The second issue is, In the last 10 years, the “Housing First” programme provided 4,600 homes in Finland. In 2017 there were still about 1,900 people living on the streets. In the US, there are something like half a million people living on the streets.
Even when you compare per capita GDP, Finland's doing it with $50k, while the US is at $62.5k.
If you assumed a similar per capita tax rate, but more government is required to deploy the taxes in a larger nation, the larger nation would presumably end up with less money deployed per capita.
Of course I am neither a social scientist, economist or political scientist.
- Assign open apartment
- Digitally fill out form B12
- Deposit money
Then there is very little work required.
Where social programs have the highest overhead is where they do things like “Assess whether it’s ‘required’ based on binders 3 through 7” and “Continually check in with all other governmental arms to validate that they are meeting criteria”.
People always like to rush to talk about economies of scale, completely forgetting that diseconomies of scale are also a thing.
(And even that's all assuming that you think Finland's demographics are comparable to the US's and that causes of homelessness and poverty in Finland are representative of the causes of homelessness and poverty in the US.)
Finland is ranked #3 while US is #22.
More importantly, Finland allows for the involuntary commitment if the mentally ill. In the US, this is only allowed if the individual presents a danger to themselves or others.
"The current Finnish Mental Health Act stipulates thefollowing criteria for compulsory admission:
.a person should be found to have a psychotic illness,and
.because of this psychosis, they are
(.in need of psychiatric care as their condition would otherwise worsen [this is the main different criterion], or
.a danger to their own health or welfare, or
.a danger to the health or welfare of others)
.no other mental health services are suitable or adequate
(Finland of course has proper free at the point of use healthcare for all residents, a far more important point for mental health than involuntary commitment.)
And only a mentally ill person would have children out of wedlock, right?
And before you say that that's unrealistic... I'm pretty sure that that exact logic was used to institutionalize people in the US back in the 20s and 30s.
That would describe more than two thirds of the homeless.
It sounds like some institutions were closed after that movement got going, so I wouldn’t be surprised if institutions were closed under the Regan administration, but I think the decline in public mental institutions preceded his administration and was largely unrelated to it.
In CA, when he was governor, Reagan ordered the closure of many facilities.
Reagan than decimated the mental health department in CA below sustainable levels, and followed that up by ending federal funding of mental health treatment only a few years after trying to make the federal government pay for it when he was governor. As most state budgets no longer covered mental health, the result was an enormous drop in government spending on mental health.
And yes, it's all directly traceable to Reagan.
According to research almost half of the homeless have a mental illness, with about 25% having a very serious one.
If you’ve ever been walking down SF you know exactly who that 25% is. They’re on the street and they need an institution not a needle exchange or free boarding.
This Reagan meme needs to die. The ACLU was very involved in "deinstitutionalization" as well since holding people against their will was regarded as problematic.
327/5,5*(4600+1900) = ~386.000
(at 1 person/home)
No, I think it's perfectly honest to compare the rates of homelessness in a country that has worked to improve the situation versus a country that continues to let people die in the streets. It seems far more dishonest to compare the rates before the work was done, considering that work was done to reduce the problem. The reason that the US now has a roughly 5x rate of homelessness (and, let's face it, growing) vs a roughly 1.3x rate of homelessness is because the United States has no interest in fixing the problem.
> According to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development's Annual Homeless Assessment Report, as of 2018 there were around 553,000 homeless people in the United States on a given night, or 0.17% of the population.
It would stress anyone out, if your "cohabitants" fecate in the shower, start screaming in the middle of the night, pose a risk of physical abuse, stealing, etc...
So, if you consider preferring not to live in such conditions a choice, then yes, it is impossible.
But in my book, it is sounds rather like a choice of a healthy mind and not one a civilized wealthy society should put one up with.
California also applies "Housing First", and it doesn't work. According to some reports, it gas led to social housing coming to be rife with drug use and dominated by drug dealers, because previous restrictions on drug use on premises were lifted as part of the Housing First philosophy.
While I applaud easing the bureaucratic hurdles in giving people access to homes, in many cases not being offered a home is not the reason why people are homeless. It's simply not "as easy as that".
All that said, "Housing First" is the most effective, lowest cost, evidence based program we have to substantially lower homelessness. It works, and it's vastly cheaper than both the status quo ( https://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/resources/lessons/... ) and just about everything else we've tried.
That's not to say that literally giving people houses isn't a good idea, and won't solve some chunk of the issues of homelessness. But, for instance, if I was sleeping in my broken down car on the street near my work, and you gave me a free house on the other side of town, I'm not "homeless" now, but it now introduces new problems of how I get to work across town.
Giving someone something they lack in life is a lot like giving someone a organ transplant. Hypothetically, we could "cure" a lot of liver diseases by giving everyone a "new" liver, but we have to get that liver from somewhere, and the recipient has to be able to integrate it into their life without it being rejected, and they have to not keep doing the things that led to them having the problem in the first place or else it all repeats in a few years.
>Finland ends homelessness and provides shelter for all in need
Which is needlessly hyperbolic and tabloidy, and even belied by the very first sentence in the article.
That's over-simplistic reasoning. Yes, we have a word called "homeless" that we use to refer to people living on the streets. That does not imply giving them a home solves the problem, or that the lack of such offers is what keeps them in that condition. If the simple reasoning was correct, why couldn't Finland solve the problem by offering free housing with no strings attached?
That's not to say that such policies aren't helpful to those who really just lack access to housing. It doesn't end there though, that's my point.
One problem facing the social system is that people in need are not seeking all the support they need. This is the reason why assigned social worker who sees the whole picture is important.
But for the rest it's good that a country is doing a large effort. Most of them need a few to get back on their feet: shelter, hygiene and safety.
And yeah the only 100% end to homelessness in a society is involuntary institutionalization. Some people may decide they want to be homeless or can't organize themselves sufficiently to wind up at their home or even a hotel if money was no object. The latter is more justifiable but it is dicey for society to set thresholds. Out of sight out of mind is ripe for abuse even without bad intentions. Just bad assumptions and bureaucratic snafus can do plenty of harm.
But it's not gone. Homelessness is not really possible to solve definitely.
* battered spouses fleeing domestic violence
* runaway teenagers
* veterans whose mental and physical injuries
* debilitating mental illness
* impossibly high housing costs due to NIMBYism and local regulations
* alcoholism, drug, gambling addiction
That's not an exhaustive list, of course. We have to start by changing the way we speak about this. We need labels that strike at the heart of each issue, that capture the thing that's really going on, not just the surface-level phenomenon.
I live in LA, and I don't own a car, and many people that live on the street don't either. Does that mean that it's valid to label us all as "carless"?
I believe that the words we use matter, because they shape our thinking, and therefore the policies that we ultimately enact. Calling everyone "homeless" leads to attempts to treat multiple diseases with the same cure, and I believe that is ultimately doomed to failure.
Yes, that's the exact definition of not possessing a car. The circumstances might be different and reasoning for not having one too, but if both were asked do you own a car the answer is the same.
I know a guy who recently sold his old house and bought a new one, but because of some confusion, ended up not having a home for two weeks. It would seem odd to call him homeless.
> Would the definition be based on possessing or owning?
Given that nobody calls people renting apartments homeless, I think this self-answers.
In any case, voluntarily being temporarily in a situation wherein one does not own property in not commonly confused with living on the street for reasons I believe to be fairly obvious. It has to do with that word "voluntarily".
My mind often goes to the boundary cases because that is where the real differences occur at.
For social issues in general, I've seen enough cases of people stretching definitions and using selective definitions that are enough against the norm that the end statement made is purposefully misleading. You might say it is adversarial advertisement authoring.
After all, the primary purpose of conceptualization is to give us humans a way to deal with vast complexity of the world. We can only hang onto 3-5 things (maybe seven if you're a genius) in a single mental frame, and we are utterly lost without that. People let their conceptual faculties get hacked all the time by ideologies and manipulative intellectuals! Don't let that happen to you! (I'm maxharris9 on twitter, and my DMs are open. If you want to know more about this just send me a message!)
That's pretty much the opposite of the "housing first" approach.
In Calgary and London, people with serious mental illness in particular would get an apartment, only to end up facing eviction before long because of conflicts with neighbours or property damage. Some were housed for less than a month before eviction.
Someone with active psychosis, someone with substantial market income but fleeing an abusive partner, and someone with a stable social and personal situation but who simply can't afford rent on their fixed pension, all require different interventions to keep them stably housed in the long run.
"Housing first" has a habit of being "housing only" support, which works for many people but not for everyone.
Sure....I don't own a car, I have zero issue with being labelled as carless. It's very much true. I lack a car, I am carless. My reason for lacking one may very well be different than yours, but the effects of not having cars are probably similar between us. Such as walking, biking or relying on public transit to travel, being limited on locations one can travel based on availability of transport or distance etc.
Edit to include:
>if anything there should be a more broad term, something that includes people who are housing-unstable. I don't really consider the problem solved if a person worries every day that they might be homeless at the end of the next month!
I really like this idea.
That's his point. I've been hitchhiking before and slept outside loads. It's not meaningful to call that 'homelessness'. Is a nomad homeless?
Someone who simply falls behind on the rent and bounces around friends' sofas is in a very different situation to someone who has serious mental and/or physical health issues and starts to completely fall apart as a person.
Calling someone carless or homeless has nothing to do with the reasoning behind it, it's a label for a current state. I agree, though, more fine grained labels should be used for tackling the causes behind these states. But calling someone homeless or carless isn't really offensive in and of itself.
We should treat this symptom which has multiple causes, because it causes further problems, and is relatively easily treated.
Finland doesn't have an open immigration policy. In fact it's citizen oppose immigration because they wish to preserve what is Finish. Finland is not more progressive in this regard.
Now we can start to understand how Finland could end homelessness. With a free immigration policy this would be more difficult both culturally and in terms of costs.
How does Finland get it's wealth? Through clean energy progressive solar or windpower? No through oil. Adding to the global carbon output daily.
When we peel the layers we realize we are comparing apples to oranges.
i don't understand what this has to do with anything? is this unique to the immigration patterns in Finland (that immigrants end up homeless?)
in america the homeless are primarily black and white people (not recent immigrants)
>How does Finland get it's wealth?
this is whataboutism. i never made the claim that finland was a progressive utopia. where do you think the US gets it's wealth? oil and coal
so can we also get some of that homeless sheltering?
This doesn't extend to others. Finland doesn't provide the same level of support to the poorest nations. The US does.
How progressive are we if we help ourselves / our families and people who are genetically like us but we don't provide the same support to other poorer nations.
When you look under the hood things are not as black and white. Finland is not as progressive they appear because of the headline.
literally false according to the stats i posted that you didn't read (or discounted).
>How progressive are we if we help ourselves / our families and people who are genetically like us but we don't provide the same support to other poorer nations.
i don't understand? are you mad at finland for not being progressive enough? originally your point was the US couldn't be as progressive as finland is because of oil? and immigrants? i don't think you have a coherent point.
No one is mad at Finland for not providing more external support. I hope my discussion points have caused you to open your mind around global progressive policy. It is never as simple as the headline seems.
"Literally false according to the stats i posted that you didn't read (or discounted"
Finland is made up of one ethnic group, the US many. That link had no relation to my point.
here is what you wrote
>The homeless population in Finland is ethically and culturely similiar to the population which allows them to identify and provide support.
if you look at the statistics that i posted you see the the homeless population is primarily black people and white people which is ethnically and culturally similar to the population of the united states (note that black people doesn't mean recent african immigrants but american black people).
Finalnd's military budget: 300 million
US military budget: 700 BILLION
The US could dump a lot of money into these social services to address people who are homeless, drug addicts, and other people on the fringes of society.
We are however, constantly put in a place where other nations depend on us for their security. As such, they don't have to have a massive defensive budget when they can rely on us to take care of them.
If we had a military budget that was more inline with simply keeping our own country safe, we would have a ton more money to take care of the people who really need it.
Military Expenditure in Finland increased to 3615 USD Million in 2018 from 3430 USD Million in 2017.
Which you're correct, it's actually 3.6 Billion. US military spending still dwarfs Finland's, but not nearly as paltry as I had originally stated.
Resulting in a new wave of rearmament and arms races across the entire planet as everybody scrambles to build up their military in the resulting power vacuum. If you want to see another wave of all-out wars in your lifetime, well, that's how you get it.
The United States has been amply repaid for its military budget (despite it being put to stupid use by certain Presidents) in terms of global political and economic stability, which is good for business.
Finland's military GDP spending is around 4%, very close to America's military GDP spending, but the two countries have largely different GDPs of course. That's the fair way to compare things though.
Also a very large portion of the military budget goes to the salary's of our military employees as well as R&D. We wouldn't have the internet if it wasn't for ARPA.
And finally, Finland isn't a superpower.
I tried to find the same for California, but it seems they do a better job of hiding it.
My point is that we are spending a tremendous amount of money on former government employees, so they can have nice homes, good healthcare, and a quality education for their children. But in the process, we're neglecting a large portion of the population that those people were supposed to be serving.
It takes good, motivated staff to run an effective government department. Those same people have a lot of options, so the government has to compete for them somehow.
We’re unwilling to pay them high salaries (take a look at the federal pay scales: GS-12, which is usually a scientist with a grad degree, starts at $66k). Benefits seem a little more politically palatable, so the government competes on those instead: we won’t pay you a lot, but you can earn a (slightly) better retirement instead.
Without either, who’s going to work for the government? Do you really want a government full of people who can’t land any other job?
When an existing employee retires or otherwise ends their employment with the state, don't hire a replacement unless that job is critical to the operation of the government.
It's not clear what the actual pensions number is, but the total budget for absolutely everything for the two years 2019-21 for Oregon appears to be $82bn from Schedule VI of https://www.oregon.gov/das/Financial/Documents/2019-21_gb.pd...
2. Russia invades Finland. USA does nothing.
3. Homelessness in Finland peaks
I doubt it will work in Finland in the long run, and even if it does, Finland and the U.S. have very different populations. Most Americans work to put a roof over their head, and it's unfair to them to "unconditionally" give some people housing. It's also a big disincentive to work. The current unemployment rate is 3.5%. There are homeless shelters to prevent people from freezing to death, but that's very different from giving someone their own apartment. Millions of people would love a "small apartment" in Manhattan or San Francisco but cannot afford to live there. Are you going to allocate the apartments to people who are not contributing to society?
You probably have a meritocratic view of the world (as many Americans do), that hard work will lead to success. If you believe that, you logically would have to believe the opposite: the people failing failed because they are lazy. But you are discounting luck or upbringing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTDGdKaMDhQ . Imagine someone becoming homeless after being dumped by their partner. Or not being able to afford doctor's bills and also losing their job after taking too many sick days (this is not relevant to Finland, since that doesn't happen there, but it is in the US).
And from the article, doesn't sound like the Finns will just let someone stay in such an apartment and be jobless and bum around:
> The result is impressive: 4 out of 5 homeless people will be able to keep their flat for a long time with “Housing First” and lead a more stable life.
So that means 1 in 5 fail to reach that stable life and lose their flat again. As the article also says, their policy is actually cheaper compared to what you think is "fair", they let the homeless have somewhere to sleep, so they can start worrying about the next thing in their lives, which is probably getting a job. Imagine how shitty it is trying to find a job if you're mostly worried about where to sleep, shower, or shit, daily.
Or what do you want me to address in regards to this sentence? That you're not that heartless, because hey, the homeless in your world won't freeze to death, they can go to the shelter. Despite the fact that you think actually helping them long term by offering them the apartment (which the article says is cheaper than taking care of them as they remain homeless) and a path to normal life, that's just too much, and unfair?
Being homeless is also a big disincentive to work.
Despite the occasional feel-good story you may see in the news about a homeless person (almost invariably a physically and mentally healthy young man) finding work and getting off the street, in reality it's almost impossible to go from rough-sleeping to holding down employment long enough to establish a home.
You smell, your clothes are dirty, everything is riddled with bedbugs, you're probably not properly nourished, you're exhausted, you're probably in physical pain, and most of your time is used up with things like walking to the next soup kitchen for your next meal.
The stability of being properly housed is, for most people, a necessary precursor for holding down work.
I don't feel it's unfair that someone is given a house, even though I "worked for it" (among many other factors which culminated in my not being homeless). Would you mind unpacking why you feel that way?
Ultimately taxes are collected at gunpoint too, and collecting more taxes to pay for free apartments for the homeless and other welfare spending means more coercion.
Some people are physically incapable of working. Would it be just for them to die?
Advances in automation continue to magnify the productivity of our workers. Many jobs have already been consigned to history forever with simple machines. One day, we may hardly need anyone to work at all to satisfy our consumption.
Our society already generates a surplus of all the necessities of life; there is no innate physical reason why it must be structured as a zero-sum game.
Unless you take money from some people and give it to people who don't feel like working. That would be zero-sum.
It is, in fact, cheaper than shelter .
"People not contributing to society"? Really? Perhaps if they had a home they could get a job? I invite you to go to an actual homeless shelter near you and talk to the people there. Ask them what it's like to try to find a job while living in a shelter.