> rarely is it the actual cost of the home that’s the problem.
It used to be rare. But LA managed to make $700,000 the minimum cost for housing someone. That is a studio or one bedroom, without laundry. That is why LA City and LA County terminated the current housing organization (LAHSA). LA and San Francisco spent billions and accomplished very little. They probably housed two or three people/households per day. Now they get to stop the easy way, due to they are out of money. LA has a $1 billion budget deficit.
Two years ago, a small part of San Francisco with camps was so bad, two people were dying per day from overdose, and that was with handing out hundreds of doses of free narcan daily.
As an added bonus, 33% of fires in LA were started by homeless. When asked about this, the fire chief pointed out that the city budgeted more funds for the homeless ($961 million) than the fire department ($837 million).
Now, this is a whole other philosophical debate - but why does anyone need to live in LA? I really doubt that people of sound mind are living their homes willingly to be homeless in LA. Sure - there is the crowd that think LA is where they need to be to make it - and I'm sure more than 0 of them believe in the grind so much that they do decide to be homeless on purpose HOWEVER (with no data to back it up) I'm confident that's not the majority of homeless people in LA.
I'm saying of sound mind not as pejorative to be clear but I think for most people of "sound mind" they could figure something out that's not living on the streets (getting roommates, moving somewhere cheaper etc)
The weather is nice, and there are public services. No-one wants to be homeless in Bakersfield. It is expensive for people with money.
Remember that 25% of unauthorized immigrants live in California, mostly in the south. Last year, California made them eligible for Medicaid for health care (MediCal). It probably is attractive that people there can get health care and providers can get reimbursed.
I think that's the wrong angle to look at this from.
People do live in LA, and they expect to be able to do things like shop at a grocery store and buy their coffee at a Starbucks.
Therefore, there's a need for people to work at such jobs.
If those jobs don't pay enough to afford to live in LA, that means there's a structural problem that needs to be solved, one way or another, and individual choices (like "I will move away from LA") will never be enough to fix it.
> If those jobs don't pay enough to afford to live in LA
There's a huge gap between "I can't afford to buy a $700,000 house" and "I live on the streets" though. Renting is an option, renting (or buying) and having room mates is an option. Not living in Beverly Hills is an option etc.
> I will move away from LA") will never be enough to fix it.
I disagree - people generally go towards where the money is. People want to be a hair stylist in LA instead of North Dakota because of the high population density and general wealthiness of the population. During covid, we saw an exodus of people out of the HCoL areas *because* the "non essential" jobs they relied on also moved out (not clear which came first, but the point remains). So generally yeah, if you can't get your hair cut in LA because all the stylists moved out of the city, you'll either commute, or move where everyone else did (which I guess is gentrification in a nutshell)
Either way. I don't think the author is talking about the average starbucks employee here
> There's a huge gap between "I can't afford to buy a $700,000 house" and "I live on the streets" though.
Sure. But that's not what I was talking about. I'm saying if it is very difficult or impossible for an average grocery store clerk to find an apartment in LA where they can live what most people would consider a fairly normal life—ie, living alone or with a small number of roommates, each with their own bedroom or sharing one with an actual partner—then that's a systemic failure, not an individual one.
> I disagree - people generally go towards where the money is.
Right. That's part of the system that we're working within.
What I'm saying is that individual choices, like "LA is too expensive; I'll move somewhere else" do not solve the problem. As in, yes, that individual is no longer dealing with the unaffordability of housing in LA, but housing in LA is still unaffordable.
> I don't think the author is talking about the average starbucks employee here
I mean, the author is clearly satirizing the position of an upper-middle-class person, but the problem they're highlighting is absolutely one that Starbucks workers in high-cost-of-living areas face.
It used to be rare. But LA managed to make $700,000 the minimum cost for housing someone. That is a studio or one bedroom, without laundry. That is why LA City and LA County terminated the current housing organization (LAHSA). LA and San Francisco spent billions and accomplished very little. They probably housed two or three people/households per day. Now they get to stop the easy way, due to they are out of money. LA has a $1 billion budget deficit.
Two years ago, a small part of San Francisco with camps was so bad, two people were dying per day from overdose, and that was with handing out hundreds of doses of free narcan daily.
https://southpasadenan.com/l-a-county-moves-to-strip-funding...
As an added bonus, 33% of fires in LA were started by homeless. When asked about this, the fire chief pointed out that the city budgeted more funds for the homeless ($961 million) than the fire department ($837 million).
https://abc7.com/post/third-las-fires-last-years-involved-ho...