Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sonic Spork, people make a big mistake when they give up working to keep parents out of a nursing home. If they can’t care for them after work they need to go to a home. People have to think about their own retirements.
I helped my mom care for my dad but I was raising my kids and going to college so it didn’t interfere. I would fly home and use my vacation and sick leave to help my mom but never considered giving up my job. Often they inherit the family paid off home but then can’t afford to maintain it. I have seen some pretty bad situations.
This is so accurate.
You can't help anyone else if you're in the poorhouse. My aunt is 62, her mother is 87. My grandmother is needing more and more care. It's getting to the point where my aunt is helping her in the mornings before work, and has to get her dinner, get her a shower, and do laundry after work. My mom sometimes helps grandmother during the day.
My grandmother could not live "independently" without all of this help. She doesn't need skilled nursing, but would definitely need to be in an ALF. The problem is I don't know where she's at financially to know if she'd qualify.
Back in 2017 or 2018, my aunt lost her career job. She went from probably $70,000 - $80,000 of annual income to around half that. She didn't want to move "because of mom." At the time, my grandmother was still pretty much fully independent. Today, my aunt can't retire because she needs the insurance and the money, stuck at a low income, and with an even older mother who needs even more assistance.
The same thing happened to my dad in 2007 and 2008. All the excuses in the world not to move. "Aging parents," who lived another fifteen years. "I was in college" - I didn't care about living in this area anyway. "The house wouldn't sell in that economy" - maybe, but they'd have years of likely better earnings to have lived on once the house did sell.
I'm hoping to move by the middle of next summer at the absolute latest. I've told my parents that if they want to stay around here, they're going to have to arrange their own care here in Tennessee. I hate living here, and I'm certainly not going to put myself in the poorhouse or commute hours because they're too obstinate to relocate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrat
Earlier in the thread someone asked if any had ever been homeless, I was homeless BY CHOICE in the mid eighties, I had no car,no drivers license and obviously no employment, more often than not I slept outside again by choice, I ate what I could scrounge including dumpster diving and only panhandled ONCE and NEVER stole a thing. I couched surfed when I was in colder climates, did quite a bit of hitchhiking and got to see a large portion of this beautiful country , I did this for close to two years until a wake up call changed my life.
Got a drivers license ,a job , a car ,an apartment in that order.
I had to take two busses to my first job. it sucked.
Got married bought a house etc then had another major wake up call.
We changed our life style got out of debt and started saving, we recently left FL after over 3 decades due to to the cost of living there. we live pretty cheap now, dont eat out ,dont drive expensive cars and carry zero debt and hopefully with a little luck and planning we will be ok for the foreseeable future
Here, the law scans license plates. If you have a suspended or revoked license, you will go to jail. Guaranteed.
Living like this by choice would be very foolish, especially for seniors. You might have been able to stay under the radar years ago, but technology has changed, and police (at least here) are far more aggressive than they used to be.
Sonic spork, your mom should have located resources for your grandmother and helped her access them. Sacrificing herself was foolish and now she’s a burden for someone else. I’m all for helping people who need it but not if you sacrifice your future self.
I was not suggesting forcing your grandparents into a home. As a former social worker I am all for adults making their own choices even if that choice is to live unsafely. Unless an adult is cognitively impaired they get to choose how to live which I fully support.
Once retired I helped 3 friends stay in their homes even going over daily so I am no stranger to going above and beyond for others. I became a guardian for a friend with Alzheimer’s, found a home she could afford, visited weekly even though it was a hour drive each way, went to all her medical appointments and stayed on top of her care. It was a ton of work.
Search your city for apartments renting for $666 a month.
There is no law of nature that says that minimum wage worker must live alone rather than share an apartment. I went on www.apartments.com and found a 4 bedroom apartment for $1355/month near major sources of employment in Las Vegas. That's $338 per bedroom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
If only 30% of your income is supposed to go for rent, then at $2000 a month income, your rent should only be $600.
That is a misinterpretation, of course. There is nothing "supposed" to happen at all.
There is no law of nature that says a minimum wage employee cannot invest in their own human capital - they could become a tax accountant, for example, becoming a partner at a Big 4 accounting company, with annual earnings in the 7 figures.
There is no law of nature that says that minimum wage worker must live alone rather than share an apartment. I went on www.apartments.com and found a 4 bedroom apartment for $1355/month near major sources of employment in Las Vegas. That's $338 per bedroom.
That is a misinterpretation, of course. There is nothing "supposed" to happen at all.
There is no law of nature that says a minimum wage employee cannot invest in their own human capital - they could become a tax accountant, for example, becoming a partner at a Big 4 accounting company, with annual earnings in the 7 figures.
When I got blindsided by a divorce at 30 I had just gone back to night school and I was living in the Bay Area. I found a somewhat well off woman to rent a room from in a nice set up. I stayed until I finished night school and she never raised my rent. It was a gated community with actual security guards so my crazy ex could not get to me. But, I had zero debt and some cash and a new car and then that roommate situation really helped. She had inherited money from her parents. I was not home much at all except to sleep and take a shower and I was up at night a lot studying (but, mainly at various libraries on the weekends). I would go hiking and ride my bike up Mt. Diablo, etc., etc. It was a good situation for something like 5 years.
Sonic spork, your mom should have located resources for your grandmother and helped her access them. Sacrificing herself was foolish and now she’s a burden for someone else. I’m all for helping people who need it but not if you sacrifice your future self.
I was not suggesting forcing your grandparents into a home. As a former social worker I am all for adults making their own choices even if that choice is to live unsafely. Unless an adult is cognitively impaired they get to choose how to live which I fully support.
Once retired I helped 3 friends stay in their homes even going over daily so I am no stranger to going above and beyond for others. I became a guardian for a friend with Alzheimer’s, found a home she could afford, visited weekly even though it was a hour drive each way, went to all her medical appointments and stayed on top of her care. It was a ton of work.
I get frustrated with takes like these just because life is rarely so simple and straightforward for so many people. I told you, my Mom had no idea how many years she'd be stuck there caring for her parents. She meant to go for a shorter time, but once she was there she did not feel that she could leave. She did try putting her father into a facility after Grandma passed. He kept nabbing one of those Rascal scooters and running away! He was not cognitively impaired really, just...ornery. He had to be watched, or he'd get up to mischief.
But what I'm saying is that nobody has a crystal ball. People don't always realize that what their future will look like as a result of choices made in the present. In fact, just reacting to what seems like they just have to do now, and assuming that something will come together for tomorrow and tomorrow, when the time comes...that's a pretty solid piece of wiring for people who live their lives in hardship. Because you can't count on security of anything from one moment to the next. I've been there. So all that "well you shoulda" talk...I find it frankly a bit pointlessly cruel. An easy way to switch off caring and excuse a lack of compassion for people. If everyone does that, then no one gets any help. Because everybody gets to say, "well that's not my problem, they shoulda..." Like oh yes, let me just hop into my time machine and go back and fix that there mistake. How is that even supposed to work?
It's just rationalizing why people deserve to suffer. I'm against suffering. I don't care who deserves what.
Quote:
Originally Posted by moguldreamer
The War on Poverty (an informal name) was launched on January 8, 1964 during President Lyndon B Johnson's State of the Union speech.
In the nearly 60 years since then, the USA has employed countless millions of people in a plethora of federal, state and local government programs & contractors in private and nonprofit organizations hired to fight the War... and spent countless trillions of dollars fighting the War on Poverty. Over the years, the programs included in the War have expanded and expanded and expanded.
And as a result... we still have poverty.
Here is the thing: All those people involved in the war? Each and every one of them has an incentive to make sure we never, ever win the War on Poverty. If we could wave a magic wand and actually eliminate poverty, then each of those millions of people would lose their paychecks. If we were to win the war, those employees wouldn't have a paycheck to pay their mortgages, pay college tuition, buy food, go on vacations, etc etc.
The same is true for the War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism, and other such large initiatives.
If the President were to announce a War on Homelessness, we can forecast with reasonable assurance that thirty years hence, the war would not have been won, and a bureaucracy of millions of people would be employed, and countless trillions would have been spent. And people would still be on the street.
I think it was President Reagan who said, "Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!"
Except that the programs have not been "expanding and expanding and expanding." I've watched them contract and get harder and harder to access for those who need it. And no I don't give a hot damn what the stats say about how much money is spent, I want to know how much benefit reaches its end destinations of helping people, that's the math that counts. They have been getting cut deeply, from the perspective of those in need, since Reagan turbo charged Movement Conservatism, with his "Welfare Queens" BS. I was around, I remember.
The programs have never been designed or run in a way that optimizes efficiency and accountability, though. They have always needed "overhaul". But that never had to be "stop the government putting any resources into the needs of low income or even regular Americans, and just fund the military if anything, maybe throw some trillions at the big corporations and let them run everything."
To the point, Republicans only actually do "small federal government" things when it's Democrat priorities they are trying to demolish. When it's their turn to get their wish list items, they'll run us many trillions into the hole quite happily. But there really isn't much point to discussing this with you, given your username makes your position pretty clear.
Some of us simply do not accept a view of society where the many are livestock to serve the fortunes of the few, their own lives be damned, cradle to grave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wile E. Coyote
Portland did a point in time study of a population of 3,801 homeless back in 2015.
I think it is kind of notable that the highest percentages are Single, Disabled, Men. Only 17% of the 3,801 were families. We know there are a lot of programs for families.
So, I'd say one of the best ways to work on homelessness is retraining programs for disabled men.
Homeless people who are in shelter 51% 1,914
Homeless people who are unsheltered 49% 1,887
Families with children who are homeless 17% 653
Single adults who are homeless 83% 3,143
Adult women who are homeless 30% 1,161
Adult men who are homeless 58% 2,208
Youth younger than 24 who are homeless 6% 266**
Homeless people who are older than 55 19% 704
Homeless people who are chronically homeless 28% 1,033
Homeless people who are disabled 57% 2,177
People of color who are homeless 39% 1,477
Veterans who are homeless 11% 422
Those who were homeless for less than 6 months 33% -
Those who were homeless for more than 2 years 27% -
See this, I feel, is a great starting point. This kind of analysis right here. Figure out who is homeless, and why. We really need better institutional solutions for the mentally ill and addicted. I mean, they shut down the mental hospitals because of all the rampant abuses. And hell, a lot of homes for the aged have rampant abuse going on as well. I think we really need to figure out how to HAVE the right establishments yet PREVENT the abuse and bad conditions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby
I had been a tenant for 17 years, and had roommates for about 9 of those years. In the first 3.5 years, I was living on $560 per month, which woild be about $1,500 per month in today's money (ie, $18k per year). During those 3.5 years I managed to save almost $4k (which would be about $12k in today's money), of which I spent $3k on a third-hand used car with 100,000 miles on it (I needed it because I was moving to a semi-rural area for the next training, where there was no public transportation - the only 5 years in my life when I did not live in a large city, and had to own a car).
Those reqirements you are mentioning must not have existed in the 1980s and 1990s, because I don't recall the landlords ever asking what my income was. They knew I didn't have much money, but also that I was pursuing training, and that I was a foreigner who didn't want to cause/get into any trouble, which appeared to be a sufficient guarantee of reliability. Many years later, I was for a while a small-scope landlord myself (I had, at different times, a total of 3 small rental apartments). I never asked that the income should be 3x the rent, and when I rented to graduate students, I didn't even ask what their income was (I knew from prior personal experience how low it was :-) - I just wanted the first month rent and security deposit, and made it very clear that I would start eviction as soon as one monthly rent is not paid. I don't see why the rent shouldn't exceed 1/3 of income. If you are very low income, obviously the rent would very likely be 1/2 or more of your income.
Right, this is something I have discussed many times. Even when I was a young adult in the 90s, when you went to rent an apartment or housing of any kind, you were generally dealing with a human being who was making a judgment call about you. Now though, the qualifications are not up to individuals, they use a computer program that tells them what they need to charge based on various factors and if you do not meet the criteria for eligibility or pay the amount the computer says, then you are simply rejected.
That whole 3x the rent thing, is one of those things. There is no leeway for people's situations. It's a pass/fail. And most states have laws about how many people can reside in a dwelling, so if a landlord finds out you have too many people in the home, they can evict.
There used to be sketchy slumlords who would bend the rules and laws for people, but the housing was dramatically substandard. A ton of those places have now been gentrified and placed under corporate management. Which means decisions made by software.
I get frustrated with takes like these just because life is rarely so simple and straightforward for so many people. I told you, my Mom had no idea how many years she'd be stuck there caring for her parents. She meant to go for a shorter time, but once she was there she did not feel that she could leave. She did try putting her father into a facility after Grandma passed. He kept nabbing one of those Rascal scooters and running away! He was not cognitively impaired really, just...ornery. He had to be watched, or he'd get up to mischief.
But what I'm saying is that nobody has a crystal ball. People don't always realize that what their future will look like as a result of choices made in the present. In fact, just reacting to what seems like they just have to do now, and assuming that something will come together for tomorrow and tomorrow, when the time comes...that's a pretty solid piece of wiring for people who live their lives in hardship. Because you can't count on security of anything from one moment to the next. I've been there. So all that "well you shoulda" talk...I find it frankly a bit pointlessly cruel. An easy way to switch off caring and excuse a lack of compassion for people. If everyone does that, then no one gets any help. Because everybody gets to say, "well that's not my problem, they shoulda..." Like oh yes, let me just hop into my time machine and go back and fix that there mistake. How is that even supposed to work?
It's just rationalizing why people deserve to suffer. I'm against suffering. I don't care who deserves what.
Except that the programs have not been "expanding and expanding and expanding." I've watched them contract and get harder and harder to access for those who need it. And no I don't give a hot damn what the stats say about how much money is spent, I want to know how much benefit reaches its end destinations of helping people, that's the math that counts. They have been getting cut deeply, from the perspective of those in need, since Reagan turbo charged Movement Conservatism, with his "Welfare Queens" BS. I was around, I remember.
The programs have never been designed or run in a way that optimizes efficiency and accountability, though. They have always needed "overhaul". But that never had to be "stop the government putting any resources into the needs of low income or even regular Americans, and just fund the military if anything, maybe throw some trillions at the big corporations and let them run everything."
To the point, Republicans only actually do "small federal government" things when it's Democrat priorities they are trying to demolish. When it's their turn to get their wish list items, they'll run us many trillions into the hole quite happily. But there really isn't much point to discussing this with you, given your username makes your position pretty clear.
Some of us simply do not accept a view of society where the many are livestock to serve the fortunes of the few, their own lives be damned, cradle to grave.
See this, I feel, is a great starting point. This kind of analysis right here. Figure out who is homeless, and why. We really need better institutional solutions for the mentally ill and addicted. I mean, they shut down the mental hospitals because of all the rampant abuses. And hell, a lot of homes for the aged have rampant abuse going on as well. I think we really need to figure out how to HAVE the right establishments yet PREVENT the abuse and bad conditions.
Right, this is something I have discussed many times. Even when I was a young adult in the 90s, when you went to rent an apartment or housing of any kind, you were generally dealing with a human being who was making a judgment call about you. Now though, the qualifications are not up to individuals, they use a computer program that tells them what they need to charge based on various factors and if you do not meet the criteria for eligibility or pay the amount the computer says, then you are simply rejected.
That whole 3x the rent thing, is one of those things. There is no leeway for people's situations. It's a pass/fail. And most states have laws about how many people can reside in a dwelling, so if a landlord finds out you have too many people in the home, they can evict.
There used to be sketchy slumlords who would bend the rules and laws for people, but the housing was dramatically substandard. A ton of those places have now been gentrified and placed under corporate management. Which means decisions made by software.
I think the tightening of requirements for tenants is less due to computerization, and more due to tenants taking advantage of landlords, ie, way too many cases where a tenant installs himself/herself in the unit, stops paying rent, and then starts inventing landlord's faults to justify non-payment of rent, causing huge financial damages to the landlord, and the stress of dragging through the court forever, with usually favorable legal outcone for the tenant, and further losses to the landlord. So landlords try to protect themselves from that by extreme screening of potential tenants. Once when the tenant is in the unit, at least in several cities I am familiar with, the landlord has very little control left over the unit. That is why I would never consider renting out my property again. In the past, I had bought successively 3 small units each of which was a type of place (per location and size) that I could envision using for myself eventually, but thought of renting it out so it doesn't sit empty. But I would not do that again - way too risky.
I think the tightening of requirements for tenants is less due to computerization, and more due to tenants taking advantage of landlords, ie, way too many cases where a tenant installs himself/herself in the unit, stops paying rent, and then starts inventing landlord's faults to justify non-payment of rent, causing huge financial damages to the landlord, and the stress of dragging through the court forever, with usually favorable legal outcone for the tenant, and further losses to the landlord. So landlords try to protect themselves from that by extreme screening of potential tenants. Once when the tenant is in the unit, at least in several cities I am familiar with, the landlord has very little control left over the unit. That is why I would never consider renting out my property again. In the past, I had bought successively 3 small units each of which was a type of place (per location and size) that I could envision using for myself eventually, but thought of renting it out so it doesn't sit empty. But I would not do that again - way too risky.
In respect to your first sentence, I'm sorry but you would be incorrect. There really is a huge increase in corporate (REIT) owned residential real estate in the rental markets and far less "Mom & Pop" type landlords. And I can tell you because of my line of work (those companies are my clients) - they use software. Go to Google Maps and look at almost any apartment complex you can click on, they have a website. The site is owned by a third party software company. The software sets the rents.
They will often advertise them "starting at $xyz price" but then if you go to actually pursue a rental, the price will be more. It varies day by day and for different lease lengths. It's kind of like trying to book a flight or a hotel. Because the software is at all times adjusting rents to exactly as high as "the market will bear." But because there are somewhat few software companies using the same platforms and aggregate data to do this, they have the effect of gaming entire regional markets.
Go look up "Realpage lawsuit." The DOJ is already looking into one of these companies for price fixing.
And if you don't think that gentrification has been happening, I don't know what to tell you. I lived in Cincinnati, OH in the 90s and you could get a hole in the wall place for a couple hundred bucks. That whole part of the city that used to be very run down...unsafe, but cheap...is now totally gentrified. People walk around there on vacations. I was stunned when I found this out. It used to be that even police were afraid to enter Over the Rhine.
I'm not saying that it was better when a huge tract of the city was an open air drug market that smelled of rat urine, but the first thing my shocked mind wondered when I read about the changes that have happened since I lived there was, "where did all of the poor people go?"
And not very long ago at all, a low income senior housing complex in Colorado Springs shut down and evicted everyone so that they could (if I remember correctly) tear it down or gut it, and transform it into higher profit "luxury apartments."
Not only does all of this make it hard for renters to afford a home, it also drives up the cost of housing to buy since investors (not folks like you, but investment firms) see real property as capital to buy up and rent out either for long or short term rentals. Buyers have to compete with "cash buyer" agents for investment firms. Hell, even Jeff Bezos is getting in on it.
Thing is, you talk about costing the landlords money...if it's a private citizen owner like you talk about, that's a serious consequence. But these companies don't care, they'll just pass all costs on to tenants, shrug and say, "it's the market." Just like as interest rates go up, those companies that leveraged themselves to buy up stock are going to pass on the cost of their borrowing decisions to the tenants as well.
There is no law of nature that says that minimum wage worker must live alone rather than share an apartment. I went on www.apartments.com and found a 4 bedroom apartment for $1355/month near major sources of employment in Las Vegas. That's $338 per bedroom.
That is a misinterpretation, of course. There is nothing "supposed" to happen at all.
There is no law of nature that says a minimum wage employee cannot invest in their own human capital - they could become a tax accountant, for example, becoming a partner at a Big 4 accounting company, with annual earnings in the 7 figures.
I know, right?
In my AO, the de facto minimum wage is $18/hour. Four unrelated people living as roommates and working full time at minimum wage would have a group income of $144,000. Pretty easy for them to live on that. Even in areas where the best employent one can obtain pays the Federal minimum, this is still workable.
People whining about jobs not paying a “living wage” need to GTHO with that nonsense.
In my AO, the de facto minimum wage is $18/hour. Four unrelated people living as roommates and working full time at minimum wage would have a group income of $144,000. Pretty easy for them to live on that. Even in areas where the best employent one can obtain pays the Federal minimum, this is still workable.
People whining about jobs not paying a “living wage” need to GTHO with that nonsense.
only problem with your above statement is that is simply not possible in todays market how are 4 unrelated people with GOOD credit going to meetup find a place TOGETHER fill out the apps TOGETHER pay all associated fees TOGETHER , so you need to GTHO , its a brave new world out there
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
