this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
255 points (93.2% liked)

Today I Learned

17267 readers
652 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Here's a quick info dump for you. I don't have a chance to break this down to see how easy/hard it would be to match the homeless population with available units per state, and my definition of which of these unused homes are actually available for use at a given time may differ from the next person. But I was curious how reliable their numbers were and then to see if anyone had any takes on the data.

Census.gov

Census.gov

Nearly 327,000 people in the United States experiencing homelessness lived in shelters... The sheltered population is an estimate of the population experiencing homelessness that stay in emergency and transitional shelters. It is not a complete count of the total U.S. population experiencing homelessness, which the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimated was 582,500 in 2022.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The only statistic that matters is sold not occupied and even that is only useful if it excludes houses that just haven't been moved into yet.

The majority of those figures are just showing that houses are unoccupied in resort towns because there's nothing there half the year or that houses sit empty for a month while a new renter is sorted out or a new owner is moving in.

We don't need to shove the homeless into a remote resort town where they have no access to services - we need more housing in our cities where support networks can help those in need.

The fact is that there arent enough houses to house every homeless person in the USA and maintain sufficient housing stock for people to move houses.

Anything below a 5% vacancy rate is considered a housing shortage - it indicates there's too much demand for housing and not enough supply.

Very few American cities are sitting at or above 5% vacancy.

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Yup, your first 2 paragraphs are touched on in the link.

Also agree on your other points. I wonder how many basic functioning towns we could build for what we spend assisting or harassing the homeless and the migrants... I feel it should be straightforward to get them integrated into the economy with an organized boost in resources made in a holistic approach.

What we do with unhoused mentally ill or ones that are homeless by choice is well beyond what I'm qualified to discuss, but I imagine the bulk would welcome being helped constructively.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

isnt like 20% the historic vacancy rate for the real estate market? What is the change here?

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Looks to be about 145 million homes.

If 15 million are unoccupied, that's a hair over 10 percent.

The "Other" line of 4 million homes sounds like the ones that either aren't in the process of being rented or sold and aren't someone's second home.

What percentage of those homes are habitable in their current state is also something we don't have info on.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I wonder why the liberal states are clearly worse off. Also, our very poorest states (WV, LA, MS) seem best.

EDIT: Classic lemmy. "Is that a criticism of liberals?! Not around here pal!" Just pointing out what the maps clearly shows and was wondering. Good explanation before, but I still have a question regarding the numbers.

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is a case where correlation and causation are important.

Grabbed this quick example from Coursera here:

Causation indicates that one event causes another. Correlation only identifies that there is a relationship between two events or outcomes.

If you were to collect data on the sale of ice cream cones and swimming pools throughout the year, you would likely find a strong positive correlation between the two as sales of both increase during the summer months. If you make the mistake of assuming correlation implies causation, you would incorrectly claim that an increase in ice cream cone sales causes people to buy swimming pools. However, this isn’t the case since you can attribute the increase in both to another variable—likely the warmer weather people experience during the summer. So although a correlation is present, you can't support causation.

In another correlation versus causation example, it may not be as easy to identify whether causation is present with two variables. For example, you could find a correlation between the amount someone exercises and their reported levels of happiness. While it’s possible an increase in exercise is causing an increase in happiness, you can't say for sure that it’s the cause since there could be another unknown variable that has a more significant influence on a person's mood.

The homeless chart per state is of the number of people in shelters.

Correlation could indicate the poor states have less homeless.

Causation could indicate the reason they have less homeless in shelters is because the have no shelters.

If you look at many of these poor states, you may find less shelter and services exist for the homeless, homeless is more punished by law, or other factors making it less likely for someone to stay there or to be counted as homeless there.

This is why many say you can make a chart show anything you want it to, and you need to be critical when looking at people's data.

I hope this was helpful!

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Ah! Fewer shelters in poorer states makes sense. But I gathered that shelter info was used to extrapolate the total number of homeless.

Also, the map would make one wonder why there are so many homeless in the colder states. That wouldn't make sense.

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I didn't pull the HUD data to dive too much into it. The link to the source I gave had this though for your second question:

[One source of data was places] That provide temporary shelter during extremely cold weather (like churches). This category does not include shelters that operate only in the event of a natural disaster.

They may also be unemployed seasonal labor, so they have work sometimes (agriculture, tourism, ranching, etc) but not enough year round income. Just guessing on that, I'm not much familiar with Montana and the Dakotas.

Check out the full info at the links though. I'm a but sleep deprived to do much in depth analysis on this today. 😔

[–] thallamabond@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You said that in far fewer words than I just did! 😆