My take is it really doesn't actually do much (except perhaps reduce the sense of blame in the term homeless - i.e. unhoused implies they should be housed).

However chuds hate it because of that implication, therefore critical support for the semantic shift.

Standard lib response of "We won't actually change anything but we will change a word and act like it is a bigger deal than actually helping with your problems."

iirc the term "homeless" imply being a complete social outcast, while those people are in fact part of society often with jobs, families, friends etc. The only thing they lack is the physical house, therefore unhoused.

But as other posters noticed, the shift is also a liberal platitutide instead of action.

to a significant extent, it's the euphemism treadmill, but the usual argument i have seen is that homeless implies an inherent/permanent state of being while unhoused implies a more temporary one.

Technically people who are couch surfing, sleeping in tents in campgrounds, or sleeping in garages or caravans are homeless as are people living in crisis accommodation. "Unhoused" lowers the statistic to just people without a roof over their head.

Houseless is a way to make homeless people roll their eyes and stop listening to you. If you want an excuse to not do effective work, then its as easy as using that term.