Totally depends on definition of "homeless". Some use a definition based on whether someone has a roof over their head most nights, the narrowest definition possible. I prefer a definition based on legal rights: Does the person have property rights (owners/renters/housing benefits etc) in a stable domicile. That means those couch surfing, in shelters and illegal residences are counted as homeless alongside the people literally sleeping in the open air.

Few would doubt the rise of the "working homeless" across the western world. The concept of someone having a fulltime job and still not able to afford rent is new. It is today's sharecropping imho.

And then there is the other modern phenomena: the legally mandated homeless. Every large city in the US now seems to have a bridge or overpass filled with people who are not legally allowed to live anywhere else. Stringent limitations on where certain convicts may live is also new.

>The concept of someone having a fulltime job and still not able to afford rent is new

Does that happen anywhere outside of San Francisco?

I'm nowhere near SF and the cheapest rent in town is 1400/month. That's a one-room basement, quasi-legal, basement suite under a house beside the airport. So ... ya.