Wow, you guys talking about how this guy should have an apartment or something because he has a laptop are lacking in empathy.

When was the last time you met the eyes of one of these good-for-nothing, lazy, bad-smelling, disgusting … things?

If you can't even meet eyes with a homeless person, let alone really observing the person, you can't even put yourself into their shoes, feel what they feel, and see the world from their eyes. If you can't do that, then you lack empathy.

And when you lack empathy, that's the seed of prejudice.

Or how about this article, posted here on Hacker News: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/These-young-SF-profess...

Those are startup founders that live in RVs … because rent is too high in the Bay Area.

There are indeed homeless people who are mentally or emotional unstable. Not all homeless people are like that. And there are mentally and emotionally unstable people who live in homes. And then, there are systemic problems where rent prices have driven people out of affordable homes.

As to the point about how having laptops point to a confusion in Maslow's Hierarchy, I think that demonstrates more of the commenter's lack of understanding of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

It is true that shelter is at the bottom of the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. It is part of the human need to seek physical security, and is the foundation for the higher level needs. However, "shelter" is so much more than an apartment or a house. An apartment and a house are socially approved shelter. Shelter is anything that will help you maintain homeostasis. It can be a cave. It can be survival shelter in the woods. It can be under a freeway bridge. It can be in a cardboard box. It includes clothing.

When you are in survival mode, you are not thinking about socially-approved shelter. You are seeking any shelter. People who go out into the woods without a lot of training in wilderness survival tends to flounder around when things go bad. Their minds, being unable to accept the situation as-is, keep thinking that civilization will save them somehow, and cling to that. "If only I can get out of these woods or find a ranger, I would be safe." Instead of "Oh shit, a bad storm is coming, I need to get under covers NOW."

Likewise, having talked to some of the homeless, I was told how you can pick out the newly homeless. They have so much pride (and shame), it kept them from receiving help -- food, or shelter, or whatever. They are clinging to behaviors that are socially-approved. Social approval is higher up on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Believe me, if you were somewhere public and you hear gunshots, and you felt your life threatened, you will probably run. And you won't be thinking that the place you are running to is private property or not.

Finally, comments like these suggest that the commenters have not examined their concepts thoroughly or looked into their own feelings about this.

People who live outside the socially-approved box are threatening to people living inside the box. This threat goes beyond the surface, "oh, he is going to mug me." The aversion and disgust that keeps people from empathizing with the homeless comes from pack behavior. Humans tend to aggregate in groups, reject outsiders, and severely punish anyone who betray the pack.

This punishment is exactly the kind of reflexive emotional response risk-averse people have when you tell them about startup idea. "What's wrong with these people? They must be crazy!"

It is also the emotional reaction that leads to comments like, "If he can afford a better laptop than I, he can afford an rent. There must be something wrong about him."

That's bullshit.