Helsinki's solution to homelessness
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
The US by contrast is a continent in its own right with a vastly diverse set of people and cultures. My own experience of the bay area is people are extremely giving and donate a lot of money and time towards homeless efforts. However I feel the latest backlash is born from fatigue towards no solution in sight. If homeless refuse to accept help or seek alternative options to sleeping on the street why would you want to keep helping? I am still stunned that the tiny city of San Francisco had a $300m annual budget to help less than 5000 people. Thats $60k/homeless person, this is greater than the per capita GDP of every single country on earth except the US.
Anecdotally I have a guy living in his car on my street that is filled to the ceiling with trash, he refuses to move or get into a shelter despite us trying to help him. Sadly the neighbors on the street are starting to sour towards him after 6 months of having social workers reach out to help and various charities try to assist.
"300m annual budget to help less than 5000 people. That's $60k/homeless person"
Maybe you have a killer source and I'm out of line, but the usual issues is that these numbers almost never come from one comprehensive study or source. You can't just grab two numbers without context and divide them to say anything meaningful. What exactly is that 300m/yr spent on? How many people did it successfully get off the streets or prevent from ending up there? How many new homeless people arrived over that same time span?
I don't have a meaningful answer to these questions and I'm sure you're right that there are better ways that the money can be spent. It's just that those numbers can be absolutely accurate and still fail to be a meaningful way to understand the problem.
SF is doing it wrong? Fine. No one has to do things like SF. But there's no reason not to try a Finnish policy at a city, county or state level if it'd been demonstrated to work.
Why is it only bought up for social policies? Why is the size and ethnic makeup never a barrier to starting a war or lowering taxes? It seems to mostly just be a lazy excuse to avoid $thingIDontWant.
It's also implicitly a white supremacist argument, "we can't have nice things because we have ethnic minorities".
People here say a lot of homeless like to move to SF because of climate too?
Are you guys too ethnically heterogenous to have hundreds of military bases all over the world, have the most advanced weapons technology known to mankind, and global military dominance?
Are you too heterogenous to have science and engineering facilities in the world? Too heterogenous to have the largest corporations in the world? Too heterogenous to produce some of the best art in the world? Some of the best athletes?
Being so good at so many things, being terrible at things like this sounds more like a choice rather than destiny.
Minnesota has pretty much the same population as Finland, and is almost as homogeneous, too.
It's plan to see, even in the comments in this forum so many are really quick to jump to "but mental illness..." "but drugs..." etc...
It makes me sad to realize this is unlikely to change during my lifetime.
“Utah reduced chronic homelessness by 91%. Here’s how”
https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chroni...
"... housing comes first, services later. Clients do have to pay some rent — either 30 percent of income or up to $50 a month, whichever is greater."
And those homes don't have to be big, sprawling, 1000-footers either. An address, bathing, electric, a share in the cost ... is a leg up and a way to escape the terrors. Has to be a hell of a relief.
There are things in your argument that are implicit, but you left out or it would reduce your argument. I added those implicit things back in so that the full argument has to be addressed for what it is.
Hyperbole, but go on. To hear it from some people the 5,000 people that died during 9/11 was the worst thing to happen to humanity, ever.
> We need to give the common person a path out of poverty that doesn't involve higher education.
Like a .................... living wage? That's not very popular with the law and order crowd.
> Once those people are able to move up the ladder, those at the very bottom (homeless) will be able to move up as well.
A nation of 180 million able bodied Americans can only tackle one task at a time. We are incapable of chewing gum and walking. The buffer will overflow!
Housing homeless is less costly than providing jails + ambulances + other services needed when people are on the street.
The data is all there, but people will use sophism to make arguments that are either not proven, or that have been actively disproved. I mean, many arguments against helping the poor can be boiled down to: 'it isn't good enough, so let them rot'.
Especially after trauma. I know for me the stress of earning rent is WAY, WAY orders of magnitude less than living on the street. For many people it is that way, that is why they choose not to. Most people on the street don't want to be there (though you wouldn't know it, they are working poor who mostly sleep in their cars, what you see as homeless is only a small percentage of homeless)
You could experience trauma too. It can change anyone. A little empathy goes a long way.
How can you work full-time and not afford even the shantiest room somewhere?
And most landlords now a days do background checks. If you have been in prison, had a foreclosure, bankruptcy, etc many places won't rent to you at all. So you have to go to predatory places which charge way more than your regular housing.
However, this is all very basic information on this topic.
Since you seem to not know these very basic facts, may I suggest not holding an opinion or judgement until you may do a little reading on the topic.
It's my experience in my life that when I gave an opinion on something I was ignorant on, I generally felt ashamed afterwards. It's been a big motivator in me trying to know a little before giving an opinion. I think it's made me a better person.
Two decades ago, there was a big press campaign in Germany over "lazy professors" with some prominent illustrative examples (which I am sure existed). As a consequence academia was covered with bureaucracy to prevent this. Now professors do paperwork instead of science or teaching.
For the greater good society should be able to cope with a few free-riders.
Regarding lazy professors, we were (and still are) the exact same problem in Poland - dunno what the situation is in Germany, but here I'm convinced the laziness is absolutely prevalent, and almost no one is doing any real research. We also had the heavy buruecratic reform imposed on the academics, and the main difference is that now they expend a lot of effort pretending they're doing research, up to the point of creating collusion rings where everybody is citing everybody else (so that their citation count looks decent) etc.
On a broader scale, I don't believe that people do well in utopias imposed by bureucrats - and that's what the "help the homeless" and other socialist programs ultimately are. A lot of us just can't relate to something as impersonal as the state, and see no problem cheating it or stealing from it. What's worse, it's a slippery slope that leads to general moral corrosion. The professors are one of myriad examples of this - under socialism, most of them learned to game the system in a way that allows them to do nothing, to the point that it became a part of the Polish academic culture, which is now absolutely immoral and corrupt (just speak to young Polish scientist how actually want to do science, and who haven't yet given up and left the country). These people then pass such values to their children, who may enter different areas of live, and spill the cynicism of their parents there. Over a couple of generations, you end up with an absolutely broken and apathetic society - just look at Russia.
Have you ever heard the word data?
You are trying to argue data that has been gathered meticulously with an anecdote.
If I need to explain more, I'm afraid we won't be able to communicate.
To say what the data is, would be to literally post the text which you are answering to (you know, the one you supposedly read before commenting)
A text which has facts that you contradicted several times in this thread.
On top of this you don't seem to know what the meaning of the words you use are. Let me help you, socialism is when the state controls the means of production. Unless you are literally arguing that helping a homeless person is the same as the government nationalizing every company on the stock exchange, then you are using words wrong. Though not surprising, given that you seem to comment on articles you haven't read.
BTW, the way Portland tried is terrible. That is why these successful experiments are so interesting to read about for those who don't have closed minds.
The linked article is not research or even data - it's a Guardian article, which has close to zero credibility as far as I am concerned (nothing against Guardian per se, newspapers are terrible sources of knowledge in general).
Even having said that, the article does not seem to have any data on what I was worrying about - i.e. to what degree subsidising homeless people is incentivising homelessness. It instead talks about a programme (not homelessness itself), which seems to be dealing with homelessness by... providing subsidised housing. They don't say how much they're spending a year (presumably many millions, judging by the scale of the operation), and in 2018 their results are... six people who stopped needing the subsidy and went on to live independently. Given the fact that they house 3500 people, a yearly conversion rate of 0.2% seems abysmal, and may actually point to what I was worrying about - i.e. homeless people not wanting to be go back to the society that much, as long as the state is subsiding their housing.
Funny aside, according to the article, 70% of homless in Finland do not actually live on the streets, but with friends or family (but, I am assuming, would prefer to live on their own). According to this standard, there are millions of homeless in Poland. Although I wouldn't be suprised if this particular bit of reporting was mangled and that the truth is more complicated.
Before you were talking about 'communist Portland', you also said that all initiatives to help the homeless are 'socialism'.
I honestly want to learn about this. You might have a point, but you seem to have an agenda, for example you made up up that all costs related to homeless programs are new costs (on top of existing programs) when the article clearly states otherwise.
It seems you want to play to win, not to learn and your mind is already made up. You have already made up facts multiple times in this thread and used words wrong without regard for the truth. This to me shows a lack of intelectual honesty and I don't really feel like engaging such behavior any further.
No one said free.
But no. The thought of someone getting help triggers you emotionally. So you use sarcasm and exaggerations to have to avoid a topic where you probably don't have the data to back your argument.
Since you mention the words moral hazard, and you made up an argument to bring up the point, maybe you feel a moral hazard without really having viewed the data? In which case, I'm wondering where that comes from? (truly, not trying to imply anything)
Adults talk about other adults who have mental health issues and who cost society more money now than it would to house them.
We talk about directing existing resources.
We talk about data and studies.
I'm afraid you are making points based on things you are just pulling out of your... head - or you can prove me wrong and point me to a study that backs up what you said, explaining the significant percentage (it has to be since you are bringing it up) of homeless who feel the way you portray. I'll be glad to issue a retraction if you do.
I previously suggested to you a little compassion. I think a little thinking and research would also do you well. Maybe then you could formulate a cohesive argument without using some extreme 1% example to try and prove that 99% of the problem is not addressable.
Of course some people have a negative opinion of the homeless due to negative interactions - being scammed, not really homeless, taking advantage of people.
I am not sure. Cruel, yes. But it is the 'survival of the fittest' attitude, which although cruel, is natural.
You could say "Well, humans are just animals and we were always fighting for scraps so this is our natural state". But humans only thrived and evolved because we were so good at adapting to changes. So if now our social and economic reality is artificially rigged by those with wealth and power to stagnate everyone in some paleolithic struggle for survival, instead of being allowed to enjoy the true fruits of our advancement as a species, how natural is it really? And are we being deprived of the next step of our evolution because of the resistance to keep leveling the playing field for everyone instead of the few.
I'm not a scientist so I don't know the answers to any of these. I actually sort of believe in the idea of arrow of time so literally everything "is natural" and unavoidable. It is natural that the "few" have wrestled control of resources from the "many". And maybe it is natural that this goes on forever.. but it's just as likely or even more likely that it doesn't go on.
I'm not so interested in what is cruel and what is not (although I certainly want everyone to prosper and lead a life of fulfillment and meaning). But life of any kind is such a rare thing in the universe and keeping it going seems to be a dance on the sword's edge. So I'm more interested in what is better for ensuring that life just keeps going, rather than keeps going under a set of pleasant circumstances.
The article says they have to pay rent or they get kicked out, but doesn't explain how these homeless people can suddenly afford rent.
Kela is the Social Insurance Institution of Finland (https://www.kela.fi/web/en).
In fact, I would go as far as to say that your labelling of homelessness as a behavioral problem is the cause of homelessness. Repeated all around the world by countless people and politicians.
If we really want to solve poverty and homelessness, we need to start by separating the financial aspect from the behavioral aspect.
The financial aspect involves everything from vast wealth inequality, to lack of urban planning, to the divergence of wealth and automation, to regressive taxation and extortive healthcare programs. This is basically represented by 40 years of trickle down economics and complete disregard for externalities like environmental damage or displaced populations.
The behavior aspect centers mostly around mental health issues like anxiety, depression, schizophrenia and yes addiction. Things which are all present in the wealthy but properly managed by therapy, medication and a large support network made possibly by the possession of money. There's absolutely no reason we can't offer treatment to the poor. And indeed we used to, before Ronald Reagan began defunding mental health programs in the US:
https://sites.psu.edu/psy533wheeler/2017/02/08/u01-ronald-re...
Personally, I vote to maintain the separation of church and state in the US, which means that the government shouldn't have a say in what appropriate personal behavior is. Which means as a culture, we have a responsibility to pay into a system which is concerned with the care of people who need it.
Churches can still feed and house the homeless, but they shouldn't be the only ones tasked with that responsibility.
For anyone reading this, if you haven't thought about how your personal moral and religious beliefs play into the problem of homelessness, now is the time.
Social welfare spending has massively increased in the US since 1970. I would be willing to put money on taxpayer-funded spending on mental health seeing a similar increase.
Blaming de-institutionalization on a federal bill passed in the 1980s is a misleading simplification of the issue that ignores the larger trends in place.
Like I said, social spending has been steadily increasing in both inflation-adjusted terms, and in terms of percentage of the GDP expended on it. What changed is an opposition to institutionalization led by sociologists, who by way, are the most left-wing group of academics in the US according to surveys.
The article you linked to points out that the first law against institutionalization was passed by Califorinia, which is usually at the forefront of left-wing reforms. The move toward "community care", where drug addicts can optionally avail themselves to mental health resources, and are otherwise allowed to wander the city un-supervised, has allowed the most vulnerable segment of the population to be mercilessly preyed upon by drug dealers.
>>Personally, I vote to maintain the separation of church and state in the US, which means that the government shouldn't have a say in what appropriate personal behavior is. Which means as a culture, we have a responsibility to pay into a system which is concerned with the care of people who need it.
This assumes we as a culture has a say in how much people contribute to supporting those who are incapable of taking care of themselves, but no say in whether people actually take care of themselves, and do things like show up to their job and avoid substance-abuse. So you're not removing the government's role in saying what appropriate personal behaviour is at all. Taxation is enforcing a particular type of behaviour, and you're all for that. You just don't want to restrict self-destructive behaviour that encourages dependency on programs provided at the taxpayer's expense.
This is such a worn out trope.
No, Reagan did not single handily defund mental health.
Institutionalization became a dirty word - people held against their will. The thought was that these people could be more integrated in the community, hence institutions were defunded.
Reagan was just doing what everyone else was.
> We now recognize that these patterns are indicators of chronic homelessness. Far from being the norm, only about 10 to 15 percent of people who experience homelessness are chronically homeless. But this relatively small group tends to be the most visible as well as the most vulnerable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrini%E2%80%93Green_Homes
The people living in their cars/trailers are very different from those in large camps, which are very different from those on park/bus benches. Cold/rainy weather is also a huge selector that changes the group profile. So one person's experience with the homeless is highly impacted by exactly which group you see. The large Lord of the Flies camps are mostly hidden, but may house the majority of homeless depending on where you live.
Addiction is a great indication of this, it's pretty conclusive these days that it's a medical and biological issue that can be treated successfully when treated as what it actually is.
But do we do that? Hell no! Our North American protestant roots pretty much insist that we treat it as a moral failing which radiates outwards as ripples of harm on every level of society all because we can't leave some primitive dark ages way of thinking in the dust bin of history like we should.
Housing unaffordable for young people? Of course it's a moral failing, they just didn't work hard enough...cue harm to society in general as it spirals and radiates outwards from that one completely wrong and ignorant thought until we reach the point where there are desperate people everywhere with nothing to lose.
It happens with so many problems and it's lazy thinking that hurts us all.
They claim that homelessness is dropping in Finland (contrary to other EU countries), but don't go so far as to say nobody is homeless.
Being homeless doesn't necessarily mean you are unable to afford accommodation; even if you have no private income, this may be covered by welfare benefits. In many cases psychological issues, drug addiction and criminal history are barriers to renting in the private market, which result in homelessness. Being "moved" out of this accomodation may not imply being made homeless again, in some cases the destination may be a more managed form of accommodation (e.g. rehab; prison).
General housing allowance [1] + unemployment benefits [2] + last resort social assistance [3]
[1] https://www.kela.fi/web/en/housing-benefits
[2] https://www.kela.fi/web/en/quick-guide-to-unemployment-benef...
This new system (which is really the old system come full circle) is much less effective as is clear to anyone who walks around the city. We have a beautiful public library downtown, which is completely unpleasant to visit because it has turned into the place where the homeless stay during the day. About half the times I go I see someone either being arrested or in active withdrawal.
Like most social problems, the solutions are simple, but politically hard to sell, and even harder to maintain once they've been put in place.
Forging keys, breaking and entering into garbage disposal or basements and of course trespassing and squatting are some of the things I've personally witnessed and that's not the end.
Yes, there are some facilities but apparently not enough and with conditions not acceptable to some of them.
Go to a city like Seattle and a 1 bed 1 bath is going to cost 300k+ to construct at density. (The city doesn't have enough land to build enough tiny houses at 30k or so a pop, so fixing the entire housing problem that way isn't doable.)
In fact, this might cut on crime in general, much like honeypot stings.
Which one?
Of course, as funding has dried up and real estate prices have gone up, the program has faltered and homelessness is once again on the rise in SLC.
This is a problem that can be worked on that will benefit everyone across the income spectrum. No way we should be stuck with $~7500 per square foot construction costs (assuming a small 1 bed 1 bath would be 400sqft).
I think that should be $750 per square foot...
Funnily enough, I grew up nearby, in Konala.
"This enormously regulated industry doesn't yield outcomes we like for the poor! Obviously markets cannot solve this problem!" is a disturbingly common argument.
See San Francisco as an example of what happens when more money is poured in the "modern" solutions - very little reduction of the problem, if any.
So yes, markets failed to provide very cheap housing and not for lack of cheap land or costs of construction. It's just because they provide even worse profit margins. Deregulating the industry won't help with that.
If you limit the problem to "some people who want a house don't have enough money to afford living space qualifying as a house", then broadly speaking market solutions are possible because we can assume these people participate in the market via their "demand" and their ability to "supply" something in return. Obviously there's an active debate on many market issues here, whether around too much market regulation (eg NIMBY), or too little market regulation (eg minimum wage).
However, my understanding is that there is mounting evidence that the homeless population is composed of people who have either no demand for a house ("free spirits") or no ability to supply anything to the market (mentally disabled). Obviously in these cases the market is not very useful, and only functions insomuch as those outside of the homeless population include it in their "demand function".
In my opinion, to solve all of these predisposing/causative factors, we'd need a much much stronger healthcare system, and probably UBI or a strong welfare system, to cover all the above scenarios. Even so, good healthcare and welfare won't matter that much in acute emergency scenarios, for that we need vigilance and persistence and unrelenting altruism.
The ROI-first perspective when talking about social policies has created the monstrous society the US is now.
I'd argue that this is actually state capitalism, rather than socialism.
What exactly is the purpose of this kind of comment? Why on earth wouldn't it work?
Who knew? I am not partial to 'handout' economy, but one wonders where did capitalism go wrong.