I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive. Yes, it is a crime that this happened to him, but there are enough media outlets carrying the "Poverty fucking sucks" message. Unfortunately that message is TBU (True But Useless - http://www.fastcompany.com/1514493/switch-dont-solve-problem...).
The thing that always strikes me about homelessness is not its remoteness, but rather how it seems that any one of us are only a few unfortunate events and wrong moves away being in the gutter, and how most people feel that it could never happen to them. I find David's account brutally honest, enjoyable and yes, uplifting because it shows that there is a real (albeit long and painful) route out of the damning poverty of homelessness, not because of any particularly joyful spin that he puts on his story.
Is he making it uplifting because he's desperate and he wants people to help him? I don't think that's the overriding reason, but maybe, who knows? At any rate, if he's managed to pull himself so far out of the lows that he's able to adopt that strategy rather than just accept a life of homelessness that just happens to him then fair play - he deserves every success he can find.
This is a great story. But...someone who has the intelligence and work ethic to do this probably wasn't going to be homeless for long.
Honestly, there are probably millions of people who pull themselves together like this - it's just they end up working regular jobs like maintenance work or burger flipping that aren't as inspirational.
The problem with stories like this is they conflate two problems:
(1) being down on your luck (but hard-working and reasonably intelligent)
(2) being stuck in a poverty loop due to mental illness, criminal record, or countless other complex factors.
Problem (1) is something a lot of HN readers can relate to, especially in their early twenties. Hence, the popularity of this article.
Problem (2) however is the much bigger problem. Unfortunately, what this guy did is only marginally useful in coming up with solutions to that problem.
There is a huge amount of stigma around homelessness and poverty. "Those people are irresponsible and they deserve everything that happens". His story just reminds us that what happened to him can happen to most people.
I had the same feeling. I think it's because, as a reader, I am unconvinced that the guy is deserving of more money. He might be, or he might be one of the many homeless that have basically chosen to be homeless. My default is to suspect the latter, so his statement comes across to me as better enabling this guy to milk money out of people. Mind you, he might truly be in need, but the article does not demonstrate that. It merely assumes that giving money to the homeless is good, which I disagree with.
Note: Helping those who wish to not be homeless I support; but I don't think that simply giving them money will achieve that.
In this particular case, having read the article, it didn't seem as if the man in question really minded the lifestyle of homelessness.
There is a perception that to be without a static home is a terrible, terrible thing, but really, I can imagine for someone who appears to have his life together in many other ways (and free from other issues that plight the homeless community such as addictions) - then it could possibly be quite a liberating lifestyle.
I can of course see the other side of the equation where it would also be a prison - having to lie about his home for embarrassment etc. But in this very specific example, he seems to have got on with it and made the most of the situation
I feel like he did more harm than good. Panhandling, unless extraordinarily effective and coupled with a lack of substance abuse problems (all too common with the homeless) will not pull this man out of poverty for good, or even in the medium-term.
Giving this man more money, but without coupling that with professional assistance, may do him a lot more harm than good.
There's a reason why real academic studies have to pass through an ethics review, and I take issue with how cavalier this guy is about his study.
If the author of the blog has experience working with the homeless, then ignore all I've said above. But otherwise, he's operating way outside his field of expertise involving people and situations he doesn't understand, and complexities he does not seem to be aware of. This is dangerous.
I actually agree with the view you express here. While I find the story to be positive - after all, it is apparent that someone did something nice for someone else and improved their life a great deal - I think you are right to say that it is a disservice to the gravity of homelessness in the United States. It is such a complex problem, as you said, rooted in extremely serious issues like mental health, wealth inequality, and lack of proper healthcare. While I love to talk about how code literacy is the solution to many problems, it really has almost zero salience to the topic of homelessness. Ultimately, what helped this guy was the kindness of a complete stranger. Not the education. Not the computer.
Well, the homeless guy probably isn't a trained UX guy, for one, so you're not getting the same value. And you're probably enabling the substance abuse problem of a person in real trouble, so I mean there's an added moral weight here.
Yes, it is different. I think the author's intent is good (explaining that homelessness can happen to real people and trying to impart some of the psychological cost of being homeless). However the author clearly has more resources at his disposal than a "real" homeless person. For instance, it is unlikely that there was a danger that he would remain homeless. [Maybe I shouldn't be so quick to say that. Once you fall down hard enough it can be hard to get back up.]
That could have been played up more. Every year millions of Americans become homeless, many of them relatively short-term. Often they are not who we would necessarily think of as homeless people (children, people with jobs, etc). It has a high cost on our society yet is largely hidden from view.
Personally I'd call anyone who is homeless "for fun" a ruiner. In addition to overstressing the systems in place to support "legitimately homeless" people, they provide a convenient strawman for those who wish to argue that homeless people aren't deserving of help. The same goes for our welfare system.
> For what it's worth, my source knowledge here is totally personal and anecdotal.
Mine too. Same goes for the author of the article, I suspect. Everyone should take it with a grain of salt.
I kinda can't blame him, because it's common for people to paint a picture of homelessness as something that can easily happen to appealing, relatable people who are highly functional by middle class standards. I hate it, because it reminds me of how conditional empathy is. Empathy is a skill, and like any other skill, it's developed through practice, and we mostly practice on people just like us. So people advocating for support for the homeless have to make them sound like they'd fit right in with the people who have the money and power to help them.
I'm not nearly so charitable. In my view, inflicting humiliation on the homeless in the name of helping them is depraved.
We do not live in a just world. Pretending that success and failure are attributable to merit alone is the the self-serving moral vanity of the fortunate.
So what if the homeless "fail at life"? There but for the grace of dog go you.
I think the author's definition of homeless is a little bit facetious and it sounds like a humble brag. It's very different to be homeless because you ran your technology startup into the ground and another to be seriously challenged by your socioeconomic standing leading you from affordable housing, to a shelter, to the street, ad infinitum.
Quite the narrow-minded scope that those thoughts come from -- not the apology, though if it was genuine he must of had someone he cares about shame him about it. People are homeless because of the systems that we have allowed to exist and perpetuate in our societies - and he's part of that system, whether he understands and realizes that or not. If he has a tech salary job then he's also part of the reason gentrification is happening in their city - perhaps why some of these people are homeless or selling drugs - because they can no longer afford to compete with the rent prices?
mainly i feel sorry for this guy because of how out of touch he is. he packs more to be homeless than i pack to go camping and basically tries to emulate whatever he finds to be a stereotypical homeless person. maybe he never worked in food service and thus didn't know american dumpsters are goldmines of safe, edible food?
more than anything, this seems like a feeble attempt at a rich person to do something they consider "crazy" so they can have a cool story to tell their friends over caviar. "oh wow, look how dirty i was! ha ha!" this guy needs to get over himself.
there's lots of reasons why people become homeless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness#Contributing_cause...) and most well-off people simply don't think about the kind of problems people have to deal with just to survive. homelessness is a multi-faceted and complex issue which encompasses millions of people in different situations. there is no way to "see how they live", unless maybe you got some head trauma, a broken leg, asthma and were dumped somewhere you didn't know with no support system and no job skills (compounded perhaps by a self-medicating drug or alcohol habit).
do you want to help the homeless? tell your congressmen to pass laws that help them with their real life problems they need to overcome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness#Problems_faced_by_...) before they can try to sustain themselves with a job and housing. donate to organizations which provide food and shelter to many instead of handing out money to individuals. give old clothes and supplies (like the backpack & sleeping bag he tossed) to goodwill or a local shelter. mainly the way people can help the homeless is by putting forth resources to help people learn how to elevate themselves above simply surviving, which most people eventually settle for compared to what seems like the immense difficulty of getting a stable job.
His situation sucks, I'm not denying that. But why would his likelihood of homelessness be any greater than anyone else working minimum wage? Can he not do what everyone else with a shitty job does and get a shitty apartment with a bunch of roommates for a few hundred a month? Can he not get food stamps like everyone else with minimal income?
I'm not trying to criticize his current feeling of hopelessness. I'm just saying that his situation isn't, in fact, hopeless and that the only way it's ever going to get any better is if he realizes that it isn't hopeless and starts working his ass off to make it better.
And I'm not criticizing him for not having already come to that realization either. It's hard. It takes times. It probably takes help from others who have been there. But it is the only way forward.
It's wrong to be unsympathetic to his plight, but I think it's just as wrong to withhold the truth that many other people have faced the same situation and gotten through it by persistently working their asses off until things got better. He can do this. Anyone reading this in a similar situation, you can do this. It will suck. There's no point in being coy about that. But if you do what it takes to keep working, and work and save smartly, you can get through it. Don't give up hope.
I have spent 4.5 years homeless. Prior to that, I was an award winning student, and then a respected military wife and homeschooling mom. (Edit: Oh, yeah, I also worked for a Fortune 500 company for over 5 years.)
Being homeless has given me loads of firsthand experience with how cavalier people are about completely disregarding the human dignity and agency of individuals they view as charity cases. So, I felt compelled to speak up and say "Please, don't view this as necessarily a great idea. There is more at stake here than money. Please, don't sell this man out because of his current financially desperate straits. That can make it impossible for him to get the life he desires and it can be done to him without his permission."
And the degree to which people here are shouting me down suggests to me that, no, most folks here wouldn't ask. They think it's a great idea. I am a lone voice on the side of respecting his dignity, personal choice and right to privacy first and foremost. And I find it baffling that people can claim well "Obviously, we wouldn't do any such thing" while doing exactly that thing. I have always found that baffling. But here it is again.
>> If you're a millionaire, it's just luck and people around you; if you're homeless, it's the opposite.
I don't know what "the hivemind" says, but being homeless is, indeed, "just luck"; in particular, misfortune- the kind that can befall anyone. If I understand correctly, in the US for instance, having a serious accident or falling seriously ill can lead to bankruptcy and homelessness, through no obvious fault of one's own (except perhaps people should not partake into dangerous activities like sports for recreation).
The thing that always strikes me about homelessness is not its remoteness, but rather how it seems that any one of us are only a few unfortunate events and wrong moves away being in the gutter, and how most people feel that it could never happen to them. I find David's account brutally honest, enjoyable and yes, uplifting because it shows that there is a real (albeit long and painful) route out of the damning poverty of homelessness, not because of any particularly joyful spin that he puts on his story.
Is he making it uplifting because he's desperate and he wants people to help him? I don't think that's the overriding reason, but maybe, who knows? At any rate, if he's managed to pull himself so far out of the lows that he's able to adopt that strategy rather than just accept a life of homelessness that just happens to him then fair play - he deserves every success he can find.
reply