71–80 of 154 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Bad analogy. If the fins were actively rounding up homeless and forcing them into shelters, or disposing of them, then you'd have a case.
For some perspective: 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…
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.
For some perspective: 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…
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.
For some perspective: 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…
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 w…
For some perspective: 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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It still amazes me that we closed down virtually all mental istitutions in the US, and then we’re surprised to see mentally ill people struggling on the streets? According to research almost half of the homeless have a mental illness, with about 25% having a very serious one[1]. If you’ve ever been walking down SF you know exactly who that 25% is. They’re on the street and they need an institution not a needle exchan…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you adding the 4600 and the 1900 together? Those 4600 have been homed.
Homed by a process that the United States also doesn't have and would need. It would be dishonest to compare the rates without including the cases that Finland has already solved through a similar (but not as far reaching) program.
No, I think it's perfectly honest to compare the rates of homelessness in a country that has worked to improve the situation versus a country that continues to let people die in the streets. It seems far more dishonest to compare the rates before the work was done, considering that work was done to reduce the problem. The reason that the US now has a roughly 5x rate of homelessness (and, let's face it, growing) vs a roughly 1.3x rate of homelessness is because the United States has no interest in fixing the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
A great deal of spending in the US suffers the problem of direct versus some form of market disintermediation. So, instead of just building houses for people, we funnel it through myriad private or semi-private bureaucracies and suffer their corruption and graft.
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.
If you assumed a similar per capita tax rate, but more government is required to deploy the taxes in a larger nation, the larger nation would presumably end up with less money deployed per capita.
Of course I am neither a social scientist, economist or political scientist.