This is sad. I’m not surprised at all. 😔

You can't make people accept help or go into shelters. Plenty of people want to remain homeless so they can keep doing drugs and drinking as they please.

housed people are much more likely to get sober and healthy than unhoused people, though.

And if McPherson Sq was cleared due to health issues, leaving people to wander off to other encampments doesn't actually solve those issues at all.

I am surprised it’s only 2/3 tbh.

In other words - 1/3 have received help.

That's actually pretty good turnaround for the people that accepted the program. Sadly many have justified (and sometimes not) great views and experiences with these programs. I wish they was a way to help more people. I'm still surprised so many joined voluntarily.

Did you even read what the person you responded to said?

[removed]

>Plenty of people want to remain homeless so they can keep doing drugs and drinking as they please.

Give them shelter without preconditions and they're more likely to get sober. In other words, the whole "no help until you're sober" rule actually makes it less likely for people to get there.

I mean “hey come on in and slam heroin in front of a bunch of people trying to get sober” doesn’t seem like a great plan.

What we're doing now is not working. Housing first has worked many times in many different places. Sure, when you phrase it as "hey come on in and slam heroin in front of a bunch of people trying to get sober" it doesn't sound like the right thing to do, but just because it sounds bad in the most cynical possible framing doesn't mean it's not a huge step up from the patchwork nonsense we're trying now.

Does anyone think our current strategy is working well?

City paid crack houses? Who can’t get behind that idea?

Instead you want people to remain living in parks and sidewalks? Or what is your alternative?

I don’t have one. Homelessness will always exist for my lifetime in this city. But I deff don’t want my tax dollars going to fund crack house shelters.

what if it cost fewer tax dollars to house people than it does to let people live on the street?

Also why do you think the problem is unsolvable when so many other major cities around the world don't have this problem?

[removed]

The dozen or 2 people that decided they could build a shanty town in a public park 2 blocks from the White House are not "the homeless". They should have been removed way sooner.

[deleted]

There was a pretty extensive outreach campaign before they cleared the square. The hard truth is that a lot of, not all, but a lot of the individuals currently homeless are doing so at least partially by choice.

There are a ton of possible reasons for this, whether it’s an unwillingness or an inability to abide by sometimes strict shelter rules, substance abuse or mental health issues, fear of their remaining possessions being forfeited or stolen, just feeling safer and more comfortable on the street than in an unknown environment, or whatever else. The government is not empowered to involuntarily commit someone who’s not an active danger to some facility.

Do you have a solution or are you here just to point fingers and call names?

So who should have to shelter people who do drugs and likely won’t take care of their space. You willing to rent out a room to one?

I’d rather not have city paid drug dens.

That people who want help can get free rehab and then housing.

People who don’t want help can’t be helped. Not everything has a solution

If your goal is to get people sober, housing is the most effective first step. That's not an opinion, that's a repeatedly demonstrated fact. It's not the only step, but it's the first step. This is a classic case of "would you rather solve the problem, or would you rather be right"?

Currently the district is paying scummy landlords millions of dollars to game the system without actually helping any unhoused people. Take that money and just house people directly.

I’m not doubting you but do you have a source that housing + no rehab is effective?

I mean it’s not. Giving housing to people who are active drug users has consequences too.

So you are or are not willing to rent to a known drug user?

How would you feel if they lived next door and brought their drug user friends over all the time?

So, the minority of.

Yes, one of those consequences is that they're more likely to get sober than if they were on the street. Another is that it's likely to save the city money on emergency services. Yes, it has its own problems, it's not a silver bullet. But it's far more effective than what we're doing with that same money now.

More than zero

How would you classify them?

Why would someone who isn't homeless choose to live in a tent on public land without electricity or water

i mean the alternative is what you have now, with people shooting up on the street -- is that any better?

i don't think harm reduction programs solve these problems easily, but they're at least worth exploring

I'm not a landlord, and I never said anything about private landlords, not sure where you're getting that idea from.

And I would have no problem living next to a formerly homeless person. If they were causing problems with noise, damage to the building, etc., I would deal with that the same way I deal with any neighbor causing those problems.

"a dozen or 2 homeless people who decided to build a shanty town in a central park"

What’s your point? That there are other homeless people in other parts of dc? If you have something to say then articulate it

You want me to say something less agreeable so you can do some virtue signaling? Am I getting that right?

They aren't living on "public land" this isn't fucking Montana. They built a shanty town in a park 2 blocks from the White House. Everyone in that park knew this would happen and they laughed and saw how long they could play it out.

We aren't going to let McPherson SQ be a shanty town because a dozen people put their tents up.

"Without electricity or water" bullshit.. they are sleeping a few hundred yards from the president of the United States of America. Stop it.

[removed]

Oh I absolutely don't think it should be housing + no rehab. It's just housing first. Having people in a stable location makes it much easier to connect them with services like substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, job training & placement, etc.

Here's one study that looked into it:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10737824/
Conclusion: "The program's housing retention rate over a five-year period challenges many widely held clinical assumptions about the relationship between the symptoms and the functional ability of an individual. Clients with severe psychiatric disabilities and addictions are capable of obtaining and maintaining independent housing when provided with the opportunity and necessary supports."

Here's another, this time with more mixed results:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448313/

"Participants in the Housing First program were able to obtain and maintain independent housing without compromising psychiatric or substance abuse symptoms."

People were more likely to remain stably housed with a housing first approach.

The most interesting highlight for me is that the housing first group had lower levels of engagement in substance abuse treatment, but basically the same levels of actual substance use. This shows that forcing people into substance abuse treatment in order to receive housing is ineffective.

Ok, but we're going to be doing this again with another park in 6 months. I'm tired of this total waste of tax dollars.

You did not even attempt to answer that question.

What was the question? They have electric and water in McPherson SQ.

Agree, but park clearing must continue to be done, vigorously and relentlessly. If it’s not so easy for them to post up somewhere else, they will be more likely to accept help. I’m encouraged to hear that 33% of those at McPherson did accept, and hope the other 2/3 come around to not living on the streets of DC.

It's right fucking there. I'm not going to repeat it because you're not gonna answer it.

​

No, those tents don't have electric and running water.

Don’t get all 2015 anti-sjw on me, I’m saying if those people aren’t “the homeless” then who exactly qualifies as “the homeless”?

"I don't have solutions but the problem can't be solved and I don't want my money-"

​

It's not your money.

Did he state that?

A lower percentage of homeless have drug or alcohol issues than the percentage who have used this program.

​

https://americanaddictioncenters.org/rehab-guide/homeless

I would confidently suggest that there is similar or higher percentages of drug use by those working on the hill and K St as those living in tents.

Moving the goal posts again? They chose that park to be closer to those things. We still can't let them live there in a shanty town. Even a progressive warrior should understand that.

I took the linked and other comments as implying that housing was the better first step than rehab https://reddit.com/r/washingtondc/comments/118eh0l/_/j9gtr25/?context=1

I’m just looking for sources on the claims people make because this is a highly complicated issue. Any data or studies on it is interesting and people throwing out random facts in these threads should be able to back it up like op does.

The homeless are fucking everywhere in this city. They're there because it's where people who may give them money and food are and they had yet to be pushed out of somewhere else that will be closed for months to train them to be elsewhere. We are pushing a problem on top of, not under, a different rug, deciding to clean that run, and pushing it to another.

>If it’s not so easy for them to post up somewhere else, they will be more likely to accept help.

Is there any evidence of this approach actually working anywhere? I've seen it suggested a lot--just make being homeless even more awful then no one will choose to do it--but I have yet to see any study show that it's an effective approach.

I am fairly sure the vast majority of people under 40 that have lived next door to me while living in DC were drug users, and the people they had over were as well.

​

I know because I have smoked or drank with them.

You know what actually helps prevent drug deaths and exposure to needles?

Safe use facilities, which cities like DC refuse to legalize.

The homeless are "the homeless", they are not represented by a dozen yucksters that took over a central park for way to many weeks.

If I drove a truck over to McPherson SQ and started building a cabin there I would have been kicked out the same day. This isn't the issue of "the homeless" this is the obvious conclusion to a nothing story about some guys that decided no one else was going to be able to use the park.

You... said they weren't homeless. Now you are saying they are. Do you understand why they asked how you would classify them?

He wants you to decide if they aren't the homeless or if they are.

​

It's not virtue signaling to try to understand your clear fuckup in your incredibly low level logic

You realize those people were living in other parks that they got kicked out of previously, these people just go wherever they can they’re not doing this shit for fun

No.

This is not "ignoring the problem" or fixing homeless. They are a dozen vagrants removed from a central park.

We have neither added to or subtracted from the homeless population. They are where they would have been anyway, today.

Nope that's just word games. You know exactly what I meant.

Going from “slamming heroin” every day to sober overnight has numerous studies to back up that that’s not a way to be sober sustainably long term. The most long term sustainable sober option is medication assisted treatment, that people still clutch their pearls about.

Like if any of you who are hardcore against drugs and would do any amount of research to see why harm reduction is the model that helps more people get sober and healthy with the assistance of MAT and able to get into housing and jobs long term like many of you claim to want them to get into, perhaps the policy failures that keep plaguing DC would get somewhere.

Correct. If they leave this park, they go to a different place in the city. Very good. Your insistence that this park be clean for you does not resolve it.

I don't, and neither does the other person, because you're communicating like shit and immediately contradicting yourself, which has confused multiple people.

I don't need to define "homeless" so you comment guys can show how pure you are.

12 guys in a park are not "the homeless". We don't need to solve vagrancy before we kick them out of McPherson square.

But there is no way to deal with a judgement proof tenant next door. What are you going to do about them? “The same way I deal with other neighbors” is as vague as can be.

Where is the money coming from then?

Yep. They still can't turn McPherson SQ into their personal KoA.

Well the park is clean now, so while you work on that other business, my issue is in fact resolved.

I can understand your perspective that that’s a particularly bad spot for a homeless encampment I just don’t see why you feel the need to vilify the homeless people themselves

Nah, you're just using a weird aloof super progressive attack pose to try and push me into saying something you can screenshot for a tweet later. Just let it go man. Everyone else knows what I said. I don't need an editor.

There's a decent number of people that honestly just have zero interest in rejoining society. A lot of people don't want to accept that. "Just give them homes" isn't a catch all solution.

Taxes. Taxes aren't your money. I have yet to bomb a small Yemen boy with my stealth bomber because it's not my money.

Lol!

And a different park is not. In a year, they will come back to this park when the current dirty park is cleaned.

​

If your issue is resolved, you lack object permanence.

That's what the ADHD pros tell me.

Agreed. There’s been reports that the money that’s supposed to be going towards housing the folx in the parks people on this sub are clutching their pearls about is actually being spent clearing them instead. Color any of us surprised.

As opposed to the three thirds that remained on the street prior to the clearing…

1/3 off the street is great!

>I’d rather not have city paid drug dens.

Tbh I'd prefer this over a city subsidized open air homeless encampment where presumably the same activity happens.

...," they said, having literally no idea what they were talking about.

If you interacted with them directly, you would see public nudity and shooting up. There were needles and narcan everywhere. The drugs made some of them violent. These are just facts.

Nah u/lenme125 is just here to virtue signal and feel good about themselves. That way they can pretend that they're Compassionate Helpers without actually having to show compassion or help.

[deleted]

​

>The dozen or 2 people that decided they could build a shanty town in a public park 2 blocks from the White House are not "the homeless".
>
>"a dozen or 2 homeless people who decided to build a shanty town in a central park"

You said they werent homeless. Then you said they were homeless. This isn't word games. Either you're trolling or truly contradicting yourself.

Harm reduction isn’t easy, but usually when someone got addicted, it wasn’t easy either. Most of the people I speak to when I’m supporting them with fresh supplies say that they want to get clean, but they don’t know where to find support. The folx who can find MAT clinics and stay supported eventually do get sober. Sobriety isn’t an overnight thing. LA I believe has a housing first model that does get people housed and slowly weans them off of whatever they’re using on the streets and gets them onto a MAT regimen. There’s also a program in North Carolina that does the same thing. The main block to those programs being implemented nationwide are policy changes and funding.

You literally just quoted me than paraphrased it wrong.

I can't teach you the nuances of written English.

Tax dollars used to improve public safety, put 1/3 of that group in better and more sustainable conditions, allow access to public resources and pay district residents for their labor? Sounds like a four way success to me

DC makes it almost impossible to be involuntarily homeless (or at least to go without a roof over your head at little or no cost). Maybe this is callous of me but I don't have much tolerance for those who turn that down, pollute the city with drugs and needles, turn sidewalks into no-go zones and relieve themselves in public parks.

It sounds like they did some outreach beforehand, hopefully that encourages the remaining folks to get connected to help that get them inside eventually

I’m not hardcore against drugs. I’m suggesting that maybe the “hey you’re not coming in if you’re actively using dope” rule isn’t without merit and that it’s ok for a place to create and enforce rules.

No one wakes up and decides to be homeless for funsies. Some people "chose" homeless because of mental illness (paranoia, addiction) or because the path to shelter and stability is not realistic. This means they need more help, not less.

This guy is clearly a homelessness expert 😎

This guy is clearly full of shit.

Many have denied the temporary housing available.

I believe a previous post quoted an article saying that a few dozen were offered permanent/transition housing and only a dozen-ish took up the offer.

I hear your point about harm reduction, but from a budgetary perspective the ‘no conditions housing’ won’t make sense. Right or wrong, these programs are funded by foundations, cities, donations, and other good will and these stakeholders are interested in helping the most people the most cost effective way. That means help the ones who want it, don’t help the ones that don’t. Moreover, you can’t force a lifestyle change on a person who doesn’t want it. Also- what about harm reduction for people trying to avoid drugs, alcohol, and unstable, untreated addicts? It’s also not like it’s possible to create addicts/mentally unwell only housing.

No matter how much time, patience, resources, therapy (assuming they want it), and money are given to some people it won’t bring them to a base level of functional in mainstream society. This isn’t to say they’re undeserving of sympathy and support, but to say that in a society with limited resources and money services are going to go to the ones who stand to gain the most benefit.

You're getting that information from?

Makes sense. There have been studies and reports that show that 70-80% of the chronically homeless have significant mental illness and/or substance abuse problems. In order to put a roof over their heads, they also need treatment regimes and case workers et cetera. A large number of them refuse treatment.

I was present around the time of the park clearing and saw nary a needle...

So I volunteer with one of the harm reduction organizations and I personally have made inroads with drug users who want help and to get sober. The one thing that’s stopping them is DC’s requirement that they have to be sober first. They don’t have the health insurance to be able to get sober because the main reason they use is pain management and they got addicted because of the opioid crisis. They don’t have a reliable address for Medicaid and they can’t use mine because I live in Virginia.

There IS money for programs, but DC has used more of that money to do sweeps and evictions than they have to get people into housing. LA has way more of a population to house and has been successful with a housing first model. So count up how many policy failures DC has and estimate how much money they could potentially save on sweeps if they prioritized housing instead of abstinence sobriety?

You seem to be of the impression that homeless/drug user are a given combination. It's almost axiomatic that homeless folk don't have any money. So, who's giving away free drugs? Inquiring minds want to know.

Please don’t make me do this. A wapo article came out a week ago staying that of the individuals offered housing. Half didn’t take it. And when the camp was being surveyed half didn’t take it. So take that “concern” elsewhere.

I live in Virginia and live next to drug users (I smell weed all the time) and I’m fine with it.

Did they deny it, or did they not take it? Different things.

​

My apologies for expecting you to know what you're saying and have it be true, I won't do that again, seems to put you in a rough mood

Was there? I was there handing out fresh needles and narcan and there wasn’t any that I could see and I was walking from tent to tent. Or do you have special glasses to help you see spent needles and narcan cartridges?

We are talking about people who have refused aid from the city which is often because they don’t want drug testing

If you are insinuating that "the homeless" has some sort of different meaning than being homeless you're going to need to be explicit about what you mean. Clearly no one else in this comment thread understands you.

59 percent of Americans are a paycheck away from being homeless, according to a survey by Charles Schwab.

I'm not insinuating anything, I am very bluntly pointing out that you are either trolling me or genuinely don't understand what I clearly and correctly wrote.

We done here?

Oh. You probably just can’t help it. And I’m trying to be respectful here. But there is no difference between someone denying housing and just not taking it. Then again, you sound like someone that would walk into a clearly condemned establishment and ask for pizza.

It doesn’t get much worse than living in a tent in McPherson Square Park. I would say try a lot of different things. We can’t just let anyone post up anywhere, it makes the whole city more dangerous for everyone. And not to mention the economic impact. Your employer wants to drag employees back to in-person work in their McPherson Square office, as the Mayor wants? Surrounded by drug use and danger? No fucking way.

How much did it cost to clear the park?

"I'm trying to be respectful but I am going to dig through your shit to find a way to insult you." Gimme a fucking break.

​

There is a difference between denying a service that is directly offering to you and being counted as "not taking" something you were unaware of or not offered specifically; these programs are often seen as being not utilized by those who need them while in reality getting them, or having them offered at all, is more difficult or unlikely than you imply, and the numbers are offered publicly to appear as if people simply refuse. I am sorry you can't grasp that difference and believe the city's statement without question.

Denying an offer for free housing = not taking an offer of free housing. What are you on about?

You should read more than you write.

​

https://www.reddit.com/r/washingtondc/comments/118eh0l/comment/j9hu2lq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

The evidence is in the 1/3 of people at McPherson who finally decided enough was enough.

Well then it’s a good thing they’re employed, yeah?

Oh god. Your emotions are yours to deal with. I’ll give you some stats. Half of the 55~ in the camp were not surveyed. It was because they weren’t able to be found, or declined to even go through the process.

You mean to tell me that these people have been trying to get housing for the several months they set up shop in the square?

And no, I didn’t have to dig through your posts. I just remember how ridiculous it was when I saw it.

So... you understand that's not denied, right? Half aren't even counted in this data.

I don't know how you can smugly "give me some stats" and not understand they oppose your entire point.

​

I think that's enough time for your man. You should take the time you would give to being smug to a stranger to think about what little information you have and how it counters your own position.

If the encampment hadn’t been cleared, the number of people in housing would likely be zero. You can’t count housing as the only measure of success here when there’s a stubbornly resistant group refusing help and an entire community’s well being to consider.

Yeah, but they wear nice clothes and their doctor prescribes their amphetamines and/or opioids, so it's all gravy.

I hear you on that. I had multiple family members dealing with addiction. Some are doing extremely well, living their best clean life. Some are dead but while they were alive talked all about how they wanted to beat their addiction. The best support systems in the whole didn’t save them. So Im cynical when people say a lack of housing is their only barrier, especially when some people are primed to take what they can get. Addiction really is something that needs to be dealt with on an individual to individual basis.

More to your point though, I’m 100% in agreement that addiction is more of a health crisis and would be fine with methadone clinics being added to hospitals, which would be great harm reduction and a good use of city funds. Realistically though I don’t see that happening in downtown DC because what would people prefer- clearing of a tent city or establishment of a treatment center plus housing for addicts?

> According to DMHHS Deputy Mayor Wayne Turnage, just 20 of 45 homeless individuals who were offered bridge housing — temporary accommodations for those who qualify for a voucher — accepted it. Three people agreed to seek refuge at a homeless shelter, Turnage said. The rest, about 50 people, split off to different corners of the region.

From the article linked in the post

Yes, most of them refused the help that was offered

Half of them could not be reached. Insisting these are the same thing is either intellectually or deliberately dishonest.

That's at least three people you have insisted are too stupid to understand you.

​

Maybe there's a constant in this issue where so many people can't get your shifting statement

That doesn't seem accurate.

​

https://americanaddictioncenters.org/rehab-guide/homeless

There are empty shelter beds every night. Anyone who couldn’t be reached who was living in McPherson Square has already made the choice to reject the services available to them in favor of living in a park.

Anyone who thinks they’re waiting for a helping hand is either intellectually or deliberatively dishonest.

I appreciate when someone makes shit up and says "these are just facts"

I have friends that, despite the statement by people that shelters are available, took months to get placed.

"If you were not there to deny a service, you denied it." Very deep shit. Jesus, how do you survive without drowning yourself in the rain

The service is available. It isn’t something that needs to be specifically offered. The emergency shelters A) don’t ask you to document your emergency, and B) at most ask for picture ID. They fill up on a first come first serve basis, but do not require placement of any kind.

They didn’t have to be there to continually be denying the service that is offered you weapons grade idiot.

And of course, the alternative to not monopolize a fucking park is always available to them.

What. Half of those offered housing denied it. What is so hard to understand here?

As someone that works with this population, my position is the same.

When it comes to these camps, the only way to get these people off their ass is to force them to take action. A camp shouldn’t be around indefinitely because people won’t take it seriously. Same with the eviction moratorium and people just saying fuck it when it comes to paying their rent. And if you don’t have experience in the matter, I’m not trying to hear it.

In order to be counted as denying a service, you have to be offered it. That is how data works. Half were not reached at all.

I'll take the word of those affected over some guy on Reddit.

Half of those there were not reached. That means a quarter denied it. What is so hard to understand here?

[removed]

Don’t even try. Fucking guy is jerking you around. If people really wanted hello they would seek it out. Not wait until their shit is literally bulldozed to say “oh wait let me do something”.

And the people here throwing a fit about it are the worst. They know damn well that help is available. People just don’t go get it. That means either a) tough cookie. Or b) they aren’t mentally capable to make these decisions and need to be placed involuntarily.

Nah, not worth exploring. What should happen is the homeless should be allowed to sleep in the v downtown botanist business at night. As for them shouting up, what business is it of anyone else?

Lmao. I’m going to assume you are a middle school aged person or are something else. They weren’t reached because they didn’t want to be reached. Many declined the survey. How the fuck you live in the park but somehow miss canvassing for two weeks.

Layman’s (your) terms.

If, over the course of two weeks, someone is taking a an assessment of the clothes washing ability of the people who live in your home, and even though the three other occupants actually wash clothes, yet you refuse to wash clothes, can they give you a score? Or were you simply not reached?

And while we’re at it. Why the f are peoples denying housing?

"They weren't reached because (makes something up with no information)"

Keep the insults to yourself. I apologize for suggesting you might not have all the answers. Obviously whatever you have decided is correct is.

How do you know this? And if it’s factually true, don’t you think there’s a reason for that? Like they’ve been beaten down so bad by society that they have no desire to be apart of it again.

It's called piling on. Have you been to the internet before?

Maybe they're piling on because you said something fucking stupid and contradictory and refuse to back down from the demand that it should make sense to everyone

Jesus christ, I got 32 up votes, and 3 confused screamers, so I guess 10% can't fucking read. I'm alright with that.

Haaaaa. Well let’s get to it. I work with this population on the daily. Do you?

If you for example the full SAMSHA report, it starts out with the overall population of homeless at any given point in time, which shows figures of 35-40% with mental health or substance abuse as shown in your link above. But farther down in the full SAMSHA report, where they speak specifically of the chronically homeless, that's where the number jumps up to 70-80%

I'll take those numbers better than 0

>In order to be counted as denying a service, you have to be offered it. That is how data works. Half were not reached at all.

Not reached at the time. How do you know they weren't reached before?

How would you deal with them?

That's fine, but most people aren't. And we're obviously not talking about potheads. I don't think we can consider it a solution to say, "Allow those with unmanaged, addiction-related psychosis to live independently in crowded neighborhoods."

You wrote elsewhere about residential harm-reduction programs. As far as I can tell, the big impediments there are cost and staffing, though I'm curious what such programs cost other cities per resident per year. $30,000? $100,000? You'll quickly run into a lot of opposition as they become unaffordable.

That’s actually pretty low relatively speaking

[deleted]

He’s separating the individuals from the group.

His argument is that the problem isn’t that they are “the homeless”, the issue is that they were in that specific spot. So this wasn’t to combat “the homeless” or fix homelessness, but only to get those individuals out of that area.

With the caveat that definitions of homelessness range widely, comparisons of rates of homelessness across the OECD seem to show that while, yes, there might be a baseline amount of homelessness that will be extremely difficult to solve, there is significant improvement to be had. Again, the statistics may be off, but Italy has 40% of the homelessness that we do and some of the Baltics have 33%. Japan's rate is essentially 0 (5000 total out of 125 million). I'm not arguing that any of those countries has it exactly right, but just saying a core group doesn't want to be housed seems to ignore that much larger numbers in other places are successfully housed.

Consider that the countries you referenced might not have the same (perhaps overly-) robust protections for the individual liberties of the mentally ill. If a schizophrenic person wants to remain unmedicated and living under a bridge, there’s very little that can be done to force them to assimilate to live like a ‘normal’ person or be permanently institutionalized. That’s not the case in Japan.

[deleted]

>No one wakes up and decides to be homeless for funsies.

Uh, yes, they absolutely do. Ever hear of vagabonds? I saw a lot of them down in Charlottesville--they're usually young people who decide to just drop out of society and travel around the country by jumping on trains and stopping in cities/towns to beg for money and food.

[removed]

There are tons of these types on the West Coast too. It's easy with warm weather.

[removed]

Isn't that most people? I would fit into that category. I don't live paycheck to paycheck but eventually savings run out.

This subreddit gets super fascist when the homeless/poor people are brought up