Noah's article has many broad generalizations that don't hold water.
For example, Missippi's has a low cost of living and quality of life (cheaper for people to house mentally ill family members) [0]. California involuntarily imports homeless people from other states, which would lead to other states having less homeless and California having more.
Poor mental healthcare could mean that people that need better quality care leave for states with good quality care.
It's odd how much people resist the notion that "fewer people can afford a good as it becomes more expensive" with housing. It's like the Twilight Zone of economics where supply and demand no longer apply.
It's hard data but his rhetorical device of saying homelessness is 100% related to housing is hardly interesting. How practical is it to write off 20-30% of a cause?
There are houses everywhere that are below market rates. They may not be glamorous but they are homes.
No doubt we have problems. The accessibility, safety, and energy efficiency gains are a positive.
I found the article intellectually lazy and I must be in a real foul mood to even be commenting.
> his rhetorical device of saying homelessness is 100% related to housing
It's right there at the very beginning of the article: "Even if drugs, mental illness, etc. do exacerbate homelessness to some extent"
No one is saying it's not a complex problem with many things going on, but a lot of people refuse to acknowledge that the price of housing is a primary driver of homelessness.
For example, Missippi's has a low cost of living and quality of life (cheaper for people to house mentally ill family members) [0]. California involuntarily imports homeless people from other states, which would lead to other states having less homeless and California having more.
Poor mental healthcare could mean that people that need better quality care leave for states with good quality care.
I stopped reading after that.
[0] - https://www.midwesternmarx.com/articles/mississippis-low-hom...