quote:

---

It's a pity so few of the homeless actually want to work. Everyone has problems but it is those who have the gumption to deal with them and work at changing their lot in life. I live in Toronto and we have a lot of homeless people living on the streets. I fail to understand why someone would come to or stay in on of the most expensive cities in the country to live when there are places that are far cheaper to live in. A crumby job at a fast food joint will take you further than sitting on the sidewalk with hat in hand.

---

Toronto has homeless shelters (although not enough), supportive housing, employment assistance/job finding programs etc. Not everyone will take advantage of these resources, but many will.

The who choose to stay on the streets usually have mental health/addiction challenges.

Not to mention that homelessness can be a viscious circle. It's difficult to get a job without an address, difficult to come up with first/last month rent in a city that has little affordable housing....there are numerous challenges. Of course it's not impossible, but it is difficult.

I've a hunch you wouldn't be crude or insensitive enough to suggest that cancer patients hurry up, respond to their chemo, and rejoin the workforce. Why the double standard for those whose illnesses are less obvious, for which funding does not exist and will not be allocated at any time in the near future?

Interesting theory you have there. Because some homeless are mentaly ill it should be open house for any free loader that can get their behind to Toronto? For those who actually need the help, I have no problem in coughing up the money for the services to be there for them. But why should those who are to lazy to stand up and work for a living get it from me and all other tax payers? Insensitive? Perhaps but then again there is such a thing as co-dependence. Why is it so terrible to take some responsibility for yourself?

"There's the argument that these illnesses are just more distasteful and dirty, that they're more cumbersome and far less easy to ignore, because they're right beneath our feet as we step over sleeping bodies in the street."

This seems like an easy solution, but the fact is, medication - even medicare - isn't easily available to those living on the street. Many people who suffer from mental illness need someone to actually care, and help them to get the help they need. And the more we cut long-term care, or ignore the problem and label these people (who are indeed people, and not illnesses) as "problems", the more people will end up on the streets, unable to take steps to help themselves.

I think that we need to take a step back for a minute and ask ourselves, "Why is that we as a society feel that people are 'freeloaders' or 'lazy' or whatever just because they don't work in the monetised economy ?" Why are people any less worthy of basic human needs if they are unemployed ?

There are a few problems that I see with this.

1) We make an awful lot of pretty useless garbage because 'everyone in society needs a job', preferably full-time. In the process we're squandering the natural capital that has been provided to us, and replacing it with landfills, incinerators, and wet-dry plants.

2) We seriously undervalue the work that many people put into building our communities just because they aren't paid. Why are parents who choose to stay at home not compensated for the unimaginable (to me) amount of work they do. What about those who spend their time volunteering with a local service organisation ? What about artists, writers, philosophers ?

3) Why is it that we have lots of extra trees, gravel, etc. to export to the United States, and a growing number of homeless and unemployed ? It should be a pretty easy task to get the unemployed and the supplies together in one place. Then everyone can have a home. But it's more important to have money for a few rather than homes for the many it seems.

I don't think that the homeless/unemployed are irrational in the least. Do you really want to work in a job which is in no way personally fulfilling just because you need to eat. The fact that people need to eat, have shelter, etc. should be generally acknowledged and provided for, no questions asked. Then people can get on to the job of contributing the way they feel is right.

So what are the barriers that are standing in the way of getting medical treatment? Going to a walking clinic? Getting a health card? Paying $2 out of a welfare check to buy a months worth of meds? People do care and help is available. But if you refuse that help then what? As I see it far to many people cry that the system did this or that or didn't do another thing so it is not my fault that I am homeless. Not taking a job because it is not your dream job is, to me, laughable. Cripes! I want to be the part time senior vice president of Microsoft but they said no. So does that mean that I should just forget about work altogether and damand that everyone support me from now on? Hell no! You take that crappy job and in the meantime you look for a better one, or upgrade your skills to aquire the job you want.

Simple. Look at what a society is. People working together to create something better than the sum of there own personal labour. I am all for those who head out to the wilderness, build their own home and live off the land. They are self suficient and productive. The difference between that and living on the streets of Toronto are vast. Let's say you are a farmer and I am a carpenter. I build your house and you pay me for it. You grow my food and I pay you for it. We both bring something to the table and help eachother. Now someone sits down at our table and brings nothing. We feel that if we can help this person to become productive then we both will benefit from that. So we share our food. But when the third person tells you that they don't want to contribute what do you gain from supporting them? Nothing. Your not helping them to get over an obsticle, you are teaching them to be lazy and a burden. We live in a capitolist society. That means that the more you personally do the greater your share of the pie. This is the carrot before the horse.

"What about those who spend their time volunteering with a local service organisation ? What about artists, writers, philosophers ?"

Huh? My wife's aunt is a local artist. Her work sells for anywhere between $800 to $7000 per piece. She has a home in the Beaches and another in Berkley (Califoria). One of my closest friends is an artist. Works at the CBC helping create the sets you see on many broadcasts. He has worked on plenty of movies and tv shows. His usual wage is $25 per hour.
Why is it that you feel these people are disregarded in society? I have seen plenty of young people down on Queen St. Here is Toronto that say they are artists, yet they have no schooling, no studio and no work to show for themselves. My wife has been an artist since long before the 20 years we have been married and we have her artwork all over the walls of our home. She has sold a number of prints and originals and maybe by the time she is in her fifties, her work will sell for the same kind of money as her aunt's does. But for now she still is a law clerk and that supports her artwork. Art just like writing and philosophy take years and years to aquire the skills to become marketable. So I guess the answer to your question is that those who dedicate their lives to the arts will find their just rewards once they have paid their dues.

"It should be a pretty easy task to get the unemployed and the supplies together in one place."

It sure would be. But where is the money in that? If you figure that loggers and those who work in wood mills should just do without wages then I ask you to please send half of all the money you make to me. In return I will accept your money and you can enjoy the wonderful feeling that you gave me your money.

"Do you really want to work in a job which is in no way personally fulfilling just because you need to eat."

Hey if you want to give up eating and living indoors then I fully support you not working. But then why would you need to ask me for money? You don't need to eat and you don't need to pay rent. Perfect balance. But if you do choose to eat and live indoors then by all means get a crappy job and look for the dream job after you have bought your own food and shelter.

"Automation was introduced (or so we were told) to reduce the amount of necessary labour and allow for more leisure time. So lets get on with it."

I think in general we are getting too hung up on the homeless who are mentally ill.

What is really wrong with Slick Willy's analysis is that it is based on the old Poor Law mentality that says:

a) we must discriminate carefully between the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor.

and

b) it is to be assumed that everyone is "undeserving" until s/he proves otherwise.

Application of principle a) is the raison d'etre for all those frustrating, demeaning and complex regulations that make it so difficult and degrading to get assistance in the first place and so easy to kicked off for technical violations it is almost impossible to avoid.

Application of principle b) means that persons needing assistance must knuckle under and prove their good intent IN THE WAY THE SYSTEM DECREEES. They can't use their own initiative and creativity.

One of the clearest examples I saw of that was a single mother who was kicked off welfare because she enrolled in a training course to prepare her for work in the travel industry. Showing that kind of ambition and initiative is a no-no.

You are only allowed to take the training courses dictated by social services--the ones that prepare you for dead-end low-paying jobs like entry-level data processing.

To me the only sensible approach is to assume that everyone is deserving of assistance when they need it. Never mind why they are homeless--get them a home.

Never mind why they are hungry--get them food.

Take care of the basics first. Most people will be willing and able to fend for themselves once they have a hand-up and the opportunity to do so.

a) we must discriminate carefully between the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor."

Ahh meat and potatos.

So explain to me if you will why you feel we should not discriminate between deserving and undeserving poor. As well, for the sake of clarity, define the difference between the two.

"b) it is to be assumed that everyone is "undeserving" until s/he proves otherwise."

Without this method what is to stop someone from receiving assistance who does not actually need assistance? Would this not open the doors to abuse of the system on a massive scale?

"You are only allowed to take the training courses dictated by social services--the ones that prepare you for dead-end low-paying jobs like
entry-level data processing."

There is no shame in starting at the bottom and working your way up. There are plenty entry level data entry jobs available right now. The chances are much higher of gaining employment in that area for someone who has a limited amount of computer knowledge. Welfare is not a perfect system nor will it ever be. But hard work is what it takes to get up from that situation. You have to sacrifice and go without. But for those who do there is a reward.

"To me the only sensible approach is to assume that everyone is deserving of assistance when they need it. Never mind why they are homeless--get them a home."

I believe that all humans have a fundiamental right to food and shelter. Making someone with mental or emotional problems jump through hoops to access these is totally inhumane.

Also, having lived with a schizophrenic for a few years, I find the take your meds and deal with it attitude repulsive. Mentally ill people can't begin to deal with their problems without food, shelter and emotional support.

Re: Kids who just like to party. Well does it not occur to you that kids who's desire to be totally blitzed all the time lead them to being homeless have real emotional problems and/or lack support from home.

What was at the CORE of the methodology of the school? The idea that when a child arrived there, they would immediately be guaranteed a place to sleep, two pairs of clothing, food, and supportive adults. Something as basic as this was essential to the rehabilitation of the kids; in a stable environment they could start working on a healthy life.

Willy, I wasn't saying all homeless people are mentally ill, I was saying that there are serious reasons why each person is out on the street. And really, I think gbunty is right: in the end, why people come to be homeless is not the important question. It remains that until we approach things such as food and shelter as basic rights and not commodities, until everyone has access to these things, we cannot expect people to just "clean up their act". As I learned in Thailand, it is not just taking care of people's basic needs that is the first step towards rebuilding their lives, it is also having them know that these needs will always be met.

I didn't dismiss anything Jeff, nor did I say anywhere that the points Anna made were invalid.

Sure everyone should have shelter and food.
I have no argument against that. But I don't think everyone has a fundamental right to alcohol and narcotics. Abuse of the system takes money out of the hands of those who really need it. The fact of the matter is that some people lie. So the government puts in "hoops" to help weed out some of those who want to abuse the system. Like I said before, the food and shelter isn't free. Someone pays for it.

"Also, having lived with a schizophrenic for a few years, I find the take your meds and deal with it attitude repulsive. Mentally ill people can't begin to deal with their problems without food, shelter and emotional
support."

Taking meds on a regular basis is part of the solution, not all of it. I see no one here advocating a "take your meds and deal with it" position.

"Kids who just like to party. Well does it not occur to you that kids who's desire to be totally blitzed all the time lead them to being homeless have real emotional problems and/or lack support from home."

I don't understand how you would avoid making the same mistakes that lead up to becoming homeless if you don't find out what they are. Perhaps it isn't the most important question but I think it help to find an answer to the problem.

"It remains that until we approach things such as food and shelter as basic rights and not commodities, until everyone has access to these things, we cannot expect people to just "clean up their act".

There are shelters, food banks, welfare, counciling, plus many non profit agencies that help to provide all those things. In Toronto there is not enough to go around but then again we have homeless people from all over the country here. It is not as though there is no effort to help people out of a dire situation. But it is finite.

"This is why I am tired of the argument about people abusing the system. I don't give a fuck. There are things more important than
some wasted dollars, and those are people's lives."

quote:

---

How many kids are on the streets because [...] they don't like school or having to be home at a given hour or cleaning up after themselves?

---

My gut instinct is to say "none", but I'm sure that will be dismissed. I will say, however, that living on the streets is way tougher than cleaning your room, so if a teen has chosen the former over the latter there are probably a shit load of other issues at hand.

You seem to have pretty specific ideas about what a "productive" or "deserving" member of society is, SW. You even seem to feel that there are some specific qualifications for being an "artist", actually. All of your posts seem to support some sort of "meritocracy", based on very specific monatery requirements. I would argue that a punk kid who pans for change in front of Queen and John and is an anti-poverty activist is doing a lot more for society than she would be if she started working full time for an unethical multinational corporation at minimum wage.

You don't seem to be aware of the processes in place that keep people stuck in poverty. It's not as easy as breezing into an office, being handed a health card, and trotting out to your local pharmacy to get your meds. You need an address to get ID, and you need ID to get an address.

You say that society is

quote:

---

People working together to create something better than the sum of there [sic] own personal labour.

---

What do you consider "something better"? More stuff?

I'd also like you to qualify this statement in anyway.

quote:

---

I wager that few people that are homeless actually have a diblilitating disorder. Futhermore if we really got to the bottom of why most people especially the younger people are homeless it would be due to their refusal to abide by rules.

---

Because I think you are dead wrong.

quote:

---

So explain to me if you will why you feel we should not discriminate between deserving and undeserving poor. As well, for the sake of clarity, define the difference between the two.

---

As far as I am concerned there is no difference. It is people like you that want to make this discrimination so you should make clear what it is and what the criteria are to be "deserving".

quote:

---

Without this method [assuming everyone is undeserving] what is to stop someone from receiving assistance who does not actually need assistance? Would this not open the doors to abuse of the system on a massive scale?

---

No. We would have what we had under the now-scrapped Canada Assistance Program. Access to assistance would be based on need--no other criterion. But there would still be opportunities to report and investigate fraud, and take measures to recover funds obtained fraudulently.

quote:

---

There is no shame in starting at the bottom and working your way up.

---

Of course, there is no shame in this. But should there not be support rather than punishment for those who aim higher? Remember, so called entry-level jobs are often dead-end jobs too. And poorly-enough paid that a parent still needs social assistance. It would actually cost the system less in the long term to support a mother like this full-time during her training so that after a year or two she can land a decent paying job and never need welfare again.

quote:

---

What's the average price of a modest home in Toronto? 180k or there about?

---

Your middle-class assumptions are showing, Willy. Did I say that a home had to be ownership of a 180k single-family dwelling?
In the '80s, when it became obvious that our community needed much more affordable housing than was available, community groups and churches -- and the municipal government -- pitched in a built a senior's apartment complex, several geared-to-income non-profit town house complexes and a three housing co-ops, some townhouses, some apartments.
This kind of activity became impossible when the senior levels of government pulled out of funding arrangements. And that is when homelessness began to appear in Canadian cities big time.

Anna said: "I think gbunty is right: in the end, why people come to be homeless is not the important question."
SW replied: "I don't understand how you would avoid making the same mistakes that lead up to becoming homeless if you don't find out what they are. Perhaps it isn't the most important question but I think it help to find an answer to the problem."

This shows SW's assumption that homelessness is always the fault of the individual. The individual made mistakes that leave him/her homeless.

It is never the fault of government policy that shuts down the production of affordable housing, or reduces the capacity of the poor to pay rent, that refuses shelter allowances that cover the cost of shelter and rewrites landlord tenant regulations to make it easier to evict. And of course, it is never the fault of the business cycle generating a recession and jobless recoveries--or changing the job market from one of stable 40-hr per week jobs to a patchwork of contract and part-time service jobs at much lower pay.

A study done last year on the precipitating causes of homelessness in Toronto showed that in most cases, individuals and families are caught in a crisis situation (health emergency, job loss) that makes paying this month's rent a problem. With immediate emergency help few would become homeless in the first place.

Anna said: "It remains that until we approach things such as food and shelter as basic rights and not commodities, until everyone has access to these things, we cannot expect people to just "clean up their act".

SW answered: "There are shelters, food banks, welfare, counciling, plus many non profit agencies that help to provide all those things. In Toronto there is not enough to go around but then again we have homeless people from all over the country here. It is not as though there is no effort to help people out of a dire situation. But it is finite."

"You seem to have pretty specific ideas about what a "productive" or "deserving" member of society is, SW."

I sure do Audra.

"I would argue that a punk kid who pans for change in front of Queen and John and is an anti-poverty activist is doing a lot more for society than she would be if she started
working full time for an unethical multinational corporation at minimum wage."

Interesting idea. How about listing some of the unethical multinational corporations here? For one, McDonalds has been listed else where as just such a company. Yet they fund Ronald McDonald House as well as Youth Without Shelter (a local shelter for youth).
Those minimum wage kids you talk about help to provide that that money is available to these and other organizations. Let me venture to say that homeless youth get more support from the work of that minimum wage youth than they do from the punk rock pan handlers.

"You don't seem to be aware of the processes in place that keep people stuck in poverty. It's not as easy as breezing into an office, being handed a health card, and trotting out to your local pharmacy to get your meds. You need an address to get ID, and you need ID to get an address."

Perhaps you should go back and read some of my previous postings. As I have stated before, it takes hard work to get out of a homeless situation. Please try to avoid reading things into my messages that just aren't there. There is a process to getting off the streets. First you have to go to a shelter. You have to put up with the BS that goes along with that and attend the free educational, life skills, and work preperation workshops. You have to take those clothes offered by the Salvation Army and you have to get cleaned up. You can't be drunk and you can't be stoned. Plenty of time for that later. You have to accept the help and methods offered to gain either education or job training. You have to drop off those resumes and go to those interviews. You have to share a house or an apartment with others till you can afford to make the down payment and garner enough good credit to be approved for a mortgage. Nope it isn't just breezing into an office.

"What do you consider "something better"? More stuff?"

Dead on Audra. More stuff is better. The more stuff you have the more choices you have. Instead of having to have a box of crap dinner you can choose which vegitables,breads
fruits,meats and dairy products will make up your balanced diet for the day. You can choose between taking your $200 bike out for a ride in tha park or going down to the beach for a walk in the evening. You can choose whether to take a night course in Computer Science or Travel or what strikes your fancy and improve your income potential. Why if you work hard enough and save your money, you can even bank roll someone who has taken their own creativity and developed an idea that will make things easier for the homeless like an $8000 house that they could aford with their welfare check.

"I'd also like you to qualify this statement in anyway."

I refuse to think that most homeless and those on welfare are compleatly useless. I think that most people have talents that they could use to benefit themselves and others. But when you tell them that it is just fine not to be productive and provide just enough to keep them fed and housed you are doing more to shackle them in that cycle than any government.

There are two reasons that kids are not living at home.
1. They leave of their own accord.
2. Their parents kick them out.

quote:

---

There are two reasons that kids are not living at home.
1. They leave of their own accord.
2. Their parents kick them out.

---

"As far as I am concerned there is no difference. It is people like you that want to make this discrimination so you should make clear what it is and what the criteria are to be "deserving"."

So should I take my pay check and go buy a home theater package rather than pay my mortgage, food and utilities, I should be able to walk into a welfare office and without having to answer questions like what happened to your pay check, and walk out with a cool $2500 in hand to pay for what I should have paid for in the first place?

"Remember, so called entry-level jobs are often dead-end jobs too. And poorly-enough
paid that a parent still needs social assistance."

Who makes flipping burgers at McDonalds their career? It is an entry level or dead end as you like to call it job. Go ask any manager of any fast food joint and they will tell you that their turn over is much higher than say law or medicine. That is just the way it is supposed to work. If it didn't you would be looking at $15 for a hamburger. They are a stepping stone to better jobs with more pay and better benefits. So tell me why it is better to spend upwards of $100k to put someone through medical school and hope they don't change their mind 5 years into it.

"Your middle-class assumptions are showing, Willy."

Ouch!

"This kind of activity became impossible when the senior levels of government pulled out of funding arrangements. And that is when
homelessness began to appear in Canadian cities big time."

The 80s were also a time of recession. Jobs were no where near as abundant as they are today. Houseing prices in Toronto were through the roof. I moved to Toronto in 1990. I was shocked at how much it cost to rent an flat. I was immpressed mind you that the law stated that the rent could not be increased by more than 3% per year. Now that I own a home I have come to realize that property taxes aren't the same at all. This year City Council brought it down from 35% to 5%. Not because of some improvements to my house or property. Not because of added services. Actually services have been reduced. 5% is getting off lucky if you can believe that. Next time it will be more. Now if I were your landlord and I never did anything to improve the house your living in and told you that I was increasing the rent by 35% I am sure that you would be screaming about how unfair that is and we would be off to the tribunal pronto. Even if I managed to reduce that amount to 5% you would be within your rights to dispute that and win. The law says 3%.
Those housing projects you talk about are still around. Their full with waiting list.
It would be interesting to see the stats on how many people have moved out to better accomidations and how many have stayed after say two years. I bet I know which stat would be higher.

"This shows SW's assumption that homelessness is always the fault of the individual. The individual made mistakes that leave him/her
homeless."

I don't know of anyone who is homeless from making all the right moves. By all means point them out to me. Tell me there are no people who have been on welfare their whole life. Not that there isn't some job they could do. They choose not to. Not all but some. So if they don't have to work what is the incentive to work?

"Shelters are not homes. Food banks are so overburdened they have to regulate how much they can give to any one person or family. It is not assured access to food. No one is saying there is no effort, or that
resources are or should be infinite. But they should be adequate to meet everyone's basic needs."

Perhaps I can use accident investigation as an analogy.

If you just look at the trigger you aren't investigating why it happened. If a plant explodes because someone left a piece of equipment running, that isn't sufficient.

My understanding is that a lack of address makes it incredibly difficult if not impossible to access some of the services in place. I believe I read once that people without permanent addresses couldn't get welfare. Have I been halucinating again? Does anyone know anything for sure?

quote:

---

So should I take my pay check and go buy a home theater package rather than pay my mortgage, food and utilities, I should be able to walk into a welfare office and without having to answer questions like what happened to your pay check, and walk out with a cool $2500 in hand to pay for what I should have paid for in the first place?

---

When you have to use silliness to make a point, you haven't got one. In what kind of a dream-world does any welfare office hand out $2500? And blowing your paycheck on a home theatre package doesn't necessarily mean you are in need. First you have to use up your assets: including that nice, new home theatre package which you can return to the dealer for a refund, or use as collateral to get a loan from your bank, or sell, or pawn.

quote:

---

They [McJobs] are a stepping stone to better jobs with more pay and better benefits.

---

Maybe, if you're young and just starting out. Not so likely if you're over 40 and been downsized. The upwardly mobile career escalator just doesn't work for a lot of people.

quote:

---

The 80s were also a time of recession. Jobs were no where near as abundant as they are today. Houseing prices in Toronto were through the roof.

Those housing projects you talk about are still around. Their full with waiting list.
It would be interesting to see the stats on how many people have moved out to better accomidations and how many have stayed after say two years. I bet I know which stat would be higher.

---

Exactly why we were building affordable housing. What sense did it make to cut the program when it was most needed? And, of course, with no new affordable housing coming on line the existing ones have waiting lists years long.

BTW why would you expect people to move out after two years? The point was to create affordable, secure permanent housing, not temporary warehouses for people to stay in for a year or two.

quote:

---

I don't know of anyone who is homeless from making all the right moves.

---

What right moves? Not working 20 years for an employer and then getting laid off when the plant goes to Mexico? Not having an illness when your job doesn't offer sick leave benefits? Not having an accident that leaves you disabled? Not having your breadwinner spouse run off and leave you with two pre-schoolers to support? Not having your old car give out the day you were supposed to start that job you need to supply your own transportation for?
Excuse me, but what kind of holier-than-thou arrogance assumes that people are always able to know and implement the "right" moves!

quote:

---

So if they don't have to work what is the incentive to work?

---

Why do multi-millionaires work? They don't have to. Why do capitalists assume that the almighty $ is the only reason to work?

People work for self-esteem, dignity, pride in themselves, the desire to be creative and human--all those things our punitive society is so good at kicking out of people in need.
Most people on welfare are just like your Polish family--at least at first. And thankfully, most are able to get off welfare before the system so thoroughly degrades them that they have no incentive to try anymore. I have spent 15 years getting to know single mothers on assistance, and I don't know of any group in our society that I have more admiration for.

Well when logic doesn't work, try something else. Why don't you work harder and and take a dozen or so homeless people in to your house to live off you for a while? 905 speaks volumes to me. I live in 416 and we take care of plenty of homeless from 905. By all means take 10% of your property taxes out of your pocket and send them to Lastman. we could use the money.

"And blowing your paycheck on a home theatre package doesn't necessarily mean you are in need."

Now who is discriminating? How about if I blow my paycheck on cocain or gambling, or drinking or t-bones and lobster for all my friends? Do I still deserve to eat and live indoors? You seem to want it both ways.

"Maybe, if you're young and just starting out. Not so likely if you're over 40 and been downsized."

By the time your 40 you should have your act together. If you have had a job then persumable you have some skills. Or is there just the one place to work in your world?
You remember school right? afaik you still are allowed to upgrade your education after 40. Take out a student loan if you have to.

"BTW why would you expect people to move out after two years? The point was to create affordable, secure permanent housing, not
temporary warehouses for people to stay in for a year or two."

Because someone living on a subway grate on Queen street needs it. Seems like the line about not being able to get a job if you don't have an address just changed.

"What right moves?"

Oh you know. Getting an education, getting a job, paying your bills. But I am sure that your going to tell me that it is just plain wrong to do that. After all it is my responsibility to give people a place to live and food and clothing not theirs.

"Excuse me, but what kind of holier-than-thou arrogance assumes that people are always able to know and implement the "right" moves!"

First you shutup. Then you listen to those who are trying to educate you. Then you do just like they told you. What's the mistery?

"Why do multi-millionaires work? They don't have to."

It's for the money. But don't go telling everyone, it's a secret.

"Why do capitalists assume that the almighty $ is the only reason to work?"

Why do you assume that capitalists assume that? If you were a capitalist then you would know that there is also power. Let me ask you the same question. Why do socialist assume that packing a family of nine into a two room apartment and paying them less than $60 American a month, just like in Russia, is the smart way to go?

"Now when it comes to the tax money that is going into the military"

Now you're looking for a fight.

At the risk of seeming pedantic, I'd point you to the website of (Raising the Roof, under National Approach, Cybrary, then employment for some interesting literature on employment and people who are homeless. As well, on the same site, but under national approach, innovative practices, if you select "employment", you can get a look at what programs exist or recently existed with regard to employment and the prevention of homelessness, in Toronto, other spots in Canada, and elsewhere.

As the Director of the two-year project that produced this section of the Raising the Roof site, I can assure you that in focus groups we held across Canada (including two in Toronto), that most folks who are homeless are not making a 'lifestyle' choice. As a former executive director of the National Anti-Poverty organization, I'd send you to their website and the National Council of Welfare for some information about how much money people on welfare actually get in various provinces. For single people, it wouldn't come close to $2500 per month anywhere in Canada (nor anywhere else, as far as I know) -- in fact, about a quarter to a third of that is more likely what would be received.

Nonetheless, it's nice to see *someone* talking about employment, homelessness and poverty.

I am not going to reply publicly to the six I identified in your last post as it would just bore people. But e-mail me if you want to know what they are.

I would like to clarify something on non-profit housing, though if someone works in that field they may be more accurate than me.

In the non-profits I am familiar with, only a portion of the units are subsidized; the rest are rented out at market value. (The aim is to have a variety of income levels in the project and avoid the ghetto-type all-subsidized projects of the '60s and '70s.)

So even if an unsubsidized person leaves to buy a home, it doesn't open up a unit for the fellow on the grate if the full quota of subsidized units is already filled.

Anyway, what I hear in your posts is that if people's lives don't fit the script you think is proper, they don't deserve help.

"Well, Willy, you are a never-ending source of baseless, sterotypical assumptions."

A good old time warp right back to the 1900s, when it was assumed that seasonal working class labourers ought somehow to be able to save up enough money to buy firewood all winter long--and if they didn't, they "deserved" to freeze to death. I can provide some references if anyone is interested. It is truly frightening how little the rhetoric has changed over the past 100+ years.

I have a close friend on welfare, and the mother of my Little Sister is on welfare. The barriers these two women face in becoming employed is just staggering. When I talk to them about their problems, I do not feel smug for having "done the right things" to avoid it. I do not feel angry that they are "taking my precious money away from me." I feel terribly, terribly sorry for what they are going through and I try to help. I feel lucky for the privilege of having a 40-hour/week job that pays me well and allows me to be housed and fed.

My friend on welfare lives in Montreal. She has been unemployed for a year. Over a year, actually. She has spent 60 hours a week over that time looking for work, at first in her field, and then later anything at all. But with her low french skills, in Montreal where the unemployment and poverty rates are perennially high, it just didn't happen. BAd luck kept happening, though. Her wallet was stolen, with all her ID, and she can't afford to get it replaced. Her car breaks down constantly, making it nearly impossible to get to appointments. Her parents have cut her off because they think the antidepressants she's taking are voluntary, instead of the only thing that keeps her from being suicidal. She has the cheapest apartment she's ever been able to find there, but with her welfare payments only $70/month more than her rent, she is not usually able to pay it. So she has now been evicted. There are no low-income housing options for her, no other apartments that she can afford, nowhere else for her to go. I haven't heard from her since it happened.

She has tried to declare bankruptcy so she can start over, but th ecost for the lawyer is $120/month--more than she can afford.

She uses food banks when she can, but their hours are limited and they won't let her take that much.

There are free french lessons provided by the government that she has signed up for, but the waiting list is years long and she is still nowhere near the top.

She can't leave. She has nowhere to go, and if she did, no money for gas, no money to rent a truck, no money to rent storage, no money for first and last month's rent.

She is a smart, passionate, talented, highly skilled person with a lot of wonderful things to offer to our society. But instead of doing everything we can to help her, and people like her, we are letting her slip through the cracks of the system. Is she perfect? No; but neither am I. One thing I do know is that if I made the mistakes she did, I wouldn't have been punished that way. I am middle-class and I have social supports like well-off family that would keep me from that position, far from it, with the sorts of minor errors of judgement she made. Like waiting one month too long before deciding to bail out and get out of Montreal.

Unfortunately, there will always be more low-paying jobs than high paying ones, and a large percentage of these are traditionally women's jobs (though men do some) such as waitress, babysitter, general cleaner, store clerk. If everyone were to rise above this level, who would do these necessary duties? Also, many of the lower paying jobs are no longer available on full time basis because there is a job shortage just about everywhere. I heard our casino had over 10,000 applications for basic employement positions. Small businesses close because the general population cannot afford to buy their products. Job security is almost non-existent, even in good paying work. Steel mills close, paper mills reduce staff, grain elevators close, etc. The employees from these are out there looking, and they usually have good job histories (a lot of these guys are now taxi drivers). Fast food joints change their staffs frequently and hire mostly students, so do stores. We need job creation to lift some of the burden.

quote:

---

That is the thing about a capitalist society. No one has to be poor.

---

If it did, businesses would be so desperate to hire almost anybody that you'd probably start seeing managers of McD's grabbing homeless people off the street, stuffing them in a uniform, and paying them.

Onto the subject of attitudes towards homeless people: I've heard the friend-of-mine thing too from some people, but I've also heard stories from others about how they literally offered a homeless person a job right then and there, and the homeless guy kept making up excuses and finally admitted that he actually didn't want to work.

So there's stories from both ends of the spectrum.

Personally, I think the whole attitudinal debate is bypassing the real, structural issues in the economy that require a certain percentage of the population to remain unemployed.

DrConway, that's true. I realize that the evidence of my friend is anecdotal and does't *prove* anything. But what I have noticed from many people who talk about "welfare frauds" etc. is that they have little to no personal experience with poverty, either in their own lives or the lives of people close to them. It frustrates me to hear people passing judgement on an entire class of people, representatives of whom they have never met.

quote:

---

DrConway, that's true. I realize that the evidence of my friend is anecdotal and does't *prove* anything. But what I have noticed from many people who talk about "welfare frauds" etc. is that they have little to no personal experience with poverty, either in their own lives or the lives of people close to them. It frustrates me to hear people passing judgement on an entire class of people, representatives of whom they have never met.

---

I've lost count of the number of self-righteous assholes out there who think kicking people in the ribs while they're down (metaphorically speaking) is a sport to be played for points.

The irony is that they don't even understand that "just get a job" requires a chain of skills that have been so ingrained into the majority of the population that they never stop to ask themselves what would happen if someone actually DIDN'T learn those skills as part of the process of growing up.

Think about it. When you go to school every day and do assignments for deadlines, you're actually replicating the process by which you do things in the workforce. When you're told to follow orders by teachers, it's prepping you for following orders by bosses.

Parents do much the same thing by teaching their children basic manners which allow them to function smoothly with other members of society.

Re: the "kicking in the ribs". I've had many years to observe my parents in this bizarre-seeming behaviour, and I have a little hypothesis. I think that if we can psychologically label the poor as "undeserving" of anything better, then that allows us to believe that poverty will never happen to us.

Do you see what I mean? If I have a relatively healthy self-esteem (which most folk do, I think) and I can convince myself that poor people don't deserve anything better because they're lazy and stupid etc. etc., then I can believe that I will never be poor, because I am neither lazy nor worthless.

Joe Califano, a person who was transferred from the Dept of Defense to become an aide to Pres. Johnson and then became Jimmy Carter's Secretary of HUD in the 1970s, in his book writes something to this effect:

"As the President and I drove down the streets of the city in Texas he called his home, we stopped at an intersection and noticed a homeless man sitting against a building. The President looked at me, and held his fingers barely a quarter inch apart. He said, 'Joe, the difference between that guy and you and me is THIS much.'"