Skip to content

44 thoughts on “Raw data: Homelessness in California and the US”

  1. tomtom502

    Yeah, and WA rate is 0.36%, closer to CA than the national average.

    Homelessness correlates better with 'high rent cities with lots of jobs and mild climate'

    CA fits the bill, so does Seattle.

      1. tomtom502

        yeah, living in Seattle I cannot credit anyone who says there is no housing crisis.

        Lots of homeless follow sky high rents like night follows day.

      1. illilillili

        Which means that it's about the supply of housing more than any other factor. And/or the willingness of governments to get involved.

        2. emjayay

          And also about extreme income inequality in the US. Besides immediate unafforability it means that luxury apartments and houses get built but not much else.

          Also about Los Angles being all suburbs. It works until you run out of orange groves then the built environment becomes incompatible with the population. My sister's now $900K house in Van Nuys, originally (and still, relatively) the low rent part of the Valley, was probably bought by some family in the 1950s with one high school educated dad working at a nearby factory like the one where Home Depot now is.

          1. emjayay

            In Van Nuys (I just happen to be familiar with that area) there are old RVs with their windshields covered parked on the street EVERYWHERE, not to mention tents and sleeping bags on the sidewalks. I wonder if the RVs can actually start and move twice a week to get out of the way of streetcleaning (and the ticket that goes with it) or if the meter maids just ignore them.

  2. Five Parrots in a Shoe

    What tomtom said. In places where homes are expensive and rents are high, you are going to have a lot of people who just can't afford homes. And what do you call those people? Homeless.

    1. emjayay

      One refers to them as "unhoused" these days. Or did that kind of go away like "Latinex"? (I don't think so.) But maybe there's a new not-"homeless" term now. Oh right, “people experiencing homelessness or houselessness.”

      1. emjayay

        That was less cynical about homeless people than it might have seemed and more about the tendency of well meaning people to create new names for things.

  3. bbleh

    Concur re climate, assistance, etc., but one wonders also how much of the apparent discrepancy may be due to a difference in willingness to count.

    How much effort you think, say, Florida puts into counting its homeless? I wouldn't be surprised if there is guidance from the Gov &/or Surgeon General to avoid it, because something health something cooties something.

  5. OldFlyer

    Any correlation to states that treat their homeless (relatively 🙂 better ?

    If I were homeless in Alabama, California would look like a better place to be- home or no home

    Just wondering

    1. Crissa

      A little, Nevada back in its red days two decades ago was caught sending its homeless with one-way bus tickets to California. Other states as well.

      And even if all their homeless came - urban areas outpopulate them 9:1 so they'd hardly be a bump in the data.

      More than 3/4 of homeless people have lived fifteen years in the metro area in California where they are homeless

    2. cmayo

      No. It's a myth that people who are homeless travel to other jurisdictions in great numbers, whether it's for weather or allegedly being attracted by programs that will serve them.

      https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/california-homelessness-housing-crisis/674737/

      The survey, “the largest representative survey of homeless people in more than 25 years,” found that only 10 percent of respondents became homeless outside of California, and many of them had prior ties to the state that prompted them to return.

      Demsas points out that the theory doesn’t stand up to scrutiny: “Moving is expensive. People who lose their housing rarely have the means to transport themselves, their families, their pets, and their belongings across the country.”

      1. OldFlyer

        Maybe not all myth, at least for the unemployed.

        Years back a court overruled the CA Governor’s request to reduce unemployment benefits to new unemployed arrivals. I thought he made a good point. He wanted to “adjust” down unemployment payments for unemployed folks coming to CA - unemployed where they came from, and no job waiting in CA. The Governor wanted to pay incoming and unemployed folks the same unemployment rate as the state they left. Last I heard the courts turned him down.

        Either way those unemployed were definitely coming for (what they thought was) more money. I can’t say if that applies to the homeless. But I wonder for the unemployed or homeless if moving isn't that expensive if everything fits in your backpack or car

      2. Crissa

        Ten percent is still 20% of the amount of homeless we have more than the rest of the nation.

        And it's a stupid statement, since it doesn't include people who became homeless when they arrived here.

        1. jte21

          There are probably a non-trivial number of people who were facing some difficulties, say, in Utah where they were living -- lost their job, got into drugs, whatever -- and so moved out to stay with their step-mom in California until they "get back on their feet." This doesn't work out for whatever reason and the person ends up out on the streets because they can't afford an apartment in California and they can't afford do move back to Utah, where they've burned all their bridges anyway. So under the 405 overpass it is.

      3. tomtom502

        If you compare 'pushed out by high rents' and 'attracted by good services' as explanations, the former is way more important.

  6. jambo

    I’m just eyeballing the graphs and someone can check my math but I came up with the following:

    .475% homeless x California population (39 million) = 185,000 homeless people.

    .175% x rest of country population (297 million) = 520,000 homeless people.

    California has 9.8% percent of the nation’s population and 26% of the homeless.

    Is the housing crisis and thus the homeless crisis all about California? It’s certainly much worse in California but it’s hardly the entire crisis.

    1. cmayo

      No, and no, but California stands out on both. It's just the worst of the lot while there are regional housing crises all across the country, as well as homelessness crises that basically correlate to high costs of housing.

  7. illilillili

    Where are Hawaii and Florida on that list, per capita? How much of the California Problem is due to our fairly nice weather?

  8. illilillili

    ".475% homeless"? That's all? You mean we could more than fix the problem with a 1% sales tax on houses plus government building housing?

  9. Bardi

    Several years ago, our city, Pasadena, devoted four hours to the "homeless", that lasted for eight hours. The homeless speakers said that from one quarter to one third of the homeless want to be homeless, no address.
    I knew a homeless living on the slopes of the arroyo, down from JPL, no roof. He liked my dog, she liked him. I ended up taking him several times to the Santa Monica Veterans hospital for regular appts. (We are both veterans)
    I am pretty tired of the BS about the "homeless". I wish we could find a way to just ensure their safety and just leave many of them alone. Like human beings, most are good people.

    1. Justin

      Not really… useless people. No skills. No abilities. Drugs. Just not able to participate in a complex modern economy.

      If you want an economic system which has room for these folks, then you need a revolution. Otherwise, I’d suggest charity.

      2. Joel

        Useless post. No facts. No evidence, No data. Just not able to participate in evidence-driven discourse.

        If you want a blog thread which has room for these trolls, then you need to go elsewhere. Otherwise, I'd suggest not feeding the troll.

  13. Adam Strange

    I think that you''d have to be foolish to assume that everyone wants to live in a home. Living in a place that someone (other than you) calls a "home" generally requires that you work at a regular job and make regular payments, and that you have a fixed address, and some people just don't want to buy into any of that.

    They might give you lots of reasons for why they are homeless, but regardless of the reason, some people prefer to be homeless. Personally, I think that they like the freedom that being homeless gives them, but that is pure speculation on my part and I haven't asked any of them their opinions.

    I know quite a few people who don't want to own a car. I have a buddy, PhD in Oceanography, who refuses to own a car. He walks, takes busses, and picks up free bikes to repair and ride whenever he can.

    I once had a girlfriend who preferred to not have a car. Her dad gave her an expensive car and she sold it. I gave her a van and maintained it and one day, she sold it. She preferred to live without a car and all that entails. Maybe not having a vehicle forced her to call people for help and increased her social contacts, IDK, but not everyone wants to live the way that most people do.

    Now, from what I've read, giving a family a temporary home when they become distressed is a very good thing, but forcing someone into a lifestyle that they don't want is a very different thing.

    1. Joel

      Many people in Manhattan who could afford cars don't own them.

      I didn't get a car until I was 26. By then, I was past peak insurance premium years. Saved a bundle, even on a graduate school stipend.

  14. samgamgee

    In my area, there's been a huge influx of people moving into the area. Has always had moderate to high growth, but it blew up during the Pandemic period.

    Visible homelessness appeared to follow suit. As more folks moved into the area and brought more money, so did the number of panhandlers and homeless. And though housing is playing catch-up and prices did shoot up, it doesn't appear the homeless we've interacted with were in any better position to afford housing before the price went.

Comments are closed.