Would you rather: Live in the city homeless or live in the countryside impoverished?

country side. all cities are full of gangs

I think anyone saying that they would choose to be homeless in a city or otherwise is truly making a foolish decision. Having a roof over head and heating seriously extends a person's life. Not to mention the ability to get out of homelessness is just incredibly difficult verging on impossible. Having a home means that you have a stable place to work on improving your situation in life.

@Serraph105: I certainly agree but one could also argue that living in the country with no money could be just as tough in different ways. You need to be able to know basic survival skills like hunting, how to build things out of wood and other materials, how to make clothing, you would very likely need transportation of some kind in today's world, and I can imagine that it would get very lonely. Also, you would probably need to pay property taxes of some degree. At least in the city you have homeless shelters and a communication system with other homeless people and some generous people out there willing to help.

Unless I'm missing something, this one is a no-brainer. As a child I lived in a place without water or electricity, got my drinking water from a fountain (which I'm not entirely sure if it had potable water) where other people would wash clothes and my daily meal consisted of half a bowl of rice. My biggest fear? Losing the roof above my head. I don't think anyone would choose homelessness...

Impoverished? Like...you barely make enough to get by?

You'd be an idiot to want to live homeless anywhere instead of being impoverished anywhere. I've lived off 10 USD/hour in California, no less; it sucks, but you manage. Sometimes you have to eat nothing but ramen, or you have to cancel your internet (hey, I lived the first 16 years of my life without it...) for a few months, but I honestly cannot imagine the horror of being homeless.

That's just a fancy word for poor isn't it?

I'd take that.

Depends on what kind of cities, Tokyo Japan then yes... but I really hope not either way.

I'd definitely prefer to live in the country side and impoverished, much rather have a roof over my head with heat and water.

I thought you already did =P

You could easily make a few hundred bucks being homeless in a city.

Well I figured that in the country there is no way to technically be "homeless". You could find an abandoned house somewhere to stay in or get an old RV for practically free to live in.

An impoverished life means just enough food, heat, shelter and water to get by.

That should beat homelessness 100% of the time for everyone.

Being impoverished in the countryside. Being from the countryside and also having been homeless early on in my life, a city would be easier for food stuff, clothes and whatever else.

I'll take homeless in a fairly large city. Because there are a wide variety of social programs available in any large urban area in Canada and within 48 hours I'll be better off than impoverished in the middle of nowhere. This is because I have drive, do not have any psychological problems and would not be constrained by my temp homeless problem.

If you want to object to my response then you will be forced to describe me as chronically homeless, which has nothing to do with not having a place to live. Chronic homelessness is an outcome of far worse things, so you would be better off asking if I want to be mentally ill or not.

As for impoverished in the country side, history is the story of impoverished country folk moving to cities to seek a better life and often starting off homeless.

I'm mostly a county guy, so I prefer to live in a countryside so I won't have to deal with the BS in a city side.