and Wal-Mart are both actually extremely desired jobs. Both pay much better than the other unskilled labor options, and unavailable unless you are legal. If you can get 20 hrs a week at McDonald's, that's all it takes for a much better life than you have now. In contrast, the baseline "undocumented" jobs here, outside of lawn care, is doing a 2-3 hours a night cleaning businesses through a middleman for below minimum wage. This will keep someone fed and alive, but no car, no phone.
However, when I was helping, McDonald's job applications had to be done online. Try helping a 68 year old, who can barely speak English, go through a 500 question multiple choice online McDonald's personality quiz....
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.
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?
Just barely afloat. If you get sick, your car breaks down, or any number of other things, you can very easily sink.
Yes, if you're low income there's the earned income tax credit and you get medicaid/chip/snap/ebt and section 8 and a whole bunch of other stuff. It all adds up to a substantial chunk of change.
Unlike in some other countries unemployment insurance (the dole) only covers you for a while before they kick you off.
Right. $30,000 is not a small sum of money in most other places of the world...
Is there really much of the U.S. where $30k is a decent wage? I do live in a city (not NY) and grew up in suburban South Jersey, but I don't know of a place where $30k is enough to live comfortably.
Other countries, sure.
For most of my childhood, my family lived on less than $30k and we lived just fine (I never even knew how little my parents made until I grew up).
Through a combination of cooking at home, living in an area with affordable housing, minimizing entertainment expenses (do you really need $100/m for cable?), and minimizing commuting it's quite manageable.
Affordable housing for families isn't really a thing these days. Even the public housing explicitly marked for the purpose is mostly booked-up by now.
There is plenty of affordable housing in small cities and rural housing.
The trick is to accept that you don't need to live in a top tier city.
Living OK on $2K per month in much of America does not strike me as very hard. It wouldn't be fun, but pulling it off sure wouldn't be complicated.
I lived on 24k for a whole year with no benefits of any sort. It can be done if you only have student loans and you can find a slum close to work. I don't think I could have dated or anything, though. You basically have to avoid socializing.
Sadly, it truly is the poor fighting the poor. I know quite a few of them: barely making $15,000 per year, high school educated, somewhat smart, living in rust-belt cities, having seen their wages decrease for decades, haunted by up-coming middle age, daunted by the prices of higher education. And, they'd like nothing better than seeing other poor people get less.
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.)
This is what puzzled me, too.
One explanation is that the media prefer to write about subjects and people that are divisive and polarizing. This way they maximize discussion, linking and visits.
I this particular case our "victim" is chosen so as to create two opposing emotional reactions. On the one hand, if your aspirations and values are close to his, then you're likely to sympathize with his struggles. On the other, if they're not, you're more likely to consider him rather entitled.
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?
> 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.
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?
> 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.
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.
But where did the $30k go?
It says the movie showed his 52nd birthday.
I see your point but I think the point is that $15000 income is only possible because he's living in the only city where he can possibly make that much. The one marketable skill he has is as a fashion photographer. Not much call for those outside of a few select (very expensive) cities in the country.
If your so-called "marketable skill" only yields a salary equivalent to minimum wage, you're probably better off looking for unskilled positions or trying to acquire a new skill.
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.
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...
Either build more houses or accept that some people will go without.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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)
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.