Because you're lying and I'm going to point it out as such.
I don't hold you above that behavior since you posted a picture of people in a major city then when it's pointed out they're in a major city you conveniently say "I don't live in a major city and it's the same way."
Ok, you already pointed out that I'm supposedly lying, so why are you continuing? Do you need to point out that I am telling so-called lies over and over again?
This is a list of notable tent cities. Notice how many of them are not in large metro areas. The one here isn't even a notable one because there are only around 2000 homeless people here.
Here's the major difference: we're not just talking about tent cities. You specifically said those were people with full-time jobs that couldn't afford living quarters.
Can you prove that the tent cities outside of major cities are primarily occupied by full-time workers?
There you go moving goalposts and trying to distort reality. This is why I don't trust you.
Then there is no discussion. My argument ever since your reply has been that the phenomenon that you pointed out can only happen in major cities: people working full-time but can't afford living quarters.
Yeah, of course a homeless person without a job needs more money. I'm not referring to them because there's honestly no point to. You knew I wasn't referring to them, which is why you had to specify some of the people there were working full-time jobs.
I'm referring to the people working jobs who feel they should get paid more while people around the world work harder for less. Those are the ones I do not take seriously.
You, the liar that you are, posted a picture of people living in tents then said some of them have full-time jobs? How much is some? And to those some, I am specifically referring that their money would go further outside of major cities.
Anyways. This entire argument is in bad faith. I can tell you're the kind of person who thinks more money is the solution to all working class problems. It isn't.