Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14414
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: California Defies Doom With No. 1 U.S. Economy

Tue Jun 15, 2021 4:01 pm

In Paris we have homeless people despite a safety net. Not as many as I saw in San Francisco, but still. What I noticed in SF is that many people were walking while being clearly stoned. I'm not even sure they were all homeless. Here in France they're more commonly drunk.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 543
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: California Defies Doom With No. 1 U.S. Economy

Tue Jun 15, 2021 6:52 pm

SoCalPilot wrote:
Of course there are homeless, but my wife and I wouldn't be about to be homeless for the same amount per month that we're paying in California. There's a huge difference between $2000 per month for a 1 bdr vs $800 a month in the states you listed.

And as I've stated before, have you actually gone through the process of getting "socialized" help in California? It takes forever to get approved, and that's after you pass their insane application process.

I've lived in a lot of states, and I've been rich by no means, and I'd much rather be in a state with lower cost of living such as Alabama or South Carolina than a state that supposedly has my back like California


I'll make a few points:

-- I use to volunteer a lot. It's shockingly easy to get "socialized help" -- obviously you've never applied for such. The state very liberally hands out EBT food & cash, no-cost health insurance, Section 8 housing vouchers, expanded meals for children, etc. It's these benefits that make SoCal the #1 destination of choice for both legal & illegal immigrants from undeveloped countries, in spite of the high cost of living. Many live in large groups within small spaces (e.g. a dozen people in a small, one-bedroom apartment), given the living accommodations are often more generous and far superior to where they came from. What shocked me most... was the number of immigrants who spoke little or no English but knew about the benefits and how to game the system -> e.g. the government will pay up to 40 hrs. per week (at minimum wage) to "assist" a needy relative. And of course, they knew that they could claim exempt and not pay state of Federal taxes (just payroll). But yes. it's much more difficult to score a subsidized apartments -- waiting lists are long, lotteries are often rigged, etc.

-- People rarely wind up homeless because they can't pay their rent - and typically, that's just temporary; there's plenty of assistance available. Nearly everyone living on the streets has a substance abuse problem and/or mental illness (hence why communities such as Venice are experiencing an explosive growth in drug paraphernalia). Very few of these people are from California -- most of them moved here for the same reasons everyone else did (weather, beaches, etc.). Kudos to the state for trying to help these people, but the reality is few of them truly want to be helped. There is (was?) an organization that tried to connect homeless people with friends/family, and offered a Greyhound ticket + cash incentive to go home to that family/friend. There have been few takers -- the homeless WANT to live here.

-- California suffers from a supply and demand issue -- more people want to live here than there is housing. Housing prices swelled to the highest in the nation during the 70s and 80s. The Republican Party's decision to close military bases, move defense contracts, etc. away from SoCal in the early 1990s lead to an economic collapse in the region, causing housing prices to free fall. SoCal later rebuilt its economy among highly compensated/educated service employees, which lead to an economic rebound. Since then, people seeking high compensation packages as well as the already rich (plenty of wealthy people from China and the Middle East, etc.) have moved here in doves.

-- People are willing to pay a premium to live here. Even with the soaring housing prices, throughout most of the Midwest you can get a mortgage on a nice home for several hundred dollars less than one a one-bedroom rents for. And that payment isn't going to go up next year... If you realize you can't afford to live here, it's best you move -- most of the people that moved away from CA didn't want to move, but did so because they could no longer afford to live here (or they were cashing in on the equity within their home). I will never feel sorry for somebody making $15/hr. who's whining about his $2,500 monthly rent payment....
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14438
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: California Defies Doom With No. 1 U.S. Economy

Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:07 pm

The Blue States are coming out of the pandemic strong, New Jersey is ending the fiscal year with a $10 Billion dollar surplus!

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/politics/booming-tax-collections-new-jersey-surplus/2843941/
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
luckyone
Posts: 3968
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: California Defies Doom With No. 1 U.S. Economy

Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:19 pm

WidebodyPTV wrote:
-- People rarely wind up homeless because they can't pay their rent - and typically, that's just temporary; there's plenty of assistance available. Nearly everyone living on the streets has a substance abuse problem and/or mental illness (hence why communities such as Venice are experiencing an explosive growth in drug paraphernalia). Very few of these people are from California -- most of them moved here for the same reasons everyone else did (weather, beaches, etc.). Kudos to the state for trying to help these people, but the reality is few of them truly want to be helped. There is (was?) an organization that tried to connect homeless people with friends/family, and offered a Greyhound ticket + cash incentive to go home to that family/friend. There have been few takers -- the homeless WANT to live here.

I'll agree with that to a point. A great many people with a substance use problem will decline whatever help is offered because whether they want to stop or not, they don't. I will completely agree that very few people end up on the street because they *just* run out of money, there's a reason. If your average person lost their job and ran through their savings there's almost always a social support where they can crash. Whether this is optimal or not this person is sheltered. Substance users burn their social bridges, so it's sometimes very hard to feel any sympathy for them. Further, I think there needs to come a point where either you want help, or don't, and it's not compassionate to let people abuse themselves on public property to either the person or the taxpayer. There comes a point when you're not contributing to society that society gets to have some say in not allowing you to destroy public property.

Personally, my opinion is there should be a place where unsheltered substance users should be allowed to live, attached to treatment resources that will be available when they want them. Let the person use to their heart's content, heck I'll even support supplying pharmaceutical grade substances to reduce the possibly of overdoses, the spread of disease, and the low level property and sex worker crime that accompanies addition. Death by indulgence is death by indulgence whether it's heroin use or a lifetime of poor eating habits resulting in serious cardiovascular disease that kills somebody twenty years prematurely--both the addict and the obese diabetic coming in on his third heart attack are a major drain on healthcare resources. But that's where you're going to live and if you're found elsewhere you'll be returned there. Don't want to live there? Cool, don't use and prove you have a place to live. And sorry, you can't leave until you've detoxed. Call me a despot but the way we're doing it now clearly isn't working.

As for mental illness, this is a serious problem that we as a society are failing. The stark reality is that there is a subset of the population that just does not have the ability to care for themselves. We have a pretty robust framework for inpatient voluntary care (though we don't have enough facilities) but we have a very inconsistent framework for ensuring that patients get to treatment, and unfortunately mandated outpatient treatment needs to be a reality, because it WILL keep people off the streets. A major problem is a patient will go off of their medications, wander away from whatever resources they have, and lose their resources and end up sleeping under a bridge. Sorry, but we're not going to let you unwittingly treat yourself like this.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4887
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: California Defies Doom With No. 1 U.S. Economy

Tue Jun 15, 2021 11:32 pm

luckyone - your assessment has pretty much brought you to the same place as mine has. People should have a place to exist (if that is what they are choosing to do), and provide porta-potties, a garbage bin, and ensure the homeless are safe from other predator homeless.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 15038
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: California Defies Doom With No. 1 U.S. Economy

Wed Jun 16, 2021 12:07 am

luckyone wrote:
WidebodyPTV wrote:
-- People rarely wind up homeless because they can't pay their rent - and typically, that's just temporary; there's plenty of assistance available. Nearly everyone living on the streets has a substance abuse problem and/or mental illness (hence why communities such as Venice are experiencing an explosive growth in drug paraphernalia). Very few of these people are from California -- most of them moved here for the same reasons everyone else did (weather, beaches, etc.). Kudos to the state for trying to help these people, but the reality is few of them truly want to be helped. There is (was?) an organization that tried to connect homeless people with friends/family, and offered a Greyhound ticket + cash incentive to go home to that family/friend. There have been few takers -- the homeless WANT to live here.

I'll agree with that to a point. A great many people with a substance use problem will decline whatever help is offered because whether they want to stop or not, they don't. I will completely agree that very few people end up on the street because they *just* run out of money, there's a reason. If your average person lost their job and ran through their savings there's almost always a social support where they can crash. Whether this is optimal or not this person is sheltered. Substance users burn their social bridges, so it's sometimes very hard to feel any sympathy for them. Further, I think there needs to come a point where either you want help, or don't, and it's not compassionate to let people abuse themselves on public property to either the person or the taxpayer. There comes a point when you're not contributing to society that society gets to have some say in not allowing you to destroy public property.

Personally, my opinion is there should be a place where unsheltered substance users should be allowed to live, attached to treatment resources that will be available when they want them. Let the person use to their heart's content, heck I'll even support supplying pharmaceutical grade substances to reduce the possibly of overdoses, the spread of disease, and the low level property and sex worker crime that accompanies addition. Death by indulgence is death by indulgence whether it's heroin use or a lifetime of poor eating habits resulting in serious cardiovascular disease that kills somebody twenty years prematurely--both the addict and the obese diabetic coming in on his third heart attack are a major drain on healthcare resources. But that's where you're going to live and if you're found elsewhere you'll be returned there. Don't want to live there? Cool, don't use and prove you have a place to live. And sorry, you can't leave until you've detoxed. Call me a despot but the way we're doing it now clearly isn't working.

As for mental illness, this is a serious problem that we as a society are failing. The stark reality is that there is a subset of the population that just does not have the ability to care for themselves. We have a pretty robust framework for inpatient voluntary care (though we don't have enough facilities) but we have a very inconsistent framework for ensuring that patients get to treatment, and unfortunately mandated outpatient treatment needs to be a reality, because it WILL keep people off the streets. A major problem is a patient will go off of their medications, wander away from whatever resources they have, and lose their resources and end up sleeping under a bridge. Sorry, but we're not going to let you unwittingly treat yourself like this.


The 2nd paragraph in particular aligns with what I back as a possible solution. The right in our state goes too far in decrying any homeless assistance and the left goes too far advocating for homeless rights to live as they please. The happy medium is having a designated public space, as you suggest. Anyone found elsewhere is out of bounds. Some cities may need three or four such spaces, and that may engender some useful competition among their homeless populations.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23736
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: California Defies Doom With No. 1 U.S. Economy

Wed Jun 16, 2021 1:46 am

luckyone wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Technically, being homeless in Montgomery is *far worse* than in LA. Montgomery has 106 rainy days per year on average, and LA has just 34. The average low in Dec/January in Montgomery is 36-38 degrees, and in LA it's 48-49.


If weather were the only factor, yes, it is easier to be homeless in Southern California.

There have been homeless for I don't know how long. Only recently in history have I noticed people complaining about them. We have a homeless group here on the south Oregon coast. It is also heavily MAGA evangelicals living and working here. The solution, from what I understand, is "they need to go back to California or Portland". So, push the problem on to someone else. Here is the kicker: these MAGAs then complain about how scary and horrible places like California and Portland are because they are not doing anything about the homeless!

Combine limited land, wealthy NIMBYs, libertarian-minded mental health codes, cheap street drugs, a climate that makes it easy for substance users to accept sleeping outside, and chronically underfund mental health and this is what you get.


Land and NIMBYs are not really an issue. Portland is looking into building a baseball stadium for a possible expansion MLB team. There is a jail that is closed the county is funding near a major bus line. There are warehouses in cities that are empty. Eugene has a tiny home neighborhood in an industrial area to help homeless people get back into society. I have not bought drugs in a very very long time but, as I remember, they were never cheap.

It is people making excuses. Anything from "they want something for nothing" to "we don't have the money for them" to "let the private sector take care of them" to any number of excuses.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 15038
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: California Defies Doom With No. 1 U.S. Economy

Wed Jun 16, 2021 1:53 am

seb146 wrote:
luckyone wrote:
seb146 wrote:

If weather were the only factor, yes, it is easier to be homeless in Southern California.

There have been homeless for I don't know how long. Only recently in history have I noticed people complaining about them. We have a homeless group here on the south Oregon coast. It is also heavily MAGA evangelicals living and working here. The solution, from what I understand, is "they need to go back to California or Portland". So, push the problem on to someone else. Here is the kicker: these MAGAs then complain about how scary and horrible places like California and Portland are because they are not doing anything about the homeless!

Combine limited land, wealthy NIMBYs, libertarian-minded mental health codes, cheap street drugs, a climate that makes it easy for substance users to accept sleeping outside, and chronically underfund mental health and this is what you get.


Land and NIMBYs are not really an issue. Portland is looking into building a baseball stadium for a possible expansion MLB team. There is a jail that is closed the county is funding near a major bus line. There are warehouses in cities that are empty. Eugene has a tiny home neighborhood in an industrial area to help homeless people get back into society. I have not bought drugs in a very very long time but, as I remember, they were never cheap.

It is people making excuses. Anything from "they want something for nothing" to "we don't have the money for them" to "let the private sector take care of them" to any number of excuses.


In the Bay Area NIMBYism is definitely an issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab1_LrG9dvc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exeBTWyMqNQ

Wealthy people don't like having to 'see' or encounter homeless on their commute:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bf1LSIpKSM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul8Lfroen8A

People in tourist areas complain about encountering homeless in public spaces like the beach:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZSR3ADKnwI

Public streets and lands become controversial as homeless sites even when they aren't used for anything:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXtRlVZAcNI

All I did was search 'homeless' on the CBS Bay Area YT and got every topic above and then some.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
luckyone
Posts: 3968
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: California Defies Doom With No. 1 U.S. Economy

Wed Jun 16, 2021 4:02 am

seb146 wrote:
luckyone wrote:
seb146 wrote:

If weather were the only factor, yes, it is easier to be homeless in Southern California.

There have been homeless for I don't know how long. Only recently in history have I noticed people complaining about them. We have a homeless group here on the south Oregon coast. It is also heavily MAGA evangelicals living and working here. The solution, from what I understand, is "they need to go back to California or Portland". So, push the problem on to someone else. Here is the kicker: these MAGAs then complain about how scary and horrible places like California and Portland are because they are not doing anything about the homeless!

Combine limited land, wealthy NIMBYs, libertarian-minded mental health codes, cheap street drugs, a climate that makes it easy for substance users to accept sleeping outside, and chronically underfund mental health and this is what you get.


Land and NIMBYs are not really an issue. Portland is looking into building a baseball stadium for a possible expansion MLB team. There is a jail that is closed the county is funding near a major bus line. There are warehouses in cities that are empty. Eugene has a tiny home neighborhood in an industrial area to help homeless people get back into society. I have not bought drugs in a very very long time but, as I remember, they were never cheap.

It is people making excuses. Anything from "they want something for nothing" to "we don't have the money for them" to "let the private sector take care of them" to any number of excuses.

While I would hardly recommend going to a drug market, I can tell you that things change. A decent hit of meth can be had for about $5 on the street in Seattle. A meth high can last 8-12 hours. Doing the math that’s a relatively cheap high. I’ve had more than a few Meth heads tell me they moved to Seattle for the cheap meth. Officially most of it comes from Mexico up I-5 but there’s a lot of discussion about the possibility that it’s also flowing through Seattle and Tacoma ports coming illicitly through North Korea by way of China. At the peak of lockdown last summer, the market was flooded with meth. Dealers were giving away extra doses because while the hardcore regular users were still coming around, the recreational users weren’t buying as much.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: art, jetwet1 and 20 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos