https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_population

I found it instructive. Here are some of my takeaways from it:

1. The problem is not at all unique to the U.S., nor is it particularly bad in the U.S. compared to other modern first world countries.

2. There is more homelessness in tropical countries, where the elements are not as harsh.

3. The authoritarian countries report less homelessness than the democracies… but do we believe their statistics? On the other hand, perhaps they simply deal more harshly with the homeless.

I don’t think that net homelessness has actually gotten worse recently. However, the recent policies of several major cities permitting homeless encampments is making the problem more visible.

I think you were referring to Oblio’s response to Art Deco. You think Art Is on the right track because of Art’s penchant for citing stats that support his claims? Whatever, it is an approach that Art often uses to bolster his opinions, except when the topic is Makeover Videos.

My apologies.

There’s lots of research about why “WE are rich”, Western Civilization, which I call Christian Capitalism. Most of it’s inconclusive, but a good amount recently points out that the Catholic Church made a big push against marrying cousins, and supporting the nuclear family, before the Reformation.

Ray: Humans are endlessly adaptable. That is mostly true for survival BUT not all social structures are “optimal”. The family of a married mother-father couple raising children is optimal for producing children as measured by the children’s life’s outcomes. No group has changed from nuclear family based marriage to any other social form with a resultant increase in the life outcomes of their children.

Socialism, which sort of works inside a family, fails with any group of families.

Having a nuclear family doesn’t guarantee no problems, and many kids from nuclear families go on to become parents in non-nuclear families, but the kids from these divorced and never married relations have even higher probabilities of having problems, including the mental health issues most are talking about here.
(I’m not really sure how Huxley’s “standards too low” isn’t just an alternate reformulation of mental issues.)

The idea that the State can be a substitute father is almost ludicrous, altho the gov’t can provide a check to a mother with children. Material poverty is not the real problem, it’s behavior of those who choose to be irresponsible, including choosing to first try, then accept becoming addicted to, drugs.

In a rich society which wants to allow people freedom, including the freedom to be irresponsible (low standards?), there will always be some number of folk who choose an addict’s / ill person’s homeless lifestyle. One of the ways to minimize that number is to maximize the number of children born into nuclear families.

The richness of society has allowed the alt-families to reduce, tho not fully close, the gap, so that women are not economically forced to stay married to bums, not even for the children.

Like all social questions, it’s related to the culture war of the elites against Christians, but reducing the homeless problem should not be too much delayed by a discussion to be had about the economics of marriage versus single-person households…[and] the economic expected cost (and benefit) of having children.

And if Art can’t throw some stats on the table it is truly a slow day. The folks he cites must be reliable, they have numbers. Is it GIGO? Who knows.

The same basis you offered for your emphatic opinion, with some added detail to boot.

If you wish to argue that national income accountants don’t know what they’re talking about, be my guest.

Why yes: see them wear their shoes and socks inverted on their forelimbs. Aren’t they clever?

I have to agree with Art Deco on this one. There is no need to revert to any particular previous familiar model.

Humans are endlessly adaptable. There is no single social model that works best for us. Read up on Sociology. You won’t believe the number of strange and different social structures that humans have experimented with. And what is truly impressive is how quickly and easily we adapt to to changed conditions.

If and when the nuclear family no longer serves our needs, we will automatically adjust or make changes. In a sense, in the last half century, we already have made a change from the expectation and norm of lifetime monogamy. Our longer and healthier lifespans have resulted in a new model characterized by serial monogamy.

But, our conditions will always be changing, and our primary social structures will continue to change and evolve as needed.