Meanwhile as far as I know various hedge funds are buying up thousands upon thousands of dis-possessed houses all over the country and then reselling them or renting them out at much higher prices which the ordinary person including the now precarious and rapidly diminishing middle classes can no longer afford to buy. They quite literally own tens of thousands of houses.
Even the once prosperous middle classes can no longer afford to buy, or even rent houses. Many such people need to hold down several jobs even to survive, most of which a very low paying mac-jobs with no security. Countless millions of Americans are one pay cheque away from financial ruin. Even adjunct university professors have much difficulty in getting by.
We have the similar problems here in Australia. Using various tax minimizing strategies including what is called negative gearing introduced by "conservative" governments investors can now easily out compete and therefore exclude young couples from buying/owning a house. Houses are now largely considered to be an income producing asset rather than a place to live and raise a family. Such assets are essentially funded by the tax-payers.
Any proposal to even wind back such lucrative strategies are inevitably shot down in flames. Two elections ago the mildly leftish government flagged the idea of winding such tax-payer funded perks - it was immediately shot down in flames.
Once upon a time here in Australia the various state governments invested in and built significant numbers of very affordable public housing, mostly in the form of 1 or 2 bedroom units. Even people on various forms of social security payments could afford to rent them. Over the past 20 years or so the construction of such public housing has all but disappeared.
Individualism vs collectivism is a spook, a shallow caricature of political philosophy masquerading as socioeconomic critique. Case in point, the category error you are making between individuals making selfish decisions (NIMBYs) and the actual fact that they are imposing their will on others via the collectivist state (lobbying). In political philosophy such a use of the legal and regulatory system, to the point of invoking neighborhood votes in a democratic manner, is a collectivist process. Don't pollute your analysis with the layman understanding of "individualism is when people are selfish."
I'll direct you to "The Housing Crisis is the Everything Crisis" on YouTube. The conclusion is "build more houses," but the examples demonstrating the problem overwhelmingly show that the collectivist structures we live under are largely responsible for creating the environment that housing is an investment vehicle, and the behavior of massive corporations are just a symptom.
I think you make some good points. The problem with homelessness in America is much wider than just addiction and mental health. We have as system in America that doesn't look after the interests of the average person. If so, veterans wouldn't have such high homeless rates and they actually served the system. How do you think things will go for the rest of us...not well.
Yeah, it's not just in the United States. In Canada, there was a report by the government saying that the largest job growth in the country was in support workers for homeless people. Everyone kinda ignored the implications of that, but I noticed. The only reasonable explanation for an increase in these types of workers is the existence of more homeless people. But everyone is just ignoring this.
Self-actualisation was a label Maslow used in his hierarchy of needs (perhaps that was your reference) but there were several stages to getting there. Without shelter which represents a basic level of security there is little the individual can do. Even with shelter an income that allows someone to purchase the necessities is then required and to move further up additional income to afford efforts to develop themselves is needed. As you argue, these steps should be addressed through a collective approach. But then belonging and love also need others that can generate this and the further step of self-esteem. You might feel that the final goal of self-actualisation is indeed the ultimate act of individualism but I would argue that there is no meaning to our lives in isolation. Rather, we find our true selves in relation to others.
This is not to say that we can sit back and expect to be borne upwards on the wings of society. This is not an either/or state. Yes, we need to find our own motivation but many are beaten down and the earlier such setbacks occur the more difficult it is to recover. Much of the world’s mental health problems are rooted in our inability to adequately navigate the society we find ourselves in. In most western societies that currently means a race to the top for those born with the requisite advantages and scrabbling on the cliff edge for the rest.
What I’ve taken rather a long time saying is we all need community for every stage of our development. That is the advantage that we can give everyone - if we organise ourselves into the caring communities we all need.
I know this is just anecdata but I'm not sure this thesis holds true for places like LA and SF (I've lived all over both).
I have walked past so many bum camps in LA, the SF Valley etc and seen lots of young people hanging out getting high begging change, while texting on their iPhones (probably to relatives back east they're either hitting up for cash or who are begging them to come home).
Cali is sui generis in so many ways and when it comes to "homelessness" you always have to factor in the weather and the incredibly tolerant population, incredibly generous services and ample ways to score and use drugs.
In every society there are always going to be dropouts, outcasts, fuckups, people who for whatever reason cannot hack being a functional adult and who want to wander on the outskirts, begging and stealing. We spend multiple billions annually in Cali and barely coax anyone in off the streets, while just signaling to people all over the country that this is the place to be if you want to live off the grid.
"Individualism" is a cool concept until you wake up to find a guy who looks like Charles Manson taking a shit on your lawn—the problem out here will never be solved until people stop tolerating their streets being turned into slums and open-air mental asylums.
Meanwhile as far as I know various hedge funds are buying up thousands upon thousands of dis-possessed houses all over the country and then reselling them or renting them out at much higher prices which the ordinary person including the now precarious and rapidly diminishing middle classes can no longer afford to buy. They quite literally own tens of thousands of houses.
Even the once prosperous middle classes can no longer afford to buy, or even rent houses. Many such people need to hold down several jobs even to survive, most of which a very low paying mac-jobs with no security. Countless millions of Americans are one pay cheque away from financial ruin. Even adjunct university professors have much difficulty in getting by.
We have the similar problems here in Australia. Using various tax minimizing strategies including what is called negative gearing introduced by "conservative" governments investors can now easily out compete and therefore exclude young couples from buying/owning a house. Houses are now largely considered to be an income producing asset rather than a place to live and raise a family. Such assets are essentially funded by the tax-payers.
Any proposal to even wind back such lucrative strategies are inevitably shot down in flames. Two elections ago the mildly leftish government flagged the idea of winding such tax-payer funded perks - it was immediately shot down in flames.
Once upon a time here in Australia the various state governments invested in and built significant numbers of very affordable public housing, mostly in the form of 1 or 2 bedroom units. Even people on various forms of social security payments could afford to rent them. Over the past 20 years or so the construction of such public housing has all but disappeared.
Individualism vs collectivism is a spook, a shallow caricature of political philosophy masquerading as socioeconomic critique. Case in point, the category error you are making between individuals making selfish decisions (NIMBYs) and the actual fact that they are imposing their will on others via the collectivist state (lobbying). In political philosophy such a use of the legal and regulatory system, to the point of invoking neighborhood votes in a democratic manner, is a collectivist process. Don't pollute your analysis with the layman understanding of "individualism is when people are selfish."
I'll direct you to "The Housing Crisis is the Everything Crisis" on YouTube. The conclusion is "build more houses," but the examples demonstrating the problem overwhelmingly show that the collectivist structures we live under are largely responsible for creating the environment that housing is an investment vehicle, and the behavior of massive corporations are just a symptom.
I think you make some good points. The problem with homelessness in America is much wider than just addiction and mental health. We have as system in America that doesn't look after the interests of the average person. If so, veterans wouldn't have such high homeless rates and they actually served the system. How do you think things will go for the rest of us...not well.
Yeah, it's not just in the United States. In Canada, there was a report by the government saying that the largest job growth in the country was in support workers for homeless people. Everyone kinda ignored the implications of that, but I noticed. The only reasonable explanation for an increase in these types of workers is the existence of more homeless people. But everyone is just ignoring this.
Self-actualisation was a label Maslow used in his hierarchy of needs (perhaps that was your reference) but there were several stages to getting there. Without shelter which represents a basic level of security there is little the individual can do. Even with shelter an income that allows someone to purchase the necessities is then required and to move further up additional income to afford efforts to develop themselves is needed. As you argue, these steps should be addressed through a collective approach. But then belonging and love also need others that can generate this and the further step of self-esteem. You might feel that the final goal of self-actualisation is indeed the ultimate act of individualism but I would argue that there is no meaning to our lives in isolation. Rather, we find our true selves in relation to others.
This is not to say that we can sit back and expect to be borne upwards on the wings of society. This is not an either/or state. Yes, we need to find our own motivation but many are beaten down and the earlier such setbacks occur the more difficult it is to recover. Much of the world’s mental health problems are rooted in our inability to adequately navigate the society we find ourselves in. In most western societies that currently means a race to the top for those born with the requisite advantages and scrabbling on the cliff edge for the rest.
What I’ve taken rather a long time saying is we all need community for every stage of our development. That is the advantage that we can give everyone - if we organise ourselves into the caring communities we all need.
I know this is just anecdata but I'm not sure this thesis holds true for places like LA and SF (I've lived all over both).
I have walked past so many bum camps in LA, the SF Valley etc and seen lots of young people hanging out getting high begging change, while texting on their iPhones (probably to relatives back east they're either hitting up for cash or who are begging them to come home).
Cali is sui generis in so many ways and when it comes to "homelessness" you always have to factor in the weather and the incredibly tolerant population, incredibly generous services and ample ways to score and use drugs.
In every society there are always going to be dropouts, outcasts, fuckups, people who for whatever reason cannot hack being a functional adult and who want to wander on the outskirts, begging and stealing. We spend multiple billions annually in Cali and barely coax anyone in off the streets, while just signaling to people all over the country that this is the place to be if you want to live off the grid.
"Individualism" is a cool concept until you wake up to find a guy who looks like Charles Manson taking a shit on your lawn—the problem out here will never be solved until people stop tolerating their streets being turned into slums and open-air mental asylums.