California homelessness? (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa Cruz: home, neighborhoods, schools)

[njbiodude]

Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133

For a 40hr work week if that is still normal, you take $290/week times 4 weeks, that is $1160/month you earn but minus $900, you only have $260 left for the month.

Someone truly working for $7.25/hour is probably not working in metro Charlotte though. Even fast food people there make $10/hr+ and can probably get a job with tips that pays more. They can then rent a room or have a roommate.

That’s a job doing 0 skill labor in a rural area.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

Depends where.

In LA about 1/3 were transplants from other states and in SF it was almost 50%. A lot of these people are runaways or troubled people from other states that are out on the streets within a few years of moving to those areas. You can find the links I posted from the NYTimes and LAtimes in the homeless containment thread.

I’d imagine in Eureka it’s probably almost 100% are locals.

PS in many areas almost 100% of the “homeless” are local citizens.

Here we go again. And with you again specifically. You’ve previously argued this and previously been given absolutely credible research debunking your claims.

The study is right in front of you in the link. Near 90% of California’s homeless became homeless after years of residence here. In fact, since you cite LA specifically, 65% of LA homeless had been state residents for 20 or more years before becoming homeless.. That alone makes your 50% claim impossible.

ALL credible studies and surveys concur.

You can only be assumed at this point to be deliberately posting to misinform.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

You can only be assumed at this point to be deliberately posting to misinform.

I've noticed quite a few misinformation threads on the site, today. You'd think the person would be embarrassed by partaking in such a thing. They aren't, though. That's scary.

[blameyourself]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Here we go again. And with you again specifically. You’ve previously argued this and previously been given absolutely credible research debunking your claims.

The study is right in front of you in the link. Near 90% of California’s homeless became homeless after years of residence here. In fact, since you cite LA specifically, 65% of LA homeless had been state residents for 20 or more years before becoming homeless.. That alone makes your 50% claim impossible.

ALL credible studies and surveys concur.

You can only be assumed at this point to be deliberately posting to misinform.

Yep, never cites anything and just starts throwing out his so called 'facts' even though it's just his opinion (and a flawed one at that). At this point, it seems more than obvious that the goal is to misinform. Way too much of this stuff in this forum. I'm just glad he and others get called on it.

[njbiodude]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Here we go again. And with you again specifically. You’ve previously argued this and previously been given absolutely credible research debunking your claims.

The study is right in front of you in the link. Near 90% of California’s homeless became homeless after years of residence here. In fact, since you cite LA specifically, 65% of LA homeless had been state residents for 20 or more years before becoming homeless.. That alone makes your 50% claim impossible.

ALL credible studies and surveys concur.

You can only be assumed at this point to be deliberately posting to misinform.

The source I cited previously showed a full third of homeless in Los Angeles county had lived there less than 10 years before becoming homeless. Most had become homeless much sooner than that after arriving in LA (if they weren’t already homeless).

Methodology is different

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

The source I cited previously showed a full third of homeless in Los Angeles county had lived there less than 10 years before becoming homeless. Most had become homeless much sooner than that after arriving in LA (if they weren’t already homeless). Depending on the age of the homeless people interviewed it’s possible we’re both right but it doesn’t mean they’re necessarily “from” the area.

No. You are already moving your goalposts. Repost your source and I’ll debunk it again like I did before.

65% over 20 years
9% 10-20 years
7% 5-10 years
10% 1-5 years
10% less than 1 year

Furthermore, of those who did move into LA county, most came from neighboring California counties (such as Ventura, San Diego, San Bernardino, etc …). So just stop with your claims about people moving in from out of state to gain weather or other benefits advantages.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

The source I cited previously showed a full third of homeless in Los Angeles county had lived there less than 10 years before becoming homeless. Most had become homeless much sooner than that after arriving in LA (if they weren’t already homeless).

Methodology is different

You already tried posting this on the L.A. Homelessness thread a few weeks ago, and were confronted by several posters who disputed your information.

[njbiodude]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

No. You are already moving your goalposts. Repost your source and I’ll debunk it again like I did before.

65% over 20 years
9% 10-20 years
7% 5-10 years
10% 1-5 years
10% less than 1 year

Furthermore, of those who did move into LA county, most came from neighboring California counties (such as Ventura, San Diego, San Bernardino, etc …). So just stop with your claims about people moving in from out of state to gain weather or other benefits advantages.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210503...tml?0p19G=0232

Debunk away.

“64% of…Los Angeles county residents experiencing homelessness had lived in the city for more than 10 years”

“18% [in Los Angeles county] said they lived out of state before becoming homeless.”

“In San Francisco 43% of the homeless said they lived in the city for more than 10 years”.

So the majority of homeless in SF aren’t even from the city.

Source: The New York Times.

Not only are these numbers astronomically higher than the state average, the state average is higher than most other states. So yes certain cities seem to either take transplants and make them homeless or attract homeless outright. While outside of maybe San Francisco it’s clear the majority of homeless are locals, it seems that Los Angeles and SF have much higher numbers than other areas of the state and country.

[blameyourself]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

You already tried posting this on the L.A. Homelessness thread a few weeks ago, and were confronted by several posters who disputed your information.

Yep, started on page 896 and over the next few pages he had his complete argument eviscerated by you and Tulemutt. Now he comes right back and post the same garbage here. Amazing!

[njbiodude]

Originally Posted by blameyourself

Yep, started on page 896 and over the next few pages he had his complete argument eviscerated by you and Tulemutt. Now he comes right back and post the same garbage here. Amazing!

Weird you can’t even address what I posted just lob insults.

PS this thread could probably be merged because it’s the same topic just at a state level.