The New Homeless

Everyday we see them on the freeway intersections, busy streets, or sometimes they haunt our store parking lots. They do not play hide and seek- they are visible, and are not ashamed of themselves; why should they be? We visualize them as un-bathed individuals having more than just scruff faces or five o'clock shadows where they are holding up signs that state they will work for food. Secretly, we wonder, will they really? We hear about their arrests for panhandling from our Television news media; however, they do not have a name; instead, they have all been put into one category even though the reasons for being homeless will vary. Some of us believe the homelessness population's success in receiving donations is too organized to be random, perhaps part of an organized marketing scheme. One fact, the individuals who hold up those signs, it must be working because otherwise they would not still be doing it.

Our beliefs on the homeless do not just come from driving by them or by being asked for money; rather the media defines the homeless as individuals that would rather stand up all day in the rain, snow or sunshine asking for money as if that is an ideal job. Moreover, of course, when the media and other sources remind us we are paying for them via our taxes...emergency care, more E.R. visits for this population due to no health insurance, which we think is the direct result of them refusing to work, consequently, our buttons pop and we join the crowd of bias and typecast.

Some may believe the stigma of the homeless may change with today's economy. There is a new homeless population out there today. They are individuals who were not too long ago working but got layed off due to the failing economy. These individuals were holding down fulltime jobs, had a home, and a car. The irony in this recent development is how society will distinguish these two different populations given that the former homeless are categorized as bumps, lazy individuals that refuse to work because they prefer to sleep outside versus having a bed inside his or her own apartment and the latter group of the homeless where they are seen as victims of a falling economy.

Today, though, in the wake of the new economy, individuals and families have lost six figure jobs, need to switch vocations, and for some this may require going back to school; however, part of our economical fall will force tuition to increase by fourteen percent in the near future and all this while financial aid funding is cut. Consequently, until the economy does turn around some individuals and families are putting up tents since they have lost everything. The sad factor is the former homeless group may have the same stories or equally credible reasons for not working as the new ones do, but media, society, and we have just assumed they enjoy holding up signs thirty to forty hours a week when a job could be simpler. We do not know their stories. Moreover, we would raise a ruckus if they dared put up tents, as the new homeless group is able to do.

The truth is for many years the homeless have wanted to work but to sustain a living where they can have their own apartment, access to healthcare; it takes a forty-hour week at more than minimum wage to have that life style. And even before our falling economy many counties, cities, states will tell you there are just not enough jobs out there to remedy the homeless. The contention here is not to feel insensitive towards the victims the new economy has preyed on. Rather, asking the media why this group of individuals gets more favorable reporting than the prior group of homeless.

Some of us including the media never hear the story of the chronic homeless. We assume they would rather not work; never is it the cost of housing, or rent and low demand for jobs. We do not pay attention to the probabilities of getting a fulltime job; moreover, what minimum wage adds up to and how that compares to average rent unless we are in those circumstances. In addition, we do not know the population differences of the homeless. Some are prior vets that defended our country and came back to a changed economy or due to war circumstances, are not able to find and retain gainful employment. Others are chronically ill, and some just cannot find a job.

The media has chosen to portray the most recent group of homeless as victims and the former group as individuals swindling society, liking their alcohol, being a nuisance to society; in addition, preferring a sidewalk, a box, or a park to sleep at versus having a job, a house with a bed to sleep in. Simply put, we receive this picture from our Television news reporters. Because we rarely hear the other side, the stereotype begins. One instance of this stereotype observed when the traditional homeless ask us to donate to his or her cause. As he or she approaches us, sometimes we roll down our window and give a couple dollars, other times we stop and get out of the car to give them some change or food thinking this will alleviate our guilt - it does not. Other times, we keep our windows rolled up, break eye contact, and convince ourselves that these individuals could be dangerous - they are not.

As we drive by, we echo the Medias' inbred fears; we wonder if we give them money will they buy food, or booze and cigarettes. Do they really want to work or are they just lazy. "Probably in their past they were incarcerated," we tell ourselves, "So they probably deserve this". We hold on to the attitude 'that would never be me', and stay oblivious to this controversial topic. However, today, in the year, 2009, "it can be me".

So how do we deal with this quandary? Perhaps a clearer picture would enable better results, because in its place, propaganda from unverified sources that contain distorted, exaggerated, and omitted facts, travel into our living room through society's main stream medium, the television news; similar to how we hear distorted facts about African American crimes in comparison to crimes committed by whites. Moreover, news that is delivered by credible people that we trust, so what we hear must be accurate. Thus, we are convinced the facts must be true. To us employed with a home, what is credible news comes down to media credibility, who delivers it, and what channel we are surfing. In other words if in the past we have trusted xyz station we are likely to believe what that station will say in the future. Whether bigotry or slanderous typecasting against the traditional homeless it will not get the attention it deserves because our society has developed tolerance to media and our own double standards; this helps us stay in a state of denial of real issues so one does not have to think about it nor carry any guilt. Even for the second homeless group we will see them get favorable treatment by the media when sometimes both groups look the same.

Our dilemma: on important issues, there are various reasons why we the employed stay complacent. If not affected by the economy, we may not know how bad it is. Simply put, ones not affected stay complacent believing our city, community, state, or country has made progress. If we do not hear about it, we forget and the media has been successful in silencing this first group of the homeless. Alternatively, others may feel that if their county or state is doing well on this issue, then the nation must be also, which can lead to a misunderstanding of how a state is related to the nation with regard to social referendum and funds being given or cut. The predicament only grows from here. Finally, for those that invest and keep up with trading, etc., there is a belief that if the economy is well and the Dow Jones report is sound the homeless may have found a job, however, the true homeless is a population outside of reach from any type of stock and bonds report - that would require a TV. By not knowing what the homeless look like, who they are, how they got here, and why they stay, we are at a societal stalemate with no antidote and if we think we are saving money, we are not. The result of remaining oblivious keeps us as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Moreover, if there were any cures, they would be overlooked.

It is terrible what the new group of the homeless has experienced and hoped that some knowledge of this population broad based will be acquired. This will only happen when we realize the media for most is the Television news. The news is like any other Television advertisement-backed product, where its endorsement relies on ratings that society reinforces; hence, we only hear about this devastated populous when the motive is for profit and/or ratings: how dare the homeless sleep where they should not; why do not they have their own apartment? Why are we paying for their laziness? This same stereotypical reporting affects African Americans; the TV media is quick to tell us about crimes they commit and less probable to report their success. The media recognizes our buttons; and they tap into them; consequently, the product is never the homeless; it is we.

Frequent misrepresentations stop us from asking our self the following questions: Do we really believe a human being, whether a single parent with children, a family, or by them self, enjoys the luxury of having no health insurance or primary doctor; what is more, prefers to sleep in cars, cement floors during the cold of winter. On the rare occasion when the news does have worthwhile information about this group, to further our uncertainty, the facts we are given are in percentage signs rather than whole numbers. XYZ percent of the homeless has HIV/AIDS; ABC percent of the homeless are parents with children; there was an xxx percent decline in affordable housing in1998.

XYZ, ABC, and xxx does not make sense when giving us raw data about the homeless, the economy, the homeless percentage that are ill, or affordable housing for the homeless, etc. Just as seen above, the alphabetical signs used to substitute real facts, i.e. XYZ, ABC, xxx, make no sense, neither do the accurate Percentage signs seen on TV news concerning the same topic. We cannot register or process facts if not given the entire equation, like percentage of what population, or what number do the percentage sign represent. Moreover, we wonder how accurate the information is anyways, since the source for some of the facts revealed on the homeless carries with it a direct conflict of interests with nationally socioeconomic, and political policies. Society and politicians including their constituents would go bananas if they found their tax dollars spent on this population. For instance, has anybody wondered how the homeless will fit into nationalized healthcare? How are we to find them if they have no address, or did we forget about this group altogether? Therefore, this begs the question how will the second group, more legitimate to us, be treated; will they be treated the same as group one or do they have a higher probability of sustaining gainful employment before group one does. Which group will get nationalized healthcare first? We know the answer. Unfortunately, this predicament does not compare to Rock Hudson dying of AIDS and then everyone paying greater attention. We rarely have famous homeless people.