To help contextualize this so I understand the situation better, can someone compare and contrast what treatment for debilitating mental health issues such as schizophrenia looks like in Finland vs. the US?
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.
They never had Reagan, so they still treat mental illness there.
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.
Finland is the only country in the EU that has figured out that people need to fulfill the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy first before starting on the higher levels? Are you fucking kidding me? A college student could come up with this plan. Why isn't everyone doing it? Oh yes, I forgot about the part where it's necessary for society and government to be cruel to the homeless to demonstrate to everyone else that ... blah blah something or other stupid argument from cruel, heartless, unempathetic assholes goes here.
I recently, with work, did a tour around Eindhoven (the Netherlands) together with Homeless people. I learned that one never has to be homeless in that city, there are many locations to get food, shelter and help. The homeless people on the streets have such severe ADHD that sleeping halls stress them out, or they have other mental issues, can't deal with authority, have a severe lack of trust or fear for the healthcare system, etc. It is impossible for a healthy mind to stay homeless (unless by choice).
From what I heard from a homeless person is, that the problem with the sleeping halls are other homeless people.
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.
>>The country applies the “Housing First” concept.
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.
The headline is factually wrong. The truth is that Finland has reduced the population of homeless by 35% over ten years[1].
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".
Logically, your argument is baffling on its face: homelessness is literally the condition of not having a home. Giving someone a home literally solves the problem.
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.
While homelessness might be in decline and shelters have more capacity, you can still find people sleeping on the floors of public pay-per-use toilets in Finland. So no, homelessness is not ended and probably never will be.
There is temporary homeless. Some people may not be seeking home. People still drunk or under influence of drugs you may be denied access to temporary shelters and don't want to go into those who let them in because they are full of drunks and people out of their mind (hard to sleep).
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.
I'd be interested in having some stats about why people live outside alone. I think that there are some that have decided to quit normal life for emotional reasons and that they do not want shelter or a way back (probably after too many disappointments or traumas).
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.
It is still not a good thing but is it possible or likely that many you witness are "capsule hoteling"? As in they have an actual home but are too smashed to make it home/others would be more pissed at them arriving drunk than the next day dissheveled and hung-over.
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.
In NL we already have almost none for a long time (esp compared to, say, 20-25 years ago) but eradicating is hard mostly because of mental illness (often made worse by substance abuse). People with state appointed houses and psychiatric help just ‘escape’ (they are free to walk off anyway) because they cannot cope. I know people who were homeless when I was a student and who are happily living in those houses with help now (some now have families) and others who are still roaming the streets because they cannot be (mentally) in a controlled situation.
What a ridiculous headline indeed. Yes, homelessness is under control and declining compared to 1990s, among other thanks to free harm reduction based housing for drug users (read: free housing for drug users and drunks in municipal facility where using drugs and drinking is not forbidden.)
But it's not gone. Homelessness is not really possible to solve definitely.
even if the state gave everyone a free home, a lot of people would still be homeless due to mental illness, not being used to managing "normal" life etc. etc.
Lol and polio and measles will never be eradicated either because we still have cases. oh wait there's a reason why they haven't been eradicated hmmmmm.
I take issue with the practice of labeling everyone on the street as "homeless", because the truth is that there are many different causes:
* 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.
> 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 both as "carless"?
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.
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!
Isn't that like saying we should stop calling people "ill" because there are multiple kinds of illness? I think you're just offended by the term and as such want to stop using it to describe people, instead of seeing it as a descriptor of a problem that needs solving.
I understand your point about labeling individuals affected by a wide variety of circumstances. I think this is a case of applying a group term in order to make informed decisions in order to aid people in need of a place to live.
>Does that mean that it's valid to label us both as "carless"?
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 think a big issue is that the condition of being homeless, in and of itself, leads to further issues. For a start, having zero time to spend on dealing with any of these other issues, but also things like difficulty being to get a bank account.
We should treat this symptom which has multiple causes, because it causes further problems, and is relatively easily treated.
You'd be surprised how many "diseases" can be treated with the same cure. Mental health issues of all kinds, obesity, heart disease, Alzheimers, and diabetes can all be treated/prevented with exercise and a good diet. At a certain point you have to wonder if a disease is a disease or if it's just what happens when you throw a bunch of explosive wrenches into the complex human machine
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.
But isn't the US hegemony all about dictating global markets, ect. ? So whilst the US might be ensuring other nation's security, it is also ensuring that the markets are in its desired condition. This modus operandi, I suppose, means that the US homeless will suffer more, as those desired conditions are desired by the people who are able to control the military decisions, and not the homeless, who would most likely want cheaper health care & housing.
That is not correct. The Finnish military budget is 3.2 billion Euros ($3.6B). On top of that, Finland has a universal male conscription, costs of which are not included. (I.e. the opportunity cost of being in the army)
> "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."
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.
The only perspective this gives is perspective into your personal worldview. Why wouldn't you use % of total spending or frame it relative to national gdp if you were trying to make a meaningful comparison between the two countries?
Oregon's budget for retired state employees: $100 Billion
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.
Assuming, of course, that if Finland had to provide for its own defense (rather than relying on us), they would still have money left over for social programs.
"Those affected by homelessness receive a small apartment and counselling – without any preconditions."
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?
Freaking hell, "Sorry, you'll have to sleep outside, I can't let you sleep in this warm house and bed, because it wouldn't be fair to others.".
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.
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.
So would you say you're happy & satisfied to live in a society where people must work under threat of dying in the streets? Try to imagine a better world. People should work because they choose to, not at gunpoint.
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?
Your premise is incorrect: it originated in the US and is the single most effective, lowest cost method we have to address homelessness[1].
It is, in fact, cheaper than shelter [2].
"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.
They're different because they have compassion and empathy? Yeah we could have that too if this toxic, hateful, cruel attitude you describe didn't exist.
maxharris|6 years ago
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.
svantana|6 years ago
gamblor956|6 years ago
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.
JanSt|6 years ago
327/5,5*(4600+1900) = ~386.000
(at 1 person/home)
duiker101|6 years ago
MuffinFlavored|6 years ago
mnm1|6 years ago
teekert|6 years ago
yokaze|6 years ago
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.
collyw|6 years ago
CryptoPunk|6 years ago
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.
JordanFarmer|6 years ago
distances|6 years ago
gridlockd|6 years ago
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".
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle...
splitrocket|6 years ago
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First#Evidence_and_out...
unknown|6 years ago
[deleted]
metalrain|6 years ago
dang|6 years ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
nabla9|6 years ago
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.
agumonkey|6 years ago
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.
Nasrudith|6 years ago
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.
tluyben2|6 years ago
vesinisa|6 years ago
But it's not gone. Homelessness is not really possible to solve definitely.
onetimemanytime|6 years ago
throwlaplace|6 years ago
maxharris|6 years ago
* 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.
me_me_me|6 years ago
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.
ixtli|6 years ago
StavrosK|6 years ago
rwem|6 years ago
That's pretty much the opposite of the "housing first" approach.
jallasprit|6 years ago
grawprog|6 years ago
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.
nicoburns|6 years ago
We should treat this symptom which has multiple causes, because it causes further problems, and is relatively easily treated.
armonge|6 years ago
SilasX|6 years ago
unknown|6 years ago
[deleted]
okay_okay_|6 years ago
at-fates-hands|6 years ago
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.
ASlave2Gravity|6 years ago
tlaturi|6 years ago
Source: https://www.defmin.fi/files/4804/Puolustusministerion_hallin...
ThrowawayR2|6 years ago
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.
s_y_n_t_a_x|6 years ago
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.
727262826hdhd|6 years ago
34679|6 years ago
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.
commandlinefan|6 years ago
Bostonian|6 years ago
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?
netsharc|6 years ago
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.
retrac|6 years ago
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.
ahelwer|6 years ago
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?
splitrocket|6 years ago
It is, in fact, cheaper than shelter [2].
"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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First#Evidence_and_out... [2] https://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/resources/lessons/...
mnm1|6 years ago
geofft|6 years ago