It was just before 2.30am, on a crisp Tuesday morning, when Tyrell Holmes was set on fire. Few were awake to hear his shrieks. By the time the police arrived, Holmes had collapsed dead, his corpse smouldering next to a dumpster.
The autopsy determined that he had been stabbed several times, then covered in gasoline and burnt alive. Holmes was 18. The day before, in a message posted on Snapchat, he had warned his friends and family that his life was in danger.
“Alkhion Dunkins, Yzire Jenkins-Row and Zahmire Welcome,” he wrote. “If something happens to me, know those three.”
***
Half a century earlier, the writer Joan Didion had travelled to San Francisco to report on the “social haemorrhaging” of Sixties America. She wanted to bear witness to a nation’s decay and reveal its impact on a disoriented youth. These children, she wrote, “drifted from city to torn city, sloughing off both the past and the future as snakes shed their skins”; these children “were never taught and would never now learn the games that had held the society together”.
On San Francisco’s streets she found a generation numbed by narcotics and ideological incoherence: a youth no longer in revolt — but in stupor. “It was not a country in open revolution,” she wrote in her essay, Slouching Towards Bethlehem. “It was not a country under enemy siege. It was the United States of America.”
That was 1967. But what of today? If San Francisco once embodied a country collapsing under the weight of its contradictions, where is our Bethlehem?
As the curtain falls on an election campaign defined by its own ideological incoherence, there is no longer one single locus for the nation’s disaffected. For at least a decade, there have been many Bethlehems here: Philadelphia, Oakland, Seattle, San Francisco. And more recently, this “haemorrhaging” has spread to unexpected corners of the country.
Today, one place more than any other embodies this anomie. A rust-belt city that serves as a mirror to the nation. A city in America’s most important battleground state; in a county that has predicted the winner of every US election since 1912 bar three. A city that happens to be called Bethlehem.
***
Tyrell Homes (above) was strangled, stabbed and then burnt alive.
Here, on the surface at least, the centre appears to be holding. Bethlehem is safely ensconced in Pennsylvania’s portion of the Greater Appalachian Valley, and bisected by the gentle Lehigh River. It oozes college-cute charm. Tim Walz held a rally at one of the city’s high schools back in September and was mocked for admitting “we can’t afford four more years of this”. But in Bethlehem, the gaffe went mostly unnoticed.
Earlier this year, it was awarded Unesco World Heritage Status, and it feels like the city is still celebrating. On Bethlehem’s Main Street, crimson leaves fall to the pavement, where they turn to gold. There is a choir of beautiful churches, an ice cream parlour, two taprooms — one selling beer; the other organic olive oil — and a shop selling Palestinian flags.
At one end, almost out of sight, Donald Trump’s campaign team have set up an office. “The building is owned by a Democrat,” the flag-seller tells me, before shrugging. “I guess money talks.” On the city’s fringes, Trump and Harris yard signs face off against each other, while Democrat billboards flank its entry roads.
True to its name, Bethlehem has always been drawn to the Holy Land. Since 1741, when devout Moravian travellers founded the settlement on 24 December, Christmas has been central to the city’s identity. Within six years, it boasted America’s first decorated Christmas tree. These days, it’s known as the “Christmas City” and, from November onwards, tourists come to worship in the city’s festive gift shops. The most devout get married in the opulent Hotel Bethlehem, where December weddings start at $18,000. “It was perfect,” purrs one Bethlehem bride.
But across the river, the rusted hulk of the city’s former steelworks speaks to a different chapter in the city’s history. If Bethlehem gave America its Christmas spirit, it also built its backbone. The Chrysler Building, Alcatraz Island, the Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate Bridge — all were forged with steel produced in its 16-story blast furnaces. By 1940, roughly 40% of New York City’s skyline was constructed with materials from Bethlehem Steel. Three years later, during the Second World War, its workers constructed the equivalent of one battleship per day. As Walz said during his visit, it was Bethlehem Steel that “freed the world from Nazi oppression”.
Then came the post-war reconstruction, when Japan and Germany rebuilt their own plants, and more efficient steelworks were devised in America. When the global recession hit in the Eighties, Bethlehem Steel’s fate was sealed. It clung on until 1995, when the city’s steelmaking tradition died in one final nostalgic cascade of fire and ore. A worker whistled “Amazing Grace” over a speaker system on the furnace floor, and the steelworks fell silent.
Today, the land is owned by that other great American business: a casino company. Many of the old factory buildings remain empty and fenced off; a handful are occupied by start-ups and event companies. Tucked away at one end is the casino, whose shopping centre, spa and dizzying array of 4,000 betting terminals attract gambler-tourists ferried in and out on coaches from New York’s Chinatown. Britney Spears held a show there in 2018; next month, Engelbert Humperdinck is flying in.
Under the shadow of the five remaining defunct furnaces, I find Tom Sedor, a third-generation steelworker. His family history charts the industry’s decline. Sedor’s grandfather was a blacklisted union man during the First World War. His father was also a union man, until he was killed when a furnace blew up in 1948. Sedor himself worked on the plant’s electrics, right up until Bethlehem Steel closed.
Bethlehem Steel, said Tim Walz, “freed the world from Nazi oppression”. Credit: Jacob Furedi
“The hardest part was the Rule of 85,” he explains, where a worker could only retire with a full pension if their age and period of service added up to 85 or more. “Many men had to go to other plants, mostly in Baltimore, and that led to a lot of divorces.”
Sedor, 83, will be voting Democrat, but only because, as a lifelong union man, he could never vote for Trump. “At least Harris has visited Pennsylvania, unlike Hillary Clinton,” he says. But will life get better? “I don’t think so. Take the casino. Yes, it brings jobs, but they’re not well-paid.” He points out that the minimum wage in Pennsylvania is the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour; more than half of the rate in neighbouring New Jersey.
“How is anyone supposed to pay their rent with that?”
***
At the time of his death in April 2018, Tyrell Holmes rented a flat with two of his killers, Alkhion Dunkins and Yzire Jenkins-Row. “Back then, the landlord didn’t care how you made your money,” says one former resident.
On the night of the murder, just after midnight, neighbours heard a fight break out in their third-floor apartment. There was a shriek followed by a crash — and then silence. Holmes had been strangled unconscious. He was then dragged down the stairwell and thrown into an idling car. It quietly drove off.
Today, the block of flats on East Raspberry Street, a short walk from Bethlehem’s centre, is owned by a different letting company, but a handful of its residents remain the same. Elle, 31, has lived in the flat next to Holmes for six years. “I used to let them into the building when they forgot their keys,” she tells me. They played loud music, she says, but “didn’t cause any problems”. On the night itself, Elle and her husband came home just before 3.00am, after closing up a nearby bar. “They were next door, quickly packing up their shit — and then they just left.”
The next day, a forensic team arrived. She never saw the young men again.
“The building is still a piece of shit,” Elle adds. “They don’t fix anything.” But at least the rent is relatively cheap: it costs $1,100 a month for a two-bedroom flat, half the price of the going rate. “I’ve been lucky they haven’t raised it,” the tattoo artist admits.
Just around the corner, a new block of flats is being built, where a new studio costs around $2,000. “At least five of these developments have gone up in recent years,” Elle says, “and nobody local can afford them.”
“The city’s hopeless fringes are still ignored: regardless of who wins, things will continue to fall apart.”
But these flats aren’t built for those born in Bethlehem. Since the pandemic, wealthier residents of New York and Philadelphia have been moving in, just a 90-minute commute. Coupled with Bethlehem’s growing student population — it boasts two private universities — and rental and house prices rose by 40% between 2019 and 2023.
Priced out of their homes by the newcomers, 111 former residents now live on the streets, many of whom are fed by New Bethany, a food bank not far from the steelworks. “This is the worst we’ve ever seen it,” says its director Marc Rittle. He estimates there’s been a 91% increase in homelessness since the pandemic, when the government increased food stamps and cash assistance to those on lower incomes. But when the pandemic was officially declared over in May last year, that support was withdrawn.
The fall-out was unforgiving. Walk east along the south bank of the Lehigh River, past the “No Trespassing” sign and over the rusted railroad track. There, under a motorway bridge, lurks evidence of the city’s homelessness crisis: a camp that, in the dusk sunlight, might have been built by Huck Finn. The despair is ordered. Thick duvets lie across a corrugated metal platform; knee-high piles of books slouch against the back wall; at the far end a dozen DVDs are waiting to be watched on a television that doesn’t exist.
Carlos, 57, has been here a year, after the company that employed him as a forklift driver shut down. “The weekends are particularly hard,” he explains, as the nearby food bank is closed. Despite coming to America from Puerto Rico almost 40 years ago — a third of Bethlehem is Hispanic — he has no identity papers, which means he can’t apply for housing or financial support.
“I’ve just got to be hopeful,” he says calmly, when I ask about the election. “That’s all I got.” And he shrugs.
Across the river, some 50 other people have set up a larger encampment, but Carlos prefers the quiet. Sometimes he goes over to fish with them. There are 30-odd tents. Most of their occupants are waiting for manual work to come around, but few are as hopeful as Carlos. Some have lived there for more than five years, and plan to stay for another five. “This is our home now,” says one. Further up the river, another says he’s too busy to talk; he returns to his plank of wood and starts to aimlessly drill holes.
George, by contrast, doesn’t need a tent. Instead, despite working at New Bethany and claiming social security, he spends each night sleeping in his car. Last year, his rent increased from $875 to $1,000 — and he couldn’t afford the difference. “I park down by the hospital,” the former construction worker, 69, explains. “It’s one of the safest places you can stay because of the security guard.” To avoid suspicion before nightfall, he moves from carpark to carpark, along with a small cortège of other car-sleepers.
Unprompted, George describes how, after his daughter died in June, he started drinking to forget the pain and the elements. “But I drank so much I got hospitalised and have been sober since,” he adds. And now he feels the cold.
When I ask how his daughter died, he replies as if I should already know the answer: “Fentanyl.”
***
Over the past five years, there have been more than 600 opioid overdoses in Bethlehem. As one resident, whose flat overlooks the dumpster where Tyrell Holmes was burnt alive, told me: “There are drug deals here every night.”
Five days before Holmes’s death, five members of Bethlehem’s “Money Rules Everything” (MRE) gang robbed a drug dealer. Such “drug rips” — where dealers or suppliers are targeted — had become increasingly common in Bethlehem.
The robbery didn’t go to plan. As the young men escaped with a bag of marijuana, one dropped his phone. When the dealer turned it on, there were two faces on its background: Alkhion Dunkins and the phone’s owner, Tyrell Holmes.
The police are still piecing together what happened in the short period between that night and Holmes’s murder. Witnesses have been reluctant to provide testimony or evidence; in 2021; one of the killers, Jenkins-Rowe, was accused of witness intimidation from his prison cell. (In Pennsylvania, first-degree murder still carries the death sentence.)
But some facts are known. After the robbery, Alkhion Dunkins — Holmes’s flatmate and fellow MRE member — started to receive threats from the dealer the gang had targeted. Holmes, meanwhile, had become the subject of an internal investigation. He stood accused of stealing from MRE and associating with members of a rival gang.
“Tyrell lived two lives,” a friend tells me. “But he didn’t deserve to die like that.” She tries to explain why many of their male friends were drawn into crime: “They feel like drug dealing is the only way they can live. There isn’t much out there for them, and they’re trying to control the chaos.” When I ask if she thinks the election will alter anything, she responds: “Nothing is going to change. If anything, everything is going to get worse. It always does.”
Life on the fringes of Bethlehem. Credit: JF
Elle, Holmes’s next-door neighbour, agrees. “What pisses me off is that both parties only care about minute things when there’s so much other shit going on.” I ask what she means. “Abortion and stuff is obviously important. But what about the economy? What about the drugs?”
Fentanyl has continued to flow through Bethlehem’s backstreets since the last election. “When I was 16, three of my best friends got addicted to heroin,” Elle says. “But now heroin doesn’t even exist. It’s just fentanyl. It’s everywhere.”
This year alone, there have already been 52 opioid overdoses in Bethlehem, down on last year but still significantly higher than the national average. Indeed, in the state as a whole, one Pennsylvanian dies of an overdose every two hours. Dotted around Bethlehem are purple boxes containing Naxolene, which is used to reverse opioid overdoses. There is one in the visitor centre at the steelworks, next to a vending machine selling snacks.
Those who overdose in Bethlehem skew young. They are mostly the children of the steelworker generation, and sometimes the grandchildren. In San Francisco, Didion met a five-year-old girl whose mother feeds her acid. In Bethlehem, the situation is as desperate. Earlier this year, a mother pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter after her two-year-old son died of a fentanyl overdose in her home. She had fallen asleep with the child’s father, who awoke to find their son unresponsive, his lips turned blue.
When I visit her house, nobody answers the door. Further up the street, her family’s business is still in operation. It claims to be Bethlehem’s “most trusted” seller of windows.
***
Before Holmes was murdered, there were at least four gangs operating in and around Bethlehem. Most had alliances with other street organisations — the Latin Kings in Chicago, for instance, or the African-American Bloods in Los Angeles and their rivals the Crips.
But Money Rules Everything was different: it was a strictly “neighbourhood gang” — it was born in Bethlehem.
When it was founded in 2013, MRE’s eight or so members took over the city’s Pembroke housing development. Less than a 10-minute drive from Bethlehem’s World Heritage sites, Pembroke is home to 196 low-income housing units that the council now wants to demolish. Squatting on the city’s borderlands, the estate is flanked by a petrol station and a dusty park overlooked by a sweet factory.
Maggie is sitting in the project’s playpark. She lived on the estate with her boyfriend Lewis until two years ago, when their house was destroyed in a fire. Maggie, 33, now stays with a friend nearby; Lewis, 50, surfs Pembroke’s sofas — or, when there isn’t one free, sleeps in a tent in a nearby wood. “There’s no real financial support,” he tells me. “Everyone here is in some sort of trouble,” Maggie adds.
Neither Lewis nor Maggie are registered to vote. “What’s the point?” Lewis asks. Maggie claims a man came by a few weeks ago asking if she wanted to put her name down. “Afterwards, he offered to sell me weed,” she adds.
When he was growing up, Tyrell used to spend a lot of time in Pembroke, and I ask if they remember him. “We all remember that kid’s death,” she says. “The one who was burnt.” And his killers? Didn’t they grow up around here too?
“Oh yeah,” Maggie adds. “One of their moms still lives here.” She points. “That house there. The one with the light on.”
“There’s nothing special about Bethlehem.” Credit: JF
When Tyrell Holmes named his would-be killers, he didn’t know one of his oldest friends would be among them. He had grown up with Miles Harper; their families had even attended the same church when they were children. But for Harper, fraternising with a rival gang was worse than sin.
To date, Harper is the only killer to have pleaded guilty to Holmes’s death; when he was sentenced in 2019, he was already in prison for shooting two men outside a shopping mall. Holmes’s other three killers are due in court next spring; nobody in Bethlehem doubts their guilt. Even the judge admitted he’d never presided over such a pitiless crime.
“I’m Miles’s mother,” says the woman at the door when I explain why I’m standing on her porch. Tonie Harper is reluctant to talk about her son, saying only that little has changed on the Pembroke estate since he was arrested. Only slightly more forthcoming is Miles’s older brother, Xavier, a puckish figure in his late twenties.
“I was just praying when you arrived,” he explains. “It’s clearly a sign.” When I ask if he agrees with his mother that life hasn’t improved over the past six years, he says that it’s what God would’ve wanted. When I ask about his brother and Holmes, he repeats himself. Every question is met with the same response: an appeal to God. The conversation briefly turns to politics. He won’t be voting in the election.
A friend of Holmes later puts me in touch with his older brother. Now 27, he lives in Florida, where he works in construction after serving a four-year term in the army.
“Tyrell was a good kid,” he says. It’s Bethlehem that’s bad. “It’s like a horror movie — it’s like a dark hole there.” He’s not keeping up with the police investigation. He has no explanation for the bleak impulses behind Holmes’s murder. Nobody does.
No one knows how an 18-year-old was led into the dark hole which led to him being strangled, stabbed and then burnt alive. Few seem to care. In 1967, Didion concluded that, “once we had seen these children, we could no longer overlook the vacuum, no longer pretend that the society’s atomisation could be reversed”. Half a century later, the pretence endures. Despite Bethlehem being a “political battleground”, the city’s hopeless fringes are still ignored: regardless of who wins, things will continue to fall apart.
“There’s nothing special about Bethlehem,” Holmes’s brother adds. “It’s the same as everywhere else.”
I ask him about the election, and Bethlehem’s outsized role in picking its winner.
“I don’t care,” he says. “You might as well flip a coin.”
“Let’s its citizens live” ? …. People have agency and autonomy. If they choose to mess up their own lives how is the government going to fix it ? There is work in this country but people choose to gamble instead. The government could fix that by making gambling illegal but then gambling would go underground because people choose to mess up their lives.
People have agency but we’re also products of our environment and it’s incredibly naive to suggest otherwise.
If everything is simply down to personal agency rather than outside factors then levels of crime and fentanyl addiction would be totally random and roughly the same in rich towns as they are poor ones but we all know that isn’t the case
To some degree that’s true, but those with mental health issues don’t really have agency and autonomy. Emptying those with mental health issues onto the streets has been government policy for a long time. Obviously it doesn’t work, but it might save money. We don’t know what the percentage is of people who “mess up their own lives” by choice. Not a lot I would imagine. Nor do I think gambling would be a large factor. It would be in the mix but even banning it, if that had a positive result, wouldn’t change much.
The mental ill health people were turned out in the streets because it is a violation of their civil rights to lock them up.
I kid you not — That was the explanation!
Luxembourg is the richest country in the world by GDP per capita, with a GDP per capita of $143,743 as of 2024. Other wealthy countries by GDP per capita include:
Singapore: $133,737
Ireland: $133,895
Macao SAR: $134,141
Bermuda: $118,846
Norway: $106,149
Switzerland: $92,101
‘The next President will face significant fiscal challenges upon taking office, including record debt levels, large structural deficits, surging interest payments, and the looming insolvency of critical trust fund programs.1 Our large and growing national debt threatens to slow economic growth, boost interest rates and payments, weaken national security, constrain policy choices, and increase the risk of an eventual fiscal crisis.
However, neither major candidate running in the 2024 presidential election has put forward a plan to address this rising debt burden. In fact, our comprehensive analysis of the candidates’ tax and spending plans finds that both Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump would likely further increase deficits and debt above levels projected under current law.’
So they aren’t exactly’ letting’ people live like that are they. America has a number of problems but then it is a very large and diverse country, unless you believe in utopia, you would expect to find areas that are deprived.
That doesn’t change the fact that your statement is false.
What evidence do you have to support your claim that the levels of deprivation are ‘much worse’ than other first world nations?
I’m afraid you are not checking your facts:
When comparing OECD countries, Costa Rica actually has a higher rate of poverty than the US.
While the US is second, with a poverty rate of 18%, there are a number of countries listed in that link that are not far off the us and that have very similar rates of poverty. So the deprivation is not ‘much worse’ than other countries, nor does the us have the highest poverty rate.
You are seriously attributing all of the deprivation in America to political decisions? I don’t think it is that clear at all. I feel like you have a very simplistic understanding of deprivation and its causes, and of American history and politics.
Do you believe that political decisions can entirely solve problems of deprivation?
How many first world countries (by which I mean Western Europe, Britain, Australia, Japan, NZ, Korea etc) have vast tent slums of homeless people living in their cities? Or happily lets their citizens die simply because they don’t earn enough to pay for their medical care?
“Poverty Rate” is an imperfect measure as it is often used when making a comparison of a persons wages to the countries median salaries, rather than the actual conditions faced by those living in it. Somebody classed as living below the poverty line in Britain or elsewhere will have a much better existence than the bulk of the people in this article.
Every country has its poor areas I’ll agree, but the levels of deprivation faced by vast numbers of those at the bottom of American society are far, far worse than that faced by the poor in comparable nations.
The lack of support given to those struggling is of course a political decision, in that those at the top choose to turn a blind eye to the squalor.
‘First world’ normally means OECD countries. You can’t just narrow the definition because it doesn’t suit you.
“Poverty Rate” is an imperfect measure
So provide a source that uses a different measurement, explain why that measurement is better and actually contribute some of your own statistics, rather than your assumptions which are based on nothing. I imagine they used the same criteria, across those nations, to assess poverty rates, are you suggesting that people in other countries recorded in those statistics, living in poverty are not suffering the same as people in the US? That is a ridiculous claim based on nothing.
‘Or happily lets their citizens die simply because they don’t earn enough to pay for their medical care?’
Please support this claim with evidence that the us government is happy to let people die. That sounds like a conspiracy theory.
See my reply below where I have separated the damage caused by political decisions from global wars/ emergencies.
The lack of support given to those struggling is of course a political decision
Of course you’re absolutely right. The situation exists because it’s allowed to and it’s to America’s shame. The American ethos; if you can’t make it on your own you’re of no use to us, unless , of course, you’re an illegal immigrant. If you can’t, or won’t, look after your own people then you don’t like them. If you did it wouldn’t happen.
The deprivation in Bethlehem has been caused by quite a wide range of factors, not all of it caused by ‘political decisions’.
‘ By 1940, roughly 40% of New York City’s skyline was constructed with materials from Bethlehem Steel. Three years later, during the Second World War, its workers constructed the equivalent of one battleship per day
Then came the post-war reconstruction, when Japan and Germany rebuilt their own plants, and more efficient steelworks were devised in America.
When the global recession hit in the Eighties, Bethlehem Steel’s fate was sealed.’
So the boom in their steel industry was helped by the demand from the second world war. I’m not sure I would call the second world war a political decision, especially a political decision by just the American government. The industry in this town was driven by demand, not political policy.
The recession that affected it in the 1980s, was a global recession, again not really a political decision or the fault of just one government.
‘He estimates there’s been a 91% increase in homelessness since the pandemic, when the government increased food stamps and cash assistance to those on lower incomes. But when the pandemic was officially declared over in May last year, that support was withdrawn.’
The rise in homelessness described here is the result of the global pandemic. Again, the pandemic itself was not a political decision. Neither was the subsequent recession.
The bad policies followed by the government during the pandemic have contributed to the causes of homelessness in this case, but the primary cause, as in the pandemic itself, was not a political decision by any one government.
While poor political decisions have contributed, they are not the only factors.
The issue is bigger than what happened in Bethlehem and the causes of homelessness are many, not just the movement of production and jobs. Yes, of course it’s not all political. And you’re right about the movement of production around the world and global recessions.
But the idea that the pandemic is largely the cause of homelessness is a bit specious. Homelessness existed before the pandemic. Those with mental health problems were thrown onto the streets. Those who don’t make the grade fall through the cracks; it’s the American way. Your focus seems to be on those who lost jobs and consequently became homeless as a result of the pandemic.
You’re correct that the bad policies of the government during the pandemic contributed to homelessness, and the recession following the pandemic was directly a result of political decisions. I don’t see that one can just blame the pandemic as the primary cause of homelessness. Everything has a primary cause that the government responds to. That’s what they’re there for, to make decisions. There still seems to be very little room for America to move in accounting for the scale of homelessness. America owns it because of decisions they made.
I thought we were commenting on this place, talked about in the article. Regardless, the point still stands that it is not just politics that has caused deprivation.
You said:
,’ isn’t it likely that political decisions caused this deprivation?’
My point was that it is not purely political decisions that have led to deprivation, and I can apply that to the place in question, or to homelessness in general.
Then you say:
‘Yes, of course it’s not all political’
That was entirely my point. You have contradicted yourself. You can’t say political decisions likely caused deprivation then say of coarse it’s not all political. Make up your mind.
‘But the idea that the pandemic is largely the cause of homelessness is a bit specious’
I didn’t say that, I said it was a contributing factor in this particular area, as pointed out by the statistics in the article. And that the pandemic was not a political decision. Are you saying the statistics in the article are wrong? My point was the pandemic was a primary cause that led to more bad political decisions, not that the pandemic was the primary cause of homelessness.
I’m not saying it is the primary cause, I am quoting the facts given in the article and saying it was a contributing factor. Perhaps you need to read my comment again.
I conceded your point about it not being all political because I had been a bit casual with my statement and corrected it. It’s not a contradiction it’s a correction. It would be a contradiction if I tried to hold both positions.
You might have assumed the comments were always about Bethlehem but it’s quite obvious that we were moving out from it in concentric circles to the point that Billy Bob brought up other countries.
I had made a few more comments regarding your reply, but in the end I just can’t be bothered. I thought you might be interested in another point of view but that seems to set you off and you’ve shut down the conversation, so what’s the point?
‘I conceded your point about it not being all political because I had been a bit casual with my statement and corrected it. It’s not a contradiction it’s a correction’
So you agree with my point, having started out by not agreeing with it?
It doesn’t matter really where it is about in America, my point that deprivation in America is not caused by solely political decisions still stands. A point you have just ‘corrected’ or conceded yourself.
‘I had made a few more comments regarding your reply, but in the end I just can’t be bothered. I thought you might be interested in another point of view but that seems to set you off and you’ve shut down the conversation, so what’s the point?’
You are not offering another point of view. You have just conceded, or ‘corrected’ yourself, by saying that deprivation in America is not solely caused by political decisions. So you agree with the point I was making.
What other point of view are you offering.
I am well aware of the bad political decisions that have contributed, and have made that clear. I’m not ignoring that factor as you seem to suggest.
I have not shut down anything.
You have run out of ground because you can’t defend your original point, which was:
‘But BE, isn’t it likely that political decisions caused this deprivation?’
The U.S. is NOT the richest country in the world. If you divide per capita wealth by per capita debt you will see the U.S is barely in the top 10.
Andrew Boughton
16 days ago
Lived in the US for 10 years, my brother did for 3 years before me and explained to my startled innocence: “Look, you need to adjust your expectations. The US is not a first world country, like France, or the UK, or Australia. It’s not third world either. Its cities are somewhere between, say, Mumbai and London.” Let’s not even mention Shanghai or Tokyo. But this helped me adjust my expecations. My Russian limo driver, a Saint Petersburg architect, could not get over how NY was like “a gigantic garbage dump” but he was trapped there by Shock Therapy. Leaders of the free world. Hmm. Love Americans, fear for their cities.
Daniel Lee
16 days ago
Didion’s exploration of the country’s nascent descent into chaos in San Francisco is mentioned here, but somehow unmentioned is its fundamental role in the social collapse that culminated eventually in these people’s utter vulnerability in the face of a changing economy. This is only partly about the economy; it’s mostly about the hollowing out of the nation’s moral and cultural reserves that began with the counterculture revolution among rich, self-indulgent and, sorry, stupid adolescents in the late 1960s. We haven’t recovered yet. We may not recover ever.
Excellent observation. The rich or stable & well-protected could afford forays into social transgression; such experimentation can wreck marginal individuals and communities. It’s had generational effects.
it’s mostly about the hollowing out of the nation’s moral and cultural reserves that began with the counterculture revolution among rich, self-indulgent and, sorry, stupid adolescents
You might have a point, but why was it so easy? This was “The Greatest Generation” completely, apparently, eviscerated.
Gayle Rosenthal
16 days ago
Stabbing an burning him alive. That’s how many of the victims of the October 7 massacre in Israel happened. It’s a signature Islamic style slaying. The names of the killers sound vaguely Islamic. Is the Nation of Islam in Bethlehem ? Probably. But they will tell you Islam is a religion of peace.
Probably not actual Moslems… drug dealing and intoxication are both big NOs in that faith. But yes POCs who would happily pretend to be Mohammedans if it reduced their sentences – just as leftists will pretend to be “of the book” if it gets them votes. Yemak shemoy all of them.
Anna Bramwell
16 days ago
How do rising property prices and well off incomers cause homelessness?
Is this a joke? Or is it not blindingly obvious how an increase in rents and property prices without the corresponding increase in salaries would mean many could no longer afford to pay them?
That is only one element. It is a fair enough question. Your answer is incredibly simplistic.
Considering your joke of a comment above you are very judgemental.
Surely there is an argument that well off incomers also bring additional money to an area, therefore have more to spend which supports the local economy and jobs.
Increasing house prices are surely a result of an area becoming more desirable, so you could also argue that the people that already owned homes in the area then benefit from the price increase on their property.
So I’m afraid the answer isn’t that ‘blindingly obvious’ at all.
If house prices are rising (and wages aren’t) then less people can afford to buy one. This in turn means more competition for rentals which also pushes up rent prices mean they also climb out of reach, or at the very least mean many now have less disposable income to spend on local businesses meaning many struggle and jobs are lost.
Unless the richer people are actually investing in the area and creating more highly skilled well paying work (which many won’t be) their slightly increased spending in a few shops will not be enough to offset the damage caused
Yes I understand that. I said there is an element of that. Your point relies on the fact that wages are not increasing too.
‘competition for rentals which also pushes up rent prices mean they also climb out of reach, or at the very least mean many now have less disposable income to spend on local businesses meaning many struggle and jobs are lost.’
If rents are increasing, it means that people want to live in those rental properties and there is competition for them. That does not then mean that people will have less income to spend, especially if it is new people coming into an area with money to spend. That is an assumption you have made and would depend on the area in question and the reasons why the increase in housing prices, what type of businesses are in the area, how much disposable income the new people in the area have etc.
Your point that businesses in the local area will struggle and jobs will be lost – That is not always going to be the case. You are making a very narrow point based on one possible situation where house prices increase and wages drop, and you are dismissing the effect of additional wealth bought in by the people that are driving the demand in the first place.
‘(which many won’t be) their slightly increased spending in a few shops will not be enough to offset the damage caused’
This is not a fact, it is a narrow statement you have made based on nothing, it would take quite a while to actually analyse that properly, for this area. Without knowledge of the local economy how can you possibly know that.
My point is, your answer is simplistic and your point is narrow. Where have you got the idea from that property prices increased and wages didn’t.
The article says that in some areas locals have been priced out by demand and incomers. Not necessarily because wages are stagnant.
It also talks about the minimum wage, once, and it is an anecdote from one person. That does not tell you anything about the average wage in the area or how much it has increased.
It makes homes unaffordable, but these are illegals or the lazy, hopeless drunks and junkies.
No matter the cost, no landlord would want them in their properties.
Homeless people are not necessarily illegals, lazy or hopeless drunks and junkies. There are many reasons for homelessness, and it is probably quite a mix of people that end up homeless.
Middle class America has had well reported problems with opioid addictions and they are ending up homeless:
It’s interesting how governments could not cope with the homeless, it’s own citizens, and yet they can house and give financial support to illegal immigrants, even at the cost of other services. That’s quite bizarre.
‘It’s interesting how governments could not cope with the homeless, it’s own citizens, and yet they can house and give financial support to illegal immigrants, even at the cost of other services. That’s quite bizarre’
That was your original point.
You can’t make that point without considering the housing situation of illegal immigrants.
How can you say that the government is housing illegal immigrants over and above its own citizens if you are not aware of the ratio of illegal immigrants in government funded accommodation vs the number that are homeless.
You would then need to compare that to the number of American citizens that are homeless, to be able to conclude that is what is actually happening.
Emotive phrases like ‘tossed out like garbage’ are all well and good. But not when trying to make a factual, objective argument.
Obviously, despite you trying to muddy the waters, illegal immigrants are in accomodation that homeless American citizens could be in. The numbers don’t matter. If you can tell me there’s not one citizen living in the streets, then fine. But of course you can’t. “Tossed out” refers to those with mental health issues who were left to their own devices even though it’s clear they can’t cope.
Meh, your points are lazy. Where were the mentally ill people you talk about tossed out from? Their own homes, or government accommodation?
It’s fair enough to say that your government is housing illegals over and above its own homeless citizens but to then say you weren’t considering illegal migrants as part of your homeless problem is a bit silly.
If you really wanted to understand the problem you started off by stating:
It’s interesting how governments could not cope with the homeless, it’s own citizens, and yet they can house and give financial support to illegal immigrants, even at the cost of other services. That’s quite bizarre
Surely an understanding of the numbers behind the financial support your government is giving illegals is necessarily before you can say they are funding this over and above other services.
Homelessness is an age old problem, charities and governments have, at different times spent enormous sums of money on trying to fix the problem, with varying degrees of success. So without checking figures, how do you know that government isnt spending an enormous amount on trying to help homeless people? They could be spending a fortune but it doesn’t mean it is effectively spent money that has actually produced results.
Do you know how much is spent in the us on causes to solve homelessness?
VS the amount the government spends on the benefits you say illegal immigrants receive?
I’m not quite sure what you’re objecting to.
It’s true that in some larger US cities government budgets are overstretched by the needs of illegal immigrants and that as a consequence they are going to cut back on services to the city.
Its also true that policies in regard to institutionalising the mentally unwell changed and instead they were released from their “government accomodation” into the community and that has been the policy ever since. Instead of personal help and care they were given drugs to cope. That hasn’t worked so well, consequently many unwell people are to be found on the street and in fact in prison.
It doesn’t matter how much the government is spending. The point is the large numbers of US citizens are living on the street, despite what’s been spent.
I don’t see the need for illegal immigrant numbers in relation to that. It’s existed for a long time, before large scale illegal immigration, and continues to get worse.
Chuck Burns
16 days ago
Billions of dollars laundered through Ukraine making its way to the Military Industrial Complex, politicians, and lining the pockets of bureaucrats and politicians in Ukraine and in the USA. No money to close the Southern Border, no money to stop the drugs, no money to bring back industry that was sent overseas. Lots of money and lives wasted by the Neo-Cons.
Nicholas Taylor
16 days ago
One day to wait to find out what rough beast slouches in.
leonard o'reilly
16 days ago
I think Didion and Furedi are telling very different stories about America. Furedi’s is very well told but I have heard it many times before, in story and song. The _____ plant closes down. The centre does not hold. Things fall apart. Is it really that simple?
Didion may be the more perceptive.
J. Hale
15 days ago
“Despite coming to America from Puerto Rico almost 40 years ago … he has no identity papers,, which means he can’t apply for housing or financial support.” This is BS. If the guy was really born in Puerto Rico then he’s an American citizen. He could easily get an ID of some sort – but of course that would require some initiative.
Main Edition
US
FR
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThere are enough towns in America that you will find more than a handful who’s voting record correlates with all the winners of presidential races.
So obvious, but no one thinks of random binary actions. They must find a causal narrative.
Richest country in the world, and this is how it lets its citizens live. Shameful really
Appears their government would rather spend their money funding wars.
What Dickens might have called Telescopic Philanthropy, or the bringing of enlightenment to the dark and blighted regions. Ha ha.
Money the US doesn’t have.
Federal debt currently $35 trillion.
“Let’s its citizens live” ? …. People have agency and autonomy. If they choose to mess up their own lives how is the government going to fix it ? There is work in this country but people choose to gamble instead. The government could fix that by making gambling illegal but then gambling would go underground because people choose to mess up their lives.
People have agency but we’re also products of our environment and it’s incredibly naive to suggest otherwise.
If everything is simply down to personal agency rather than outside factors then levels of crime and fentanyl addiction would be totally random and roughly the same in rich towns as they are poor ones but we all know that isn’t the case
To some degree that’s true, but those with mental health issues don’t really have agency and autonomy. Emptying those with mental health issues onto the streets has been government policy for a long time. Obviously it doesn’t work, but it might save money. We don’t know what the percentage is of people who “mess up their own lives” by choice. Not a lot I would imagine. Nor do I think gambling would be a large factor. It would be in the mix but even banning it, if that had a positive result, wouldn’t change much.
The mental ill health people were turned out in the streets because it is a violation of their civil rights to lock them up.
I kid you not — That was the explanation!
you can take a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. The question is what is in the water?
There doesn’t appear to be much water around these places for the horses to drink, the government have let the wells run dry
Richest country in the world? We keep calling ourselves that, by what metric do we qualify? Not by GDP per capita, surely.
Even by per capita they would be up there, top 5 would be my guess once you exclude the small tax havens
‘Richest country in the world, and this is how it lets its citizens live.’
Apart from that isn’t a true a statement.
https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/
Luxembourg is the richest country in the world by GDP per capita, with a GDP per capita of $143,743 as of 2024. Other wealthy countries by GDP per capita include:
Singapore: $133,737
Ireland: $133,895
Macao SAR: $134,141
Bermuda: $118,846
Norway: $106,149
Switzerland: $92,101
US is number eight I believe.
https://www.crfb.org/papers/fiscal-impact-harris-and-trump-campaign-plans
‘The next President will face significant fiscal challenges upon taking office, including record debt levels, large structural deficits, surging interest payments, and the looming insolvency of critical trust fund programs.1 Our large and growing national debt threatens to slow economic growth, boost interest rates and payments, weaken national security, constrain policy choices, and increase the risk of an eventual fiscal crisis.
However, neither major candidate running in the 2024 presidential election has put forward a plan to address this rising debt burden. In fact, our comprehensive analysis of the candidates’ tax and spending plans finds that both Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump would likely further increase deficits and debt above levels projected under current law.’
So they aren’t exactly’ letting’ people live like that are they. America has a number of problems but then it is a very large and diverse country, unless you believe in utopia, you would expect to find areas that are deprived.
But the levels of deprivation are much worse than you find in other first world nations, which is clearly a political decision to allow to happen
That doesn’t change the fact that your statement is false.
What evidence do you have to support your claim that the levels of deprivation are ‘much worse’ than other first world nations?
I’m afraid you are not checking your facts:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/233910/poverty-rates-in-oecd-countries/
When comparing OECD countries, Costa Rica actually has a higher rate of poverty than the US.
While the US is second, with a poverty rate of 18%, there are a number of countries listed in that link that are not far off the us and that have very similar rates of poverty. So the deprivation is not ‘much worse’ than other countries, nor does the us have the highest poverty rate.
You are seriously attributing all of the deprivation in America to political decisions? I don’t think it is that clear at all. I feel like you have a very simplistic understanding of deprivation and its causes, and of American history and politics.
Do you believe that political decisions can entirely solve problems of deprivation?
How many first world countries (by which I mean Western Europe, Britain, Australia, Japan, NZ, Korea etc) have vast tent slums of homeless people living in their cities? Or happily lets their citizens die simply because they don’t earn enough to pay for their medical care?
“Poverty Rate” is an imperfect measure as it is often used when making a comparison of a persons wages to the countries median salaries, rather than the actual conditions faced by those living in it. Somebody classed as living below the poverty line in Britain or elsewhere will have a much better existence than the bulk of the people in this article.
Every country has its poor areas I’ll agree, but the levels of deprivation faced by vast numbers of those at the bottom of American society are far, far worse than that faced by the poor in comparable nations.
The lack of support given to those struggling is of course a political decision, in that those at the top choose to turn a blind eye to the squalor.
Please provide sources to back up your claims.
‘First world’ normally means OECD countries. You can’t just narrow the definition because it doesn’t suit you.
“Poverty Rate” is an imperfect measure
So provide a source that uses a different measurement, explain why that measurement is better and actually contribute some of your own statistics, rather than your assumptions which are based on nothing. I imagine they used the same criteria, across those nations, to assess poverty rates, are you suggesting that people in other countries recorded in those statistics, living in poverty are not suffering the same as people in the US? That is a ridiculous claim based on nothing.
‘Or happily lets their citizens die simply because they don’t earn enough to pay for their medical care?’
Please support this claim with evidence that the us government is happy to let people die. That sounds like a conspiracy theory.
See my reply below where I have separated the damage caused by political decisions from global wars/ emergencies.
The lack of support given to those struggling is of course a political decision
Of course you’re absolutely right. The situation exists because it’s allowed to and it’s to America’s shame. The American ethos; if you can’t make it on your own you’re of no use to us, unless , of course, you’re an illegal immigrant. If you can’t, or won’t, look after your own people then you don’t like them. If you did it wouldn’t happen.
But BE, isn’t it likely that political decisions caused this deprivation?
Did you read the article.
The deprivation in Bethlehem has been caused by quite a wide range of factors, not all of it caused by ‘political decisions’.
‘ By 1940, roughly 40% of New York City’s skyline was constructed with materials from Bethlehem Steel. Three years later, during the Second World War, its workers constructed the equivalent of one battleship per day
Then came the post-war reconstruction, when Japan and Germany rebuilt their own plants, and more efficient steelworks were devised in America.
When the global recession hit in the Eighties, Bethlehem Steel’s fate was sealed.’
So the boom in their steel industry was helped by the demand from the second world war. I’m not sure I would call the second world war a political decision, especially a political decision by just the American government. The industry in this town was driven by demand, not political policy.
The recession that affected it in the 1980s, was a global recession, again not really a political decision or the fault of just one government.
‘He estimates there’s been a 91% increase in homelessness since the pandemic, when the government increased food stamps and cash assistance to those on lower incomes. But when the pandemic was officially declared over in May last year, that support was withdrawn.’
The rise in homelessness described here is the result of the global pandemic. Again, the pandemic itself was not a political decision. Neither was the subsequent recession.
The bad policies followed by the government during the pandemic have contributed to the causes of homelessness in this case, but the primary cause, as in the pandemic itself, was not a political decision by any one government.
While poor political decisions have contributed, they are not the only factors.
The issue is bigger than what happened in Bethlehem and the causes of homelessness are many, not just the movement of production and jobs. Yes, of course it’s not all political. And you’re right about the movement of production around the world and global recessions.
But the idea that the pandemic is largely the cause of homelessness is a bit specious. Homelessness existed before the pandemic. Those with mental health problems were thrown onto the streets. Those who don’t make the grade fall through the cracks; it’s the American way. Your focus seems to be on those who lost jobs and consequently became homeless as a result of the pandemic.
You’re correct that the bad policies of the government during the pandemic contributed to homelessness, and the recession following the pandemic was directly a result of political decisions. I don’t see that one can just blame the pandemic as the primary cause of homelessness. Everything has a primary cause that the government responds to. That’s what they’re there for, to make decisions. There still seems to be very little room for America to move in accounting for the scale of homelessness. America owns it because of decisions they made.
I thought we were commenting on this place, talked about in the article. Regardless, the point still stands that it is not just politics that has caused deprivation.
You said:
,’ isn’t it likely that political decisions caused this deprivation?’
My point was that it is not purely political decisions that have led to deprivation, and I can apply that to the place in question, or to homelessness in general.
Then you say:
‘Yes, of course it’s not all political’
That was entirely my point. You have contradicted yourself. You can’t say political decisions likely caused deprivation then say of coarse it’s not all political. Make up your mind.
‘But the idea that the pandemic is largely the cause of homelessness is a bit specious’
I didn’t say that, I said it was a contributing factor in this particular area, as pointed out by the statistics in the article. And that the pandemic was not a political decision. Are you saying the statistics in the article are wrong? My point was the pandemic was a primary cause that led to more bad political decisions, not that the pandemic was the primary cause of homelessness.
I’m not saying it is the primary cause, I am quoting the facts given in the article and saying it was a contributing factor. Perhaps you need to read my comment again.
I conceded your point about it not being all political because I had been a bit casual with my statement and corrected it. It’s not a contradiction it’s a correction. It would be a contradiction if I tried to hold both positions.
You might have assumed the comments were always about Bethlehem but it’s quite obvious that we were moving out from it in concentric circles to the point that Billy Bob brought up other countries.
I had made a few more comments regarding your reply, but in the end I just can’t be bothered. I thought you might be interested in another point of view but that seems to set you off and you’ve shut down the conversation, so what’s the point?
‘I conceded your point about it not being all political because I had been a bit casual with my statement and corrected it. It’s not a contradiction it’s a correction’
So you agree with my point, having started out by not agreeing with it?
It doesn’t matter really where it is about in America, my point that deprivation in America is not caused by solely political decisions still stands. A point you have just ‘corrected’ or conceded yourself.
‘I had made a few more comments regarding your reply, but in the end I just can’t be bothered. I thought you might be interested in another point of view but that seems to set you off and you’ve shut down the conversation, so what’s the point?’
You are not offering another point of view. You have just conceded, or ‘corrected’ yourself, by saying that deprivation in America is not solely caused by political decisions. So you agree with the point I was making.
What other point of view are you offering.
I am well aware of the bad political decisions that have contributed, and have made that clear. I’m not ignoring that factor as you seem to suggest.
I have not shut down anything.
You have run out of ground because you can’t defend your original point, which was:
‘But BE, isn’t it likely that political decisions caused this deprivation?’
Okay.
Tragic story.
It’s a shame that the only political figure these people have left to turn to is a populist clown who genuinely couldn’t care less.
The U.S. is NOT the richest country in the world. If you divide per capita wealth by per capita debt you will see the U.S is barely in the top 10.
Lived in the US for 10 years, my brother did for 3 years before me and explained to my startled innocence: “Look, you need to adjust your expectations. The US is not a first world country, like France, or the UK, or Australia. It’s not third world either. Its cities are somewhere between, say, Mumbai and London.” Let’s not even mention Shanghai or Tokyo. But this helped me adjust my expecations. My Russian limo driver, a Saint Petersburg architect, could not get over how NY was like “a gigantic garbage dump” but he was trapped there by Shock Therapy. Leaders of the free world. Hmm. Love Americans, fear for their cities.
Didion’s exploration of the country’s nascent descent into chaos in San Francisco is mentioned here, but somehow unmentioned is its fundamental role in the social collapse that culminated eventually in these people’s utter vulnerability in the face of a changing economy. This is only partly about the economy; it’s mostly about the hollowing out of the nation’s moral and cultural reserves that began with the counterculture revolution among rich, self-indulgent and, sorry, stupid adolescents in the late 1960s. We haven’t recovered yet. We may not recover ever.
Excellent observation. The rich or stable & well-protected could afford forays into social transgression; such experimentation can wreck marginal individuals and communities. It’s had generational effects.
it’s mostly about the hollowing out of the nation’s moral and cultural reserves that began with the counterculture revolution among rich, self-indulgent and, sorry, stupid adolescents
You might have a point, but why was it so easy? This was “The Greatest Generation” completely, apparently, eviscerated.
Stabbing an burning him alive. That’s how many of the victims of the October 7 massacre in Israel happened. It’s a signature Islamic style slaying. The names of the killers sound vaguely Islamic. Is the Nation of Islam in Bethlehem ? Probably. But they will tell you Islam is a religion of peace.
Probably not actual Moslems… drug dealing and intoxication are both big NOs in that faith. But yes POCs who would happily pretend to be Mohammedans if it reduced their sentences – just as leftists will pretend to be “of the book” if it gets them votes. Yemak shemoy all of them.
How do rising property prices and well off incomers cause homelessness?
Is this a joke? Or is it not blindingly obvious how an increase in rents and property prices without the corresponding increase in salaries would mean many could no longer afford to pay them?
That is only one element. It is a fair enough question. Your answer is incredibly simplistic.
Considering your joke of a comment above you are very judgemental.
Surely there is an argument that well off incomers also bring additional money to an area, therefore have more to spend which supports the local economy and jobs.
Increasing house prices are surely a result of an area becoming more desirable, so you could also argue that the people that already owned homes in the area then benefit from the price increase on their property.
So I’m afraid the answer isn’t that ‘blindingly obvious’ at all.
If house prices are rising (and wages aren’t) then less people can afford to buy one. This in turn means more competition for rentals which also pushes up rent prices mean they also climb out of reach, or at the very least mean many now have less disposable income to spend on local businesses meaning many struggle and jobs are lost.
Unless the richer people are actually investing in the area and creating more highly skilled well paying work (which many won’t be) their slightly increased spending in a few shops will not be enough to offset the damage caused
Yes I understand that. I said there is an element of that. Your point relies on the fact that wages are not increasing too.
‘competition for rentals which also pushes up rent prices mean they also climb out of reach, or at the very least mean many now have less disposable income to spend on local businesses meaning many struggle and jobs are lost.’
If rents are increasing, it means that people want to live in those rental properties and there is competition for them. That does not then mean that people will have less income to spend, especially if it is new people coming into an area with money to spend. That is an assumption you have made and would depend on the area in question and the reasons why the increase in housing prices, what type of businesses are in the area, how much disposable income the new people in the area have etc.
Your point that businesses in the local area will struggle and jobs will be lost – That is not always going to be the case. You are making a very narrow point based on one possible situation where house prices increase and wages drop, and you are dismissing the effect of additional wealth bought in by the people that are driving the demand in the first place.
‘(which many won’t be) their slightly increased spending in a few shops will not be enough to offset the damage caused’
This is not a fact, it is a narrow statement you have made based on nothing, it would take quite a while to actually analyse that properly, for this area. Without knowledge of the local economy how can you possibly know that.
My point is, your answer is simplistic and your point is narrow. Where have you got the idea from that property prices increased and wages didn’t.
The article says that in some areas locals have been priced out by demand and incomers. Not necessarily because wages are stagnant.
It also talks about the minimum wage, once, and it is an anecdote from one person. That does not tell you anything about the average wage in the area or how much it has increased.
It makes homes unaffordable, but these are illegals or the lazy, hopeless drunks and junkies.
No matter the cost, no landlord would want them in their properties.
Homeless people are not necessarily illegals, lazy or hopeless drunks and junkies. There are many reasons for homelessness, and it is probably quite a mix of people that end up homeless.
Middle class America has had well reported problems with opioid addictions and they are ending up homeless:
https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/opportunity-road/winnefeld-opioids-addiction
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-middle-class-drug-epidemic-that-grew/article29591013/
It’s interesting how governments could not cope with the homeless, it’s own citizens, and yet they can house and give financial support to illegal immigrants, even at the cost of other services. That’s quite bizarre.
I thought immigrants were part of your homeless problem.
No, I wasn’t including them in my view of the issue.
Why not.
Because I’m talking about American citizens who have been tossed in the street like garbage.
‘It’s interesting how governments could not cope with the homeless, it’s own citizens, and yet they can house and give financial support to illegal immigrants, even at the cost of other services. That’s quite bizarre’
That was your original point.
You can’t make that point without considering the housing situation of illegal immigrants.
Why’s that?
How can you say that the government is housing illegal immigrants over and above its own citizens if you are not aware of the ratio of illegal immigrants in government funded accommodation vs the number that are homeless.
You would then need to compare that to the number of American citizens that are homeless, to be able to conclude that is what is actually happening.
Emotive phrases like ‘tossed out like garbage’ are all well and good. But not when trying to make a factual, objective argument.
Obviously, despite you trying to muddy the waters, illegal immigrants are in accomodation that homeless American citizens could be in. The numbers don’t matter. If you can tell me there’s not one citizen living in the streets, then fine. But of course you can’t. “Tossed out” refers to those with mental health issues who were left to their own devices even though it’s clear they can’t cope.
Meh, your points are lazy. Where were the mentally ill people you talk about tossed out from? Their own homes, or government accommodation?
It’s fair enough to say that your government is housing illegals over and above its own homeless citizens but to then say you weren’t considering illegal migrants as part of your homeless problem is a bit silly.
If you really wanted to understand the problem you started off by stating:
It’s interesting how governments could not cope with the homeless, it’s own citizens, and yet they can house and give financial support to illegal immigrants, even at the cost of other services. That’s quite bizarre
Surely an understanding of the numbers behind the financial support your government is giving illegals is necessarily before you can say they are funding this over and above other services.
Homelessness is an age old problem, charities and governments have, at different times spent enormous sums of money on trying to fix the problem, with varying degrees of success. So without checking figures, how do you know that government isnt spending an enormous amount on trying to help homeless people? They could be spending a fortune but it doesn’t mean it is effectively spent money that has actually produced results.
Do you know how much is spent in the us on causes to solve homelessness?
VS the amount the government spends on the benefits you say illegal immigrants receive?
I’m not quite sure what you’re objecting to.
It’s true that in some larger US cities government budgets are overstretched by the needs of illegal immigrants and that as a consequence they are going to cut back on services to the city.
Its also true that policies in regard to institutionalising the mentally unwell changed and instead they were released from their “government accomodation” into the community and that has been the policy ever since. Instead of personal help and care they were given drugs to cope. That hasn’t worked so well, consequently many unwell people are to be found on the street and in fact in prison.
It doesn’t matter how much the government is spending. The point is the large numbers of US citizens are living on the street, despite what’s been spent.
I don’t see the need for illegal immigrant numbers in relation to that. It’s existed for a long time, before large scale illegal immigration, and continues to get worse.
Billions of dollars laundered through Ukraine making its way to the Military Industrial Complex, politicians, and lining the pockets of bureaucrats and politicians in Ukraine and in the USA. No money to close the Southern Border, no money to stop the drugs, no money to bring back industry that was sent overseas. Lots of money and lives wasted by the Neo-Cons.
One day to wait to find out what rough beast slouches in.
I think Didion and Furedi are telling very different stories about America. Furedi’s is very well told but I have heard it many times before, in story and song. The _____ plant closes down. The centre does not hold. Things fall apart. Is it really that simple?
Didion may be the more perceptive.
“Despite coming to America from Puerto Rico almost 40 years ago … he has no identity papers,, which means he can’t apply for housing or financial support.” This is BS. If the guy was really born in Puerto Rico then he’s an American citizen. He could easily get an ID of some sort – but of course that would require some initiative.
Bleak is as bleak does.