Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)
oecdecoscope.blog
Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)
1–10 of 660 posts
Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)
#2[deleted]
Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)
#3> In the United Kingdom, for instance, people who had been living on the streets or in shelters were housed in individual accommodations in a matter of days.
So it was always possible. We just didn’t care to do so.
Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)
#4Worth pointing out that Finland is one of the most ethnically homogeneous societies in Europe - only ~10% of the population is of foreign origin and background [1]. So, like Japan, it's easier to have a high-trust society if you eschew immigration.
Edit: Just to be clear, I'm very pro-immigration. I just think that studying rich homogeneous societies doesn't result in many useful takeaways for countries like the USA.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Finland#:~:tex....
Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)
#5Worth pointing out that Finland is one of the most ethnically homogeneous societies in Europe - only ~10% of the population is of foreign origin and background [1]. So, like Japan, it's easier to have a high-trust society if you eschew immigration. Edit: Just to be clear, I'm very pro-immigration. I just think that studying rich homogeneous societies doesn't result in many useful takeaways for countries like the USA.…
[flagged]
Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)
#6In the article, I did not see anything about mental illness or addicts. How did FI solve for those people?
Both groups have people who want to be homeless, so they can be left alone.
Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)
#7Worth pointing out that Finland is one of the most ethnically homogeneous societies in Europe - only ~10% of the population is of foreign origin and background [1]. So, like Japan, it's easier to have a high-trust society if you eschew immigration. Edit: Just to be clear, I'm very pro-immigration. I just think that studying rich homogeneous societies doesn't result in many useful takeaways for countries like the USA.…
Controversial, but worth considering. I believe societies have different capacities for assimilation (changing immigrants) and appropriation (changing themselves), with the hallmark of any era's great societies being their ability to maximise both.
That said, the evidence is mixed [1], with fairness and economic inequality [2][3] seeming to matter more than racial homogeneity. (Lots of tiny, racially-homogenous societies–high trust or not–bordering each other also have a one-way historical track record.)
[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000169931772161...
Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)
#8The US chooses not to end homelessness. We have the highest GDP in the world. We could end it if we wanted to.
I was in Japan recently. A choice was made there as well.
Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)
#9Worth pointing out that Finland is one of the most ethnically homogeneous societies in Europe - only ~10% of the population is of foreign origin and background [1]. So, like Japan, it's easier to have a high-trust society if you eschew immigration. Edit: Just to be clear, I'm very pro-immigration. I just think that studying rich homogeneous societies doesn't result in many useful takeaways for countries like the USA.…
i think you've got it backwards- the xenophobia of so called 'high trust' bigots are holding back the global society of our future, and their low homelessness is in reality an unfair burden on other more troubled countries
Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)
#10Worth pointing out that Finland is one of the most ethnically homogeneous societies in Europe - only ~10% of the population is of foreign origin and background [1]. So, like Japan, it's easier to have a high-trust society if you eschew immigration. Edit: Just to be clear, I'm very pro-immigration. I just think that studying rich homogeneous societies doesn't result in many useful takeaways for countries like the USA.…
Controversial, but worth considering. I believe societies have different capacities for assimilation (changing immigrants) and appropriation (changing themselves), with the hallmark of any era's great societies being their ability to maximise both. That said, the evidence is mixed [1], with fairness and economic inequality [2][3] seeming to matter more than racial homogeneity. (Lots of tiny, racially-homogenous socie…
A very often ignored fact is the cultural homogeneity. I do not thing racial homogeneity is of any benefit whatsoever, but I do believe that cultural is.
When someone raised in a culture where cheating to win by any means is acceptable (most of India) or where bartering, persuading and microfrauding in trade (most of Middle east and sup-sahara Africa) is not frowned upon, it is not a stretch to imagine that the introduction of such cultural elements will lead to dilution of the overall interpersonal trust in let's say, Swedish society.