I have a cousin from a wealthy family who chooses to be homeless. He can’t be committed against his will and he doesn’t want the responsibility of just having a room in his parents house or with relatives.
A lot of people have this idea that housing everyone will fix the people who just aren’t gonna do it without it being forced on them
One of the biggest issues when talking about homelessness is conflating the two different groups - people who are homeless through unfortunate circumstances, and people who are incapable of living in society. One side thinks all homeless are the former group, the other side thinks all homeless are the latter group. Truth is, both exist. You can’t take a schizophrenic drug addict, throw them in a house, and then declare victory. However, there ARE some homeless for whom that’s all they need.
Ending homelessness requires a granular, personal approach. And that shit is EXPENSIVE.
Simply putting the subset of homeless who can’t live in society into a house or apartment will not substantially reduce the need for police, medics or sanitation.
Yes you did. I wasn’t trying to argue with you. Solutions are complicated. And Americans already pay too much for everything. Lots of people are barely not homeless.
“If everyone would just vote for honest politicians”
“If everyone would just be faithful to their partners”
“If everyone would just trust scientific medicine”
“If everyone would just put people first instead of profits”
“If everyone would just not abuse children”
No. Sure, you’ll never get everyone doing a good thing, but it’s useless to give up entirely on society/community as a whole doing things right. Imagine if 90% of families abused children on a regular basis, and you don’t even hope for those families to change, you just plan on government alternatives?
What?! No, I’m advocating for change. You can go and do the change, since I’m not there. Go and do it, and I’ll do change where I am here.
Or is your strategy hopes and prayers for government instead? You should make tiktoks praising Bernie. And post on Lemmy your preferred government plan. That will definitely do practical help.
You’re just wrong. No granular approach is needed. It’s not complicated at all.
Offer people housing without conditions and people do take it. Finland did this and it eliminated homelessness there.
The cousin from a rich family “choosing” to be homeless over living with family is likely “choosing” that option because he doesn’t want to take harsh psychiatric medications, have a curfew of 9 PM in his 20s, and be criticized for going out to socialize. It’s likely the “choice” involves a rejection of extremely oppressive rules and he doesn’t have decent options.
You can actually take a schizophrenic drug addict, throw them in a house, and then declare victory. Often that type of person chooses voluntarily to deal with some issues once housed. What you can’t do is take a schizophrenic drug addict and offer housing contingent upon really harsh anti-psychotics and weekly drug testing plus loss of housing if they don’t comply, administered by extremely expensive social workers who end up feeling like police. That is also what makes traditional programs so expensive.
I often think people who think homelessness is a complex nuanced issue just want there to be homelessness or buy into upper class lies justifying homelessness which keep the lower classes fearful and obedient.
New statistics from the Finnish government body ARA show 3,806 people are now experiencing homelessness in Finland. That’s an increase of 377 people in 2024 compared to the previous year, bringing an end to 11 consecutive years of declining numbers.
This article talks at length about the cause of this rise being increasing economic stress / government cuts and the affordable housing system not having been adjusted to meet the rising demand. Literally it points to a Housing First program under-powered relative to economic needs as the reason for the rise. I don’t know if I necessarily agree with the person you’re replying to but this article strongly supports their argument.
Sure, but they said they “eliminated” homelessness. I would say “addressed it effectively”, but not eliminated. Kind of similar to how measles hasn’t been eliminated but it’s essentially handled.
I have a cousin from a wealthy family who chooses to be homeless. He can’t be committed against his will and he doesn’t want the responsibility of just having a room in his parents house or with relatives.
A lot of people have this idea that housing everyone will fix the people who just aren’t gonna do it without it being forced on them
One of the biggest issues when talking about homelessness is conflating the two different groups - people who are homeless through unfortunate circumstances, and people who are incapable of living in society. One side thinks all homeless are the former group, the other side thinks all homeless are the latter group. Truth is, both exist. You can’t take a schizophrenic drug addict, throw them in a house, and then declare victory. However, there ARE some homeless for whom that’s all they need.
Ending homelessness requires a granular, personal approach. And that shit is EXPENSIVE.
But generally less expensive than letting the problem fester. Police, medics, sanitation, and so on is expensive as hell.
People are notoriously bad at comparing a single large dollar amount with a large number of smaller dollar amounts.
Simply putting the subset of homeless who can’t live in society into a house or apartment will not substantially reduce the need for police, medics or sanitation.
Yes, which is why I quoted this text instead of “just house everyone”
Yes you did. I wasn’t trying to argue with you. Solutions are complicated. And Americans already pay too much for everything. Lots of people are barely not homeless.
Or takes all of society to get involved, rather than outsourcing it to government via taxes.
Anything that starts with “if everyone would just…” can pretty much be immediately dismissed.
“If everyone would just stop being racist”
“If everyone would just vote for honest politicians”
“If everyone would just be faithful to their partners”
“If everyone would just trust scientific medicine”
“If everyone would just put people first instead of profits”
“If everyone would just not abuse children”
No. Sure, you’ll never get everyone doing a good thing, but it’s useless to give up entirely on society/community as a whole doing things right. Imagine if 90% of families abused children on a regular basis, and you don’t even hope for those families to change, you just plan on government alternatives?
You are literally advocating for thoughts and prayers instead of fixing the problem.
What?! No, I’m advocating for change. You can go and do the change, since I’m not there. Go and do it, and I’ll do change where I am here.
Or is your strategy hopes and prayers for government instead? You should make tiktoks praising Bernie. And post on Lemmy your preferred government plan. That will definitely do practical help.
Then that’s not an “if everyone would just…” strategy.
Indeed
You’re just wrong. No granular approach is needed. It’s not complicated at all.
Offer people housing without conditions and people do take it. Finland did this and it eliminated homelessness there.
The cousin from a rich family “choosing” to be homeless over living with family is likely “choosing” that option because he doesn’t want to take harsh psychiatric medications, have a curfew of 9 PM in his 20s, and be criticized for going out to socialize. It’s likely the “choice” involves a rejection of extremely oppressive rules and he doesn’t have decent options.
You can actually take a schizophrenic drug addict, throw them in a house, and then declare victory. Often that type of person chooses voluntarily to deal with some issues once housed. What you can’t do is take a schizophrenic drug addict and offer housing contingent upon really harsh anti-psychotics and weekly drug testing plus loss of housing if they don’t comply, administered by extremely expensive social workers who end up feeling like police. That is also what makes traditional programs so expensive.
I often think people who think homelessness is a complex nuanced issue just want there to be homelessness or buy into upper class lies justifying homelessness which keep the lower classes fearful and obedient.
https://www.bigissue.com/news/housing/homelessness-finland-rough-sleeping/
New statistics from the Finnish government body ARA show 3,806 people are now experiencing homelessness in Finland. That’s an increase of 377 people in 2024 compared to the previous year, bringing an end to 11 consecutive years of declining numbers.
This article talks at length about the cause of this rise being increasing economic stress / government cuts and the affordable housing system not having been adjusted to meet the rising demand. Literally it points to a Housing First program under-powered relative to economic needs as the reason for the rise. I don’t know if I necessarily agree with the person you’re replying to but this article strongly supports their argument.
Sure, but they said they “eliminated” homelessness. I would say “addressed it effectively”, but not eliminated. Kind of similar to how measles hasn’t been eliminated but it’s essentially handled.
This is the most naive, ridiculous, privileged bullshit I’ve ever read. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/02/how-finland-solved-homelessness/
May science have no mercy on your ignorance.
Is the goal here to provide everyone with access to a home or to force everyone into a home?
A given % of the homeless are capable of finding housing and actively avoid it. That number is not 100%, but it is not 0% either.