81–90 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.
I don’t see the connection. What is the point you are trying to make here?
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". [1] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle...
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/…
>Finland ends homelessness and provides shelter for all in need
Which is needlessly hyperbolic and tabloidy, and even belied by the very first sentence in the article.
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.
It sounds like some institutions were closed after that movement got going, so I wouldn’t be surprised if institutions were closed under the Regan administration, but I think the decline in public mental institutions preceded his administration and was largely unrelated to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Yeah, but only because we needed the oil. But now that we're a net exporter, no need to be abroad
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You'd be surprised at how many of the homeless are veterans with PTSD.
"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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can have your own opinion and think it's failling, or you can see the results.
every time there's a hopeful article about a progressive policy on hn there's some kind of backwards libertarian hottake in the comments. it's simultaneously offensive and demoralizing. the finnish program (according to the article) has been running since 2008. do you really think your hottake (op to whom you responded) is a novel insight? that you in the 30s of writing that comment cut to the core flaw of the progra…
Finland doesn't have an open immigration policy. In fact it's citizen oppose immigration because they wish to preserve what is Finish. Finland is not more progressive in this regard.
Now we can start to understand how Finland could end homelessness. With a free immigration policy this would be more difficult both culturally and in terms of costs.
How does Finland get it's wealth? Through clean energy progressive solar or windpower? No through oil. Adding to the global carbon output daily.
When we peel the layers we realize we are comparing apples to oranges.
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.
We've replaced the baity headline with the less baity headline, in accordance with the HN guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
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". [1] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle...
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/…
That's not to say that literally giving people houses isn't a good idea, and won't solve some chunk of the issues of homelessness. But, for instance, if I was sleeping in my broken down car on the street near my work, and you gave me a free house on the other side of town, I'm not "homeless" now, but it now introduces new problems of how I get to work across town.
Giving someone something they lack in life is a lot like giving someone a organ transplant. Hypothetically, we could "cure" a lot of liver diseases by giving everyone a "new" liver, but we have to get that liver from somewhere, and the recipient has to be able to integrate it into their life without it being rejected, and they have to not keep doing the things that led to them having the problem in the first place or else it all repeats in a few years.
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…
Source: https://www.defmin.fi/files/4804/Puolustusministerion_hallin...