While the overall economy is strong, there has been an increase in the number of homeless Americans. One of the growing segments consists of people who live in their cars and many of them work. They are generally homeless not by choice, but because they cannot afford housing near enough to where they work.
Since people in such straits generally lack political power and are often regarded as presenting a threat or creating an eyesore, it is not surprising that many municipalities tried to “solve” this problem by passing laws aimed at cracking down on people living in their cars. As would be expected, these laws were not effective in solving the problem. Churches, charity groups and some communities have attempted to address the problem in a more positive way by establishing safe parking areas for the homeless. In some cases, there is access to showers and bathrooms. This situation raises various moral concerns about what, if anything, should be done to help the homeless. This is, obviously enough, yet another specific version of the broader moral question of what we owe other people.
One approach, as noted above, is to try to solve the problem by passing laws banning people from sleeping in their vehicles in public areas. This gives people the choice between running afoul of law enforcement or leaving the area. If these laws are widespread, then leaving becomes problematic—there would be few places to go. Also, the working homeless are often tied to their jobs and moving would thus problematic. If they stay, they can end up losing their car to fines and impounding—which will leave them without shelter or transportation. This solution is also morally problematic since it punishes people for being poor and unable to find affordable housing.
It could be objected that these people could easily drive somewhere, find a new job and get affordable housing. However, if it were so easy for them to do this, then surely most of them would have done so already.
Another approach, as mentioned above, is for charity, churches and communities to create safe parking lots for the homeless. While this is certainly preferable to turning the coercive power of the state against the poor and powerless, it does have some problems. One concern is the cost of the lots—they are typically located in pricey areas and hence the resources used to pay for lots there could pay for actual housing elsewhere. Another concern is that the lots used by the homeless are thus not usable by other people, thus reducing available parking. Perhaps the greatest concern is that while the homeless need not fear the police and have some safety, they are still living in their cars in a parking lot—a situation that is certainly stressful, unpleasant and difficult. The fact that they do not have a permanent residence also creates other problems, such as the matter of where the children can attend school. As such, while such safe lots are a step up from parking illegally or “in the wild”, they are hardly ideal and do not address the underlying problems.
Obviously enough, the main reason that the working homeless live in their cars is that they cannot afford housing. This can be seen as their pay being too low to pay for housing or the housing being too expensive for them to afford. As such, the underlying problem is financial in nature. This does allow for two obvious solutions.
The first is to increase wages so that the working homeless can afford at least basic, safe housing. The obvious problem is determining how this should be done. While some employers do provide sufficient wages, it would be a bit foolish to think that they will (or even can) step up to provide a living wage. Another option is to use the coercive power of the state—this time not against the homeless, but to compel employers to pay more. This raises the usual objections about the state interfering with the “free” market.
The second solution is to provide more affordable housing. As with better pay, this could be done by the private sector (landlords voluntarily making less money) or by the state (compelling more affordable housing). As always, this raises the usual objections about the state interfering with the market.
As noted above, one could argue that the working homeless should find better jobs or move someplace with lower housing costs. While this has some appeal, the working homeless driving away would create a problem for the well-off: if the people who clean their houses, make them lattes, teach their kids, put out their fires, police their streets, and so on are forced to move too far away, then the rich will be left without these services. Perhaps this is why Silicon Valley is working so hard on robots. As such, even the rich have a reason to support better pay or affordable housing—or better public transportation to bring in workers from the less-affluent neighborhoods. At least until the robots arrive. However, expecting rational self-interest or moral concerns about the well-being of others to solve the problem from within the private sector is most likely unreasonable. Also, solving social problems is not really the job of the private sector—dealing with social issues is one reason we form governments. So, if the problem is to be addressed effectively, then the power of the state would be needed.
As noted above, using the coercive power of the state against the homeless is not an effective solution and is certainly not ethical. As such, the state should use our resources to address pay or housing costs. As noted above, many would object to the state interfering in the market (except, obviously, when the state’s interference is to their advantage) by compelling change in wages or the cost of housing. However, the Lockean view of the state is that it exists for the good of the people—so using its power to slightly reduce the wealth of the wealthy so that the less well off do not have to live out of their cars would seem morally justified. At least for those who subscribe to the Lockean view. But, not everyone subscribes to this view of the purpose of the state and even Lockeans might see this as unjustified.
Another option that does not involve wages or compelling affordable housing is for the state (and perhaps some in the private sector) to invest in affordable, reliable and fast public transportation that would allow workers to live where housing is affordable and commute (as many now do) into the upper-class zones to work. This approach would have the effect of enhancing the already established and growing division between the classes in America: the rich will dwell within their enclaves, while those who teach their children, make their lattes, clean their houses, fight their fires, and police their streets will be transported in to do their work, then shipped out when they are done. But at least they won’t be living in their cars.
I think this is mainly a problem in blue cities with rampant NIMBYism.
Yet just today, The Wall Street Journal offered a stunning rebuke of this argument with a profile on the one city that demonstrates free market housing policies can really work: Tokyo.
According to the Journal, the Japanese capital of nearly some 13 million people saw the construction of 145,000 new housing units started in 2018—more than New York City, Los Angeles, Houston, and Boston combined. The country as a whole has managed to add close to the same amount of new housing as the U.S., despite having about half the population.
All this new housing construction has kept rents relatively flat, with the average cost of renting a two-bedroom apartment in Tokyo hovering at $1,000 a month for the past decade. That’s well below median monthly rents for the two-bedroom apartments in, say, Los Angeles ($1,750), New York City ($2,500), or San Francisco ($3,110).
A Financial Times article from 2016 similarly notes that while home prices have more than doubled in San Francisco (where over 80 percent of homes are now valued at more than $1 million), housing prices in Tokyo have barely budged.
https://reason.com/2019/04/02/nimbys-argue-new-housing-supply-doesnt-m/
Wow. In San Francisco over 80% of the houses are valued at more than $1M.
The blue model at work.
For some people, another philosophical approach to the problem of homelessness would, of course, be some variety of Marxian analysis. (I say “Marxian” to distinguish it from “Marxist”; the latter is for most people is now associated with the discredited communist governments in the orbit of the Soviet Union). “Marxian” implies some sort of philosophical approach that looks at the inequalities built into capitalism, and the general conclusion of Marxian analysis would be that inequality is an inherent part of any capitalist political/economic system.
Generally speaking, Marxian analysis would conclude that a government devoted to capitalism is not going to be able to solve homelessness (since inequality is inherent in capitalism); the contemporary Marxians I’ve read generally conclude that the real purpose of the state is to keep most of the people happy enough to stave off any real threats to capitalism, which means merely minimizing the effects of homelessness; some of the Marxians I know would say that moral arguments do not apply to capitalism since capitalism has its own inexorable logic that does not have reference to a moral system; finally, the Marxians I know would state that the only real solution to the problem of homelessness will be to institute an alternative political and economic system which does not have extreme economic inequality baked into it the way capitalism does; different Marxians differ on what that alternative system will be: socialism, communism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc.
I have to admit that I don’t find many contemporary Marxians convincing; Zizek, for example, strikes me more as a polemicist who delights in his bad-boy persona rather than as a thinker with any great insight into how to solve problems like homelessness. Terry Eagleton or Jurgen Habermas would be somewhat more convincing. However, Marxians generally agree that the answer to the moral question of what we owe to other people is something along the lines of the catch-phrase: “to each according to their needs, from each according to their means.”
Another philosophical approach to the problem of homelessness may be found among progressive Christians (there are other religious progressives such as progressive Jews, progressive Buddhists, etc., but I’m most familiar with the arguments of progressive Christians so I’ll stick to what I know). Obviously, progressive Christians have a strong theological position, but I’d argue that they also have a definite philosophical position (and after all, some of us see theology as merely a subset of philosophy). The philosophical position of progressive Christians is rooted in their interpretation of the stories about Jesus; their interpretations tend to emphasize Jesus’ egalitarianism.
The progressive Christians see individual humans as ends in themselves, rather than as means to an end. Therefore, it is immoral to treat persons who are homeless as a problem to be solved; instead they should be seen as persons who deserve the same access to housing as anyone else. Furthermore, persons who do have housing are called upon to act morally and find some way to house all persons. Progressive Christians call upon their God as the ultimate authority to say that homeless persons must be housed; however, it should be noted that their philosophy distinguishes them from certain conservative Christians who call upon the same God to condemn homeless persons for being irresponsible enough to become homeless.
Progressive Christians generally agree that the answer to the moral question of what we owe to other people is that we should treat other persons as we would ourselves like to be treated. In the end, they anticipate a time when a divine rule of morality will supersede all lesser, human-made governments and rules.
Both Marxians and progressive Christians offer an analysis beyond what you offer in your post. Your post takes the present economic, social, and political systems as given. The Marxians and progressive Christians both work within the present economic, social, and political system, but they locate the true solutions outside the present system.
The story suggests that something like one American in a thousand is homeless, and half of those live in vehicles. I’m more worried about the half that don’t have a vehicle.
I have two sources of connection with this topic.
From the story: “I have met people who are working at Amazon and rent an RV to live on the streets of Seattle while they’re saving enough to get into their own place,”. Yeah. I know a guy (Internet-know, via Discord, that is) who fits this profile. Smart young guy. Qualified. Good salary at a big tech company. From what I know, it would be truest to say that he lives at his work – showers, eats (or eats out), socialises, exercises – but sleeps in his van. He’s not hurting; he’d just rather save the cash. That’s one segment of the mobile homeless”. I have heard stories of others who went through a big life change, maybe a breakup or family meltdown, and have nowhere but their car. I would hope that these people are mostly homeless only temporarily, but those cases need to be separated out from people who are homeless for their own convenience.
I was a volunteer for years with an organisation that worked with the other half of the homeless, the ones who had no vehicle, and struggled from day to day, sleeping wherever they could. That’s a very different, and much more challenging, set of people, and they, too, need to be considered as more than one homogenous group.
Off-topic: Dan, I think inequality is embedded far, far more deeply in reality than surface phenomena like political and economic systems. The similarities between the distribution and flows of money in society and the distribution and flows of heat or gasses under given conditions are a field of study all of their own. Figure 10 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.6483.pdf is a quasi-physical fit to actual US census data. That’s a huge and fascinating subject, and I don’t want to derail the topic, but my view is that free markets simply fail to suppress trends towards inequality rather than create them. Thus, any analysis that begins with the premise that “Capitalism creates inequality” rather than “Capitalism has no inherent mechanism to suppress inequality” is fatally flawed from the start.
Perhaps nowhere is shift more dramatic than in Australia, a country long renowned for both social mobility and widespread home ownership. Between 1981 and 2016, property ownership rates among 25 to 34 year-olds in Australia—a country with a strong tradition of middle- and working-class home ownership—fell from more than 60 percent to 45 percent. This is not, as some suggest, the result of a lack of developable land. Even in the relatively crowded United Kingdom, only six percent of the land is urbanized, while barely three percent of the US and 2.1 percent in Canada is urbanized. It’s less than 0.3 percent of Australia
So why has home ownership fallen? Largely due to regulations that have placed new affordable housing beyond the reach of younger Australians, something we also see in major cities in Great Britain, the United States, and Canada. In all these places, the main culprit has been “smart growth,” a notion that encourages the reluctant to move closer to dense urban cores and give up the dream of owning a home.
As a result, Australia’s once affordable cities are now among the world’s most expensive. According to demographer Wendell Cox, prices for homes in Sydney—even in the current downturn—are higher than Los Angeles, London, New York, Singapore, and Washington.
https://quillette.com/2019/04/10/the-end-of-aspiration/
Oh gawd. I should have known the unthinking Greens would be at the bottom of it. Crazy Eddie to the end. When the chips are down, and the stakes are high, sending everything to hell in a handbasket with the best of intentions and righteousness in their hearts.
“When a city is so heavily populated that all available vehicles are engaged in moving food and water in and garbage out, and none are left even to evacuate the inhabitants, then it is that Crazy Eddie leads the movers of garbage out on strike for better working conditions.”
I agree with CoffeeTime, that “…those cases need to be separated out from people who are homeless for their own convenience.”.
The six-figure tech guy who is living in his car (is that the Lexus?) to save money for a place of his own is skewing the statistics and abusing the system, making it difficult to provide for those who truly need help – and even to determine who those people are. He’s no different from the guy I saw pull into a handicapped parking space at a Wal-Mart in a white Lexus SUV. He emerged, covered in bling, wearing a pair of those expensive basketball shoes, followed by his family. I later saw him at the checkout counter, paying for groceries with an EBT card.
If we are going to make the argument that the state is morally compelled to assist the poor and homeless among us, I think we also need to make the argument that the citizens of the state have a moral compulsion to play by the rules. Just because it’s possible to “game the system”, and may even be within legal boundaries, doesn’t make it right.
It’s interesting that your two solutions both involve coercion on the part of the state (which you acknowledge). I’m curious, though, about the moral/ethical “line in the sand” you draw with regard to the use of that coercive power. It seems that it’s OK to use it to compel landlords and business owners to make less money in order to provide for the homeless, but it’s not OK to use it to compel the homeless to not sleep in their cars.
Imagine a building owner who charges market value for apartments where he can, but is restricted by rent-control regulations in other cases – who pays high property taxes and exorbitant insurance premiums, and who has to be on-call 24/7 to maintain his building – having to shell out more cash for union tradespeople when things go wrong. It seems unconscionable to ask this guy to earn less money simply so he can offer “affordable” housing to that Lexus guy.
I think a third solution is something that is already being done – state and local governments working hard to provide pathways toward permanent homeownership.
Overall, this plan seems to be working, according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness. Contrary to your opening statement, (according to the NAEH) although there was a negligible uptick in the actual number of homeless in 2018, the actual rate of homelessness per 10,000 has been on a steady downward trend
https(colon)//endhomelessness(dot)org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-report/
There’s a nifty little Java applet that allows you to view state data by clicking on a map, and another that allows you to change a bar graph year by year as well.
A fourth possible solution can be found in the fledgling organization “Housing First”, which overlooks any and all of the problems people have that are either caused by or that cause homelessness – substance abuse, mental illness, a “streak of bad luck” – whatever – and takes the position that homelessness only makes all those other problems worse. It’s a relatively new organization, but the early results are very positive.
It doesn’t always come down to state intervention, and doesn’t always come down to making someone make less money.
As a rule, I am more reluctant to endorse the use of the power of the state against the weak than against the strong. In part, this is a matter of the harm that would be done. The weak can be hurt badly and have little power to resist the state. The strong can endure it more and are more able to resist. Take the housing situation. If the state cracks down on homeless people forced to live in their cars, they could literally put these people out on the streets and rob them of their jobs by taking away their transportation. They cannot afford lawyers to fight for them (though they might get a SJL for free). In contrast, if the state pushes landlords to lower rents to affordable (yet still profitable) levels for some people, the landlords are “hurt” only in that they profit less than they could if they could charge whatever they wanted. They can also hire lawyers and lobbyists to fight for them. And will probably win.
You are assuming that there is adequate housing in the areas where these people need/want to live. That is an error.
Your unstated premise is that there are enough “affordable units”, and that landlords are merely raising the prices artificially. That may not be the case – and, I suspect, is not the case. If there are 1000 “affordable units” in an area, and 2000 people who need them, 1000 aren’t going to get them, regardless of price. But, of course, demand for those 1000 will push the prices up, and that is consistent with what we see reported.
Therefore, coercion on the landlords would do nothing to provide more units. Those 1000 people will still be sleeping in their cars. It would, however, prevent anyone from investing in a property to provide more units.
True, one must take into account what is available. But the state could mandate or support the creation of more affordable housing and thus force or aid its creation. Of course, this is ultimately a zero-sum game: there is finite housing in finite space.
This then becomes a question of politics and values. If the state’s laws are crafted to focus on maximizing profits for landlords, then affordable housing will be reduced or even eliminated. If the state’s laws aim at balancing profits against social goods (such as the rich having poor people to teach their kids, clean their houses, and fight their fires), then affordable housing could be increased by incentives or coercion. Preferably incentives, since I’m not a fan of coercion except to address actual wrongdoing.
But the state could mandate or support the creation of more affordable housing and thus force or aid its creation.
OK, now we’re getting into possible policy options. A government can zone, provide services, and then has a range of measures to choose from, tax breaks or subsidies, buying or building, and then managing housing themselves.
TJB offers Blue NIMBYism and service to a dream of a Green City as reasons why these options haven’t been followed up in California. You suggest a bias towards maximising profits for landlords. One would have to examine the actual records of decisions in the cities in question to discern the mix of motives.
Of course, this is ultimately a zero-sum game: there is finite housing in finite space.
It’s limited by space, but not zero-sum. Positive-sum games can exist in limited space; indeed, nearly all spaces – real or virtual – are limited. For a potitive sum to exist, there must merely exist a configuration in which the total wealth, welfare, and happiness is increased.
I also get the notion of property rights. If poor people could not afford my books and the state said “lower your prices” I would not be pleased by their interference. But, I do not offer an essential or even important service-so they really could not appeal to any notion of justice or common good. This gets us into the territory of how much the state should protect citizens from exploitation at the hands of their fellows. I think we all agree that the law should forbid theft (so landlords should not be compelled to provide free housing, since that would be state theft on behalf of the homeless). But whether the law should prevent landlords from charging whatever they can is a matter of debate. Crisis pricing might be a guide here: most of us probably think that their should be laws that prevent people from price gouging during disasters, so we do at least accept the idea that the state should step in sometimes.
Mike, you are forgetting that the government created the problem to begin with by restrictions on building affordable housing.
All the government has to do is allow more housing to be built.
More affordable housing. 🙂 Also, the limit on housing is a choice we make; this being sometimes a democracy/republic.
Maybe they were just exhibiting Badassity.
Adeney has a word for the mastery of the difficult decision: Badassity. When you execute a money-saving workaround, it’s not a hardship or a deprivation, it’s a ninja move. It’s the act of being a badass.
“It’s because the most efficient way to be frugal in a rich society like ours is to embrace hardship. The most common type of car that gets sold in Canada is the compact SUV, because people are like, ‘Well, I don’t want to have to bend over slightly to sit down in the driver seat. I don’t have to wait like 10 seconds to get to highway speed. I need something that will get me there at 6.'”
“Just these little tiny indulgences. They get more and more ridiculous, and instead he can take the opposite approach and say, ‘I’m going to take my bike out in a blizzard and get groceries and impress my family.'”
“That’s kind of the spirit of badassitude. You end up happier having to do these difficult things instead of pampering yourself and getting lazier and lazier.”
For most of us, deeply imprisoned in the matrix of consumerism, that’s a big adjustment. But Adeney says it came easily to him.
“I was kind of born with this mentality, which is just a desire for efficiency, to be making something happen. Efficiency is a form of beauty or art, so I just enjoyed maximizing my fun and finding ways to make it not use up all my money.”
Holding onto that money is how he and his wife managed to retire from careers that spanned a single decade, and that accomplishment drives followers into his guru-like online presence. Everyone wants to know how he retired at 30.
“When I look back, it looks like we were spending about $40,000 a year as a couple before we had kids, and a lot of that was going to the mortgage,” Adeney remembers.
“We were saving 50 to 60% of her income. So these are software engineer salaries, fairly good income. By the time we quit we had savings up somewhere around $800,000 or $900,000. Some of that was owning a lot of our house, and the rest of it was simple index fund Investments which can generate cash flow through dividends.”
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-291-billy-bragg-on-brexit-d-i-y-retirement-stonewall-monument-cree-for-the-21st-century-and-more-1.3649732/mr-money-mustache-s-guide-to-badass-frugality-and-retiring-at-30-1.3649779
Maybe they were just exhibiting Badassity.
Adeney has a word for the mastery of the difficult decision: Badassity. When you execute a money-saving workaround, it’s not a hardship or a deprivation, it’s a ninja move. It’s the act of being a badass.
“It’s because the most efficient way to be frugal in a rich society like ours is to embrace hardship. The most common type of car that gets sold in Canada is the compact SUV, because people are like, ‘Well, I don’t want to have to bend over slightly to sit down in the driver seat. I don’t have to wait like 10 seconds to get to highway speed. I need something that will get me there at 6.'”
“Just these little tiny indulgences. They get more and more ridiculous, and instead he can take the opposite approach and say, ‘I’m going to take my bike out in a blizzard and get groceries and impress my family.'”
“That’s kind of the spirit of badassitude. You end up happier having to do these difficult things instead of pampering yourself and getting lazier and lazier.”
For most of us, deeply imprisoned in the matrix of consumerism, that’s a big adjustment. But Adeney says it came easily to him.
“I was kind of born with this mentality, which is just a desire for efficiency, to be making something happen. Efficiency is a form of beauty or art, so I just enjoyed maximizing my fun and finding ways to make it not use up all my money.”
Holding onto that money is how he and his wife managed to retire from careers that spanned a single decade, and that accomplishment drives followers into his guru-like online presence. Everyone wants to know how he retired at 30.
“When I look back, it looks like we were spending about $40,000 a year as a couple before we had kids, and a lot of that was going to the mortgage,” Adeney remembers.
“We were saving 50 to 60% of her income. So these are software engineer salaries, fairly good income. By the time we quit we had savings up somewhere around $800,000 or $900,000. Some of that was owning a lot of our house, and the rest of it was simple index fund Investments which can generate cash flow through dividends.”
Went to spam when I included link. To find, search on “Mr. Money Mustache’s guide to badass frugality and retiring at 30”
Well, “badassity” isn’t so bad if you’re taking resources away from the truly needy.
Is this an issue anywhere but California?
https://www.businessinsider.com/california-housing-so-expensive-people-live-in-cars-vans-2018-8
“In the tight housing markets of West Coast cities, it’s not just the destitute or the unemployed who see their cars as their best option,” writes Pollard, adding that the residents of Dreams for Change consist of families, retirees, and even tech workers making near six figures.”