Ronald Davis

[gilbertrollins]

[gilbertrollins]

Can any of the urban or econ soc people out there point me to some aggregates on the secular trend in homelessness as percentage of the city population?  Pretty heartbreaking stuff.

[herbertmarcuse]

Thanks for sharing the powerful video. I was wondering if you could reframe your question a little so I could figure out what you are asking. Coming from a Marxian background, I'm thinking that this video clearly strengthens the classic argument of the Reserve Army of Labor problem and the lack of affordable housing in the city.

 

HM

[gilbertrollins]

I was asking if anyone knew where i could get time series on homelessness rates in urban settings.  It's one data point -- it doesn't say a whole lot. 

 

For a qualitative analysis, re: Marxism though, Mr. Davis reports how he cannot get hired despite his efforts.  Marx's chapters on Initial Accumulation and others in Capital posit that people must be first dispossesed of their means of production in order for a reserve army to be created, then hired as the variable capital component of large-scale manufacture, in the next stage of capital accumulation.  Mr. Davis' story thus condtradicts Marx's theory. 

 

Admittedly Marx is ambiguous on the issue (and most others in the book, which makes his theories obnoxiously unfalsifiable and eternal fodder for the English department).  He talks some about people being thrown out of work and rehired elsewhere in a revolving-door fashion, once large-scale manufacture is fully formed.  New machines, or "constant capital" augment themselves in one sector of the economy, throwing people out of work, when simultaneously new industry in another area pops up (as the result of the self-valorizing nature of capital value), eventually hiring them back into production.  He sees that in this process there exists a pool of migratory labor, a "reserve army."  But again this theory contradicts Mr. Davis' story, and that of I would assume most homeless people -- once you're homeless it's next to impossible to get a job.  There are no more English work houses and poor laws compelling the indigent to work, like Marx was observing as he wrote (and thank God for that).

 

Notably, the situation Marx describes is almost precisely what economists call "frictional unemployment," also referred to as the "natural rate," and economists widely agree that it is an inevitable, if in the short-run unfortunate result of Creative Destruction and economic innovation.  Marx would say that's bullshit, because the only people who benefit from creative destruction are capitalists.  Economists sharply disagree on this point, noting the benefits growth bring to workers across the income distribution, but this is a larger and separate issue. 

 

Mostly I'd just like to see if homelessness has increased, decreased, or stayed constant over time in American cities.

Edited May 2, 2013 by gilbertrollins

[gilbertrollins]

I asked for a "secular trend" because the macro-historical trend is what's important (secular essentially means long-run).  And I asked for homelessness as a percentage of population, because homelessness in absolute numbers is a meaningless statistic -- one wants to know what percentage of the population is homeless, has been, and whether it is growing or shrinking. 

[ohgoodness]

Percentage or absolute number is a question of the understanding the dynamics of the population at question.   There may be even 10% homeless in Saskatoon 1995 but due to resource boost and the in-migration of affluence into the Canadian Prairies between 2000-2010 it is only 4%.   Same number or people but population growth of non-homeless has skewed the ratio.   Standardization the solution.. 

 

http://www.feantsaresearch.org/IMG/pdf/feantsa_ejh_v4_12-2010.pdf#page=19 <- table 1. page 23. 

 

Or do your own research

Edited May 16, 2013 by ohgoodness

[gilbertrollins]

That's really helpful thanks.