Many more elderly Americans could face…uncertainty in [the] coming years.
A report released Monday by the National Alliance to End Homelessness projects a 33 percent increase over the next decade in elderly people who are homeless.
That would mean that today’s estimate of 44,172 homeless over age 62 would climb to 58,772.
Officials last year counted only nine homeless people over age 65 in Sedgwick County. But 39 people ages 55 to 64 reported being homeless, hinting at the potential for an increase.
The growth could have “huge implications” for everyone and should be seen as evidence that a more expansive safety net of social services will soon be needed, said Nan Roman, president of the alliance.
RE: “should be seen as evidence that a more expansive safety net of social services will soon be needed . . . ”
Yes indeed. We need TransportationCare Reform. HouseCare Reform. Groceries-Care Reform.
What could be more important than the State making certain that we all have food, shelter, and a way to get around. It’s a matter of life and death and surely under those circumstances, the State should step in.
The problem is the divorce epidemic. Those who are currently entering their 60’s chose to divorce their wives and abandon their children. They sought self fulfilment. Gen X, and the Millenials have suffered greatly because of choices made by the Boomers (and to a lesser extent the age 70-80 generation) when they were young.
Thus, now that the Boom has aged, the usual option of moving in with the kids falters.
Thus, the traditional option of moving in with your son
sarah i would be interested to hear your thoughts on a solution. clueless that is a great point you make.
The state is not necessary. All that is needed is for Christians to house the homeless in their churches or take them into their own houses. Employed Christians can find jobs for the seniors and offer personal charity and support. The growing numbers of homeless seniors should feel very comfortable that Christians will provide help when asked for. Christians will oblige.
It’s a little utopian, perhaps. But an idea worth testing.
An economist recently quoted the Treasure of the Sierra Madre? “Anyone who is willing to work and is serious about it will certainly find a job. Only you must not go to the man who tells you this, for he has no job to offer and doesn’t know anyone who knows of a vacancy. This is exactly the reason why he gives you such generous advice, out of brotherly love, and to demonstrate how little he knows the world.”
I already house one family who would otherwise be homeless. They would still be living well had not the father of the family decided to go set up with a second extramarital relationship with children, and paid for his second (and more important) family by mortaging everything his first family owned.
The best way to stop homelessness is for the Church to stop winking at divorce, pandering to the baser instincts of their more degenerate members, and pretending that parents (including bishops) who engage in adultery or who have serial relationships don’t affect their children.
From what I understand, people can get divorced outside the church. We’re now in an environment where church isn’t obligatory.
What we SHOULD do mandate church attendance in approved churches (for example, ones that don’t believe in divorce). Barring that the state should pass a broad law annulling all second marriages. Living together should be considered a misdemeanor.
#6. Scarcely. (I do realize you are being sarcastic).
The church (or some of them) should stop making the social problem worse by pretending that self fulfilment trumps the ten commandments in a futile attempt to fill their pews.
I would favor making divorce, especially if there is adultery, or any abandonment of minor children subject to mandatory reporting to both employers and credit agencies. It should be a “ding” on your credit rating. After all, it is an obligation that the individual welched out on, no less (and rather more) than defaulting on your credit cards.
Divorce should be a shameful matter. (It once was).
I would also favor removing the tax break for any second family. One set of tax breaks should be all you get.
(And I say that having divorced (though my adopted children came many years later, and I never married)