World Hunger and Poverty

An article on AOL News reports that Debbie Clark, known as “Storm” from the early 90s show “American Gladiator,” is homeless. Like many women and children, her son and her have been homeless since they escaped a domestic violence situation a couple years ago. Adding to the problems, she has a severe knee injury from the show that makes it difficult for her to find work. Also, the knee troubles make it hard to deal with homeless shelter programs which generally make participants leave early in the morning but be back before 5–a difficulty depicted well in my opinion in the movie The Pursuit of Happyness.

Although Clark received $1,500 a day for her famous job as Storm in the early 90s, she receives no royalties now from her time on American Gladiator. Of course, homelessness is more complicated than income or lack of income, and has a lot more to do with access to people who can help; in that department both of Clark’s parents died within a month of each other with little money due to two states both taxing them when they moved.

Hopefully, thanks to the publicity of the situation, maybe Clark will now get some help from fans, her former coworkers or anyone who hears about the story. Unfortunately, Clark is only one of millions of homeless people in the USA. And despite common misconceptions, most homeless people in the USA are not men, are not bums and unfortunately are not seen as much as the homeless people we do see. To that end, Clark says that when she gets back on her feet she wants to find ways to help other homeless people.

On Oct. 4, Habitat for Humanity will join efforts around the world to mark World Habitat Day–a day the United Nations has set aside to call attention to the dire need for affordable, adequate housing. Liza Peiffer of Habitat for Humanity put together and informed me about a microsite with facts, videos, photos, banners and even a way to submit your own photo to the World Habitat Day Photo Wall:

WorldHabitatDayNews.org

Here are two interesting and frighetening facts posted on that website:

Every week, more than a million people are born in, or move to, cities in the developing world. As a result, the urban population of developing countries will double from 2 billion to 4 billion in the next 30 years. (Kissick, et al: 2006)

By the year 2030, an additional 3 billion people, about 40 percent of the world’s population, will need access to housing. This translates into a demand for 96,150 new affordable units every day and 4,000 every hour. (UN-HABITAT: 2005)

To put in my two cents, let us remember that the world has more than enough resources to provide more than adequate food, clothing, and shelter to everyone. In that sense the world is not overpopulated, but rather people are starving to death outside overstocked grocery stores and suffering homelessness next to usable, vacant houses and across the world from accessible unused lumber and other building materials and desperately unemployed construction workers. The problem is not as simplistic as a lack of houses or natural resources; that is not a problem we have. The problem is human action. It is up to us to take action to end poverty and make this world better for everyone.

Homelessness causes a lot of problems. For one, it greatly contributes to the poverty cycle because children who grow up homeless will not learn the skills or have the opportunities that they need to avoid poverty as adults. Of course, most people want to avoid homelessness, which means they may need to waste a lot of money on expensive housing.

Affordable housing can help a lot. It helps some people avoid homelessness, and it helps others have more money to spend on other needs.

Nonetheless, I have noticed a major flaw in the way that most affordable housing works: location. Most affordable housing and subsidized housing is located in poor neighborhoods.

It may seem to make sense to put housing for poor people near poor people. However, these people would have a better chance of escaping poverty if they moved away from poverty. Most importantly, poor children will have more of a chance of escaping the poverty trap if they grow up in a more affluent neighborhood.

Affluent neighborhoods have less crime, better schools, better role models, and other factors that incredibly reduce a child’s chance of ending up in poverty.

I would recommend that poverty-fighting organizations that work in the housing sector try to find ways to put as affordable of housing as possible in as affluent of neighborhoods as possible. Then get poor families into that housing, making sure the adults get sufficient employment and the children get quality schooling.

What do you think? Do you agree that putting affordable housing in more affluent neighborhoods would help more? Post your answers to that question and other comments in this thread at the World Hunger and Poverty Forums. We welcome all viewpoints.

When talking about homeless people, many people do not realize that most homeless people are not bums. Most homeless people have jobs or are actively seeking employment. They are generally families made up of a single mother and her children.

However, there are bums. And the problem with them is very different than with other poor people. Homeless bums are generally men who have given up. Some of them are guys whose wives left them and who are hopeless and sick of paying alimony. Some of these homeless bums are people who have acquired a mental disease such as schizophrenia. However, they are almost all mentally ill. Depression counts as a mental illness.

We need to find ways to get mental treatment for these bums. For most, treatment will allow them to go back to living a somewhat normal life, thus making them productive members of society. For a few, they may need to spend a prolonged period of time in an insane asylum. However, for their sake and for the sake of everyone else, we need to get these bums off the streets and into treatment.

It is utterly foolish to let insane people roam the streets as bums. And I doubt that any bums are sane in that almost no sane person would choose to live as a bum. And a person is only a bum if they choose to be one.

I think we all realize that society will be a safer and happier place if bums are not left on the streets.

Would you rather have bums forced into treatment or left as vagrants on the streets? Post your answers to that question and your comments on this post in this thread at the World Hunger and Poverty Forums. All viewpoints are welcome.

In the forums, modric has asked, What do you do when homeless people ask for money?

Do you give them money? Do you ignore them? Do you think giving them a little money helps? Answer these questions at the following URL:

http://millionsofmouths.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=81

It’s completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.

Have you ever been homeless? If so, please tell us about it and consider answering these questions about being homeless for a school project at the following URL:

http://millionsofmouths.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=259

To answer the questions, you will need to register and log in at the forums. It’s completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome. Please do it, as the questions are for a school project. Even if you have not been homeless, feel free to provide your thoughts about the questions.

Gentrification plays a major role in poverty. Basically, gentrification refers to removing poor people from their homes usually by purchasing the building and replacing low-cost apartments with high-priced luxury apartments with tough application procedures. This most often happens in cities, where demand exists for both high-priced and low-priced apartments, in that cities tend to have wealthy businessmen as well as a poor underclass.

In regards to gentrification and poverty, many caring people promote the production of low-cost efficiency homes in areas with lots of poverty. I see that as misguided.

If we want to build low-cost housing and apartments for poor people, I suggest building it out of inner-city. These poor neighborhoods and cities have tons of violence, drugs, and other unhealthy environmental factors that contribute to poverty. Additionally, the public schools in poor areas offer the worst educations. Let’s build the low-cost housing in more suburban areas and help otherwise poor people get jobs around it. Then these people can live in neighborhoods with less violence and drugs, and more quality schools and jobs.

Children who grow up out of the poor ghettos of inner-cities have more opportunities and a greatly reduced risk of future poverty.

This will work most effectively if the low-cost housing focuses on peaceful adults with a willingness to work and children who will perform well in schools.

What do you think of this idea? You can talk about it and share your own ideas at our Hunger and Poverty Forums. It’s completely free!

An August 8th Boston Globe editorial explored the idea of a future without homelessness. I include an excerpt:

WE DON’T have to study homelessness,” state Representative Byron Rushing says of a new state commission that he proposed to address the issue; good research is already available.

Instead, the commission has to answer two questions. What kind of housing do people need? And, what will it take to keep formerly homeless people housed?

If Massachusetts can find and pay for answers, it could end homelessness — for families, adults living on the streets, people leaving prison, and those with mental illnesses or addictions.

[...]

A key piece involves creating a careful transition away from shelters and toward providing more supportive housing, which includes social services that could range from substance abuse programs to financial literacy classes. Shelter providers and other nonprofit organizations could help deliver these services, helping to ensure that people’s specific needs are met. And because formerly homeless people may have future problems — job losses, addiction relapses, or illnesses — there should be long-term outreach to prevent setbacks.

I agree with Byron Rusing that we already have enough information about homelessness. We now have a choice between using what we know to end homelessness or not. Basically, we can end homelessness by ensuring that the homeless get education, job training, and employment.

To avoid homelessness and live self-sufficiently, people need a stable job that pays for the costs of all contemporary human needs, including food, clothes, shelter, and healthcare. Additionally, the person needs to make enough to pay off their student loans and to secure retirement.

When getting education and job training, these people need access to food, clothes, shelter, and healthcare. We cannot forget healthcare, because these people cannot escape homelessness and poverty without treating their illnesses, including mental illness and addiction.

In regards to how to provide these services to homeless people, I suggest using student loans that cover not only schooling itself, but also food, clothes, shelter, healthcare, job training, and job placement. We cannot reasonably consider an education complete without those necessities, and thus student loans need to include them. By using student loans, we can end homelessness essentially for free, while also allowing homeless people to participate more fully in their own salvation, which emphasizes the self-sufficiency required to permanently escape homelessness and poverty.

If my plan interests you, please join my Hunger & Poverty Forums to discuss it with me further, which you can do for free. You can find the forums at the following URL:

http://millionsofmouths.com/forums/

I encourage constructive criticism, and welcome all opinions and viewpoints.

Amy Reinink recently reported about, no kidding, using soccer to solve homelessness. I include an excerpt:

The teams are built upon the premise that physical activity can help alcoholics and other substance-abusers stay sober, and that the structure of team practices and the accomplishment of working toward a goal can give a life new shape – a concept Lyons said deserves a shot in Gainesville.

[...]

Success stories from homeless soccer programs abound. After the 2005 Homeless World Cup, 77 percent of the players reported making life improvements through employment, housing, education and drug or alcohol treatment programs, according to the organizers. Twelve players went on to become semi-professional or professional soccer players or coaches.

What a great idea! We need this type of originality to fight homelessness and poverty in general. Like I have often said before, the old ways have not worked. With number of homeless families on the rise, we need to come up with new ways to fight homelessness and poverty.

I bet they could maximize the potential of the soccer program by partnering it with helpful services. For example, they could bring in recruiters for addiction groups and job placement organizations.

Terry Cline, administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in Washington, had the following to say about homelessness:

“Each year some 2 to 3 million individuals experience a night of homelessness, and approximately 800,000 people are homeless in the United States on any given night.”

“By raising awareness about effective homelessness prevention and intervention programs, this special issue can help local organizations make informed decisions about the approaches that will work best in their communities.”

We have more abandoned houses than we do homeless families. Still, the rates of homeless families continue to rise. The world has enough resources to house everyone, as well as feed and clothe them.

I believe we can effectively eliminate homelessness by providing homeless people with either education, job training, or job placement services, depending on each individual’s current skill level. Additionally, we need to make sure these people have ample access to food, clothes, shelter, and healthcare, while they get job training and placement services. We cannot reasonably expect a person to effectively work on their job skills while homeless, hungry, and sick.

If we offer these services as loans, then we essentially can eliminate homelessness at no financial cost to us. Additionally, not offering unconditionally free services to poor people will undermine voluntary paupers and create a sense of self-responsibility in the would-be homeless people.