Here’s a quick info dump for you. I don’t have a chance to break this down to see how easy/hard it would be to match the homeless population with available units per state, and my definition of which of these unused homes are actually available for use at a given time may differ from the next person. But I was curious how reliable their numbers were and then to see if anyone had any takes on the data.
Nearly 327,000 people in the United States experiencing homelessness lived in shelters… The sheltered population is an estimate of the population experiencing homelessness that stay in emergency and transitional shelters. It is not a complete count of the total U.S. population experiencing homelessness, which the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimated was 582,500 in 2022.
I wonder why the liberal states are clearly worse off. Also, our very poorest states (WV, LA, MS) seem best.
EDIT: Classic lemmy. “Is that a criticism of liberals?! Not around here pal!” Just pointing out what the maps clearly shows and was wondering. Good explanation before, but I still have a question regarding the numbers.
Causation indicates that one event causes another. Correlation only identifies that there is a relationship between two events or outcomes.
If you were to collect data on the sale of ice cream cones and swimming pools throughout the year, you would likely find a strong positive correlation between the two as sales of both increase during the summer months. If you make the mistake of assuming correlation implies causation, you would incorrectly claim that an increase in ice cream cone sales causes people to buy swimming pools. However, this isn’t the case since you can attribute the increase in both to another variable—likely the warmer weather people experience during the summer. So although a correlation is present, you can’t support causation.
In another correlation versus causation example, it may not be as easy to identify whether causation is present with two variables. For example, you could find a correlation between the amount someone exercises and their reported levels of happiness. While it’s possible an increase in exercise is causing an increase in happiness, you can’t say for sure that it’s the cause since there could be another unknown variable that has a more significant influence on a person’s mood.
The homeless chart per state is of the number of people in shelters.
Correlation could indicate the poor states have less homeless.
Causation could indicate the reason they have less homeless in shelters is because the have no shelters.
If you look at many of these poor states, you may find less shelter and services exist for the homeless, homeless is more punished by law, or other factors making it less likely for someone to stay there or to be counted as homeless there.
This is why many say you can make a chart show anything you want it to, and you need to be critical when looking at people’s data.
I didn’t pull the HUD data to dive too much into it. The link to the source I gave had this though for your second question:
[One source of data was places] That provide temporary shelter during extremely cold weather (like churches). This category does not include shelters that operate only in the event of a natural disaster.
They may also be unemployed seasonal labor, so they have work sometimes (agriculture, tourism, ranching, etc) but not enough year round income. Just guessing on that, I’m not much familiar with Montana and the Dakotas.
Check out the full info at the links though. I’m a but sleep deprived to do much in depth analysis on this today. 😔
The only statistic that matters is sold not occupied and even that is only useful if it excludes houses that just haven’t been moved into yet.
The majority of those figures are just showing that houses are unoccupied in resort towns because there’s nothing there half the year or that houses sit empty for a month while a new renter is sorted out or a new owner is moving in.
We don’t need to shove the homeless into a remote resort town where they have no access to services - we need more housing in our cities where support networks can help those in need.
The fact is that there arent enough houses to house every homeless person in the USA and maintain sufficient housing stock for people to move houses.
Anything below a 5% vacancy rate is considered a housing shortage - it indicates there’s too much demand for housing and not enough supply.
Very few American cities are sitting at or above 5% vacancy.
Yup, your first 2 paragraphs are touched on in the link.
Also agree on your other points. I wonder how many basic functioning towns we could build for what we spend assisting or harassing the homeless and the migrants… I feel it should be straightforward to get them integrated into the economy with an organized boost in resources made in a holistic approach.
What we do with unhoused mentally ill or ones that are homeless by choice is well beyond what I’m qualified to discuss, but I imagine the bulk would welcome being helped constructively.
That is unbelievably depressing. Once housing became a collectible, rather than a life necessity, it was all over. Not to mention that for some fucking reason, private businesses are allowed to buy residential property
You might think if a company has tons of empty houses or more likely apartments that the company is losing money because nobody is paying rent but that’s not entirely accurate.
Companies do take losses since they have to pay property tax and stuff but they just use that as a tax write off against their profits so they don’t have to pay as much in taxes so it’s not even a complete loss for them. :/
I’m finding it hard to believe all of them would pass any sort of inspection to live in. The author might be confusing real-estate properties for homes. Not to say they’re empty lots, I’m sure there is a structure on site but from my anecdotal experience of vacant homes, they won’t provide any more protection from the weather than a cardboard box. I’m not even talking about crackhouses in a cirty or anything either. I’m saying in rural America if granny doesn’t die till 90 that house hasn’t been worked on for 40 years and is always in need of more work than the entire property is worth.
Edit: Yeah I missed where it even has the audacity to list Detroit as having the most 🤣 the author is clickbaiting the fuck out of this stat if they think even 20% of the vacant homes in Detroit are livable.
Fuck it edit 2: The real article should have been about how there is only twice as many homeless as there are fucking tax exempt churches. So two. Two fucking homeless people per church thst doesn’t pay a fucking lick of taxes. Don’t have any references or articles on this, I saw it posted on Lemmy tho like a month ago.
Yea, but even if only 5% of them are livable that’s still enough to cover everyone. I also think it says something that there are that many houses no one is doing anything with while developers are constantly building new homes. (or worse entire neighborhoods of tiny homes…)
Don’t take away that the market didn’t work right and needs fixing. It works as expected, serves first and foremost the ultra rich, and need to be destroyed. Markets only monitors demand, we need a necessity based economy
No, they’re not worried about joggling your junk. It’s because you need something like an extra half inch in the seam on the side you dress on to leave a little extra room in your pants for your dick. Well-tailored pants are asymetrical. Not sure those of you who wear briefs need to worry about it.
This seems like a good place for a joke about hanging dong. Podcasts about how the distinguished gentleman may properly hang dong in tailored slacks, let’s go with that
I don’t have the equipment to know if this is true or not, but it seems smart to ask the person you’re fitting so that you don’t accidentally grope them
Its true. This is a common tailoring question for men. Nothing to do with being fondled and everything to do with the pants fit. If you are getting measured like this for expensive pants your going to get nudged a bit anyways when they do the inseam measure.
I think you’re telling me you’re a woman. I want to point out that seeing a tailor is a non-sexual experience. I’m not sure I’ve ever been to one, not even a female tailor, who HASN’T made incidental contact with my genitals when checking fit, particularly in-seam. It’s a far cry from being “groped”. It’s a bit like imagining a lingerie specialist worries about touching someone’s boobs, or that a doctor gets worried about seeing someone naked.
This is the right answer. It’s so if you’re wearing tightly tailored pants you have some dick space so you’re not imprinting and showing it off to everyone.
There’s a scene in a 90s comedy about that where the tailor asks which side he wears his pants on. The main character looked very confused until his friend explained it.
The Friends episode was about how the tailor kept moving Joey’s penis around with his hand as he was taking measurements, and Ross let him know that wasn’t normal. I only know this because I went down a rabbit hole trying to find the movie I’m thinking of.
Around here tailors say, “which way do you hang” (or they used to, it’s been a while) and it’s because extra room is required in tailored pants. Generally junk at rest prefers one side to the other.
It’s the story of a guy who is constantly living with migraines. He goes to the doctor for the tenth time and says “doctor I can’t take it anymore, these migraines are ruining my life!”, so the doctor prescribes him some medication and says “listen, these are the last resorts… If they don’t work, there’s really only one thing we can do, and it’s to chop off your dick!”, “chop off my dick?? I sure do hope these meds work!!”. The guy returns home and starts taking the meds. But months past and the migraines persist. He can’t take it anymore, so he goes back to the doctor and says “doctor, I’ve had it, I have no life, it will be better to live without a dick than not to live at all”, “very well, let’s get it done!”. And so the doctor chops off his dick! Months past and the guy’s migraines are completely gone. He’s so happy, he finally can live a somewhat normal life. After months of success, he tells himself “I think I should celebrate! Let get ourselves a nice suit!”. So he goes to the tailor, and the tailor asks him “sir, tell me, which way do you hang?”, obviously the guy replies “oh you know, it is of no importance what so ever…”, the tailor exclaims loudly “are you mad? It is of the upmost importance sir! If it hangs on the wrong side of the pants, you’ll end up getting constant migraines!!”
I don’t understand the chart in this article about body type vs. underwear style. It doesn’t relate to the question that it’s located directly under, and it makes no attempt to explain why, for example, thin men shouldn’t wear boxers.
I can’t tell if this article is AI generated or just rushed out by someone trying to meet a quota.
I’m not even sure there were any men involved in writing this I typically have my thing pinned upward to avoid rug rash and boners turning my leg into a codpiece
Am I like the only man here that wears underwear I’ve never worn underwear that lets my cock hang like do you guys get underwear that it is like 2 times the size of your waist
Did people just forget about boners like when that thing gets hard it goes up and if it’s sheethed in a pant leg boy is that gonna hurt not to mention rug rash
Presumably if you’re wearing tailored pants, you’re not in a situation that’s likely to result in 80s comedy style boner hijinks. And if you are, you have the foresight to take other wardrobe precautions.
Why in god’s name would you choose to put it down a leg‽ That shit will give you the worst rug burn imagineable if you happen to take your pants off too fast or fall in a split or just sit down on your pants in a weird way where they pull against you if you try to shift in the wrong way.
Well my non-circumsized penis hangs out in my left pant leg and even without underwear, I’ve never had chaffing as an issue.
Have you? Have you even an uncircumsized dick? Because, how would you know if you don’t?
The only time that’s been even slightly an issue is when putting on pants without underwear just after sex, putting on jeans without underwear and while the foreskin was behind the glans and not on it. Which is when I’ll just grab my junk, roll the hood back down to cover most of the glans and then no chaffing.
And if you don’t put your dick in your leg, where else would you?
til
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.