31–40 of 154 posts
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 hal…
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,…
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
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,…
You can have your own opinion and think it's failling, or you can see the results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US has about 60x the population of Finland, so on a per capita basis the situation (sans programme) seems comparable.
Correct, and generally speaking, economic of scale should apply to social sector programs. In theory, it should be 60x easier for the US to house everyone, simply because we have more resources to aggregate. Even when you compare per capita GDP, Finland's doing it with $50k, while the US is at $62.5k.
People always like to rush to talk about economies of scale, completely forgetting that diseconomies of scale are also a thing.
(And even that's all assuming that you think Finland's demographics are comparable to the US's and that causes of homelessness and poverty in Finland are representative of the causes of homelessness and poverty in the US.)
"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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct, and generally speaking, economic of scale should apply to social sector programs. In theory, it should be 60x easier for the US to house everyone, simply because we have more resources to aggregate. Even when you compare per capita GDP, Finland's doing it with $50k, while the US is at $62.5k.
Is the US in fact spending less money on homelessness, though? My guess would be that it's spending a comparable amount on a per-person basis.
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 hal…
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.
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 hal…
The US also has 60x as many people. 327/5,5*(4600+1900) = ~386.000 (at 1 person/home)
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.
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,…
> 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.
I know a guy who recently sold his old house and bought a new one, but because of some confusion, ended up not having a home for two weeks. It would seem odd to call him homeless.