The socialist policies (extreme taxation and regulation of everything) is making companies have to leave the state, and go to freer ones, leaving thousands without jobs.
The companies do not have to leave, they choose to leave, because they are desperate for huge profit and do not give a damn for the country they are in. Stop victimizing companies!
I think you need to read about what socialism is. I'm Danish which is more to the left than Democrats and we aren't socialists.. But I don't mind paying a bit more to ensure everyone can get a free education and healthcare, 12 months of maternatiy/paternaty etc. on top of the tax money that go to maintaining infrastructure, fire departments, police etc..
Nathaniel: yes, they chose to leave, but they have a little choice to stay due to state taxation and unreasonable bureaucracy ... no reasonable company will decide to relocate and undergo LOTS of hassle for no reason.
You chose to go to work every day as well after all ... you don't have to, you can be homeless (if I'm going to use similar populist example as you).
@detkoeu, but that's the problem, many companies will undergo 'LOTS of hassle' for no reason. sometimes this is manifested in the >>Insert concept I can't remember and couldn't find online<<, it's a thing where there are 2 ice cream parlors on a beach, on different sides of the beach. At a certain point, one parlor moves a bit closer to the other to leach off of some of their customers. So as not to lose profit, the other does the same. this keeps going until they are in the center of the beach instead of opposite sides, resulting in a minimal or no gain/loss in profit for the companies, but a net loss for consumers. Sometimes companies really just need a bit of profit, but often not.
@detkoeu Some people can't just "choose" to go to work. Most homeless people came from a poor upbringing, with little time at "home" for things like homework, because of much more pressing matters for them (food, shelter, money). Very few of those people have the time or reason to do well in school, and so very few make it to 12th grade. Because of this, virtually none can get a job. With no job comes no money, and so no decency, which makes it even harder to get a job.
Because L.A. doesn't criminalize homelessness. Many other cities used to (and still do) buy homeless people bus tickets to L.A. to get them out of their own city. It's taking on the bad results of other cities' irresponsible policies much like blue states as a whole fund the citizenry of red states who behave fiscally irresponsibly.
I was surprised not to see Miami on the list. There were homeless people everywhere when I was there last and they were hit hardest by the real estate bubble.
The West Coast is where it's possible to live outside all year without dying. Also, 17% of the population of the U.S live in the states of California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and Hawaii.
Yeah, I'm shocked by how low the number is. I've seen quite a few homeless people in New York and yet this number is barely a dent in the population of the city as a whole. Also quite surprised at the absence of Philly and Chicago.
I'm pretty sure the number for NYC is understated. It used to be most of the homeless resided in Manhattan. Now most neighborhoods have some homeless people.
Not surprising at all. People are free to migrate wherever they like within the U.S.. Cities like Seattle are very tolerant towards homeless people, and spend a large amount of money on services directed towards them. The relative lack of homeless people in the conservative areas is probably a reflection of the lack of services. Generally speaking, cities on the West Coast are doing the rest of the country a service by shouldering a greater amount of the burden.
Revisiting this three years later, I do think my above comment is true. That said, it's clear to me that local governments are enabling drug abuse and criminal behavior. Here in Seattle, the prosecutor refuses to prosecute all but the most serious crimes. More and more parks are being taken over by encampments, and it has led to a large decline in the quality of life. When I walk around my neighborhood, I often encounter trash, and sometimes needles and human excrement as well. I'm not sure that letting people live in squalor and addiction is doing them any favors. The homeless would likely be better served by staying within their local communities instead of migrating to the encampments on the west coast.
It's time for cities like to Seattle to realize that their policies are a colossal failure and it's time to reverse course. Unfortunately, they are doing the opposite and doubling down on the same policies which created the mess.
I could not agree more. I lived in San Francisco for 12 years, and watched as an ongoing problem evolved into a major crisis. I lived in Portland for the next 12 years, and witnessed a very small issue become a huge issue. Homeless advocacy almost always centers on extending the rights of homeless (to camp in public parks, in storefronts, etc.) or about getting them free services, and very seldom about getting people jobs, off drugs and alcohol, mental health help. Life becomes virtually unlivable for the very people these places tax to support the services others exploit. It is unsustainable.
Building off SpencerGT, can homeless people from across the country *really* migrate all the way to the West Coast? I feel like if you don't have a home and are generally poor, spending tons of money going from one coast to another doesn't make much sense. I always thought it was more to do with high rent costs on the West Coast, which means most of these homeless were already natives to their city.
Homeless tend not to move. Many homeless are actually the working poor but can't afford the over priced rent. This is especially true on the West Coast. The poor can migrate with assistance though. My rust belt city was the recipient of Toronto migrants facilitated by free bus tickets offered by the City of Toronto -- they have since banned the practice.
Agreed with Quizmaster's reply. Also I would guess a large part of these statistics has to do with methods for counting homeless populations. Why bother counting them if you're not going to do anything to help them? That being said, I am certain that both Philly and Baltimore have more than 1,000 homeless people.
True. The policies of the left coast encourage dependency, illegal activity, and homeless behaviors, and do everything they can to make others pay for it and further it, while taking the rights of actual law-abiding citizens who actually produce wealth and live responsibly.
"homeless behaviours." Seriously, can't we get over this misguided narrative. Except in very rare circumstances, people do not choose to be homeless. Also your suggestion in that comment that homeless people are not law-abiding, and that the two are inextricably related, is highly problematic, as well as downright false.
They are similar is population size, but it's a lot harder to leave Honolulu and start anew than it is to leave New Orleans. I imagine there are a lot of lifetime homeless folks in Hawaii.
For some reason I have the urge to type in Detroit every time a quiz about US cities in a negative light is featured. Sometimes it works, other times not so much.
Downtown Toronto has a huge amount of homeless people and is one of the coldest cities in North America, so that alone shoots the theory of warmer climates= more homeless people.
Not really. Since Toronto is in Canada, leaving there to go somewhere warm would not be as easy as moving to a warmer place within the US. Also, I don't know whether Canada's more affordable medical care extends to homeless people, but if they do then that would disincentivize people from leaving there to go somewhere warmer.
And yet Toronto is one of the warmest cities in Canada, and certainly the warmest big city. To get anywhere warmer they'd have to either cross the entire country to get to British Columbia, or leave the country entirely. Which would you recommend to them?
How many cities report these counts? I'm not surprised that Los Angeles and San Francisco are near the top, but wondering if other California cities are included because they have a larger homeless population, or just more reported data.
How does Honolulu make the list but not Chicago and Detroit? Are the homeless people just shot or something? Like I'm genuinely shocked that a city like Phoenix which is mostly suburban anyways has more homeless people than the rust belt cities.
I think migration opportunities are limited on the Hawaiian islands. Add the cost of living, you have beaches filled with tent communities, some of the communities have children too. It got a lot better, they moved a lot of them to Waianae but its like sweeping dust under the rug.
Like the above comment said, migration opportunities are limited from Hawaii, as leaving would require an expensive plane ride that many homeless people couldn't afford, however, people in Chicago or Detroit could easily migrate to somewhere warmer with a cheap bus ticket instead of freezing to death in winter, which would not happen in Honolulu.
Theres a couple theories. There is, Los Angeles is a better place to be homeless given all the social programs and weather is better for sleeping outside.
Another thing to look at is Californias taxes are very high. If you were adjust Californias poverty rate to reflect the cost of living, California would have some of the poorest communities.
This is a quiz that's looking at total numbers, not per-capita numbers. That means that just being a large city goes a long way towards being on this list. And most large cities are run by democrats, because most democrats live in large cities.
Homeless does not equal street person. Many homeless people are not as obvious because they're in shelters or live in cars or couch surf. Street people may have homes but stay on the streets and panhandle during the day.
You chose to go to work every day as well after all ... you don't have to, you can be homeless (if I'm going to use similar populist example as you).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jILgxeNBK_8
It's time for cities like to Seattle to realize that their policies are a colossal failure and it's time to reverse course. Unfortunately, they are doing the opposite and doubling down on the same policies which created the mess.
Another thing to look at is Californias taxes are very high. If you were adjust Californias poverty rate to reflect the cost of living, California would have some of the poorest communities.
hmmmm