In 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.
Probably close to zero people want to be homeless per se.
What happens is that people are unwilling or unable to accept the terms of housing offered, like for example strict sobriety, or not allowing pets. Family housing is also rare, and I don't think it's fair to say someone choosing to be homeless with their spouse over housed separately miles away from each other "wants to be homeless."
If people are consistently declining the aid we're offering, that's a problem we can address. It is our fault, not theirs.
Worth 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.…
Romania has very similar ethnically homogenous population at 89.3% [1] and I can definitely say that this factor does not directly lead to a high trust society. I suspect there are quite a few other countries with similar makeups that don't result in outcomes similar to Finland/Japan.
Worth 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.…
Finland was traditionally a very homogeneous society, and immigration before ~1990 was negligible. But then there was a burst of immigration from the former USSR and Somalia, followed by a gradual increase over the decades. And in 2023 (and likely in 2024), net immigration was >1% of the population and exceeded births.
Note this is a country where you cannot survive without shelter for most of the year. It's much "easier" to remain unhoused somewhere like California.
There used to be homeless alcoholics living in shacks and WW1 bunkers in the forests around Helsinki. Many (most?) of them were WW2 veterans. Older kids still told stories about them in the 80s, but most of them had actually died or found shelter by then.
In 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.
So we build semi-automomous free zones, where the infrastructure is essentialy indistructable,anyone can get a lockable secure space, and the violent sociopaths, are picked off.
Facets from other proven models could include, a work for drunks program, like in some german areas, they get to clean the streets they hang out
on, and are a sort of invisible "watch".
Free "heroine" , for any and all who check into
a controlled access facility.
The real ferrals are just a fact, but are very easy to spot so the threat level is lower, but as they dont have adequate shelter, see point #1, they congregate in more southerly areas, and or, get into trouble trying to survive in northern areas.
I have lived on the edge, for most of my life, seen a lot of wild things, in a lot of different places, and the story is that people just want to be seen and accepted, there, in the moment.
Those moments are impossible to predict or create
with any kind of predictability or repeatability.
All ww can do is build the places, where that can happen, or not, and its "even", everybody can walk away, If nothing works, then there is the road,
and that needs to be ok, and no one is a "vagrant"
as they got a place to go.
nobody is stuck.
Worth 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.…
No idea how it's relevant. For example in USA, I bet the overwhelming majority of homeless are citizens born in USA, not immigrants.
In my central European country with high ethnic homogenity the unhoused are also stemming from majority population. There is a Roma minority who are often struggling with poverty but are rarely unhoused.
Worth 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]
> you are getting downvoted
"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
In 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.
> Both groups have people who want to be homeless, so they can be left alone
Note this is a country where you cannot survive without shelter for most of the year. It's much "easier" to remain unhoused somewhere like California.
The winter climate is comparable to, even milder than, large parts of the US including large cities like Boston, Chicago, Minneapolis that have significant homeless populations.
Homeless people are not necessarily completely shelterless, in a survival sense. They're associated with tents for a reason.