Hacker News Reader

>I want to house the homeless. The Dutch can do it, but somehow in the discourse here, it's "impossible"

I mean the Dutch don't do that. Homelessness in the Netherlands has been rising for years and is higher per capita than the US. It's also one of those "very hard" problems - SF spent something like 300 million a year to try and house 8,000 homeless people and failed at it.

I have argued at length with people on this board about this very subject, and the answer is the way that the problem is measured in either country. The HUD survey is a farce; it's designed to underestimate the problem. You could easily infer with data who is homeless and who is not, and that's what the Dutch do. Maybe you are Dutch and unaware of the discrepancy, not sure. Housing and the tax benefits are very hot button issues in the Netherlands and the youth hate how cynical the old are considering the subject, so I get that their system is not perfect. But being critical is how things change.

I also find it hard to believe that you could accept a fact like this so easily. There is a very visible homeless problem in every large American city that you don't see in the Netherlands. And Amsterdam used to have a very similar problem that was only recently cleaned up in the mid-2000's.

>I also find it hard to believe that you could accept a fact like this so easily.

What does this mean?

I've looked at the OECD data generally, looked most closely into France but definitely into the Netherlands - the Netherlands actually has pretty good data over time. In both places though there is a significant secondary problem with undocumented homelessness. It's one of the major reasons the number appears so much lower than Germany or Luxembourg, for example.

Even with that, youth homelessness doubled in the Netherlands between 2010 and 2020. Homelessness generally grew by over 25% from 2016-2018, according to OECD data.

The Netherlands as of 2017 had about 70,000 people living in homeless accommodations according to federatie opvang and 30,500 either sleeping rough or in uncertain temporary shelters. According to the CBS it increased to 38,000 by 2019. Yeah, there's been a major decline in youth homelessness during Covid and that's great but it's not a solved issue.

BTW for comparison, France - same time period: 100,000 in accommodations, roughly 18,000 rough sleepers/people in uncertain temp shelters.

>the answer is the way that the problem is measured in either country.

No, no it isn't. The Netherlands does not claim to have solved its homelessness issue, because it has not solved it. How you slice the data between there and the US has nothing to do with the domestic issue.

>There is a very visible homeless problem in every large American city that you don't see in the Netherlands. And Amsterdam used to have a very similar problem that was only recently cleaned up in the mid-2000's.

Not to be snarky but visibility doesn't actually mean anything.

> Oh, our country is "too big". Oh my god, stop.

I wouldn't gloss over this, the US presides over 330 million people across 3.8 million square miles, whereas the Netherlands has 17 million people across 16,000 square miles. This size and diversity of the US is a significant contributor to the national political dynamics IMO.

Yet the EU has better standards and works better for all citizens of the EU in comparison to the United States, despite the cultural and language barriers.

You could have definitely said this twenty years ago and I wouldn't have blinked an eye, but times change. They are doing it... technology and data help governments administrate more efficiently over large land masses. Italy and Germany also have similar federal systems and, again, work better together than we do, although Italy is probably somewhat compareable. At least they have culture lol

The EU did not arrive at those standards together or not implement them from a central authority. If anything, the EU serves as a success story of allowing states to implement their own changes and slowly converge at a target.

The Netherlands and Romania do not need to have a shared approach and timeline for dealing with homelessness. the Dutch can do it specifically because they don't have to get 27 states and 440 million people on board with their policy.

Similarly, Abortion rights vary widely throughout the EU, and are generally more restrictive than the US. This is understood as a state issue, and is not a perpetual wedge issue for EU policy.

If you want unions, socialized healthcare, public services and the other trappings of European societies you need to start thinking about immigration and demographics. The very high levels of immigration (both legal and illegal) into the US is what makes it difficult for workers to exercise leverage because they can easily be replaced by people who will work for much less compensation. Ethnically diverse workforces are also less likely to unionize (e.g. this is a factor Amazon looks at when assessing unionization risk). It seems to me that socialist policies can only work in relatively ethnically homogeneous societies, which is what you see in Europe. Although that is now changing there too: it will be interesting to see whether they are able to maintain generous social services in the face of major demographic change.

There's a lot to unpack here. Western Europe took in more immigrants than the United States did last year, by numbers and percentage. You could make an argument that illegal immigration tips that towards the US, but I don't think that's true.

> relatively ethnically homogeneous societies, which is what you see in Europe

So, this one. It's always hard to say because European countries don't measure "race" in the way that the US does. The concept of knocking on peoples' doors and asking them what race they are is absurd to the average European. It's funny because this discussion kind of lays clear that the concept is poorly defined and the American conception of "race" isn't really true. Other than the phenotypical differences between east asians, blacks, and red-haired whites; there is so much variance amongst the rest that there is hardly anything you could call a "race" if you mean a demonstrably different genetic phenotype.

If you think that the Netherlands is a white ethno-state, then I'm not sure what to tell you. It's not, not even close. Germany brought a million Syrians into its borders a few years ago. The only part of Europe that doesn't have large-scale immigration and white ethno-states is eastern Europe. Even Scandinavia has pretty large-scale immigration at this point, except for Finland (also not a part of Scandinavia really, but important to clarify). They need the people. If you've ever been to Oslo, it is very obvious why. The place is empty.

The US Border Patrol encountered over 100,000 attempted illegal crossings every month in 2021. It's estimated that each year somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people cross the border illegally without being caught or overstay their visa. There are nearly 50 million foreign born persons in the US total, about double the rate per capita of Europe.

Europe is on the same demographic trajectory - the current statistics put Europe where the US was in the 1990s. Focusing on unions as an example, since the 1990s, the US has lost approximately half the union membership rate in the private sector. This is in part due to immigration and in part due to offshoring, both mechanisms serve to weaken the power of the domestic worker.

You may be right that "race" isn't perfectly well defined, but socially and culturally it does exist and it plays a role in how people act. For example, even in highly diverse and progressive places you find clear racially segregated patterns of residence, with major downstream effects in areas like education, employment and healthcare. This is true in both the US and Europe. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that phenomenon.

There are two different things and one is used to silence the other. You have social policies and economic policies. The economic policies are devoutly conservative / corporatist and have been since Reagan. This is generally known as neoliberalsm. Both parties bow to the alter of conservative economic policies because they are both paid to do just that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Now, the socialist policies, that's where the magic happens. If you can get the people to constantly bicker at each other about intentionally vague and ill defined social issues, well then you've succeeded in having them not talk about the economic policies and the status quo remains in place for the people who want it to remain in place. These are generally known as the culture wars. See you can't really make laws about social issues that do a whole lot, but you can sure make laws about economic ones: NAFTA, trade deals, government contracts, minimum wealth requirements, minimum wage laws, union laws, regulatory direction and funding, tax policy, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war

Economic policies that are good for the citizenry will alleviate most of the social problems we've been trained to focus on, but we can't take our eyes off the social bickering enough to actually make our lives economically better.

To be fair to libertarian types (conservative isn't all that Liberal these days...), the critique of progressive ideas is that they never reach their real benefits and instead get sidetracked (corrupted), but not before concentrating power among the elites again.

Point being, this post seems to be describing that outcome.

which, in my eyes, is a conservative view. Why even try to change the system if it just corrupts itself again? wink wink The Atlantic is a "liberal" rag because they talk about the culture wars... but changing the system? Oh, impossible. We'll just hang here on the cross, unable to change our fate. Those meanie conservatives just won't go to heaven, the meek will inherit the earth!

Nothing about this story seems odd to you? The focus on American cultural events, big corporations, billionaires? Literally none of those things matters, even if it is popular here to identify with them. A better article would just be a chart of the gini coefficient over the last sixty years.

Give away?

Use the right word: steal.