The homeless culture does not vanish after acquiring a residence offered to impoverished people — Bug Biro

:up:

Facing homelessness and trying to manage it is one of the main objectives of town planning. Depending on the political ideology of the public administration, urban planners will care more or less of poverty. Since most urban planning teams consist of highly educated individuals that work for city governments, recent debates focus on how to involve more community members in city planning processes.

The debate will oscillate between being more inclusive or exclusive with those persons. I did a research on Google about the basic notion of urban planners and it says that one of their objectives are: "a sense of inclusion and opportunity for people of all kinds, culture and needs; economic growth or business development"

On the other hand, it will not be easy for the neighbours, as you noticed previously. Most of the families do not want to live close to a "poor" block and with this mentality we only get "hoods" where the buildings belong to "ex homeless people" but with a similar state of mind. Some would ask: who wants to have neighbours like them?

I think that most of the urban planners and public administrations tend to be exclusive with homelessness and main the objectives is to kick them out from the new plans of built environment.

On the other hand, it will not be easy for the neighbours, as you noticed previously. Most of the families do not want to live close to a "poor" block and with this mentality we only get "hoods" where the buildings belong to "ex homeless people" but with a similar state of mind. Some would ask: who wants to have neighbours like them? — javi2541997

The integration of poor people with people of significantly more wealth may be the best or only technique to absolve societies of crime-ridden areas. The routine presently utilized by governments ensuring poor people are compacted amounts tremendously to crime in cities. Poor communities foster brutal criminals who conduct misdeeds more toward other poor people than wealthy ones. We should bolster people of poor living to break away from the criminality they are used to. For segregation to end and the prevention of many crimes, fair wages are provisioned for unemployed people, no more than what is earned from minimum wage work. Plus, for the minimum wage bracket, more selection of affordable shelters with a variety of locations inside a city to choose from. Rent increase not allowed unless minimum wage is added to (both guises, unnecessary complications intended to reimplement wage discrepancy and reinstate poor communities). Reconstruction of buildings previously rented by poor people for fortified foundations to avert infestation, cleaning, and eye-catching redesigns.

I am agree with all your arguments. Yet, it is not upon us. The intervention of public politics is high towards this topic. We can let the private sector to contribute in the developing of urban planning but there are some people who is not comfortable at all with private enterprises.

I think urban planning and the accessibility to housing is one of the main objectives of each society. But as I said previously, it looks like that most of the agents involved in this plannings are exclusive with poverty or homelessness. It is a big drama and is one of the main failures of a modern state not being capable of letting the citizens to access a house.

Homelessness is not that much of a problem; why else can governments ignore it? Being without a house hasn't been correlated with crime/drugs. In fact the homeless are victims of the heartlessness, the ruthlessness of of our economic system which lacks any guiding ethical principles - if someone's better than you, you're laid off, regardless of whether a family of 10 depend on you for a square meal, a home, an education, a life. I wouldn't blame anyone though: There's no place for ethics in a world where everything boils down to It's either you or me. I have a family to feed (too).

It's not a coincidence that cities are known as concrete jungles - every man/woman for himself/herself, no second chances, do or die, kill or be killed. Those who drift into cities alreay know that and whoever ends up on the streets have lost the game. This only because the game has no favorites (good and bad people, men and women, etc. they all look the same in the jungle).

Homelessness is not that much of a problem; why else can governments ignore it? — Agent Smith

Homelessness, poverty, or, to sum those up, financial inequality, is the only problem apart from incognizance and stifling of ruthless criminal behaviours, actual ones of violence, the more extreme, the worse, and not offences to do with money and drugs of little volumes. Unemployed and poor people are minorities. Therefore, these people you call "better" display the most guilt for committing shameful and alarming acts. Governments ignore crises to insinuate they are vital. Every intrusive issue addressed, life would be primarily peaceful and hardly a world of people needing to be told what to do. Evident governments apply feelings of inconsequence and boredom in almost every person on Earth. Clear to me, serenity is desperate of far, far fewer members of parliaments and replacement of the current most preeminent for what they do openly and, most signs point to, in secrecy in defiance of what is good.

Guidelines with claims, for survival, you must shed weakness in the form of compassion. — Bug Biro

This and all the aggression are not qualities I experience with most homeless who look weak, depressed, submissive and traumatized, recently or back in their pasts. And this....

People who refuse admittance of what is true of themselves incubate mental illness. Commonly, bipolar disorder. — Bug Biro

Or is it people with BP are more likely to end up homeless?

The homeless culture does not vanish after acquiring a residence offered to impoverished people. — Bug Biro

Or is it that the same problems - abusive parents, mental illness, social changes that help some and hurt others - and so on is not resolved by giving them a residence. That they need other things to help with the root of their problems.

All those are thought-provoking arguments. I agree for the most part.

This and all the aggression are not qualities I experience with most homeless who look weak, depressed, submissive and traumatized, recently or back in their pasts. — Bylaw

I, too, notice these types of poor and homeless people, except to a lesser extent than what I described. Weak, depressed, submissive, traumatized. These are definitely not examples of the codes of conduct I brought up. Is it possible these poor people you see more often are more lonely and less social than the ones I encounter? At least in my city, they would be. Where is it you observe poor people? Maybe the less fortunate people in the community you see them in are treated even worse than where I live.

Or is it people with BP are more likely to end up homeless? — Bylaw

I cannot contend with this argument. You may very well be right. I think we both are correct.

Or is it that the same problems - abusive parents, mental illness, social changes that help some and hurt others - and so on is not resolved by giving them a residence. That they need other things to help with the root of their problems. — Bylaw

Better living arrangements are one way to help poor people with their problems, particularly those feeling inadequate. You are accurate in stating prevention should prioritize the repair of issues, even if two of the root problems you listed may be tough to monitor and solve. I find it obvious the easy way to negate poorness is to offer poor people an equal amount of finances received by people who are not poor. Those root issues will still linger in people, except they will not have the extra burden of lack of funds.

Is it possible these poor people you see more often are more lonely and less social than the ones I mostly encounter? — Bug Biro

I guess. I've experienced the homeless in two different countries, one in Europe, one the US. I didn't recognize what you described as the rule. I certainly saw examples of what you described. But not as the main group. Of course, who knows how good my sample and observations were.

Maybe the poor in the community you see them in treat the poor even worse than where I live. — Bug Biro

Where I live now, they are treated vastly better. Eastern city in the US, there it was worse.

I find it obvious the easy way to negate poorness is to offer poor people an equal amount of finances received by people who are not poor. Those root issues will still linger in people, except they will not have the extra burden of lack of funds. — Bug Biro

I don't know the best methods. I assume that in many cases the people either slid into drugs (and this generally has family problem roots), mental illness, some kind of social breakdown (loss of family, perhaps after loss of job), and then economic problems, perhaps with things like racism adding in stuff. Or even class issues. Once thrown onto the job market, if you can speak like someone with a middle class or better background, where reading and the right English was just assumed, this can also make it easier to take economic hits.
But I would think any successful program with the homeless would include some kind of assessment of needs beyond the living space. Do they need some work skills? psychotherapy? social skills training? trauma recovery processes? skills develpment? rehab from drugs? medical treatment? (a terribly painful back could cause problems in every facet of one's life and lead to some of the other causes of homelessness)

So, get them a place to live. Quick first assessment - if they are shooting up every day and need to support this with minor crimes, well you gotta get on that right away. Sort of a triage for priorities. Then a second more thorough problem analysis, with as much client participation as possible. Then bringing in those resources needed in the percentages related to need levels. And you need a caseworker of some kind to check in. Probably something like a contract.

Of course, this is A LOT of money.

But that's my off the top of my head ideal. I'd probably try to staff this with former homeless success stories, sort of like sponsors in AA. People who are much more likely to know what is unsaid, know the attractions and obstacles from the inside and also who serve as inspiration/role model and deserving of respect. You know what I mean/have gone through.

Homelessness is not that much of a problem; why else can governments ignore it? — Agent Smith

Excuse me Agent, but this bids fair to be the silliest thing you have ever proposed. A tribe living in mud huts has no difficulty in meeting and deciding where to build a new hut whenever one is required. But governments are not in the business of solving such problems, but of creating them. Simple economics dictate, apparently, a certain level of unemployment to keep inflation down and noses to the grindstone. The poor and destitute have an important function in society to 'encourage the others' rather like the prison population. Homelessness is not a problem at all for governments, but the very foundation of capitalist society.

Notice for example how a 'refugee crisis' is not at all depicted as a problem for refugees, but as one for the native population who need protection from them 'flooding' the country and displacing the natives from their homes and jobs. Notice too, how even on this site one is liable to hear, if one ventures a criticism of the system, 'well if you don't like it, go and live somewhere else.' Homelessness is a very real threat that keeps citizens in line.

I guess. I've experienced the homeless in two different countries, one in Europe, one the US. I didn't recognize what you described as the rule. I certainly saw examples of what you described. But not as the main group. Of course, who knows how good my sample and observations were. — Bylaw

I have only seen homeless people residing in Canada. My guesstimate is the homeless and poor people in Canada receive better funding than in the US and Europe. I am unemployed and earn the same amount many poor people receive here in Canada. What separates me from most of them must be my supportive family. If I did not live with my parents and siblings, I would be a disaster, far worse off than now. By my calculations, unemployed people in Canada, most poor people, are given payment that is slightly less than two-thirds of what equates to minimum wage here. That slight change in pay makes a world of difference. It is far more difficult for those who earn less. The meagre discrepancy between the unemployed and working where I reside may be why poor people seem more upbeat.

But I would think any successful program with the homeless would include some kind of assessment of needs beyond the living space. Do they need some work skills? psychotherapy? social skills training? trauma recovery processes? skills develpment? rehab from drugs? medical treatment? — Bylaw

The claims here make a lot of sense to me. My two cents: Support of improved work skills for unemployed people, only some would apply for. From my gatherings, most unemployed people have no interest in working or devote their curiosity to particular jobs. Enforced work might even be hazardous to the well-being of certain people, specifically the mentally ill. People with detachment from work I equate myself to. Persistent stress, annoyance, and depression are feelings I get from employment.

A country that delivers jobless citizens stability on par with workers would be revolutionary. Canada might be closest to achieving this. My hope is to see it play out. For Canada, a consumerist, capitalist society like many, enhanced wealth for its citizens enhances their self-worth. Cities with measures to minimize the number of poor people will see less crime and, to a greater extent, less illegal drug use. More money for people who need it most will reveal usefulness, maybe a prelude to socialism.

I did say that homelessness is a problem, just not for the government. The people out on the streets doesn't seem to negatively impact the country's GDP and that's why the government doesn't give a rat's ass about the destitute. This I feel is the hard truth we all have to come to terms with. Some of us are expendable or don't count in the grand scheme of things.

You made a good point in the other thread about statistics. The US government must be placating Americans by responding to their complaints by saying that though there's poverty in their country, the rate of poverty (probably measured per 100,000 people) is the lowest in the world or, even better, below the global average. Some problems are not about numbers now are they? The army motto, if it's true to its word, is what's needed - leave no man behind.

It may be that, as Jesus said, that "The poor you will always have with you" but the circumstances of being poor, poorer, poorest, homeless, starving, and then dead vary from place to place. There is one set of causes for being poor in very remote areas. There's another set of causes for displaced people and refugees. And so on.

Capitalism is another cause of poverty, expanding and contracting the unemployed -- and thus potentially impoverished -- as it needs. Liberal social policies tend to provide more substantial support, and reduce the frequency of extreme poverty (and homelessness). Neoliberal social policies are much harsher, placing the responsibility for survival largely on the victims of the system.

Drugs -- meth, opiates, cocaine, alcohol -- facilitate the plunge into the abyss of homeless encampments. It is very difficult for anyone to get back onto the lowest rung of the ladder once one has fallen off. Drugs pretty much guarantee one will not get back on the ladder. And who profits from the illicit drug industry?

It takes time to become homeless in industrialized countries. It's like a shakedown racket, gradually sifting down misfortune all the way to the bottom. This may take decades. It may happen much faster.

I would argue the same thing that there is relativistic rationality. There is a high standard for 'ability' in modern society. Some people are not able to meet those standards, and standards create expectations and expectations of people will always be somewhat deficient of the reality/ actuality. To create a set of standards or rules or expectations that allow for a broader range of ableness would mean not creating economic rationalizations that place people out of the market for income sources and housing. There is an undercurrent of acceptance of letting the sick and weak trickle into the margins where risk will slowly kill them off improving the stock of society, but that is naive. There will always be a distribution that creates margins in any social system. What happens at the margins is likely related to the grading scheme of the society, like in university where there is a bell curve of test performance with the superior marginal being promoted and the inferior marginal going off to die somewhere or something. I have an unconventional, but still technically correct understanding of marginal, that is really just neutral in connotation. That marginal is connotated but really represents atypicality in a distribution, should be used fairly in understanding naturalistic distributions, rather than focussing on the bad or problematic type of marginality. When I say the grading scheme of society there is an ideal valuation that creates a kind of material distribution. From grade A prime to, hot dogs, to dog food.

Interesting points and fully agreed with your arguments, BC. Yet, one of the key points that makes me wonder about, is the notion of being "poor" because I guess it is different from being homeless.
The thing line between poverty and homelessness is blur. I think we should consider poor as someone who needs to sacrifice leisure to purchase basic needs or goods. For example: I am not rich enough to get a trip to Sydney but at least, with my minimal basic wage, I can afford food and medicines and I only pay 200 € for a rent in a basic house: It is true that my situation could be considered as "poverty" but at least I don't live in the streets.

On the other hand, to be honest, I consider homelessness as a failure of the state. One of the basic pillars of each society or community is to let the people to make a living in a house. It is true that flows many problems and situations around homelessness but it only sounds as a excuse. If someone is drug addict, the state can put him in a social care institution, for instance. What I try to defend is the fact that homelessness is not a problem only in homeless's shoulders.

You know what I realized is absolutely amazing about the US of A? If you can justify (forgive me Agrippa) a proposal well (read profitable) the powers that be will give their nod of approval. So someone's got to work it out, do the math as it were, and show how bad homelessness is for the US economy (GDP takes e.g. a hit of a coupla billion dollars, money that the country is losing). or, on the flip side, how good, monetarily, solving the homelessness problem is for the US of A. We can't just shoot our mouths off - we need to back up our proposals, speak the language people who call the shots understand. Everybody understands money, oui mon ami?

There may be a distinct difference between the poverty of consciousness and the real problem of homelessness. As someone who was on the brink of homelessness in the last month or so, I would query the economics and politics of homelessness in contrast to poverty of consciousness. I am not denying that the poverty of consciousness has any significant psychological role. However, there may be a danger in trying to reduce the problems of homelessness, trying to link inherent problems in the renting market to the psychological. It may be a too easy argument.

The problems of homelessness are real and are confronting people who previously would not have been in danger of both homelessness and poverty. There is a philosophical danger of reducing the economic and political to the psychological, which may result in a glossing over of so many practical issues, ignoring the political factors which are crucial. There is a casting the blame upon those in dire straights, rather than deeper systemic analysis of the problems in renting and the distribution of economic resources.

Good point! "Poor" and "poverty" do indeed have gradations quite apart from "relative poverty" (feeling poor because your friends have more money than you do).

First, class. The middle (entrepreneurial or professional) and upper 'kept' classes are not 'poor'. The working class can be divided up into four parts of various population size

Upper Working Class - steady employment, wages sufficient to avoid the stresses of poverty, but are not "comfortable"; they usually have minimal or no savings.

Middle Working Class - intermittent employment and wages insufficient to avoid periodic periods of economic distress (poverty).

Lower Working Class - intermittent and low wages which entail the continual stress of poverty.

Lumpenproletariat - destitute; not employed; may subsist on low government payments; immiserated; living outside of most social networks; homeless; unhoused (living on the street); unable to overcome their circumstances.

Add mental illness and drug addiction to anyone in the Working Class, and they may plunge into the abyss of destitution at the bottom, below the lowest rung of the ladder of success.

Over the last 40 to 50 years, long-term economic policies have reduced the wealth that was held by the working class. Job losses, stagnant wage growth, and steady inflation are to blame. The wealth drain has pushed millions of workers downward toward the middle and lower levels of the working class. Those who were formerly lower working class have been sunk into the abyss.

So, poverty exists on a gradient and is dynamic -- who is poor, and how poor they are changes over time.

Excellent analysis, BC. :up:

Gracias.

So, the question then is, what can we, and what should we do about it? Various approaches have been tried; some working better than others. I'm not an expert on this, and what may seem like obvious solutions may not produce the desired results

Just building housing may not be enough. A program in Minneapolis houses "public inebriates" -- chronic alcoholics. Residents get a room with a bath (and some services). They do not have to stop drinking, but they can only drink in their rooms -- not the hallways or common areas. This follows the Housing First approach.

Housing First's main priority is providing shelter; once shelter is in place, additional services aimed at dealing with their other problems comes into play. Opposite this approach is Treatment First. Addicts (drugs, alcohol) first go to treatment. If they are successful, then other services follow, such as housing. Neither approach is magic and there is a failure rate--not sure what it is. The traits that lead to and maintain addiction do not result in highly responsible behavior.

Criminalization is another approach. Drug and alcohol addicts are jailed. This might serve as both treatment and housing, but such a happy combination doesn't generally happen in prison. Plus, prisons are not drug proof, and they are hardly healthy environments.

Neglect is a time honored method. Let them rot. If they become too much of a nuisance (like collecting into large encampments in downtown or neighborhood areas), chase them out and burn everything. This approach will satisfy the affected property owners as long as the homeless don't return.

Neglect is the cheapest approach for a city and county -- the levels of government generally dealing with the homeless. The expenditures for housing units and treatment may not yield a monetary return, either for the city or for the GDP. A chronic addict may never become productive. Wait, aren't people more important than money? Well, for budgetary purposes, no. There is only so much tax income to go around and cities and counties--even wealthy ones--generally don't have cash laying around.

Prevention. Great idea. How do we go about that? A lot of homelessness is the result of chronic alcohol and drug abuse. So far we haven't found a very good way to prevent people from becoming alcoholics and drug addicts. [Most adults who use drugs and/or alcohol won't become alcoholics OR drug addicts. But some will--millions of them.]

Would fewer people become addicts if society were better, nicer, more humane, more ... all sorts of things? Maybe. But, cocaine, heroin, meth, alcohol -- even tobacco -- are highly addicting. I was addicted to tobacco. I started smoking way after it was well known that smoking causes cancer, lung, and heart disease. I quit on my own, as most people who quit tobacco do. Some hard drug addicts are able to quit on their own too, and for others, treatment is quite successful.

What will work? I don't know.

What will work? I don't know. — BC

Nice summary, BC. The problem with these issues is they get picked up and 'understood' differently be folk who hold different world views. A conservative world view might argue that people should earn any success or recovery through discipline and hard work and that people should be strong and say "no' to drugs. This minimises the role of the state and support work in being part of the solution and puts most of it back on the individual to overcome their problems.

I'm not a big fan of this model, but the attraction to these frames and tropes is big - even in my country where medicine is mostly free or subsidized and there is a welfare safety net. It's a huge subject, with many nuances.

I've worked in the area of homelessness, mental health and addiction for the past 3 decades in various capacities. My take: homelessness is not one thing and may come about for various reasons that are not shared by all people affected. Almost anything you say about homelessness, the opposite is also true. It effects men and women, poor people and rich people. People with no education and people with degrees. It effects people with intellectual disabilities and people who are above average intelligence; people who uses substances and people who have never tried drugs. It gets the young and the old, the sick and the healthy.

Certain groups are more likely to become homeless since they have fewer resources with which to combat set backs and unexpected expenses. We all know who they are - students, low income workers, people from disadvantaged backgrounds, isolated lone adults, those with chronic health or mental health issues. First Nations people.

Services are underfunded, systemic limits to resources needed are catastrophic. Options available may be inadequate.

My own belief, having followed many hundreds of people back into stable housing, with support from clinical and psycho-social services is that different people require different approaches and different housing and support models. A nuanced range of responses is required, But in the end, affordable, secure housing, better jobs and incomes, access to education and health services are critical elements. There's no quick fix and for the most part the serious damage is already done by the time people come to services for help. Much better to prevent homelessness (eviction) and help people to secure a reliable decent income than meet with them after things have collapsed and they are on the streets.

A nuanced range of responses is required, But in the end, affordable, secure housing, better jobs and incomes, access to education and health services are critical elements. — Tom Storm

Your long experience gives you good insight.

Prior to "urban renewal", Minneapolis had a large population of older men who had been part of the heavy industry of mining and lumber. They were and were not homeless. They had housing -- flop houses providing rock bottom shelter. There were a couple of charities providing some food, and there were a lot of small cheap cafes (and liquor stores, of course). The flop houses were warehouses that had been divided up into boxes, each box having a lockable door. Wire fencing covered the open top. The spaces were not well ventilated or heated and sanitation facilities were minimal.

Starting in the 1950s, Minneapolis decided to scrape off the dilapidated blocks and build new. I've never seen any documentation about whaat happened to the several hundred old guys who had been living there. They just sort of disappeared (which, is what the city fathers hoped would happen). It took around 30-50 years for the rebuilding to occur, and there are still some empty lots.

Minneapolis didn't have a significant visible homeless problem until 2020 in the form of large encampments in public parks. Minneapolis likes its parks, and it wasn't long before the people in these camps were cleared out by park police. Efforts were made by social services to respond to this outbreak of homelessness, and for the most part, they are not visible again. I was downtown yesterday and there were a few panhandlers on the main street. This was during a brief warm day between very cold weather. One of them was 'sunning' on the cold wet sidewalk. I've seen him around downtown before. He's part of the "tolerable level" of rock bottom poverty. (He's inside somewhere -- he wasn't dressed to survive the winter outside.).

The city and and developers--sources of money--do not want to build housing for the explicitly homeless. (Lutheran Social Services and Catholic Charities have built a little, and the Ojibwa Tribe of Minnesota has several buildings for homeless tribal members.). Where to put it and how to run it seem to be insurmountable difficulties. Having formerly homeless people next door is about as popular as having a group home for serial rapists in the neighborhood. Not going to happen.

The magic formula seems to be to find some unattractive land or build in a rougher neighborhood and do so 'quietly'. Homeless housing with services does work reasonably well.

Very interesting account of Minneapolis. It all sounds kind of familiar. It doesn't get dramatically cold here (average overnight winter temp around 45f). I can't imagine the added challenges of homelessness in a truly cold location.

There are enough-plenty dollars in homeless folks. It's just that no one has seen 'em ... yet!

The guy does have a radio-voice. Pretty good.

The guy does have a radio-voice. Pretty good. — BC

Indeed!

Quick first assessment - if they are shooting up every day and need to support this with minor crimes, well you gotta get on that right away. Sort of a triage for priorities. — Bylaw

An immense benefit of integrating the poor with wealthier people is the necessary presence of police. Most poor people will move to fancier apartment buildings rather than detached houses. Residents who never belonged to a poor or homeless community should not hesitate to call the police upon sounds or sights of a crime ensuing in their neighbourhood. Disqualification of asking police for help is the most dangerous rule for poor people. A persuade of crime, hardening criminals and creating new ones.

Then a second more thorough problem analysis, with as much client participation as possible. — Bylaw

In cities like mine, this process would attend to few people until its number of participants jumps higher years after integration. Poor people are intensely conditioned by their laws. Time is mandatory for them to relinquish reticence and abandon indoctrinated unfriendliness, aggressiveness, denials, and distrust.

Poor people are intensely conditioned by their laws. Time is mandatory for them to relinquish reticence and abandon indoctrinated unfriendliness, aggressiveness, denials, and distrust. — Bug Biro

:up:

Disqualification of asking police for help is the most dangerous rule for poor people — Bug Biro

:clap:

Good analysis and arguments, @Bug Biro.

And who profits from the illicit drug industry? — BC

Organized crime, petty crooks, corrupt soldiers and cops, hospitals, pharmaceuticals, and politicians.

It is very difficult for anyone to get back onto the lowest rung of the ladder once one has fallen off. Drugs pretty much guarantee one will not get back on the ladder. — BC

I believe there are three reasons for this: A deficiency in support systems and the ineffectiveness of the ones currently in place. Mistreatment and contemptuous misgivings from employed people signify nonchalance about what happens to impoverished people that disallow ego. Designation of illegal drugs.

Drugs -- meth, opiates, cocaine, alcohol -- facilitate the plunge into the abyss of homeless encampments. — BC

Previously, I mentioned the documentary Where to Invade Next? Another statistic from the film that stood out to me was that the legalization of all drugs saw a drastic lowering in drug use within a country. Unbiased stats rarely lie. To render drugs legal could spike decreased drug addiction in more nations.

We can't just shoot our mouths off - we need to back up our proposals, speak the language people who call the shots understand. Everybody understands money, oui mon ami? — Agent Smith

More money for more people equates to more riches for the rich. Those with the most wealth will be poorer than before until taxes do their trick. Affluent people are impatient and greedy, yet their issue runs remotely less shallow. Foresight is their crux. Forbearing profits them better, they determined. To exceed what is customarily generous must formulate the unknown. Fear is ample for people in command with doubts. Or they do perceive what abundant generosity from them will bring. Mayhap their biggest fear.

More money for more people equates to more riches for the rich. Those with the most wealth will be poorer until taxes do their trick. Affluent people are impatient and greedy, yet their issue runs remotely less shallow. Foresight is their crux. Forbearing profits them better, they determined. To exceed what is customarily generous must formulate the unknown. Fear is ample for people in command with doubts. Or, they do know what abundant generosity brings them. Mayhap their biggest fear. — Bug Biro

Superb analysis. :up: