And you still have plenty of homesless and destitute. Pretty sad that you can't look after the most vunerable.
Lower than France, Germany, and the UK, Sweden, Canada, and Australia. Equal to the Netherlands.
They're semantically European but syntactically not. :-)
i.e. in the OECD countries..
E.g. if you scroll in the article you will find that Germany reports as homeless: "Living temporarily with family and friends due to lack of housing", "Living in institutions"
"Living in institutions" is clarified as: "Including people who stay longer than needed in health institutions needed due to lack of housing; and people in penal institutions with no housing available prior to release".
The US does not count these categories.
Now, it would be interesting to see how the numbers would change if the US actually counted all the millennials who moved back in with their parents because they could not find an affordable place, and all the prisoners and parolees who stay with relatives.
> About half of the surveyed countries also cover people living in non-conventional dwellings and people living temporarily with family and friends due to lack of housing,
> In Sweden the official figure given by the National Board of Health and Welfare includes lots of people who don’t have a permanent home but aren’t living in shelters or on the streets. For instance, Sweden includes people set to be released from jail within three months and have nowhere to go
In both cases, as a tourist, I never go too far away from the popular places and never been there for most than 3 or 4 days.
Don't know the reasons (honestly) but the homelessness and poverty I've seen in the US is nowhere to be seen in Europe. I repeat, in "popular" places and vicinity.
How do they come out with such numbers? Is the impression of a tourist wrong? Where are the poor and destitute in Europe compared to the US?
Different countries define and count "homeless" in different ways.
Some places will only count rough sleepers, and they'll do that by once a year sending people out to count people who are sleeping on the streets. This obviously severely undercounts those who are homeless.
Other places will have a definition for "statutorily homeless" which will include people living in bread-and-breakfast style accommodation - emergency short term lodgings funded by the state.
Maybe we should look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_...
So what are you talking about exactly?
This literally does not happen in normal operation (because train stations security or police aided by social workers will direct people to homeless shelters, or make them leave if they refuse homeless shelters), and only happened a few times during the height of the refugee crisis in the big cities with new arrivals coming in at a rate where the refugee and homeless shelters in those major arrival cities were overloaded and bureaucracy was too slow to process and re-distribute these arrivals quick enough to avoid some camping in train stations.
The wikipedia article explicitly states:
> This is a list of countries (not all 195) by the homeless population present on any given night. Different countries often use different definitions of homelessness, making direct comparisons of numbers complicated.[3]
For Germany it further states: >*Includes around 350000 refugees in temporary housing or awaiting asylum.
Temporary housing might be shit, but it's still better than living in a cardboard box on skid row. Unless your government provided temporary housing is a literal cage, of course, but we don't have those here.
In Germany "homeless" includes all people who do not have a permanent residence, i.e. people living on the streets but also people who e.g. temporarily live with relatives or friends, e.g. because they have a hard time finding an affordable place in the overcrowded big cities.
PS: I was "homeless" for about a year in Germany. I was looking for a new place after uni, couldn't find one due to overcrowding in the city I was looking in, and stayed in my parents' house during that time, just like I did in my youth. I had a better life incl more privacy there than I previously had with some roommate arrangements. But I was technically homeless under the definition they use for the stats.
I can't believe this is true. They must have different definitions for homeless.
When?
City name?
Station name?
Did you call an ambulance?
Why not?
What I'm saying, is the proper response to a criticism of lynching, is to agree with the criticism, not argue that the crimes (no matter how horrid) of those who are making the criticism renders the criticism invalid.