I forget about the homeless problem when I'm in Edmonton. Especially in winter, streetcorner panhandling is.. mmm, uncommon. That doesn't mean they're not there, of course. Just not visible. Here in L.A. they're visible.
The word "homeless" is a quite unfortunate euphemism. Homelessness is not the problem: in fact my father and his wife, enjoying their retirement, spent several months traveling, "homeless". Anyone can become homeless, as homeless advocates are fond of pointing out, and it's easier than you might think to become so.
The problem is beggary. Becoming homeless should be an unpleasant but transitory experience. Staying homeless means having embraced the lifestyle of a beggar; an urban scavenger.
When I take an ecologist's view, it's clear that the only way people could survive begging and scavenging is if there's unexploited value in the garbage. Food and valuables, a place to sleep: there is an ecological niche occupied by those unwilling or unable to do other work.
This niche can't exist without the surrounding city. After all, one can't be homeless alone in the wilderness. That's not homelessness, it's hermitage. Nor is it easy: the whole point of begging is to make the least possible productive effort by sponging off the work of others. It doesn't work when there are no others.
The size and wealth of this niche is directly related to the size and wealth of the surrounding human society. (Modified, certainly, by the weather.) Without our wealth, we couldn't support such a large homeless population. If everyone were strapped for cash and careful not to discard food or anything with use left in it, the niche would disappear. Beggars can exist because of the wealth accumulated in a city.
And here's a nasty closing thought: suppose there were no human beggars, somehow. A rich empty niche is created. What sort of animal would you prefer to fill it?