Rick Reuben wrote:You never worked for one.

For someone who cares so much about facts and substantiation...

Rick Reuben wrote:you would know that the agencies staff with 98% Latino workers, and that any white worker would be perceived as less desirable, unless he was bilingual and could communicate with his fellow workers.

Thank you for agreeing with my (and just about everyone's) point that skills, education and race affect employers' hiring decisions. Appreciated.

Rick Reuben wrote:

bigc wrote:Did you ever work for a day labor agency?

Yup, and I transported workers to job sites. If you actually knew anything about them, you'd know that Shepard's white skin and degree are non-factors for a day labor job. In fact, if you actually knew anything about the day labor business in a city like Chicago, you would know that the agencies staff with 98% Latino workers, and that any white worker would be perceived as less desirable, unless he was bilingual and could communicate with his fellow workers.

It's a total cattle call head game business, bottom rung. It serves companies looking to cut labor costs to the bare minimum.

You never worked for one. You might have done temp accounting. Totally different ball of cheese.

In fact I did.

I'm sorry you don't believe me, but given that your premise is false, I understand why you would continue to try to shape reality to fit your terrible argument, instead of allowing reality to stand as it is. You're making up people's opinions, you're making up definitions, you're making up arguments that other people have not made, and now you're making up my experiences.

I was not born an accountant, and have held many jobs in my time.

I have something to add to the discussion. I mean, whatever.
My wife found herself homeless when she was about 19. Homeless, literally, not sleeping on friend's couches or anything. She had a few bucks in her pocket, not more than 40. She went to the YWCA and checked in.
She immediately saw advantages come her way due to being a young white girl. The YWCA at that time charged your rent after your 3rd month, but she was told "You're not going to have to pay that" by a worker there who implied that because she was obviously someone who had a high school diploma and lived an okay life something wretched must have happened to reduce her to those circumstances. Time and time again she saw advantages come her way that her fellow roommates didn't. Things like finding a job (being told at a department store it didn't matter that her address was 'The Y' when someone beforehand - older, and black - was told they don't accept those applications). Yes, my wife wriggled her way out of that situation, got a job and and apartment and all that, but she admits that things were rigged in her favour.

Yeah, I used to date a girl who was pretty much homeless as well. She worked her way out of it too. She's doing ok now, married some dude and all seems relatively stable.
She had done some jail time after they found a large amount of bad drugs in her dorm room at her school, she got out and was living in a halfway house in Roger's Park when I met her. She had no family, as they were all drug jailbird fuck ups as well. She had no money at all and didn't know anyone as she was from New York and was only here for a few months before she got arrested.
I got her glasses and took her to the doctor, would buy her food and whatnot and eventually I got her a job at the board, she excelled there. I wouldn't let her move in with me because she still had bad drug issues (and was kinda all around unstable crazy) so we broke it off and she worked her way up to dating a dude with way more money than me and had him knock her up right away and that was that.
She's living in a big house in Colorado now and drives a nice car, way nicer than mine.
So yeah, if you are a really hot girl it's possible. I imagine a dude in the same position would have a much, much harder time.

By the arguments of many talking on here, MAX and Marsup, those stories don't count because those people were white women and so therefore do not represent the majority of homeless people so even talking about them is pointless in a thread about homeless people.


I can't believe you fellas spent this long going on about this Shepherd guy.

It's quite simple:

He managed to pull himself out of a situation assimilating homelessness.

He isn't like most homeless in appearance or education/background and chin size.

He still managed to pull himself out of a situation assimilating homelessness.

Other people who were 'genuinely' homeless have pulled themselves out of homelessness and so they act as a better indicator that it is possible. (or do they not count because as soon as they pull themselves out of homelessness they are instantly not 'most homeless people'?)

The guy's a knob. Why talk about him?

We all accept that it is possible for some homeless people to pull themselves out of their situation don't we?
Does anyone on here think it is impossible for any homeless person to pull themselves out of the situation?

Where's the story here?

And I am curious too BigC why did you work for a day labor agency if you're from a wealthy family?

Earwicker wrote:By the arguments of many talking on here, MAX and Marsup, those stories don't count because those people were white women and so therefore do not represent the majority of homeless people so even talking about them is pointless in a thread about homeless people.

Okay, two people just produced two reasonable (and well told) real-world examples of how certain factors will get you privileged treatment. They are talking about, and in agreement with, the general gist of the main direction of argument. Therfore, neither example could be said to be pointless or irrelevant. To amputate those two accounts from the main direction of the thread is dishonest and wishful thinking on your part. Reading back, I'm pretty sure they are in support of the generalities of 'many talking here' and were offered in good faith, for that purpose.

I can't believe you fellas spent this long going on about this Shepherd guy.

It's quite simple:

Are things ever simple?

He managed to pull himself out of a situation assimilating homelessness.

He was never homeless. That is the main issue.

He isn't like most homeless in appearance or education/background and chin size.

And he's also dissimilar in the fact that he was never homeless.

He still managed to pull himself out of a situation assimilating homelessness.

He was never homeless...ergo, he didn't.

The guy's a knob. Why talk about him?

Because he's an exemplar of a prevalent and pernicious ethos in society that contributes to certain societal problems that the homeless face and consequently brands them immoral. In fact, I'd say that he's symptomatic of many of the obstacles that the homeless face, therefore quite a good vehicle by which to discuss the problem.

We all accept that it is possible for some homeless people to pull themselves out of their situation don't we?

Yes, but if conditions in society could be brought about to:

i. help them not to become homeless in the first place

ii. help them if they fall into that position

...wouldn't that be better? Why should the responsibility be on the individual if his situation is the result of factors beyond his control and he finds himself with no opportunities to rise beyond that situation. Also, he may even find those avenues of escape actively blocked. Principally, that is the basis of social understanding that brought about the welfare state here.

Does anyone on here think it is impossible for any homeless person to pull themselves out of the situation?

You are talking in idealised terms here. Do mean to say that if one person can do it, everyone can do it? If so that's blindsiding a huge range of factors about homelessness that have already been brought up in the thread.

Where's the story here?

Do you think people are (over)reacting for no reason? There is a genuine disgust at this guy and the values that he embodies.

And I am curious too BigC why did you work for a day labor agency if you're from a wealthy family?

Want to see his CV? Since when do people have to prove their credentials to support their argument here? Also, you just dismissed two practical first hand accounts of homelessness. You're being very choosy about your proofs here.

Cranius wrote:

Earwicker wrote:By the arguments of many talking on here, MAX and Marsup, those stories don't count because those people were white women and so therefore do not represent the majority of homeless people so even talking about them is pointless in a thread about homeless people.

Okay, two people just produced two reasonable (and well told) real-world examples of how certain factors will get you privileged treatment. They are talking about, and in agreement with, the general gist of the main direction of argument. Therfore, neither example could be said to be pointless or irrelevant. To amputate those two accounts from the main direction of the thread is dishonest and wishful thinking on your part. Reading back, I'm pretty sure they are in support of the generalities of 'many talking here' and were offered in good faith, for that purpose.

The two women in the story were homeless - despite their apparent advantages. So I think the stories are relevant, I wouldn't dismiss their tale of homelessness on account of their being women or white.
However several are saying that that fella getting himself on his financial feet is irrelevant to the issue of homelessness because he had apparent advantages.

There is a correlation there.

Cranius wrote:

He managed to pull himself out of a situation assimilating homelessness.

He was never homeless. That is the main issue.

that'd be why I said 'a situation assimilating homelessness'

Cranius wrote:

He still managed to pull himself out of a situation assimilating homelessness.

He was never homeless...ergo, he didn't.

I said 'a situation assimilating homelessness' .... ergo, he did

Cranius wrote:

The guy's a knob. Why talk about him?

Because he's an exemplar of a prevalent and pernicious ethos in society that contributes to certain societal problems that the homeless face and consequently brands them immoral. In fact, I'd say that he's symptomatic of many of the obstacles that the homeless face, therefore quite a good vehicle by which to discuss the problem.

Fair point well put. Carry on talking about him then.

Cranius wrote:

We all accept that it is possible for some homeless people to pull themselves out of their situation don't we?

Yes, but if conditions in society could be brought about to:

i. help them not to become homeless in the first place

ii. help them if they fall into that position

...wouldn't that be better?

yes

Cranius wrote:Why should the responsibility be on the individual if his situation is the result of factors beyond his control and he finds himself with no opportunities to rise beyond that situation. Also, he may even find those avenues of escape actively blocked. Principally, that is the basis of social understanding that brought about the welfare state here.

Shouldn't it be about finding a balance?
Social Welfare is a great thing but so are individuals taking responsibility for themselves. Many fall into thinking everything should be down to the individual or the contrary, that nothing is anyone's own fault.
I think occasionally it's down to the extremes and sometimes it isn't.

I shall also point out at this point that your globalist chums would end the welfare state in an instant if they could.

Cranius wrote:

Does anyone on here think it is impossible for any homeless person to pull themselves out of the situation?

You are talking in idealised terms here. Do mean to say that if one person can do it, everyone can do it?

No (but I am also not presuming that no one can do it. Which is implicit in a lot of what is being said, I think).
I was trying to highlight the pointlessness of discussing this fellas experiment. The anti-homeless folks would be better choosing real world examples to illustrate their point.
From my point of view this fella works better for the leftist sort who can point at him as an example of what cocks a lot of rightists can be.

Cranius wrote:

Where's the story here?

Do you think people are (over)reacting for no reason? There is a genuine disgust at this guy and the values that he embodies.

Yes I think there's overreaction (though i take your point that he has generated disgust) I think that disgust has blinded people to some fairly apparent facts about the case.
He assimilated homelessness and pulled himself out of it.
I don't see why people have a problem with accepting that.
A twat has been a twat and as a result a lot of people seem to have stopped thinking clearly.

Cranius wrote:

And I am curious too BigC why did you work for a day labor agency if you're from a wealthy family?

Want to see his CV? Since when do people have to prove their credentials to support their argument here?

I think it's interesting because he is attacking the Chin for faking poverty - perhaps rightly so - so I'm curious as to why he's doing something usually only very poor people do given his background wealth. Has he been disowned? Is he deliberately slumming it for cred or something?
I'm curious is all - I'm not presuming wither of those scenarios. That's why I'm asking - to find out.
Bare in mind that if we didn't know anything about the Chin's background there wouldn't be much of an argument about him.
Why is his CV relevant?

(that was rhetorical BTW)

Earwicker wrote:A twat has been a twat and as a result a lot of people seem to have stopped thinking clearly.

There's loads of clear, concise, focused and well-presented argument here. Take issue with their conclusions, by all means. But to characterise it as unclear thinking, makes it seem as if you aren't up to the task of rebuttal.

Just sayin'.

If you google, you'll see his agenda (if it's not blatant enough already) laid out for you, enunciated for all to see. He has has an intent and will to find, what is already for him, a forgone conclusion. So the findings are the 'study' are specious, as has already endlessly been reiterated.

Earwicker wrote:Where's the story here?

And I am curious too BigC why did you work for a day labor agency if you're from a wealthy family?

I think the story is how out of touch with reality Rick Reuben is. Everyone has admitted the things you've stated, yet he continually creates straw men and yells at everyone for things they're never said...with horrible reasoning.

I get the feeling that my presenation of my upbringing was taken a little off base. My family always had anough money to pay for housing, food, shelter and education, with a family vacation each year to the beach or somehting. We were what I deem wealthy in that I never had to worry about money for necessities. But we never had brand name clothes, never had new cars and always were expected to work every summer, and were essentially cut off the teet (save for tuition) when we turned 18. I consider that quite privileged, but certainly not the level of wealth that some people were describing in that thread.

I worked day labor during breaks and one summer in college because I needed the flexibility, and the pay was better than I could get at the telemarketing and crappy food service jobs that existed in Athens for college kids in the summer. Since I was willing to get up at 5 AM (I thought I was so tough...ROLLINS!) and work my ass off until 5 or 6 PM, and was physcially capable, the day laboring worked out well for me...cash in hand, flexible non-committal hours and not much in the way of applications, drug tests and other lame formalities. I was acutely aware that I was treated differently because there was a (correct) assumption that day laboring was by choice and temporary.