Although I suspect most of these differences are based on how you measure, again this supposed huge poverty in the US vanished in a big puff of smoke when you actually look at it.
Besides, most people that are truly homeless, ie really have no permanent place to keep their stuff for a significant period of their lifes in the US are homeless for the same reasons as the homeless in France or anywhere else in the western world, and that drug abuse, alcoholism och mental disorders. That is not a poverty issue.
It's hard to measure. I have been officially homeless. Once for 14 months I didn't have an official address. I still had somewhere to sleep (although this admittedly was just a bunkbed in the dormitory at the military). That's not real homelessness, but it counts in the statistics. I've also had a shorter period of a month or so where I moved around amongst friends. I just couldn't get a permanent place to Stay in Stockholm, because the housing market there is highly regulated which in practice means that the only way you kind find a place is to rent illegaly in second hand for ridicolous prices. That's homelessness in a more real sense (although it probably didn't count in the statistics since I put my permanent address at my parents by that time), but not a poverty issue in any real sense.
3.5 million people experiencing "homelessness" is 1.5 %, not thousandth.
There are working people, who have a daily job, and are homeless. People who aren't alcoholic or mad. A third of the homeless in France ; a similar share in the US.
And it's not about "not having permanent address". It's about having no place to sleep in, and having to ask to an emergency shelter. The fact that you compare your past situation to homelessness shows you have only a very tenuous grasp with what poverty actually means in the industrialised world. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
And it's not about "not having permanent address". It's about having no place to sleep in, and having to ask to an emergency shelter.
No it's not. It is about not having a permanent adress. That's the definition used, and then number of around 800.000 is what other sources also use. And that is NOT about going to shelters, but not having apermanent address.
The fact that you compare your past situation to homelessness shows you have only a very tenuous grasp with what poverty actually means in the industrialised world.
Realitycheck: It is homelessness in the definitions used to gather the statistics above. I explained this in my post. What was unclear?
Try to use facts rather than groundless affirmations.
Try to not throw stones in glass houses. You just claimed that 1.5% of the population of the US lives in shelters or on the streets. That's ridicolous. It's time to come back to reality.
"Experiencing homelessness" may not be the same as "being homeless", but it is a sure sign of strong poverty, of unreliability of housing access. It is an indicator of absolute poverty.
And 1.5% of Americans experiencing homelessness every year is reality, as frightening as the 2% that sleep in jail every night (another indicator of poverty) Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
At this point all I can do is to repeat what I already have said until it hits home, but my experience is that it's a very frustration experience to do so, and it takes a long time, and most of the time fails, so I'm not gonna waste my time doing that. You'll just have to continue to live with your pre-concieved idea of how the world looks.
1. That freedom of choice was an argument for keeping the current situation in French pensions.
2. That if you allow people freedom of choice in pensions, poverty and starving old people will ensue.
There has been exactly zero evidence to support this. Instead you are digging down the debate into a quagmire by repeatedly asserting statements that have no contact with reality, and using irrelevant statistics in an effort to polish a complete turd of argumentation.
Then claiming that I don't come with evidence is rather absurd.
It is not debate, it's me trying to explain, and you putting your fingers in your ears and loudly repeating random numbers to yourselves to prop up your myths and avoid challenging your basic assumptions. Or foundational myths, as rg calls them. That was a good post, read it:
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2007/10/21/65910/511
I think the foundational myths here are:
Hence, US is evil. Hence, US policy is evil. Hence, the US must be a much worse place to live than most other places.
The rest of the sick and screwed up arguments here, together with the general fear of freedom, can probably be extracted from these basic assumptions.
OK, first: "Truly" homeless? Are you really arguing that a person is not "truly" homeless if he or she only lacks a home for, say, two months? Two weeks? Two years? What kind of "significant period" meets this mysterious defintion of "truly"? Just out of curiosity.
But defining only the chronically homeless are "truly" homeless is a handy way to pretend that poverty and homelessness aren't real societal problems that need to be addressed.
Second, your definition of "most" needs some work. According to the National Health Care for the Homeless Council:
Approximately one-third have mental illnesses. Perhaps one-half have a current or past drug or alcohol addiction.
That is not my definition of "most." It is, of course, more convenient to believe that the only thing that could possibly lead to "true" homelessness and "true" poverty in our enlightened societies is mental illness, but that's just fantasy.
There are many factors that lead to homelessness, including domestic violence and illness - and for the record, I'm talking about illness of the physical kind, since it seems that some people believe that those who suffer from illness of the mental kind are for some reason less deserving of sympathy or support. Which is not a belief I share, but let's move on.
Next, mental illness and drug addiction are issues of poverty, in that the poor and homeless have far fewer resources for dealing with those problems than the rich and homed. Diseases of the physical and mental kind affect the poor and homeless in roughly the same proportions as the general population. But the poor have fewer (or zero) treatment options, and are likely to encounter much greater difficulty getting help. As a consequence, they may not recover from illnesses (mental and otherwise) that a person with more resources might recover from easily.
What's the result of all this? Let's just talk about my hometown, the so-called "Capital of the Free World." In Washington, D.C., according to the Washington Legal Aid Center for the Homeless, nearly half of all homeless people are women and children. One of the largest homeless shelters in D.C. is run by the CCNV:
Over 65% of the shelter guests work full- or part -time on a regular basis.
That's right, they're working full- or part-time, and are still homeless. They're living in a homeless shelter, not a military barracks. This is genuine poverty and true homelessness. It's real, and denying that won't make it so.
I'm scratching my head at how someone could conclude that poverty and homelessness don't really exist in our societies just because he or she hasn't experienced it first-hand.
Well, that would be puzzling. Now who are you referring to exactly?
This debate is now edging into to the world of underhand accusations and straw men. I'm not gonna go there. I will not defend positions I have never had and I will not stand for being accused of opinions that have nothing to do with what I said.
Thank you for debating seriously.
That is not my definition of "most".
First of all those numbers relate to not having a permanent home, not the people living on the streets or in shelters. Second of all one third + one half = five sixths, and 5/6th is indeed "most".
Now who are you referring to exactly?
You were the one who brought up your experience, as if it had some relevance to your argument.
Second of all one third + one half = five sixths, and 5/6th is indeed "most".
Only an idiot or an ideologue would argue that the one-third and the one-half could not possibly overlap and must therefore total five-sixths. Have you heard of a Venn diagram? Or are you just being intellectually dishonest?
I will accept no barbs from you about debating seriously, thank you. Study some basic math, then come back and chat.
The third and the half does not exactly overlap, which is rather obvious. Thus it must in total be more than one half, and hence, it is "most".
You are not debating seriously, you are rude, and asking me to study mathematics is seriously stupid.
I'm sorry that what I'm going to say now is gonna sound as rude as what you said. But the difference is that it's true.
I was invited here by a friend to discuss politics. Unfortunately, this place is full of people with preconceived idea who gets angry when reality comes knocking on the door. It's rather pointless to continue debating with those people since it prevents all serious debate, since the only thing that is accepted is sucking up and agreeing to your fantasies of how you want the world to behave, even when that is not how things are.
You want the poverty in the US to be horrid. No, you need it. The US must be a horrible place for poor, because the US politics must be evil, because the US is the most powerful country in the world, so if they aren't evil, everything would be fine, right?
Sorry, you have no idea of how things work, you don't understand a pluralistic society and as a consequence you are afraid of freedom, and instead grab comfort in collectivistic myths.
I wish I understood how to make people like you understand. But I guess I never will.
Just so you know, you are responding to an American person, and probably close to half of the regular readers of this site are Americans.
Unpatriotic ones, presumably. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Unpatroticism is good.
Let's just talk about my hometown
She is taking about stuff she saw with her own eyes, it's you who clings to myths six thousand miles away. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
