[flagged]

munificent 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> If you’re genuinely that poor, moving is cheap. Abandon the implied worthless property, catch a greyhound out of town.

When you're genuinely poor, your local community is a critical survival tool that can't be discarded. You've spent your whole life building a set of relationships through mutual help. When your car dies and you can't afford to go to a mechanic, you have a friend of a friend who can fix cars who owes you one since you helped replace his fence a few years back. That kind of thing, but every day, in a hundred ways.

Throwing that out to move to a city where you have nothing is a great way to end up homeless.

	▲	alex43578 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		And by this article, staying in New Orleans is a great way to be poor, lose that network, and still end up homeless and literally underwater again. Nobody is making them move, but moving out of New Orleans certainly seems like the better play, even if it carries risk.

▲

wat10000 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you’re genuinely poor then moving is cheap when viewed by someone who isn’t poor.

Moving as a renter isn’t free. You’ll need to come up with a security deposit and coming up with two months of rent at once is not easy. Your slumlord landlord is going to keep your old one regardless of merit or law, so don’t think you can use that money. Convincing a new landlord that you’re a good risk is also not going to be easy when you’ve just moved and don’t have a job, so you’re looking at spending on a hotel for a while unless you’re lucky enough to know someone well enough to couch surf.

▲

alex43578 2 days ago | parent [-]

If the article is to be believed, nobody is getting their deposits back in the coming decades when everything is under water. But again, if you genuinely can't move with a decade or more of notice because of a security deposit, there's something deeply wrong with how you are managing money and making decisions.

▲

wat10000 2 days ago | parent [-]

Oh yeah, I forgot that it’s their own fault that poor people are poor.

▲

alex43578 2 days ago | parent [-]

If, with 10 years notice, you can’t pull together a deposit, first/last month’s rent, and the $50 for a U-haul to move out of a city that will literally end up underwater, yes - it is your fault.

	▲	wat10000 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for demonstrating the ongoing justification for this username.

▲

hackable_sand 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You are wildly out of touch

▲

lioeters 2 days ago | parent [-]

"Catch a greyhound out of town" is the "Let them eat cake" for the poor and homeless (sorry "unhoused") of New Orleans. Empathy is for the weak, said the oppressor.

▲

alex43578 2 days ago | parent [-]

Billions have been spent rebuilding New Orleans once. Per the article, there's no realistic way to save New Orleans going forward. It's sad, it's unfortunate, it's reality.

The poor and homeless of Louisiana are already receiving massive benefits: 4th in the country for the share of households on welfare, 18% of the population on food stamps, $14B+ in FY23 of federal dollars went to welfare/TANF/Medicaid/etc.

▲

ykonstant 2 days ago | parent [-]

Damn, those poor and homeless are really living it up.

▲

alex43578 2 days ago | parent [-]

Is the solution to further mortgage working and contributing citizens' futures via our exploding national debt, just to throw more cash at them? California spends $40K+ a year, per homeless person, but saw the homeless population grow and the problem get worse.

For welfare, consider that a single parent with two school-age children who earns $11,000 annually from part-time work ends up qualifying for $64,128 in cash, aid, and benefits.

The same family earning $64,128 by actually working wouldn’t be eligible for any of these welfare benefits in four-fifths of the states.

▲

lioeters 2 days ago | parent [-]

For $14B+ we could have solved poverty and homelessness for all of New Orleans. Where did the money go? Not to the poor, obviously. The system is broken by design.

	▲	alex43578 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		California clearly demonstrates that spending ever-more money on the homeless doesn't solve the issue for 90% of them.

▲

habinero 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Move with what money? And go where? If they have property, sell to who, exactly? "Instant" lol.

Gently, you talk like someone who's never even been broke, let alone been poor.

▲

alex43578 2 days ago | parent [-]

A greyhound to Atlanta is $75. It’s not nothing to someone on a minimum wage/fixed income, but would be attainable within two months by saving about a dollar a day. Keep in mind, that’s the “extreme global poverty” standard for countries like South Sudan.

Sell to whomever - but again, what property do they have if they are so poor they can’t afford a $75 bus ticket with notice?

It’s always a Schrödinger’s poor person who simultaneously has a valuable property that’s also worthless, tied to a job but has 0 income, has a car but can’t travel, and is broke but can’t qualify for the plethora of government benefits they can receive anywhere.

▲

adi_kurian 2 days ago | parent [-]

You should go to St Roch or Treme and inspire the locals with your dynamism. You could even bring bootsraps!

	▲	selimthegrim 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		He’s not inspiring me, and he won’t inspire their pitbulls. And by the way, I fulfill all of his Schrödinger’s poor person criteria, except for the first one about property. And I’m far from the only one here.