How come liberal cities and states have more homeless?

[TheEnigma]

How come the liberal cities and states have more homeless? I thought Liberals in general are more spiritually developed. I thought they'd be more compassionate and loving. Doesn't this prove that stage green and above are only possible for a select few talents? Even if someone tried their hardest they at most can be stage orange because they simply don't have the talent nor ability to to out work everyone to even make it to stage green. If so why are there so many homeless in stage green states? Anyone can easily learn not to do things stage red people do, anyone can transcend dogma in stage blue, anyone can get a job at a starbucks and work in stage orange. But only a select few can build a successful enough business and then transcend stage orange to be stage green. Stage green and above is only an ideal. If everyone tried to be stage green and did not have the finances they'd just go broke. And not everyone is capable of chasing their life purpose.

Edited January 23 by TheEnigma

[Tanz]

Being homeless in warm places make the most sense so California is a sensible choice.  Most people are trying to live their own lives in the best way they can which makes them busy, this hardly give them space to consider others.  When they do become considerate, it is because they can gain something from doing so.  This was very apparent during the pandemic when many individuals made more money than they ever have. Liberals maybe more aware of problems but there is a difference between being aware and taking things into action.  Most liberals are often unaware that they are part of the problem, in some cases more responsible without even knowing it.    

 

[Leo Gura]

Cause even the homeless don't wanna live in Alabama.

* zing! *

[Devin]

Sadly though, conservative areas are so poor that there's little difference between being homeless and not. 

The type of Liberal you're referencing is not a dominant or established force in any city or State, it's still emerging. Maybe Boulder Colorado.

Edited January 23 by Devin

[Tanz]

@Devin Boulder is very affluent and also a terrible place to be homeless in the winter lol

[BlueOak]

Because you can't form an effective solution by picking and choosing what you will and will not accept about reality. Unless you are willing to engage with as much as you can, or your team can, then everything will fall short of what it could be.

Ethics are important, but they don't put a roof over your head.
Humane Morals are great, but they won't put food in the belly.

Nobody can be taught to help themselves, by someone solely focused on helping them. I should clarify, provide all the tools, provide the conditions for change to occur, listen to them, help them get to the point they can help themselves. Lots of work can be done in these areas through many different instutitons.

Bank loans to homeless people who qualify. Taking the top 10% of homeless people most likely to payback the loan, giving them accommodation, clean water to shower, and food. So those who have been employed in the recent past, or have worked for decades, and are clean from drugs/drink. Then putting in a program to get people to that point, for those that want to aspire to it. It's a missed opportunity for a bank, because people let ethics get in the way here, if its done ethically in good faith it'll be ethical.

Next i'd also do a commune, where the people there paid for the commune, through their services or products produced. Not ideal at all, but better than a street corner, and it will teach them lifeskills. Plumbing for the guy looking after a few of these locations, cooks, cleaning, basic electrics for another person, carpentry to repair the beds/doors, food they could grow, you get the idea. Then something they could sell to keep themselves self-sufficient, or as close to it as possible, that's the kind of program to get people to the point, that a bank would look at those lifeskills and say yeah they are worth the chance of investing in.

The rule would be no drugs or drink, getting people clean or giving them a reason to get clean.

Of course many of these communes would be full of problems, that could be addressed there and then by qualified staff, but again it gives people a reason to try to get better, to improve their own lives. All of which would be better than letting people suffer on their own, in silence, under a bridge, discarded, unheard, their potential never realised for what it could be.

Edited January 23 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

What it comes down to is people would rather not address the issue than address the issue.

That's it in a nutshell. Addressing the issues behind homelessness is much harder, messier, and takes a lot of work. Gathering these people together in one location, where trained professional staff can make a difference is the easiest way to do so. Such a commune would have the press all over it saying how terrible it was, despite the fact all of this is going on anyway, just out of sight and untreated.