1317: Homelessness | Skeptical Sunday

Lufthansa Allegra is an innovative, elevated travel experience across all classes,

“focusing on each person with their own individual and situational needs.”

Look forward to your own feel-good moment above the clouds. Visit Lufthansa.com and search for Allegra's to learn more. Lufthansa Allegra's. All it takes is a yes. Welcome to Skeptical Sunday. I'm your host, Jordan Harbinger. Today I'm here with Skeptical Sunday co-host writer and researcher Nick Pell.

On the Jordan Harbinger show we decode the stories, secrets and skills of the world's most fascinating people and turn their wisdom into practical advice that you can use to impact your

own life and those around you. Our mission is to help you become a better informed, more critical

thinker during the week we have long-form conversations with the variety of amazing folks from spies to CEOs, athletes, authors, thinkers, performers. On Sundays though it's Skeptical Sunday, a rotating guest co-host denial breakdown in topic you may have never thought about and debunk

“common misconceptions about that topic such as exploration dates on food, acupuncture, astrology,”

recycling, diet supplements, the lottery, rakey, healing and more. If you're new to the show or you want to tell your friends about the show, I suggest our episode starter packs. These are collections of our favorite episodes on persuasion, negotiations, psychology, disinformation, junk science, crime and cults and more that'll help me listeners get a taste of everything we do here on the show. Just visit Jordanharbinger.com/starts or search for us in your Spotify app to get started.

Today on the show, if you live in a major metro area, you've probably noticed that homelessness is out of control. Ten cities are springing up across America. Panhandlers seem to be everywhere, even informally nice areas of town. You are not imagining things. In fact, homelessness reached record highs in 2024 when over 750,000 people were counted among the homeless. A lot of reasons are cited for the increase in homelessness among them and end to COVID-era relief programs

and an increasing number of homeless migrants showing up in America. It's often said that the

“average American is themselves only a paycheck or two away from being homeless, but is this true?”

Is homelessness chronic homelessness as a long-term way of life rather than a brief and transient condition? Is that more of a choice than it is a misfortune beyond someone's control? Here today to help me separate the street myths from the sidewalk realities is writer and researcher Nick Pel. Nick, have you ever been homeless? I had to crash on someone's house for a couple of weeks while I was in between places, but no, I once had a formerly homeless roommate and he used to dump

to die of us killer baked goods. Yeah, I actually, when I went to New York once, this is years and years and years ago, after I lived there, I went back to New York and this guy who was writing for me,

he also was like, oh, I'm going to New York too. I'd never met him. He was working for me over

the internet. This is well before video chat days. I was just sending him assignments. I'm some paper word website. I was like, oh, okay, cool. We can hang out and then he's like, great. I found out he was basically going into New York with no place to stay and he was cool and we'd known him for a while online. So I was like, why don't you crash here for a couple nights? And he would just go and come back with food and I was like, man, this guy really knows how to pay his share for this couch

because he's going to get food every day and I was like joking with him because he was a really big intimidating guy. I was joking. I was like, what are you going in and stealing this and he was just like, oh, no. And then after a while, I was like, man, you really over bought today. You don't have to bring back this much just for you and I and he's like, well, I'm not paying for it. And I was like, oh, crap, you are stealing it. And he's like, no, I'm getting it from the dumpster. They're throwing

this away. It's perfectly fine. And I was like, oh, no, no. But it was good Chinese food. I'm not going to run. Yeah, it's not that gross, man. There's tons of perfectly good foods sitting in dumpsters, just waiting for some enterprising individual to come along and fish it out. Yeah, I want to be really clear here. This was not like someone's leftovers in a styrofoam container that they didn't eat after they ordered it and picked at it. This was like the Chinese buffet after the dinner.

They just had a bunch of extra, a Kung Pao chicken and then they put it in the garbage. He would go in and be like, can you put this in a thing for me? And they were like, fine. Here's all of it for five bucks or something like that. So I don't think he was like, he wasn't like taking it out of the actual dumpster. But I will say, I bet your homeboy with the bait goods was actually doing that. Yes, no, no, he would. He would literally just go in the dumpster, fish him out. I'll stick to the one

from the bakery on the corner. But there is slash was in appeal to free, especially in my twenties.

I don't know why. Free always tastes better. For whatever it's worth, he was the first

formerly homeless person I ever knew and was the least sympathetic person on planet earth to the plight of the homeless. Really, that's interesting to me because you think that being somewhat fresh off the street, he'd want to go to bat for them. Well, he would always talk about how like, you know, living in a house was like temporary thing for him and he was going to go live on the streets or all the woods again one day and he hated living in a house. This guy, his whole thing was like,

I'm going to go play the ukulele in Times Square and make money doing that and busking and he was kind of like, I'm a drunk and a writer and I just busk all day. I don't know. I think this is

wait, I have to join the real world at some point. I don't want to give the whole game away in the intro,

“but a lot of what my formerly homeless roommate used to say to me is going to be channeled into this”

episode. Another friend of mine runs a soup kitchen. He feeds at least 500 people every day. He's administered Narcan to people and saved her lives like he does that almost every week. He is like wise, not terribly sympathetic to the play of the homeless. He overlaps a lot with my formerly homeless former roommate in terms of his perspective. For my part, I really just want to get to the bottom of chronic homelessness. Northern California is kind of, well, California in general,

notorious for homelessness around the country and believe it or not, where I live, even in like suburban San Jose is not immune to the problem of the chronically homeless either. There are people

that sleep in between the commercial area that we had a 7/11 that finally moved out and there were

so many people living behind that thing and now those people are all gone. But this is, I live in like a nice area. It was really shocking to see people in a dirty sleeping bag on the sidewalk in this area. Crazy. Yeah, the first thing I learned for this episode that shocked me was that like, we're not imagining that there are way more homeless people than ever before. That's actually a thing. We're going to try to explain why this is over the course of the episode. But first, you're just

adamant that the idea that everyone is one paycheck away from being homeless. That's a myth, right? It's certainly a myth about everyone. Broad statements like that generally don't carry a lot of truth. But that one is particularly false. Okay. So I read for this episode that the median savings for Americans under 64 is between $5,700 and $8,700, which is mind-blowing. So I guess aren't these people kind of a couple paychecks away from homelessness? Damn those guys are rich.

“Okay. First, I think the number of paychecks is important. Unemployment statistics are tricky.”

But the second largest group of people who collect unemployment benefits are the ones who use it for less than five weeks. That's about a third. So about a third of people collecting unemployment are using it for less than five weeks. The largest group is off after 15 weeks. Do you think people

can really get buy-in what they get from unemployment checks though? I've never had one of these,

but I can't imagine they're generous. Oh, you're missing out, man. Fun employment. It depends on a lot of factors in Massachusetts, which has the highest unemployment benefits in the nation. And also where I, the only place I've ever collected on unemployment, you can get over 1,000 bucks a month for unemployment. And it's such a thing that in working class towns, guys just like don't work for the winner. I'm out, obviously don't mean all of them, but there's everybody who's of blue collar

New England extraction listening to this is like, oh yeah, my cousin Jerry doesn't work all

“winner because he just collects unemployment. Yeah, guys just get laid off and they he pills and”

drink all winter. Jesus, that sounds miserable. I know somebody who is like this. I can't out this person, but we basically found out that he didn't get laid off a bunch of times and have really bad luck because some colleague or whatever boss called and was like, hey, we're wondering if we can get so and so back to work and it's like, well, yeah, you laid them off. I'm sure you'd love to come back to work and he was just like, lay them off. He takes every summer off. When you're talking

about, we look for volunteers when there's a slow season and he's always the first guy with his hand

up and this person who's related to me was like, are you kidding me? Because, you know, she's been supporting it while he got laid off and was just hanging out, boating and stuff and like fishing. Yeah, this is not just one of my like inflammatory exaggeration. That's designed to get you tons of hate mail. Good. We don't have statistics on how many people in little shithole mill towns in New England are taking the winter off to go e-pills. Is it significant? I don't know. I very much doubt

that the little town that I grew up in is much of an outlier in this respect. I also have a relative who does this. So yeah, it's a thing. Got it from the same clock. So that's Massachusetts. Where are benefits the lowest? Florida, Louisiana and Alabama are all tied for dead last with 275 a month. That you can't live on. Okay. So how are those people supposed to last without a job? They're not. They're supposed to go get another one. But hey, let's say you bust your butt looking for work and

you just can't find a job and you get evicted. Call a friend or call your family. What if you don't have friends or family to call? Not everyone has a rich, famous bestie to fall back on. I don't even have one of those. Well, luckily for me, I do. So this is where we start getting into the meat of it, though, like who doesn't have friends or family to call on when they need help? Because this is where we're going to start diving into the difference between temporary homelessness, spending

the worst month of your life sleeping in your car and chronic homelessness. In fact, there are

the cup outside of the seven 11. Yeah, I see this tendency to conflate the guy living in his car for a month or living on a friend's couch for a month with the guy who's lived on the streets

for a decade and will die there or the guy's living behind the seven 11, right, who are basically

naked except for the sleeping bag that they carry around with them. So what are the three different kinds of homelessness? What are the categories? First, there's what's called situational or transitional homelessness. These are the apocryphal just like you and me homeless. We talked about earlier. These are people who lost their homes because of an unforeseen event. In fact, this category includes people who, for example, lost their house in the Pacific Palicades fire.

“Yeah, that was awful. All those houses are just gone. I think they've rebuilt like one of them”

literally. It's crazy. Yeah, those houses are not coming back, man, which is a bummer. And those people who lived in them, they're not going to be living there because no, they didn't pay seven million dollars for them. They don't have seven million dollars to spend on the rebuilt version. So right, anyway, these people a lot of times these situational transitional homeless, a lot of times they don't even show up in statistics because they make a couple phone calls and they get

it sorted out or they're just not on the street for very long or they're in their car. They're showering in the Starbucks sink while they look for work. They have skills. They have connections. They have reasons to get their shit together. Next, we've got the episodically homeless. These are the people who this happens to on the regular. They're in and out of normal housing.

They're always losing jobs or getting thrown out of their house. There's often mental illness

“and drug abuse going on here. Unless you have a drug problem or a serious mental health issue,”

you're not one paycheck away from being this guy. And these people make up the lion share of the homeless in and out of normal housing in the street. Finally, there's the chronically homeless. That's about 10 to 20% of the homeless. They're a smaller percentage, but they're who you're most likely to see on the street. And they're defined as people who have been homeless for a year more repeatedly within three years and have a disabling condition. Where does sort of couch

surfers and such fall into this like my friend Andrew who stayed with me in New York? He was just kind of like, yeah, I slept at the bus station for a couple days, but then I went back to my friend's house. Now I'm here with you and then I got this guy that I know that knows a girl that likes me and she's getting a place. I'm going to stay with her for a month. Like there's sort of transient people like this, you know? I spent one night in the Port Authority bus terminal in New York when I was 16

and holy shit. When he said he's crashed at the bus station or Penn Station or whatever bus station, I was like, that can't be restful sleep with your stuff. That was the one thing I got told. They were like, do not fall asleep. You're going to wake up with those shoes. Yes. Yeah. Yeah.

So couch surfers and such. This is where we start getting into the weasel words. This is the first

of what's going to be many of them. These people are known as the hidden homeless. Okay. And this is just a term that means they stay with family and friends. So in other words, it's not homeless. Right. And I know there's a bunch of people who are going to freak out over this, but it's just it's wildly dishonest to refer to these people as being homeless. Yeah. They're not. It sucks to be

“living on someone else's charity. And you know what sucks. Wait, where's the map?”

Yes. Sleeping in a tent on the street or something like that. Yeah. Sleeping on a in the street or a shelter or your car or any of the actual situations that actually homeless people deal with. There's another term doubling up that's often used alongside hidden homeless. This means you live with other people because you can't afford your own place. I'm old enough to remember when this was called having a roommate. Yeah. So this is just a hundred percent not homeless or even anything

like it. But in researching this, I just found article after article that you'll breathlessly talks about the hidden homeless epidemic and doubling up in the same sentence. It is an absolute bait and switch. These people are not homeless. People in cars often get counted as hidden homeless. There's no universal means of counting. People in cars are homeless. Sleeping on your best friends couch for a month or two while you figure out your next move, you're not homeless.

If that's homeless, then I have been homeless because I've definitely crashed with like my girlfriend or lived at her cottage or a parent's friend's parents, little guest houses, where they're like, hey, you can crash here because you don't have anything to do and your job pays dog crap because you're a college student who's 20 and you don't just want to live with your parents. If that's the case, then I'm homeless. You know, I've been homeless. Sorry. So why do you think it's an attempt

to mislead? And I guess more to the point, what is there to be gained from misleading people about the hidden homeless besides getting some clicks for your news website? Money. It's really that simple. What is the financial incentive to actually solve a problem versus exaggerating it?

skeptical of how bad that problem is based on their say so, which leads us to another bait and

“switch. The concept of sheltered versus unsheltered homeless. You're not going to tell me that you”

think people living in homeless shelters should not be considered homeless. Are you? No. But I do think it's worth pointing out. Nearly twice as many homeless people are sheltered as are unsheltered. I would also argue that if you're chronically homeless and live in a shelter with no plans to obtain permanent housing at any point, don't you just live in a homeless shelter? Yeah, I guess that's where it sort of gets like technical the lines blur because this is going to sound calis. And I'm trying

not to say it that way. But if you live in a homeless shelter because you don't feel like you want to get your own place, it's just easier to not have the responsibility slash the expense of doing that

and you're okay with whatever drawbacks there are of living in a homeless shelter or limitations

there of. Yeah, you just live in a homeless shelter and it's not the same thing as somebody who doesn't have a place to live at all. Does drawing that line make sense? Yes, no, it absolutely doesn't. I mean, there's a very old friend of mine who has been homeless for years now. You know, he lives at the homeless shelter. He's lived in the same homeless shelter for him. He's like two years now. He has no plans to get a place. He spends most of his time either harassing people who've tried to help him at some

point or complaining online about how he should just be given an apartment, which like he's a drug

“addict and possibly schizophrenic. I don't know that I think that would be the wisest use of taxpayer”

dollars. But you know, he lives at the homeless shelter. Is it tragic? Yes. But it's not the same thing as somebody who's trying to get their life together and get out of the shelter. It's somebody who's given up and that is tragic, but in a very, very different way. What's more, some of what's considered sheltered homeless, I think, brings us back to what I was talking about earlier, is someone who lives in a hotel homeless. I know people are going to be like, "Lives in a hotel and you're thinking

of, I don't know, Matthew McConaughey, living in a shet home or laundry or something like that, but obviously not homeless." But they're in San Francisco anyway, which is probably a good example of what we're talking about. They're these huge residential hotels that are old buildings, you know, pre-war, that have the fire escapes, like you would see from an old building like that, and they're in the tenderloin or somewhere near there. And I'm like, "Who stays at the such and such hotel?" And

you can look on yelp and look at the reviews and they're all like one star. And it's like, "People we're so rude. We were just looking for a room." And I was like, "No one would ever stay here."

They basically cater almost exclusively/exclusively to a nonprofit that buys or rents the whole thing

or owns the whole thing. And they give rooms to people who are on disabilities. So all the people who live in this hotel long-term for years at a time are homeless. Air quotes homeless because they live in that hotel. And so, yeah, they're kind of not homeless for purposes of what everybody assumes. We started everyone imagines, I should say, when they're thinking of homeless person. Like, they don't have the plain meaning of the word homeless. Yes, right. They have a home. It's just a temporary

thing that's provided by the state. It doesn't mean that they're homeless. There has, we have to draw a difference between these things or the word just loses all meaning. Yeah, well, they're counted as sheltered homeless. Okay. For the purposes of collecting information. So they're in the same category as people at a homeless shelter. That doesn't make sense to me. Well, get ready for things to not make sense. Okay. Off, throughout this entire episode.

But yeah, for the purposes of data collection, they are homeless. They're sheltered homeless. There's hotels near where I live. I live, like, I could walk to Route 66 from here in about three minutes. There are hotels that are like there for transients or people unable to secure more permanent housing. They cost about $100 a month less than the house I rent. I just don't know how we can call someone who lives in a hotel. Homeless. To me, it's just like you live in a hotel.

“Right. Yeah. What if they want to live in more permanent housing? Does that matter at all?”

I mean, I want to live in a five bedroom with a two car garage and my homeless. And I don't mean to be a jerk about it. I understand. This is a transient, hopefully a transient temporary situation for them. They don't want to be in a hotel permanently. I don't want them in a hotel permanently. I want them to get a better life. But it's like, you're not homeless. Is it some degree? Like, I would be thankful that I'm not, you know, and working really hard to not be.

I'm not trying to take the position of like, oh, they're just living it up. That, you know, the rits on the taxpayer die. Like, that's not my position. My position is just that they're not homeless. If five bedrooms in your house is the line, then I'm homeless too. I can't I don't know. You're right. These cannot be the same category. It just doesn't make sense. Again, the word loses all meaning if we're just going to call people who don't live in their own

on a bed with running water and heat every night. This is not homeless by anybody's definition,

the plain meaning of the word homeless. I'm not saying it's great. I'm sure it's not. But what it's not is homeless. One thing that I think sheds a bit of light on the hidden homeless in a Department of Housing and Urban Development report, they more strictly define who is homeless and who just lived with friends and family. Your homeless, if your housing situation is secure for less than two weeks. In other words, if you can stay on a friend's couch for two weeks, but

“then you have to move on. Your homeless. That sounds mostly fair. Yeah, why only mostly fair?”

Because that definitely sounds to me like that person is actually homeless, right? You

just don't have a place. They can't stay there as long as they want slash need to and they

got to move fast. That's homeless. So mostly fair because if they're spending two weeks out of every month with friend A and two weeks out of every month with friend B, is that homeless? Maybe. But you're not sleeping over a street great for warmth. Is that how bad it has to be for you to consider a person homeless? You got to be outside in a subway tunnel or something? I think a lot of people in shelters are sleeping somewhere warm and dry every night. But yes, they're homeless.

The point I'm trying to make is that homelessness, as far as the government and NGOs define it, is not as cut and dry as people think it is. It's not just people living in a tent near a

“junkyard or whatever. I think it's a fair point and that you've made it. I'm sort of curious”

about who lives in the shelters. You know, what kind of homelessness are they dealing with there? The type of data for that is really difficult to pin down. It can vary wildly from one area to another. There's a broad study from 2022 about shelters in Boston providing some data that might be representative. That study covered over 44,000 shelter stays and found that the average day was 77 days. The median stay was 30, 78% of the people in the study had more than one

day. They're also some pretty significant tales in terms of length, meaning some people were staying there way longer. I see. So the study to me sounds like it's pointing to people suffering from either what we'd said earlier is chronic homelessness or episodic homelessness, which paints a very different picture of homelessness from literally anyone is a paycheck away from this. This has me wondering that if that's not the case, what is driving homelessness in America? They're risk factors,

“but we have to remember that a risk factor does not mean destiny. So the two biggest risk factors”

are untreated mental illness and drug addiction. Okay, surprise. No surprise. No, not at all. A third

very large factor is felony criminal activity. In fact, release from prison and sex offender registration can count for as much as a third to 40% of total homelessness. Wow, with sex offender registration topping out at 50% in some states. This is according to Devon Kurtz from the Cicero Institute. He helped us a lot with this episode. There's also the problem of a lack of a support network, but this is probably very tied to the other factors that we mentioned drug abuse,

untreated mental illness, and felony conviction. What do you mean, how are they tied? So again, anecdotal, but this friend of mine that I talked about earlier, he's either going to be episodic or chronically homeless. I think probably chronically homeless at this point. He has some kind of severe untreated mental illness. I'm not a doctor. I'm not going to attempt to sure diagnose him. We've seen, we've all seen homeless people who are like talking to themselves in the middle

of the parking lot. Like, you and I talked about pre-show. I was getting a haircut and I was like, hey, you know, there's a guy in the parking lot like stripping naked and yelling to himself, I'm moving, we've seen these kinds of people. I'm not making light at this just to be perfectly clear. These are the people who have untreated mental illness and/or substance abuse issues. We've seen the fentling people, you know, in tourist areas. My friend also has drug abuse issues.

Yeah. So there are people, including a mutual friend of ours who's one of my best friends in the whole world who routinely offer him help on the condition that he start taking medication and stop doing drugs. Okay. He won't do it. In fact, he gets extremely hostile when you give him those conditions. This is a guy who has a support network, but having a support network does not mean that they are willing to uncritically allow a person to engage in self-destructive behavior.

This guy, this friend of mine is homeless, he could be sleeping in a warm bed tonight. If he gave up drugs and got treatment, but he won't do it. Another anecdotal aside, my friend who runs the soup kitchen, he says this is true of just about every homeless person

publicly funded resources because they're strings attached. So the strings are, hey, if you come

“and stay here, you can't do drugs and you have to take your doctor prescribed medication or”

something along those lines. Yeah. And you know, there's maybe a whole debate to have about whether or not that is their choice and if they have the capacity to make decisions, which I think is, yeah, kind of beyond the scope of this episode, but, you know, assume that this is a free choice like choices come with consequences. It's true, but also if we start saying they don't have the capacity to make these kinds of decisions, then it's like, okay, so what do we do in

carcerate them in a facility where they have to do things that are good for them? Because the choice can't be, well, they don't have the capacity to make a choice, so we have to let them run around outside screaming at all hours, not taking care of themselves. This is a double-sided coin here, if they can't make a choice, then we have to decide what to do with people who can't make a choice to take care of themselves. And if they do have a choice, then yes, those choices come with consequences,

namely, you can't just have public housing and also do fentanyl or drugs all day and, you know, break the law. Yeah, I mean, to the degree that they're able to make choices, which, again, like, I don't actually have an opinion on about this. I've thought about it, like, it's outside the scope of the episode. It's almost like a philosophical medical question that we're just not qualified for. Yeah, exactly. It's so outside the scope of this episode,

but to the extent that they are making a choice, they've decided that the consequences of homelessness are preferable to getting treatment. Crash down your buddy's couch at age 24 is not homelessness. That's called having a band or living in Brooklyn. But if times are tough for you, here are some deals in discounts on the fine products and services that support this show. We'll be right back.

This episode is sponsored in part by Chime. You ever look at your bank statement and cringet all the deductions for monthly fees, overdraft fees, ATM fees. It's like traditional banks are just constantly finding new ways to chip away at your money. My younger self definitely would have benefited from something like Chime. Chime is changing the way people bank because it's built to be more rewarding and a lot less annoying. They offer fee-free banking, access to thousands of fee-free

“ATMs and benefits that actually help you keep more of your money. Why pay to get your own cash?”

What stands out is that Chime members can benefit from up to $1,150 an annual rewards fee-free. With direct deposit, you unlock the most rewarding way to bank a Chime. You can get 5% cash back on Chime card and a category of your choice like gas or groceries. You can also grow your savings faster with a 3.75% APY and spot me. Let's you overdraft up to 200 bucks fee-free. Chime is not just smarter banking. It is the most rewarding way to bank. Join the millions who are

already banking fee-free today. Head to Chime.com/JHS. That's Chime.com/JHS. It only takes a few minutes to sign up. Chime is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services and debit card provided by the bank or bank and aid or strike bank and aid. Members of DIC spot me eligibility requirements in overdraft limits apply. Timing depends on submission payment file. These apply at out-of-network ATMs, bank ranking and number of ATMs according to US News and World Report 2023. Chime checking

to count required. This episode is brought to you in part by Lufthansa. When people talk about travel, they usually focus on the destination, the hotel, the restaurants, all the stuff that happens after you land. But the flight is part of the experience, too. Just like a great hotel can shape an entire trip, so can a great flight. That's exactly what Lufthansa, a legress, is built around. On a long whole route, comfort matters more than people realize. If you're cramped, tired, and can't relax,

you feel at the second in land. But when a flight is comfortable, you can actually stretch out,

rest, work, or just enjoy the ride, it changes the whole trip. I was thinking about that on my recent intercontinental of tons of flight. I got so comfortable I honestly didn't want the flight

“to end, which is not something you say very often after a long international trip. That's why”

Lufthansa, a legress stands out. It's built around the idea that people travel differently. Lufthansa, a legress's business class has five seat options. You've got the suite, the privacy seat, and the extra long bed, the extra space seat, and the classic seats so you can choose what works for you. And that's what I like most. It feels elevated, but still practical. More privacy, more comfort, more thoughtful design for the way people actually travel now.

Visit Lufthansa.com and search for a legress to learn more. Lufthansa, a legress. All it takes is E.S., limited availability on select routes, more routes coming soon. Thanks for listening. Don't forget about our newsletter. We bitwiser, comes at every Wednesday, two minute read, great companion to the show, something very practical you can apply right away. Jordanharbinjur.com/news is where you can find it. Now, back to Skeptical Sunday.

This is probably as good a time as I need to talk about what kind of programs exist, either for the homeless or people in danger of becoming homeless, like besides homeless shelters.

I have no clue what programs might exist, because I've either never been in danger of being

homeless or by previous definitions. I have been homeless and just didn't know about the programs that were involved. But there has to be something there, whether publicly funded or private, other than just like, "Hey, there's a homeless shelter we can stand outside, starting at 6 p.m., and see if there's a bed." Man, I was so surprised at how much there was out there. Really? Because I didn't expect it. I thought it was, this is American.

Well, we just let those people, you know, die outside with nothing like, "Oh, you want food, sorry."

funded. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development has the continuum of

“care program, which is not directly fund housing, but does fund local, non-profit and government”

agencies. These agencies then provide both transitional and permanent housing and other support services. This individual program disperses over $3.6 billion dollars. And it is specifically designed to keep people out of shelters. HUD also has housing vouchers for people at risk. The substance abuse and mental health services administration hands out grants to states for people with mental health or substance abuse issues who are either homeless or at risk. These programs seem to be

very broad. They reach out to homeless people on the street and offer emergency shelter and day services, transitional housing, rapid rehousing and prevention. It's also specialized services. I mentioned mental health and substance abuse, but there's also support for veterans youth and families. What about nonprofits and private sector funded programs? There's tons of those too, I know,

because that's who owns all those hotels in the tenderloin. And because developers are always like,

"Can we move these people?" And the nonprofits are like, "No, we own this. Go fly, okay." Yeah. I mean, it's kind of the same deal. There's a ton of them. They're very well funded. Some of the bigger ones are the do fund family promise and the salvation army, as well as other faith-based programs. They might also receive funding from the federal programs

“we discussed earlier. So I guess the obvious question is how well used are these services?”

Because I certainly saw lines outside the homeless shelters in San Francisco when I lived in the city. How many people are they keeping from being homeless? Hud specifically helped 424,000 households avoid or exit homelessness in 2024. Wow. Okay. Yeah. So over half of the 700,000 plus figure we talked about earlier of like the alleged total number of homeless. Okay. That covers both prevention and actual homelessness. So getting people out of the streets and

keeping people in their houses. We should also note that the number is households. So in many cases, it might be an entire family. You talked earlier about people not using services because there are strings attached. Are there any statistics on that? So we can drill down into something that's not just anecdotal. Yes. And I was once again super shocked in San Francisco in 2023, 60% of street homeless decline shelter because they didn't like the rules. Wow.

So what are the rules? You mentioned some of these places are faith based so they make you go to church or is it just like, hey, no doing drugs. Main rules are sobriety, curfews, mandatory counseling, no pets, no partners. Now to be clear if I'm homeless and they tell me that they have housing for me but not for my wife. Yeah. I'm staying on the street. Sure. Yeah. But it's worth noting most people on the street are single men over 40. Yeah. You're a literal

beggar. Can you really be a chooser? Right. Situation. Isn't it better for people to just have

regular housing though? This is what housing first is all about, which is what what is housing first.

“Housing first is the philosophical notion that the most important thing is to get the homeless into a”

house no matter what. Okay. I agree. The homeless need housing. Sure. If you're hearing me say anything else, you're not hearing me. But I don't think that having housing magically solves their problems and I don't see how only providing them with housing is sustainable. I see. I don't see any way that getting someone in active drug addiction with untreated mental illness is going to improve their lives in any sustainable way. Just giving them a house is not going to fix their

problem. Right. They're going to end up back on the street. Yeah. What is the data say about the concept of housing first? That's I'd love to go to the numbers here. It's nuanced. Proponents will point to the success of the housing first model by saying that it allegedly decreased homelessness

by 88 percent. Wow. And increased housing stability by 41. This is according to the National

Low-income Housing Coalition and American non-profit organization which I absolutely do not consider to be a wholly reliable source and as much as I would say they have a dog in this fight. What dog is in the fight here? Why don't we consider them that totally reliable source? Because they're a housing first organization. What are they going to do? Return a bunch of data that says this sucks. Don't do it. I see. Okay. So they're not neutral. As you know and is because I know you've taken college

statistics. It's not that statistics could say anything. But it certainly could be massaged. Yes. You can say, hey, look, we decreased homelessness by 88 percent. Yes, as long as you consider people who just needed a place to stay that was free, that cure their homelessness, we or as long as you ignore the fact that they're able to do drugs and they're like, I don't know, they're just

by expanding it. Definitely at first. Yeah. Okay. I see what you're saying. Yeah. And there's nothing

in the data. I know that I read suggests that people who have increased housing stability, whatever that might mean are getting sober, gainfully employed, and off of assistance later. They're just experiencing increased housing stability. More objective evidence finds the thing that everyone hates hearing that it works in helping some people get their lives together and it doesn't help other people. You know, you would expect that for many solution to a problem.

Some people are helped by it. Some people are not. Some people need other solutions. There are also studies suggesting that housing first is a complete total failure. There's ample evidence that it increases drug abuse and exacerbates mental illness. How does it do that? Well, because now you have a warm place to smoke crack. I mean,

there was an urban institute, Denver, social impact bond, housing first study that showed that

housing first clients had one and a half times the mortality rate of programs with substance abuse and other psychological conditions. So basically what we're saying is, hey, it's better than dying in the cold on the street because you're dying in an apartment building that's been provided for you at 1.5 x the rate. I don't know about the. Yeah. I mean, there's also there was a study in Ottawa that found housing first resulted in a greater death rate than street homelessness.

That's just terrible presumably because of an increased number of overdoses. I don't know what else having housing would do that would cause you to die. Yeah. You were talking about things that don't make sense. Housing first organizations don't count drug overdoses. Death as a negative outcome. They don't count that as a negative outcome. Death by drug overdoses not a negative outcome. Why? Because it has nothing to do with being homeless or something like how do they get a

property? Oh, my god. I was joking. The only positive outcome is whether or not you have a house. Man, that's the only metric that's used. You could OD in the house. Well, he had a house, you know, to me, the metric is so many people are dying. Yeah, I mentioned the urban institute, Denver,

study, housing first organizations also have lower uptake on services for mental health and

substance abuse. A core claim of housing first is that the voluntary services have higher utilization.

“This is false. They do not. So basically saying you have to come in order to get this”

is more effective than saying, please come and do this. Yes, if you want to. Yes. The drug addicts. Well, yes. That makes complete sense. I'm not trying to dehumanize them. It's just like, this is why we have interventions. Yes. You were going to stop doing drugs. Yeah. I mean, it's why we have to incarcerate a lot of these people because they can't stop on their own. They've have to be put into place where they can't get drugs really easily all the time in all hours of the

day and night, although I bet you can still do that in prison. But whatever, that's another skeptical Sunday episode. I suppose. I also think it's worth talking about the greater financial cost of these programs because I think, you know, you ask people, hey, do you want to see homeless people in homes? I think every normal person says, yes, of course. The thing is, though, the housing fairy does not come down out of the sky and wave her wand and make housing for

people. They're costs involved. The costs are not trivial and they're voted by the taxpayer. Yeah. In San Francisco, each unit costs up to $750,000. Wow. That's a mansion in my town, by the way.

“That is actually insane. I remember my friend super rich kid growing up lived in a really nice”

hilltop literal mansion and I remember my parents being like, I heard that house costs $700,000. I'm granted this is the 90s and things are different now. But how are you building an apartment for $750,000? What is going on there? I mean, yes, hashtag San Francisco, but holy crap, guys. What the heck? Well, listen to the upcoming housing crisis episode and that will maybe answer some of that. But in Los Angeles, taxpayers were sold on a bond proposal costing $140,000 per unit.

Per unit still seems a little pricey to me, but sure, maybe not for Los Angeles. But it ended up costing at least triple that per unit, often up to $700,000. There is also significant evidence that landlords are making money off of this along with third party for profit real estate, management agencies. It is wildly inappropriate and totally makes sense, right?

“That you're going to, I mean, I get why you have to pay a landlord to deal with something like this,”

but also maybe the state should run these, not that I know you're, you know, a not a government guy, but like a nonprofit or something should run this, not a landlord who's making it as an investment. And why is a third party for profit real estate management company

Ad profit. Yes, exactly, unbelievable. One thing I never understood is why these people

“this is going to sound so terrible. And I just, I apologize in advance because there's no sort of”

non-calis way to say this. But one thing I never quite wrapped my head around is why these folks have to slash get to live in some of the most expensive markets in the world. We're talking about San Francisco. We're talking about LA. These are expensive cities. Why are we stuffing entire city blocks in the heart of downtown San Francisco with homeless people living in residential hotels on public assistance? They could literally live anywhere. That's the idea. They don't

have anything to commute to. They don't have responsibilities most of the time. Nothing, why are they living in the middle of Union Square in a residential hotel? And I know that developers have tried to buy these places and they're like, "Look, we'll give you a ton of money. You can rebuild this somewhere else." And right now, we can build a high rise here and everybody makes money. And this non-profits are like, "No, these people have a right to live here." And I'm like, "What, what,

no. No, they don't. I mean, maybe they do." But like, also, no. That's ridiculous. I don't know. Again, I know I sell like a terrible person. You're a terrible person, Jordan. Nobody's surprised by this. That's the thing that was, I just, I don't, it's not even economic it doesn't even make economic sense. Like, I know it's a hold of it. Like, if you lived in Times Square when it was terrible in the '80s and it was callcrackheads and you had a housing

project there and you still live there because that thing is still there. Okay, I get it. But it just

seems like you could shuffle these people around. And the advocates always say things like,

you're demolishing the community and I'm thinking there's not much of a community here. It's loaded with gangs. It's loaded with people who are sort of like unmedicated and need to be and drug addicts. This is not like a bunch of kids running around playing pickup basketball together. These are like, actually, people who need treatment in a proper facility. They're just being paid to live in a residential hotel instead. It's not if it makes sense to me. None of it makes sense

to me. All right, but let's see. Like, I don't care. I just want people in houses. I don't care where what, when and why just get these people housed. Come on. Yeah, that's cool. That's a beautiful, beautiful impulse you have. Yes. There's any number of charities that you can donate to. I do not want to pay $750,000 for someone else's house when mine would cost a fraction of that.

The last thing I want to know about housing first is it's not unreasonable to assume that the successes

“they do see are coming from the people who accept treatment. In which case, what's the difference?”

If that's the part that's working, why not restrict the limited supply of housing to people who it might actually help in the long term. This is not like a deserving and undeserving poor thing. This is just like, why are we not allocating resources for people who actually want the help? So this is where I hopefully qualify as a not terrible person. I do not want a situation in which a single mom who can't afford a place to live for her kids and her can't get housing,

because I'm, or has to live in the middle of absolutely BFE because it's like Jordan and all the big wigs pushed everybody out of the city. So now she's got a 45-minute commute by bus to get her kid to school another three hours to get to work and back. Like, I don't want a situation where that happens. What I'm talking about is, certainly there's a way to separate the people who are like, hey, I fall on hard times and I work two jobs and I have two kids and this is

really tough versus the person who's like, I want to sit around and do drugs all day. Oh, cool. You're going to give me a free place to live downtown. Guess I'll take that too. There's got to be a way to separate these two people. These two types of people into buckets. We're some of them are actually going to make their lives better and the other ones are just waiting to kill themselves. Sorry. That's, that maybe there goes my Jordan's not a bad person

qualification, but come on. Like, if you're doing a bunch of dangerous drugs all day until you die, you're not in the same bucket as the single mom who's trying to raise her kids. You're just not. What's really crazy is that some of the housing first places might actually have the same types of strings as other forms of aid. How is that possible? If they're housing first, how do they have

“the same rules as other types of programs? Is that the opposite of what we're just talking about?”

Because people figure out the rules of the game and they game them for the grants, for the money, that are reserved for the housing first aid. So how bad is homelessness now in America as opposed to in the past? I don't mean the recent past. I mean, I went back to LA and I didn't even recognize areas in my old neighborhood because you couldn't see off the bridge because there was a tent city on both sides. I was like, what street is this? This can't be, you know, whatever is

fine. And it was like, there was just a tent city on the other side of the road. I couldn't identify where I was. Yeah. How are you with the mask? Yeah. I think that if we look at the institutionalization, that's a good starting point. People like to blame Reagan for that, but it's actually a lot more complicated. Deinstitutionalization, people leaving asylum, that starts in the mid-50s and actually is really end and told early 1990s. But let's use Reagan. Why not?

homelessness changed, which if you're like, how's that possible? Well, if you've made it this far

in the episode, I would think it would be clear how the definition of homelessness can be used as

“football. I think it's probably safe to assume that not all of the people who got turned on”

out on the street when these silums were emptied are currently housed and leading a productive life to say nothing of people who might be in the silums today if that were still a thing. That's speculative, but I'm following the logic. And in the absence of good data, kind of think that's fair, what kind of programs were in place for those people who were led out of the silums during deinstitutionalization? Did they just get thrown out into the street? There wasn't a lot. I mean,

I know I lived in a town in college that used to have an asylum in it and there was just like there was tons of street people, but they slept in a house at night, like there was in some kind of care and they just got turned out for the day and let back in at night. Okay, yes. Some people argue that it was the way it was carried out rather than deinstitutionalization as such. There's one study on this. It's in the show notes. In general, I think there's a type of person that it doesn't

matter what programs they're offered. You can't legislate people out of making stupid choices, some people anyway, and a non-trivial number of people. That said, one of the biggest problems we have in evaluating the subject, there's just not a solid count at all of how many homeless people there were in 1981. Why is it so difficult to count though? I mean, I think that homeless is homeless. I mean, I know that that's not the case because of the shifting definitions now, but back then,

how was that not just people who live on the street? When words were not defined for political

ends, yes. Yeah, yeah, never existed. Prior to 1987, there's no uniform definition at all. So

you have or these kind of ad hoc counts. They're mostly from advocacy groups, mostly at the local level. They include on shelter, shelter, marginally housed. The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act is the first time we get an actual uniform definition of what counts. As homeless, that's great. Still no way of counting at that point. In the 1990s, they start counting via the program we talked about earlier continuum of care. But this is just counting surveys from providers.

It's not hitting the streets and counting people like the census. Most modern counting starts in 2007. That's called the point in time method. That means who is homeless tonight? We also start getting breakdowns about who sheltered and who's not. So basically, our only real semi-reliable counts start in 2007. That's crazy to me. Now, before I get canceled for this episode, let's hear from what's left of our sponsors. We'll be right back.

This episode is sponsored in part by Momentus. Most people when they're trying to get healthier immediately start piling on supplements or adjusting their routine. But one thing I've come to realize is that if your gut health isn't where it should be, a lot of the effort just does not pay off the way you want it to. That's a missing piece for some people. That's kind of

“the missing piece for a lot of people. That's why I recommend Momentus Fiber Plus. Fiber is not”

just about digestion and smooth their trips to the bathroom. It plays a role in how your body absorbs nutrients, how steady your energy is throughout the day, even how you recover, cholesterol, all kinds of stuff. What I like about Fiber Plus is it's not just one type of fiber tossed into a scoop. It's a full three in one formula, soluble fiber, insoluble fiber, and a prebiotic resistance starch. So it's actually supporting your gut from multiple angles. It feeds

the good bacteria, helps digestion, smooths out those energy ups and downs. And I trust what Momentus makes. It's clean, no artificial additives and rigorously tested. Right now, Momentus is offering

our listeners up to 35% off your first order with Promocode JHS. Head to live Momentus.com

and use Promocode JHS for up to 35% off your first order. That's liveMomentus.com Promocode JHS. This episode is also sponsored by fundera powered by nerd wallet. Running a small business is tough. And when it's time to get a loan, it can feel impossible to find a lender you actually trust. Maybe need extra cash to make payroll, manage cash flow, buy inventory, and bulk, invest in marketing or fund growth. Those are normal business needs, but a lot of small business

owners go to a big bank. They get hit with rigid requirements, collateral demands, and a quick rejection. Then you go online. It's the opposite problem. Too many offers. A lot of them are freak and sketchy with sky high rates and confusing fine print. And when your business is

“your livelihood, that is not a risk you want to take. That's why I recommend the small business”

marketplace fundera powered by nerd wallet. It's free. Easy to use. saves a ton of time. You fill out one quick questionnaire. They help you match with real financing offers from trusted lenders. They work with more than 25 vetted lending partners so you can compare options all in one place. And there's no hard credit check just to see what's out there. And here's the best part. For a limited time, when you visit nerd wallet.com/jordan and fill out the no obligation form,

lending. Don't risk your business on unreliable lenders. Go to nerd wallet.com/jordan to find the

“funding you deserve. Fundera ink and MLS ID number 124038. If you want an audience for how angry”

you are at me about this episode, Reddit is the place to do that. There's a Jordan Harbinger subreddit you can discuss. Any episode post resources or other takes for or from the show. It's a great place to have a conversation with other show fans as well as my team with Gabriel and Bob in there. That's all on Reddit at the Jordan Harbinger subreddit. Now for the rest of skeptical Sunday. Other than costs, why are there not more homeless shelters and other

low income housing for people who need them? Not in my backyard. I see. So nimbiism. I guess that makes sense. I also wouldn't want one to spring up next to my house either. Yeah, they built transitional housing on Route 66 like right by my house. And the first thing I did was like call my county supervisor who I know from the gym and be like, hey, I don't know how this got built across the street from

“an elementary school, but like can we make sure the cops are keeping an eye on this place? I don't”

care if they build a home to shelter transitional housing, but I share care if it's in my residential

family neighborhood and next to an elementary school. Yeah, the problem is everybody's got a real

good reason why it shouldn't be in my neighborhood. What are the concerns? I mean, I can see property value, I guess, but you rent. So well, real quick, before we get into that, I just want people to know and putting some research about nimbi attitudes with respect to building housing and shelter in the show notes. But first of all, there's mountains of evidence that property values will be impacted and that it is significant. These stats are all specific to Manhattan. Then I'm

about to share, but they are worth sharing. If your home is within 500 feet of an adult homeless shelter, you just took a 7.1% haircut on the value of your home. Big deal. Yeah, for family shelters, it's 6.4%. If there are two or more shelters within a thousand feet, that is a 17.4% drop on top of the original cut from the single shelter. Wow, okay. So you're losing significant value. That's a lot of value. Yeah, it impacts everybody. If you're wealthy, it's a big chunk of money.

If you're not wealthy, it's a significant chunk of your network. Yes. You know, it's the biggest investment most people have. They don't want to see it tank by 20%. The main dispute for these numbers, you know, where people kind of push back on them is, well, they're getting built bad neighborhoods anyway. So who cares? It's gross. It's a gross attitude. Yeah. I hate this attitude that like the pores have to absorb the consequences of the altruism of their supposed better. I hate it. What about

quality of life issues? I mean, look, I hate to say this because I don't really know, but if you have a homeless shelter near you, are you actually experiencing something bad other than losing value in your home? Or is it just like you? I live near homeless people. Like, I don't like that attitude either. Really? I agree. And I also would maybe push back a little and saying, losing value in your home is a real issue. No, that is a real issue. But I mean, are you

day to day? Like, oh, my gosh, look, this place used to be so nice. And now there's crime everywhere. Like, you know, that's if a gang moves into your neighborhood, you're experiencing a real decrease in quality of life. But if a homeless shelter pops up, does that same thing happen? Or is it just like when my house value is lower? Again, your house value being lower is a big deal. But it's not a quality of life issue and a day to day basis. Sure. Yes, is the short version. Okay. We have one study

that shows a 56% increase in property crime around newly constructed emergency winter shelters in Vancouver, British Columbia, which is an excellent place to look at where more liberal approaches are being used and how they're working. Yeah. This was mostly burglaries, vehicle thefts, and vandalism. That sucks. This was all within 100 meters of the shelter. That's about 300 feet for people from countries with flags on the move. Okay. All right. The effect didn't dissipate

entirely until 400 meters or about 1200 feet. I mean, that's think four city blocks to 12 city blocks.

That's basically even if you live nowhere near this thing, you live too close to this thing. That sucks.

Yeah. It does. A Los Angeles study found a significant increase in arrests for drug dealing and drug

“use. I think drug should be legal. But I do not think people have a right to smoke crack in a”

public park where I want to take my kids. Yeah. If people who are in active drug addiction are not allowed to use drugs in transitional housing or shelters, there's a good chance they're just going to go outside and do it when getting clean isn't a requirement of having housing. They don't have drug. You get your drugs on the property, but we're not drug testing you. Okay. Well, I'm going to go

crimes. But we did see a 53% increase in drug and weapon crimes, which are conflated together. So we don't

“know how much of that drugs, how much that's weapons. I think one of the things to keep in mind is that”

Portland is one of these cities that simply decided that, you know, crime is legal here and surprise of surprises. Your crime problem disappears when you stop enforcing the law. Without getting too far afield, what do you mean by that? Because obviously Portland did not legalize crime actually. No, they kind of did, though. Portland dramatically reduced its police force by 25%, which, you know, no cops around to catch people doing crimes. No crimes get reported.

But somewhat more important, the Multnomah County District Attorney, which is the county in which Portland is the county seat of announced that it would decline to prosecute a number of crimes, such as disorderly conduct and trespass unless there was violence or serious damage. So yes, it is now effectively legal in the city of Portland to get drunk and hassle people or hang out in someone's backyard. That seems like a pretty big asterisk to put over all the

stats coming out of Portland. In fact, there's a whole discussion to be had around the issue of law enforcement. Let's talk about the homeless camps. Yeah. Wow. I feel like this is what I'm talking about when I say that homelessness or visible homelessness is exploded over the last five or 10 years. But again, anecdotal. I go up to the city of San Francisco and I'm like,

“dang, what's going on here? I go to LA, dang, what's going on here? Could you find any data on that?”

Because these are these homeless encampments. Some of them are huge. There's no specific data. I could find on camps, but we do know the total number of homeless, and we know that 36% of them are what are called unsheltered. That doesn't mean they're all in camps. Some of them just sleep rough. Others are in cars. Still other squat empty buildings, but it does give us a bit of insight as to how many people might be in camps. The other issue driving increased homeless camps

is that it's now or was basically illegal to disperse homeless camps in some places. We have Martin

versus City of Boise, which found that enforcing anti-camping or public sleeping ordinances against unhoused individuals. That's their euphemism, not mine. Violates the eighth amendments prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. If those individuals have no access to adequate shelter. Now, this only applied in California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, and Nevada, but there's a lot of homeless people there. And that is what was driving the normalization of homeless camps, particularly

in western states. So what are cities doing now, just letting the homeless camps sit because I can totally believe that based on what I see again in California, but I have a hard time believing this flies where you live in Arizona, for example. Yeah, specifically where I live, which is like in 80% in Trump County, like there's not homeless camps here. I do you do see homeless, but there's no camps that I'm aware of. And then there might be in like weird off the side parts town.

It's funny though, you mentioned California because San Francisco responded by having areas where

camps were allowed. That cost $5,000 per tent per month for a total budget of $12 million.

Bro, I had a nice apartment in San Francisco. I was not paying $5,000 a month to live there. Yeah. 5,000 bucks per tent per month. Yeah. San Francisco, what do you get your shit together? What are you talking about? What are you doing? What are you doing? In Arizona, they still perform sweeps, but they go in 72 hours before and they offer people some kind of shelter. I'm stuck on this 5K per tent per month. That is a luxury apartment in any major city on planet earth.

That could easily house the amount of people living in any size 10. Period. You can get a solid broom closet in a basement in Manhattan for $5,000 a month. Yeah. You can still actually for 5 grand get a literal luxury apartment that includes a toilet running water and probably has a fricking squash court downstairs for 5K. Well, like this is what I'm talking about. Where is that money going? So is this just like

“05K per tent per Jordan? You need to look into this because that includes like drug counseling”

and full on social services because if that's the case, that's still way too much money, but also makes some sense. But if it's just like, nope, we have a park that has water

access in a bathroom. It's just that it's a million dollars a month to run. That is just peak

California somehow. That's insane to me. I don't know what it includes. Probably more than just running water and tents, but probably not $5,000 worth of stuff. There's other responses like using health codes and sanitation or environmental or fire codes to clear the camps because the

general safety and sanitation laws. Some states that aren't impacted by the decision have

“responded by drafting tougher laws. Uh, Texas did a statewide ban on camping under penalty”

of losing state funding. Tennessee made camping on state property a class E felony, but it also built more shelters in advance of enforcement. Florida's public spaces protection act allows the clearing of camps if they're within 50 miles of available shelter. Even in San Diego in California, which is one of the states impacted by Martin, they passed the unsafe camping ordinance, which bans camping within two blocks of schools, parks and transit stops. Police will pair

citations with immediate shelter referrals, refusal to accept the referral will result in a rest. Federal judges allowed it, citing the documented availability of shelter. Las Vegas bans sleeping on public sidewalks downtown when shelters have space. The city maintains real-time shelter bed tracking to prove compliance, and that was built explicitly around Martin. So none of these states are arresting people or even issuing citations without also offering them shelter. That seems reasonable.

It's nice to say that once during an episode. Correct, but all of this is kind of moved because the Supreme Court overturned Martin in its ruling on city of grants pass of the Johnson, where they found that clearing camps targets conduct and not status, and thus is not cruel and unusual punishment. Okay, and I think this is like worth highlighting that the Martin decision like created, it's like there's this new category of person and they're called a homeless person.

Right, like it's in a mutable quality. Yeah, this is a mutable quality. Yeah, they're homeless, and there's nothing anybody can do about it. So we can't tell them to pack up the park across the street from the Kids Elementary School because that would be cruel. Yeah, I can see why people would argue something like that, but it also really screws up everything and is also like just a weird construct so that you can allow crazy conduct to just fly because you don't have a better

solution. It's also kind of a gross way to look at people who are homeless like you're just your homeless person. Like what's there to be it's like the wind blowing? Right. What is there to be

“done about it? You have to put that little cast mark on your head that shows that you are”

an untouchable and you were never going to change. Yeah, you can't get no upward mobility for you. That doesn't

make sense to me. But I still believe in the Martin was overturned. I think it's worth talking about the response because it does show like municipalities are willing to take measures to find shelter for people. They're not just demanding that the homeless kick on down the road, but the camps remain, which says a lot because people are being offered shelter and still choosing not to take it. I mean, they directly have someone coming to their camp and it's telling them, hey, you can move

or you can go to a shelter and people are saying, yeah, I think I'll move on down the road. I think there's something to be said about how people don't always make the best decisions when they're in active drug addiction/mental illness. Yeah, I don't disagree, but again, like why am I on the hook for the primary and secondary cost of these things and all the externalities that go along with them? Like, I agree. They're grown-ups with agency, the degree to which they have it is a philosophical

question that's outside the scope of this episode, but this is what they're choosing and like, fine, but when you make it my problem, it's now my problem. Yeah, that is my problem slash our problem to solve with policy and legislation and law enforcement. People will try and justify the like lack of utilization of the shelters by saying that they're unsafe and I know that there's like out there, probably a lot of people are saying, well, the shelters aren't safe. Well, safety's

relative. Shelters are probably less safe than your neighborhood. They're probably even less safe than my neighborhood in poor Arizona, but yeah, they are definitely more safe than sleeping on the street.

They have one third the mortality rate of street sleeping. That's 300% safer because people don't

freeze to death. Women's shelters and family shelters are reasonably safe and when you enforce zero tolerance on crime, people will flock to them. This happened in Utah. I feel like the big thing missing from all this are the more structural factors, stagnant wages increase cost of housing, general rising cost of living. I'm not saying that's the main cause. I'm just saying we haven't addressed that yet, right? People does not being able to afford stuff at all at this point.

“And I think it's worth bringing that up, but it's again, it's kind of outside the scope.”

It's not really an issue for the chronic homeless or the, you know, the episodic on homeless. It's more of an issue for the transitional homeless. That makes sense, right? Because those are the people with careers where like, how am I not getting paid more? I can't afford rent in the area where I work versus people who are like, I've lived on this street for three years and haven't

have their life together, there are resources for the schizophrenic crackhead who prefers sleeping

under a bridge to getting clean. Yeah. There's not a lot of resources for that guy. I am aware that it is harder for people to get by than it maybe was in the past. But what I'm saying is that for those people, there are tons of programs to help people. It even for the chronic homeless. There are tons of programs, but there's also tons of people who don't utilize them because they think it cramps their style. And it's hard for me to have a lot of sympathy for those people,

especially if they're harassing people on the street or doing drugs in a park or aggressively panhandling. And you know what? I don't think we're helping anybody by making it easier for them to continue to make bad choices. I don't consider that a form of helping people. No, I agree with you.

“I think the structural part is important. It's probably a whole show in itself. Obviously,”

if wages are stagnant while the cost of living is going up, it's going to be harder to keep your head above water. But at the same time, there are lots of programs out there for people who need them. It's a complicated topic, not a lot of easy answers, and pretending it's all one thing or all the other just does not get us anywhere. Homelessness is not caused by a single villain or solved by a single type of intervention. It's a patchwork of economic forces, personal choices,

public policy, addiction, mental health, and sometimes just plain bad luck. And that means the solutions have to be just as multilayered. More shelter capacity helps, more mental health care helps, smarter enforcement helps, more housing helps, but none of them on their own are going to be a magic bullet for this. So as we wrap up, remember, the point is not to oversimplify a very messy problem. Thanks again to Nick Pell for helping us sort the survival stories from the sanctified

slogans. And thanks to you all for listening. Topic suggestions and inevitable angry emails about this episode straight to me, [email protected]. Advertisers deals discounts, ways to support the show all at Jordanharbinger.com/deals. I'm @jordinharbinger on Twitter and Instagram. You can also connect with me on LinkedIn. This show is created in association with podcast one. My team is Jen Harbinger, Jason Sanderson, Tata Sadlowskiss, Robert Fogity, Ian Beard, and Gabriel Mizrahi.

Our advice and opinions are our own and I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. Also, of course, we try to get these as right as we can. Not everything is gospel, even if it is fact checked, so consult a qualified professional before applying anything you hear on the show,

“especially if it's about your health and well-being. Remember, we rise by lifting others,”

share the show with those you love. If you found the episode useful, please share it with somebody else who could use a good dose of the skepticism and knowledge we build out today, because I want angry emails from them too. In the meantime, I hope you apply what you hear on the show so you can live what you learn and we'll see you next time. You're about to hear a preview that may completely reframe how you think about nuclear power.

What if the energy source we've been taught to fear is actually one of the safest and cleanest tools we have? We're very familiar with electricity, you get home, you turn on the lights, you charge your phone, charge your computer, do all the things that we do without thinking twice about electricity, right? But electricity is a secondary source of energy. The primary source of energy that we use are coal, oil, methane gas, solar wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear.

Nuclear is actually the largest source of clean energy in the United States. It's the second

largest source of clean energy in the world. And what I mean by that is that whenever we make electricity with a nuclear, we're not releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere or even particulate matter. So there are no emissions that happen whenever you're creating electricity with a nuclear. So it's just to say, you know, everything that's related to nuclear accidents in Chernobyl is completely overblown. Because we all tend to think generally like everybody died

and it became this wasteland and nobody can go in. And so it's interesting, right, that we have all this weird fears about nuclear when the facts and the reality just point to it being actually extremely safe. The biggest energy disaster in history was actually a hydropower dem collapse. So entire villages were swept away. It's estimated that 200,000 people died. He would need like at least 200 Chernobos pepping every single year for nuclear to be as dangerous

as fossil fuels. What about the 4 million premature deaths from burning fossil fuels? Why are people

so afraid of nuclear? Here the science behind the stigma with Isabel Boymke on episode 1277

“of the Jordan Harbinger Show. This episode is sponsored in part by something you should know podcast.”

Finding a new great podcast shouldn't be this hard to let me save you some time. If you like the Jordan Harbinger Show, you'll probably like something you should know with Mike Carruthers. It's one of those shows that makes you smarter in a practical useful way. Same curiosity vibe we go for here. Just in a fast-focused format,

And the topics are all over the place in the best way.

“Recently, they've covered things like why we care so much what other people think,”

the benefits of laughter, why sports fans get so invested and what makes people like you or not.

The thru line is always the same. Smart ideas you can actually use in real life.

“Something you should know has been featured in Apple's shows we love and it's got”

thousands of five star reviews because it's consistently interesting.

So if you want another show that scratches that I want to understand how people on the world

“really work, it's search for something you should know wherever you get your podcasts.”

Look for the bright yellow light bulb and start listening. You can thank me later.