Chapter nine of the CQ Reader poses the interesting question of causation versus correlation between unemployment and homelessness. The chapter makes the claim that, “experts agree that poverty is the main cause of homelessness,” but expands this point later by defining the many facets of being poor. Poverty is multi-dimensional, and though widely agreed to be the cause of most homelessness, a statement without qualification of the mitigating factors of poverty– both economic and social– is devoid of critical context necessary to intelligently understand the problem.

On the subject of homelessness, I find myself less knowledgable than I would like– after all, isn’t one of the most present sights of the City men and women in tattered clothes asking for spare change? Maybe this is a symptom of the wider New Yorker avoidance of the homeless, or perhaps just indicative of my own intellectual blindness, but reading this chapter was my first actual exposure to studying homelessness. The biggest takeaway that I have from this reading is the importance of recognizing the many factors that contribute to homelessness and how this reflects on the view of, and aid to, homeless New Yorkers as a whole by policymakers. It is a misconception that only economic factors, specifically joblessness, lead to homelessness.  As the chapter says, a recent study found that 17% of the adults in homeless families were working at least part-time. This points potentially to the issue of underemployment, meaning that some people are working and still unable to afford to support themselves due to rising housing costs combined with general economic inequality. To interject something personal to my research project, this is a concern that has been cited in some of my interviews with adjunct professors– they are aware that their financial situation puts them in the vulnerable position where many could end up on the street if not for taking on freelance or other work (one of my interviewees makes the majority of his money moving furniture). The point is though, that not everyone has the same ability to harness and outsource their labor and remain off the streets like the professors I spoke to. This inability can be related to social factors such as mental illness, disability, trauma, or substance abuse. Homelessness seems thus, to me, an effect of inadequacies in social welfare policy, namely in the lack of funding for education, job training, mental health treatment, programs to aid abuse victims, and income inequality as a whole. This is all to say that many, including myself, are sometimes guilty of simplification of solutions to complex issues like homelessness. Statements such as “get a job” or “tax the rich,” though attractive, seem to lack the nuance that comes from actual understanding of the issue at hand, but do reflect the obstacles in thinking that need to be surmounted in order to make progress in aiding those afflicted. Increased funding is an obvious (and expensive) solution, but in this era it does not seem likely. Rather, I tend to believe that change will come from making people realize the wide and tragic effects of poverty and homelessness. Ultimately, isn’t it what stems from chronic poverty (misery, crime, political upheaval) that makes people afraid? In my opinion, the threat to mess with money or with the normal rhythms of someone’s day is likely to produce at least more interest in reforming social policy in the areas of homelessness and disparate income than is relying on pure sympathy.