Without digging too deep into the nature of the statistics they use, I'm a little skeptical of this.
The transition to using the word "homeless" has resulted in transforming something we can't easily measure -- "drug addicted or mentally ill people being a public menace" -- into something that we can measure -- "people without a good living arrangement".
Sure, the latter is important in a lot of ways too. And there housing is a tolerable solution.
But the former is the actual problem that we care about. It's nearly impossible to measure. It's nearly impossible to fix. The horrors of involuntary commitment vs. the horrors of not having involuntary commitment vs. the horrors of using the criminal justice system vs. the horrors of not using the criminal justice system.
The fact is that we have no real model for treatment of severely mentally ill people. We have a number of effective drugs, but they rapidly become ineffective if not taken. Our ability to treat or "cure" people in these conditions is essentially non-existent.
The question I would ask of Finland before considering this data or analysis to be interesting is what is their state of involuntary indefinite commitment.
My understanding is that Northern Europe has a much more robust system of using Long Acting Injectable Antipsychotics (under court order if nessecary) and various group home options or Assertive Community Treatment teams that have nurses visit patients daily. They are also quicker to use lithium and clozapine when indicated. They also do much longer hospital stays when needed than our revolving door policies here. Also they don't have meth and fentanyl epidemics yet.
We know that the longer psychosis goes untreated/the more times someone goes off the meds, the harder it is to treat, and that what happens in the first few years of someone developing a psychotic disorder makes a huge difference in long term outcomes.
An American might develop psychosis in their mid 20s, end up committed for a few weeks and placed on antipsychotic pills until they're no longer floridly psychotic, and then go home, not follow up with doctors/refill meds, and end up on a cycle of this with more and more brittle symptoms until they're homeless and have no real chance of recovery.
The same person in Northern Europe would likely be hospitalized for longer initially, started on an injectable that only needs to be given once a month, and they leave the hospital with fewer residual symptoms. They're then followed by an ACT team with a nurse visiting to check on them and make sure they're eating and keeping housing, and ensuring that shot goes in their arm every month. They don't necessarily fully recover, but a lot of them end up being able to do some kind of schooling/employment/volunteering and they are either stable enough to keep housing without being evicted for disruption, or are shuffled into staffed group homes.
Do we have any numbers on the number of people that are in this system? I'm frankly curious if the numbers in the original article can effectively be completely explained by this system rather than the policies listed in the article.
In the US the system broke down in the 50s and 60s and collapsed completely in the 70s and 80s due to bad treatment options and often very inhumane conditions and cases of misdiagnoses. The widespread misdiagnosis problem only stretched the system further and compounded the existing problems. I would be curious to see where Finland's trajectory in this regard lies.
being intractable, now it usually clears up in 15-30 minutes with benzodiazepine medication. In the 1950s we got the Phenothiazines which were the first hope for many patients, there has been a huge amount of progress since then and managing most of these people outside the hospital is possible. People also came to see involuntary commitment as immoral as described by Thomas Szasz, depicted by the movie "One Flew out of the Cuckoo's Nest" and shown by this experiment
The trouble isn't that we tore down the old system but that we didn't completely build a new system to replace it. There are deep issues involving people's agency. Right now we are in a society that thinks it is wrong to make people to take drugs they don't want to take, a different society (maybe even ours in N years) will think is it wrong to not make people take drugs for serious mental illness.
I was responding to the commenter above me discussing the phenomenon of mentally disturbed people sleeping rough and I think that's been a small phenomenon in Finland the entire time due to their different history with mental health, with economic homelessness being most of what they've reduced via housing first.
To clarify, I don't know much about Finnish mental health in particular as opposed to the general trends in Northern Europe.
Sleeping rough has always been rare in Finland for the simple reason that it gets down to -20 quite often in winter. Freezing to death is not an uncommon fate for alcoholics.
Psychiatry has some of the worst reproducability of any science. People who are forced to live on the streets without good access to services begin to exhibit symptoms of psychosis within one to two days and lose those symptoms after a similar duration of one or two days with housing.
In Europe such a policy might make sense, but in America where being dumped on the street is rather common the situation is different. Also, in America the general social situation is quite different from life in Finland.
> Psychiatry has some of the worst reproducability of any science. People who are forced to live on the streets without good access to services begin to exhibit symptoms of psychosis within one to two days and lose those symptoms after a similar duration of one or two days with housing.
Is this a studied phenomenon I can read about? I'd appreciate any literature suggestions if you have them.
Have you ever considered that it may be the other way around? That the horrors of living on the street (and "horrors" is an appropriate term here, you are fighting for survival every day; it is beyond the realm of comprehension of the housed) might be causing the mental illness and drug use, rather than the other way around?
If I want to get a homeless person off of drugs, it sure as crisps is not going to happen until they have a roof over their head. The core issue is the lack of affordable housing. That should be priority number 1.
I'm happy to read evidence I'm wrong (I want to be wrong - it would make me much more optimistic about a fix), but my own life and everything I've read suggests the opposite - once someone develops a serious drug or alcohol addiction it leads to them destroying everything good in their lives and inevitably they either sober up or end up homeless. Nearly all of the people who stay homeless in the long term have some severe mental illness (including addiction). Short of an involuntary commitment which is its own kind of hell, helping these people is incredibly difficult.
I have multiple family members who fit this pattern and it's absolutely godawful. The addiction literally rules them. They will perpetually ask for money for "needs" then spend it on drugs. If another family member houses them, they will sneakily maintain their addiction and steal from family to support it when necessary. If you offer them housing on condition of getting sober, they will choose addiction and homelessness. If you offer them housing without condition, they will use it to stay an addict in perpetuity, who everyone else is paying for. I don't think this last is a remotely viable solution with the number of addicts out there, which is only growing.
I'm not saying this to condemn addicts/mentally ill people. I just want to give an idea of just how hard this problem is to fix.
> Nearly all of the people who stay homeless in the long term have some severe mental illness (including addiction)
The problem is that people can end up homeless for all sorts of reasons, and even if that reason is some sort of mental illness, being homeless is an often-traumatic experience that easily exacerbates and worsens a person's mental condition.
There was a period of my life where I slept rough (long story) and I can personally confirm that a lack of sleep security (not to mention "stuff security", the fear of having my meager possessions stolen) will start someone on the path to mental illness; some amount of paranoia and mental fog seems almost inevitable in those conditions.
A stable environment is certainly going to dramatically increase the chance of overcoming an addiction. It obviously does not guarantee success but it's a crucial first step in the process. As pointed out in the article the housing first approach is actually saving money in the long run by reducing subsequent costs incurred by social services, so the "everyone else is paying for their addiction" argument does not really work – there are going to be costs either way, and an addict who has a home is easier and cheaper to care for than one who is roaming the streets.
In fact, that's one thing the article talks about. Finland's successful plan focuses on 'housing first'.
"Finland’s success is not a matter of luck or the outcome of “quick fixes.” Rather, it is the result of a sustained, well-resourced national strategy, driven by a “Housing First” approach, which provides people experiencing homelessness with immediate, independent, permanent housing, rather than temporary accommodation (OECD, 2020)"
You're assuming others share your perspective and understanding.
> The transition to using the word "homeless" has resulted in transforming something we can't easily measure -- "drug addicted or mentally ill people being a public menace" -- into something that we can measure -- "people without a good living arrangement".
> the former is the actual problem that we care about
The word homeless is pretty old, not something people have 'tranistioned' to any time recently.
I haven't seen anyone trying use 'homeless' as a euphemism; they are actually concerned about people without housing. That is the big problem.
You apparently believe "drug addicted or mentally ill people being a public menace" is a comparable problem, but your comment is the first time I've heard that. Nobody is conspiring to hide it; they just don't think about it like you do.
I spend a lot of time in cities and know others who do too. None feel menaced by people who are unhoused - why would that be menacing? - or high. High people generally don't know you are there, and are easily avoided. I've had zero problems; I don't know of anyone else who has.
Also, the subtext is about eroding human rights. You have no more rights than a homeless or high person. Feeling 'menaced' is not sufficient to compromise someone's freedom. That's what freedom means - of course people can always do things that others don't mind; freedom means doing things other people don't like. I find your comment menacing; who decides who gets locked up?
> I spend a lot of time in cities and know others who do too. None feel menaced by people who are unhoused - why would that be menacing? - or high. High people generally don't know you are there, and are easily avoided. I've had zero problems; I don't know of anyone else who has
This is completely detached from reality. I find it hard to believe you are being truthful unless you're doing some sort of gotcha where you carry a gun or are some sort of jiu-jitsu master. Here's an example of people being afraid of the homeless and another of drug addicts, just from last year in NYC but there's thousands of examples.
- Business owners and residents along Midtown Manhattan’s “Strip of Despair” are so frequently robbed and harassed by drug-addled “psychopaths” that they’ve stopped trying to resist — or even bother calling the cops for help. https://nypost.com/2024/06/17/us-news/horror-stories-from-ny...
I don't mean to say with this that ALL of them are dangerous, but you trying to portray that you never even heard of someone being afraid of homeless or drug addicts and the trouble they sometimes create is like saying you don't know which color the sky is. Like you honestly never seen an aggressive person who is high?
Anyway if not, I can tell you I've had a drunk homeless guy throw a bottle at me for no reason other than walking home. The next day I talked to him and now I know Cyril, my local homeless drunk and high Russian guy, and sometimes give him socks, but even he admits that when he drinks and huffs nitrous he gets a bit crazy.
> I spend a lot of time in cities and know others who do too. None feel menaced by people who are unhoused - why would that be menacing? - or high. High people generally don't know you are there, and are easily avoided. I've had zero problems; I don't know of anyone else who has.
"Nothing ever happens" says person nothing happened to. Meanwhile, these are just some examples that made the news:
* https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67386865 "A suspect has been arrested two days after former US Senator Martha McSally reported being sexually assaulted while on a run in Iowa [...] The suspect, who is thought to be homeless,"
* https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41484206 "A "manipulative" homeless man who turned on a family who befriended him has admitted the "frenzied" murder of the mother and her 13-year-old son."
* https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/life-sentence-for-... "A severely mentally ill man was sentenced to life in prison on Friday for beheading a Hollywood screenwriter [...] a homeless former Marine described by his lawyer as "very, very mentally ill", pleaded guilty [...] in a crime without motive."
Fortunately I haven't witnessed any murders or rapes, but the most shocking for me was that I've visited Vancouver twice in my life, and on both visits, lone women walking down the street in broad daylight were chased after and opportunisticly molested by drunk vagrants hanging around on Robson Street. Broad daylight. They had absolutely no shame. And other than the molested women fighting them off and running away, nobody did or said anything.
Everyone has a right to walk about in public unmolested, and I would want the police to arrest those men and prosecute them for sexual assault.
You're delusional or misinformed if you think this doesn't happen. Of course it happens.
On the other hand, you can be molested or assaulted by drunk and beligerent homed people. And, more importantly, homeless people are much more at risk of assault or rape by the homed, than the homed are of being assaulted and raped by the homeless. For all the articles I linked above, they are dwarfed by news reports of homeless people being shot, beaten, stabbed, set on fire or raped.
So, overall, homeless people as a whole are neither saints nor devils. They are who they are, and each individual has a different situation. We should feel a lot of empathy for them, and want to help them into a less precarious position... but we also want to do it because we're mindful of the danger to the public that untreated mental illness poses.
I’m Finnish and I have a close family member with a severe mental illness, so I should be reasonably well positioned to answer your question. But it doesn’t make any sense to me.
How does any of this relate to homelessness?
To get people off the streets, you give them a place to live. Then you can start solving their other problems. It’s common sense.
No, there are not "a number of effective drugs." I interviewed 100 mental patients and the rare ones with hallucinations were not cured. Benzos help anxiety, SSRI don't do much, Cobenfy is promising. Involuntary commitment wouldn't be horrible if violating injections and ECT electrocution were voluntary.
People are on the street because they don't have homes. If they had homes, they would be less depressed, less drug addicted, and less destitute and less likely to cause public problems. So just give them homes.
A major upside: if you lose your job, you won't be at risk of becoming homeless! it would allow you to take a much stronger negotiating position with your boss. It would allow you to take a much stronger position with your landlord regarding rent increases too.
Finland has figured out a number of thing it seems other than homelessness.
Their education system is pretty interesting, and their policing system has some approaches to interacting with the community as well. If I can find the links I'll share.
Skepticism is fine, but it shouldn't be a reason to discount or dismiss something, nor does it mean to accept it. Take it in as a data point.
The Pandremix issue has lots of issues to fix as well that will probably never see the light of the day. Essentially those few hundred with Pandemrix-induced narcolepsy are now a permanently disabled minority without organized legal advocacy. The party-opposing party, that should not be opposing them, Pharmaceutical Injury Insurance Pool (LVP) has significant financial and legal resources. LVP has substantially broader access to archives and expert knowledge. The impaired functional capacity and financial position of those affected makes it difficult to advocate for their rights.
The state implemented the vaccination program and transferred responsibility to the insurance pool system with its own financial interests. The pool system determines assessment criteria and makes evaluations without external oversight. Initially, there was talk of "million-euro compensations." The government guaranteed to finance the remainder if pool funds were depleted.
Legal cases have been fought against LVP regarding time limits of confirmed cases. Compensations have remained a fraction of original expectations. Narcolepsy patients are too small a minority to influence Parliamentary politics or re-enter public discourse. This special group has been left alone to defend their rights within the pool system.
The compensations were based on Käypä Hoito Guidelines for accident injuries, which are unsuitable for narcolepsy: narcolepsy doesn't necessarily cause clear cognitive deficits despite its severity, and comparison to brain trauma is not medically possible. The drafters would probably agree if asked that it wasn't intended for this use. A person with narcolepsy can be formally capable of work, but this might consume all of their alert hours & energy, leaving nothing for actually having a life. The system may equate narcolepsy, in permanent damage, with injuries similar to a broken finger in workplace accidents, hence the permanent disability compensations are insufficient for dignified life.
The wage compensation issue is more significant. The determination basis for loss of earnings compensation is problematic as it's based on achieved education and work history, although the illness has impaired these opportunities. The same neurological illness produces different compensations depending on onset timing, as those with established careers may fare better than those who couldn't compete for university placement. This particularly affects those who became ill in childhood/youth, as it doesn't account for lost opportunities. In practice, even those from educated backgrounds with academic potential (e.g. top grades or plans for university before narcolepsy) may receive compensation based on average or low income.
Opportunity cost compensation appears unlikely. The state has not promoted reassessment of applicability of Käypä Hoito criteria.
There is insufficient monitoring of equality in compensation decisions and appeals, inadequate communication about compensations (the question whether all victims are even aware of their rights seems open), and questionable document management and decision-making transparency. LVP defines compensation terms, makes compensation decisions, and handles appeals, creating a conflict of interest as LVP has financial incentive for strict interpretation.
Permanent damage compensations are treated as earned income by Kela, requiring their use for basic living expenses, though they're meant as lifetime compensations for an incurable neurological illness.
(this is partly machine-translated from personal notes)
This issue is very relevant for me since I have been homeless since May. It's been a bad run of being a target of criminal activity, unemployment and just running out of money during my job search. I cope with a mix of volunteering, overpriced housing (think $1200/month for a room in a rural area before I ran out of money for that), catsitting, house-sitting, staying with family and sleeping in my ancient car. Although I'm a citizen I don't qualify for any government support or programs, even though we have employment insurance here which I paid into for years.
I'm from Ottawa where the cold is obviously deadly, as it is in Finland. I do feel that we need to take shelter more seriously in public policy compared to warm areas because of that. Last week someone froze to death overnight a few blocks away from where I was crashing on a couch with family. Walking through downtown Ottawa and seeing the huge empty, lit, warm buildings with people freezing to death right outside is striking. Any practically minded person can see the problem is political and philosophical, not practical.
I can tell all the posters who think people choose to be homeless that I'm certainly not one of them. The comments about the importance of avoiding a downward spiral are certainly correct. Searching for work is hard enough normally and becomes increasingly difficult without access to things like a kitchen and toilet.
What I see in this Finnish policy is the starting assumption that doing nothing is not a good option. After reaching that point there can a rational discussion about what to do with whatever money is being spent - do you pay more people to hand out blankets and conduct surveys or just use it to buy housing units? As a homeless person I would really like to see Canada have a policy like I'm reading in this article instead of what we are doing now. The crappy temporary shelters and bureaucratic spending strategy obviously isn't working.
Even just economically, to have a government pay for years of schooling and subsidize advanced degrees then just be ready to let that person die on the street when they are ready to work but can't happen to find something seems like a waste. I'd rather see a functioning "social safety net" as described in this article.
The housing situation in Canada is insane and is so obviously due to not building enough housing and bringing too many people into the country via immigration. The fact that it costs 1200$/month for a room in a rural area is incredibly damning.
I went to college in Ottawa, and now I live in Austin Texas. It's similar in size, although Austin has been growing more lately. Curiously, they are also both capitols, college towns and they have a river flowing through them.
A major difference is that Austin has a new development with 200-400 unites on every block it seems. Cranes are everywhere downtown, and even in random neighborhoods they have huge new developments. Ottawa has no shortage of land, there's a huge amount of available land to develop in either direction, but they evidently aren't building nearly as much.
The result? I'm looking at 2 bedroom apartments, and they are 1000$ cheaper than they were 3 years ago when I first moved here. Rent has gone down and continues to go down. I'm seeing studio apartments in the middle of the city renting out for 800$ now!
At least some of the difference is that building codes can be a lot more lax in Texas as compared to Canada. It rarely gets as cold, and certainly not for as long.
>and bringing too many people into the country via immigration.
In a functioning economy, more immigration will just result in more housing being built, as long as the immigrants are working. Especially since the cost of housing construction is largely the cost of labor. Immigration is a distraction from the core inability to build more housing.
> The result? I'm looking at 2 bedroom apartments, and they are 1000$ cheaper than they were 3 years ago when I first moved here. Rent has gone down and continues to go down. I'm seeing studio apartments in the middle of the city renting out for 800$ now!
That's not a result of new construction. It's a result of the Austin population declining in absolute numbers: 978,763 in 2019, 975,418 in 2022. It bounced back a bit to 979,882 in 2023.
Travis County grew a little bit, but all the growth is in the suburban areas.
With all due respect, why volunteer? I notice this with a lot of homeless people I chat with (there's a lot here in Boulder) - many of them volunteer their time at various charities while being homeless.
Wouldn't it be better devoting 100% of your spare time to getting back on your feet, and then volunteer, or donate?
Volunteer work can come with benefits other than payment, such as food, access to facilities, etc. It can also provide a support network and contacts for finding work.
With that knowledge (despite not knowing specific circumstances), it sounds like a highly effective way to cope with the situation as an individual.
I think the point is that one can only devote a finite amount of time and energy searching for a job each day before they hit diminishing returns, due to both mental fatigue and physical limitations. Though as another commenter pointed out, volunteer work is a common resume-building and networking tactic.
While I'm not homeless, the existence of USB(powerbank) heated clothes have been a very comfy discovery of mine recently. A bit fiddly at times sure but having hours of comfy warmth available at the press of a button is worth it.
I've wondered if this is something adopted by the homeless already? and if not, look into it.
You still need proper insulating layers on top of the heating ones, and many of the cheapest chinese varieties might have undersized heat pads that might not use the quick charge ability and merely provide warmth as opposed to heat. But I'm welcoming every extra watt of heat whenever cold.
"Building flats is key: otherwise, especially if housing supply is particularly rigid, the funding of rentals can risk driving up rents (OECD, 2021a), thus reducing the “bang for the buck” of public spending."
So, yes, if you want low homelessness, you build a lot of housing and make sure that rents are low. This is true, and a good strategy.
> How would it be possible to fix the problem at the expense of the lower working class?
Not sure if you intended to phrase your question as you did, but if you give cash to the unhoused to rent housing, that takes supply from the bottom of the rental market if you don’t build any more.
Builders tend to build for those that can afford to pay and don’t target the bottom of the market.
Most stock of low-cost housing is due to building neglect or depopulation rather than being purpose-built, in a free market anyway.
Even if there are 10 beds and 10 people, if 9 people can afford to pay 2000 for their beds, and that last one can only afford 500, that last one is still going homeless
Because the person selling the last bed is going to want around 2000 for it, just like the other 9 are paying
If you force owners to artificially reduce rent for a single class of properties (here: cheap flats made for the homeless) the rent for others go up a bit.
People hate om commie blocks but it was an excellent solution to mass produce affordable housing in war torn Europe. The free market is full of cheap mass produced stuff. Why can't housing be mass produced? Why are there not more economic options? It's almost always restrictive regulations that stops these solutions from happening.
I think governments should offer free housing to everyone who asks, in their city of choice. "But why should taxpayers pay for that? It's expensive!" Yes, it would be very expensive. But you know what's even more expensive? The sum of everybody's lowered wages, bad bosses, fear for the future, fear of having kids and so on, due to the threat of homelessness. Yes, building housing is expensive, but the removal of fear will pay for it many times over.
I think the challenge is that some will use it as a jumping of point to change their lives and some will use it to stick to their poor lifestyle habits and expect the provider of the housing to provide free house cleaning, free maintenance and free meals and in exchange be a community nuisance.
The latter ruins it for the former.
As a taxpayer, I would be willing to provide free housing in a lower cost of living area, in exchange for the receiver maintaining the home, no issues with the law and perhaps helping others build their homes, etc.
I think it's still much better for a country to have a bunch of untidy annoying people housed for free, than to have the same bunch of untidy annoying people live on the street and serve as a constant reminder to everyone: "keep working and don't annoy the boss or you could be homeless too".
Most people have little to no money, hence being without the ability to afford housing. You’re obviously not familiar with the social security system we have in place now. The only thing lacking is the inspiration to escape that system as Medicaid and social security insurance don’t allow for any savings so participants are frightened to lose the only thing keeping them and their family alive. Provide them with housing at no expense, higher education at no expense, and a food stipend and you’ll see a lot more success and a lot less homeless.
What you're proposing is classical Soviet communism. Particularly Khrushchev era communism. Much have been said and written about it, if you're interested.
What nonsense. Did you hear me proposing nationalizing all industry? Having a state ideology? Closing the borders? Removing freedom of speech? No, what I proposed was giving people free housing. Another thing I'd propose is giving people free healthcare. Both these things are good ideas. Mentioning the USSR doesn't make them bad ideas.
> In the United Kingdom, for instance, people who had been living on the streets or in shelters were housed in individual accommodations in a matter of days.
So it was always possible. We just didn’t care to do so.
I get the impression "individual accommodations" were hotel rooms; and the goal was also to subsidize hotels that had no business due to the pandemic.
Housing homeless people in hotels is not sustainable. (It's also overkill, as adequate shelter doesn't need to be a motel with a queen bed. It can be a much smaller room and still be humane.)
it was striking to see Hong Kong in the British-law phase.. there used to be social layers including homeless and "boat people" but the British changed that .. under the British law, every single person and every single place to sleep was counted, numbered, licensed and taxed.
Depends on circumstances. IE, if someone's camping in the woods, who cares. But, if someone is camping in a public park, or on someone's doorstep, or in a tunnel, than that's a different story.
It's funny how every westerner visits Japan and comes home thinking we can "solve crime" or "solve homelessness" or "have clean subway stations."
Japan's culture is why those things are the way they are. It's not due to funding. It's because people raise their children differently than we do in the west. The family's obligations are also greater.
And, yes, there are homeless people in Japan. But they typically are invisible by choice because of their cultural norms around discretion.
I can't help but think that homelessness in downtown San Francisco is a spectacle.
For one thing, there has been a decision to concentrate people there, which is why people think homelessness is worse in SF than LA, whereas I understand there are more homeless per capita in LA. If you tried to "live outside" in a residential area I think the authorities would deal with you as harshly they would deal with anyone who tried to build more housing.
The messages are: (1) you'd better not stand up to your jackass boss because this could be you, (2) you'd better not ask politicians for a more generous welfare state (especially in the bluest state in America) because we'll never give it to you.
We can change our culture as well. American culture is dynamic.
The major issue with US even in blue cities is how apathetic they are to build new infrastructure (homes, roads, hospitals, schools) e.t.c
At the end of the day demand-supply dynamics dictate the price.
Finland (pop 5.5M)
Norway (pop 5.5M)
Sweden (pop 10M)
I look at WA state with a similar population 7M , and higher GDP from tech boom at ~$700B
Seattle & Bellevue should have solved homelessness, but that is not the case. Millions are spent on homeless but little towards long term solving of the solution.
There is a lot of money to be made by many problems not being solved.
The US just spent 8 billion on continuing a certain genocide in the middle east. Spend such expenditures on housing, and homelessness is solved. It costs about 200k to build a house. The US has 600000 homeless people. If you do the math, the US could've solved 5% of homelessness instead of bombing more children. But they chose not to.
Geopolitical commentary aside, the city of San Francisco has spent billions of dollars on homelessness and it has only gotten worse. I'm not opposed to paying higher taxes to house people less fortunate than me, but I expect the government to get their money's worth. If I wouldn't want to spend a million on a shoebox, then the city shouldn't either.
The US does spend tens of billions fighting homelessness though. The US is very generous in this regard.
The problem is it’s not solvable by building homes. It’s about addiction and mental illness. And because of the US constitution, it’s very difficult to help Americans that do not want to be helped.
The US approach to fighting homelessness is the equivalent of hiring more and more cleaners to mop the floor instead of spending a little bit more upfront to fix the leaky pipes. It's both expensive and ineffective (much like the healthcare system).
> it’s very difficult to help Americans that do not want to be helped
This is true but if you were to offer free housing to 100 homeless people how many of them do you reckon would decline the offer? Many if not most of them could be helped back on their feet if there was political will to do so.
It’s definitely cultural. I’ve been to every major city in the US and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a homeless Indian. Some groups have broken familial cultures that does not churn out good citizens. Did the US in the past play a major role in breaking down those groups and surrounding them with abject poverty that makes it hard to escape from? Absolutely.
Mental illness is a major factor that makes it hard to help people. A majority of homeless people don't have mental illness, but a large fraction do, but those are the hardest to help.
I have a friend right now who is in a precarious housing situation who has schizophrenia but does not have a DX and has no insight into her condition. If my wife tries to set a time to pick her up and take her out to our farm, odds are 1/10 that she will really be there, will really get in the car, will not get out of the car for some hare-brained reason or otherwise not make it out. You've got to have the patience of a saint to do anything for her.
If she had some insight into her condition she could go to DSS and get TANF and then get on disability and have stable housing but she doesn't. No matter how I try to bring up the issue that she does have a condition she just "unhears" it.
Indians and other people from traditional cultures have stronger "family values" and won't wash their hands of intractable relatives the way people who grew up in the US monoculture will. (Or if they do it, they'll do it in a final way)
India is overwhelmed with poverty far beyond anything I've seen in the US.
The people of India started from even worse poverty and have generally made progress (especially since recently-deceased PM Singh). I'm not criticizing. But holding forth India's culture [1] as a model of preventing homelessness is pretty incredible.
[1] India may have the largest, most diverse collection of 'cultures' within one national border in the world, so which one are we talking about?
> I’ve been to every major city in the US and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a homeless Indian.
1) I have.
2) There are plenty of homeless or impoverished people in India, they just don't come to the US. Immigrants need a visa or permanent residency, and that usually comes with a requirement to maintain a job or have some level of financial security. Later generation Indian-Americans are, hopefully, kept out of poverty by the work their parents and families put in to establish a foothold in the US. But none of this is guaranteed; homelessness can happen to just about anyone if they have the right run of bad luck, and one's culture is only a small part of that equation.
How do you end homelessness, when some percent of homeless people will, if you give them a place to stay, smoke meth all day and make their apartment and nearby apartments health hazards?
Many drug addicts don't want to be addicted, and would try to go through treatment if provided. But some are inveterate, and don't want to quit. What do you do with them?
“[…] if you give them a place to stay, smoke meth all day and make their apartment and nearby apartments health hazards”
You skipped a step or two in there, but I will note that if you had real health care, the homeless adhd and such would be on their vyvanse prescriptions rather than self-medicating with meth.
No, that is not what I'm saying. Notice, I never said we shouldn't do anything.
I'm saying reaching the state of "no homelessness" is dependent upon finding something to do with the worst of the homeless.
For a tech analogy, imagine you've architected a system that has 99.5% uptime. You might be able to imagine a way to get to 99.9% up time.
With enough resources, you might even be able to get to 99.99% uptime. With laser focus and a giant dedicated team and an immense budget, maybe you can get it to 99.995%.
But what would you do if some exec came in and said we need 100% uptime, and we are a failure as a company unless we reach that?
US and Europe have different reasone for homelessnes. Give free houses in US and next day you will have +400mln people from South America. In EU (I can speak for Poland) most homeless have alcohol and violence problems - people removed from homes for domestic violence by court (divorce). You must be quite bad person if no one takes care of you, in a country with a) strong family tights and b) many people owning a home.
How could the United States end homelessness? It is a mix of federal government, state governments, and local/county/municipal governments. The level of government best suited to do the actual work is hamstrung... if any one city fixes homelessness (somehow), more homeless will show up. If they do that again for the new arrivals, more homeless show up.
The first to solve it is punished with tens of thousands of newly arriving homeless who, as you might imagine, will find a way to get there if it means not being homeless anymore. But budgets are finite and the cost per homeless must he higher than zero, but in a practical sense the number of homeless aren't entirely finite.
If you start from the other end, with the feds, then you might as well hold your breath. Homelessness is so far down the list of priorities, that even if it somehow did bubble to the top, the polarization in Congress will sabotage any effort, and we'll end up with boondoggles that both sides can criticize and that won't really help any homeless at all.
This isn't a choice being made, it's just the complexity of the real world that some are still blind to even after graduating college and (theoretically) turning into grownups.
There's actually a technical solution too, but since it's dry and boring, most leftists (and quite a few of the rightists) find it too boring to ever want to try. Obviously the solution is either love and compassion (from the left) or maybe "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps" (from the right).
This argument is so lame. "Actually the overall structure of the USA is designed so that its basicalyl impossible to solve the crisis".
You're not wrong in the fact that America is a shit country designed to intentionally to use homelessness as an implicit threat against the working class. You are wrong in the sense that all the things you listed aren't reasons, just excuses to cover up the intentionality of homelessness, and that homelessness could be solved if there was the political will to do so. Which there will never be in the USA because again, the homelessness crisis is intentional.
Create a federal jobs program to build apartments in large quantities, not just in cities but in rural, suburban and exurban areas as well. Anybody who's an American citizen and able bodied (including ex-convicts and felons) can apply and get a good paying job with health insurance. Use the federal government's power of eminent domain to override zoning laws and seize land that's being sat on, and finally pay for it by heavily taxing the tech giants, cutting military spending and legalizing (and taxing) cannabis.
Will politicians ever do it? No, they're in the pocket of the military and the 1%. Will voters ever vote for it? No, they're fed a steady stream of propaganda that tells them that this would be "socialism". But that's how the problem would be solved.
> The first to solve it is punished with tens of thousands of newly arriving homeless
I've seen nothing to support this claim. It does fit the right-wing disinformation pattern of demonizing people, encouraging division and hate between people, undermine social programs, and making baseless claims to put others in the defensive position of having to disprove them.
The US could end homelessness but would need to stop immigration and change the constitution which could force people in shelter. Not sure it's the outcome we all want.
> US could end homelessness but would need to stop immigration and change the constitution which could force people in shelter
Immigrants are a tiny fraction of the homeless [1]. And we’ve tried criminalising homelessness; incarceration is forced shelter and incredibly expensive.
In Canada the majority of shelter beds go to refugee claimants. I believe it is highly like many illegals in the US are homeless and make up the majority of homeless people. They are not part of the numbers you provided.
according to that 'adults participating in the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions' .. It also says foreign born is 1% vs native at 1.7% - so they are both 'a tiny fraction'
Whether or not a large percentage, or a large number or small number of immigrants are homeless or not,
one must assume that if 11 million people left the US next month, the price of rent in many places may go down a bit, and some currently unhoused people might be able to afford a cheaper place.
Of course another side is that wages in some industries will rise, and that may put more people into a position where they can afford an apartment.
What I'd like to see is how inexpensive optional housing can be made.
There are 10 million empty homes [0] and ~700,000 homeless. No matter how you slice those numbers you still have more empty housing stock than homeless right now.
My first read of this document leads me to believe that there are only about 341,000 housing units available for rent, there are some for sale at an average price of $373,000.. but many or most of the empty housing units are like second homes and such and not 'available'.
So we have 350k open units and 700k people without homes, average rent is around $1500..
just looking at the data my guess is that we have about 700k people who don't have an extra 2 grand every month to put into housing.
(and I think it's way higher personally, maybe not counting the couch surfing relatives who can't afford their own place, and others who are living in over crowded situations of basements )-
I'm sure there is much more to it than the averages, like a lot of the homeless are in areas where the average rent is much higher and 1500 - and the few places where rent is $800 likely has less homeless, (and also has less other things like jobs and public transit) -
and really if it is 10 million or a quarter a million empty places, I don't see how that matters if no one can afford any of them.
Those houses sitting empty with no-one in them is exactly why the price of rent is so high. The supply is there but it's being hoarded by 1% of the population. Write laws that would force people to rent out their secondary houses, condos and apartments (with the threat of having it seized if they don't) and watch the prices immediately start to fall.
You're assuming that the major challenge is the lack of a home, because the term we choose to use as an umbrella implies that. For some people it's even true, but they tend not to be CHRONICALLY homeless, and that's the population of major concern. Chronically homeless people have extremely high rates of mental illness and substance abuse; depending on how you slice it, a third or more are schizophrenic or something similar.
Those are not people you can just stick into a house and wish them well, they need serious help for many years. In most cases that help isn't there, or comes with strings (no drugs, no alcohol) that they refuse to accept. Homelessness in the US is in many respect a mental health and substance abuse issue, exacerbated in the post-Reagan era when our mental health system was gutted and weakened.
If you want to reach those people and keep them off the streets, you need more than just empty houses.
If you're saying that "homeless" means something other than not having a home, that seems unnecessarily confusing. Re strings - I believe there has been some success in providing no-strings housing and then working on the other problems.
It's a broad term, just like "Sick" can mean anything from having a seasonal cold, to terminal cancer. The causes vary, the prognoses vary, the treatments vary. Talking about "Sickness" without specifics is profoundly unhelpful.
That's true, but they make up a disproportionate number of the "visible homeless" that people encounter in camps, taking drugs on the street, etc. A lot of homeless people are at a low point in their lives, but use the systems offered to them and dig themselves back out. That's why they aren't CHRONICALLY homeless.
They don't represent the same kind of societal problem that poor students, broke divorcees, and people moving through rough patches do. They also don't represent a single population that needs help they aren't provided with already, unlike the chronically homeless.
Simpler than that: just roll back the restrictive zoning codes which have been making sufficient development infeasible for many years, thus creating a steadily growing housing deficit. When laws have turned the housing market into a game of musical chairs, someone is guaranteed to be left outside.
I'm often skeptical of simple solutions like this. They tend to assume that the regulation causes the problem, but when looked at more critically, it's clear that the regulation is a formalization of a combination of consumer & business preference.
For example, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations. If you get into the gritty details, you'll find that they have a whole bunch ofloopholes that seem to favor larger trucks & SUVs. Many people will point to these regulation as causing people to buy light trucks & SUVs, but the data seems to suggest consumers prefer to buy these vehicles and auto manufacture prefer to sell them (they are extremely profitable). I postulate that, if CAFE requirements were eliminated, the best selling vehicle in the USA would continue to be the F-series and other trucks and SUVs would continue to dominate the top 10, because the regulations are influenced by consumer preference, not the other way around.
I think the same logic applies to zoning. People largely want to own single family homes (SFH) in the suburbs; builders largely want to build SFHs in the suburbs. There's no reason to believe that changes in zoning will cause a meaningful shift in consumer and business preference. In the handful of ultra expensive metro areas, sure it might move the needle because economics trump preference, but in most of the USA, there's plenty of space to build housing. It's hard to imagine a developer in Pittsburgh choosing to build housing in an industrial area in the city over some empty land on the outskirts.
I appreciate your skepticism! The proposition that rates of homelessness are primarily driven by housing costs has actually been well supported in research - this Pew article contains many useful references:
As per econ 101, high prices are a function of scarcity relative to demand: we can reasonably claim that regulations which restrict housing development, which by their nature must increase scarcity and therefore housing costs, therefore also lead to increased rates of homelessness.
> In the handful of ultra expensive metro areas, sure it might move the needle
That's a good point, but those are exactly the places which have significant homelessness problems.
In general, this is not a housing preference issue, because opposition to upzoning does not come from people who aspire to live in single-family homes, but from people who already own them. This is a typical example:
As usual with these things, the complaints include a cloud of nitpicky nonsense surrounding a central concern over "neighborhood character", which is a polite way of saying "we don't want apartment-dwelling poor people coming to live near us".
>>which is a polite way of saying "we don't want apartment-dwelling poor people coming to live near us".
NO, it is most definitely NOT that.
It is overwhelmingly exactly what people say it is — maintaining the character of a neighborhood that everyone there has paid higher cost of entry, cost of taxes, and cost and time of maintenance and upgrades to maintain. Don't make claims in areas where you have zero knowledge just because you think it helps your point.
I'm in a small sub-/ex-urban town with a rural character which has zoning, and have been involved in local issues. I've never met a single person who feels the way you claim (although there are surely a few examples somewhere). No one looks down on the low income ppl who are here because their families were here before housing started to get tight and expensive. Most everyone either grew up here or came specifically because they WANT to live in a quieter area, have some wildlife, maintain gardens, etc. No one is avoiding poor people, they are SEEKING quiet and green spaces where you can do outdoor activities.
Moreover, saying that zoning in locales like this should be changed to accommodate low-income high-density housing is just stupid. Yes, the current homeowners could get rich subdividing their properties, razing the trees and putting up condos. Great, maybe you get a lower-income population. But getting ANYWHERE useful from here, even groceries or convenience stores, is a 5-10 mile car ride, and the rail station to the big city is 25min away by car. Any low income person is now condemned to replace housing expenses with car expenses, purchase/lease, maintenance, insurance, fuel, etc.. And, they now have a big commute reducing their time available.
It is really simple to just blame other people and yell "they're just greedy!", and it surely makes you feel better and more righteous.
It is much harder to actually figure out complex problems and create solutions that work.
Paying for the social services is possible. The difficult issue is some people don't want to go to a homeless shelter because they want to maintain a level of freedom while others fear they will be robbed/raped at the shelter.
> The difficult issue is some people don't want to go to a homeless shelter because they want to maintain a level of freedom while others fear they will be robbed/raped at the shelter.
A bit of a strawman, social service doesn't have to mean homeless shelter, so no, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. Problem is in many places at least where I live, there just isn't enough money to serve all the people that need the various levels of help.
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.
It's funny I've considered going there when my life imploded. Just get dropped off and live there Venice beach but yeah I get how annoying that would be to a non-homeless.
I have family who are poor (3rd world) and I think about how it's fair for me to b here and they are over there but yeah etc etc idk. Why does it feel bad to be. I do help (virtue signal) donate but I'm also in a shit ton of debt but I'm not technically poor/homeless. I have a car/apt/toys. Still thinking about it.
Oh yeah giving money isn't a fix it turns out because people fight over it/demand more. Next thing you know everyone is your relative hunting you down online. My personal gmail chat pops up "hey man..."
It does piss me off when I pull up to a light and there's a guy right there with a sign. How do I know he's homeless? I'm coming out of a grocery store at night somebody's like "sir, sir, sir..." trying to get my attention. I guess it shouldn't be a problem to just hand em a dollar. But then they say "that's it?".
Again I donate to a local food shelter, NHA, etc... just funny is altruism real idk why do I feel annoyed (greed?). I can't even ask people for money without feeling shame but other people don't care. Alright rant over I am privileged I know.
I'm gonna live a life though, mid sports car, land, not give up. I'll continue to donate too whether in cash or open source work but first I have to get out of debt, been in debt for 15 years now crazy. That's why I have my tech job, drive for UE, donate plasma and freelance to speed run my debt off. Thankfully I'm single so it's only my own life I gotta worry about.
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.
Helsinki, at least is an interesting place. Much like any other capital if you go to certain neighbourhoods you can see drug dealers, drug users (many which are living in shelters) - even in downtown. They kind of blend in, are part of the scenery and on the whole only interact with their "own kind". You might hear some grumbling, shouting, smelly folk on the tram - but they aren't treated with the same contempt at existing as I've seen in other countries.
Seeing comments from few homeless folks here, I wish you good luck and hope your situation changes. I have a very different image in mind when it comes to homeless people and having to live on roadside let alone afford a phone and time to comment on hacker news.
Phones are pretty cheap, and probably essential for finding work and staying in contact with family/other resources, and I imagine a homeless person has time more than anything else. I'm also a bit surprised at first when I see a post from someone is such a different economic situation here on HN but logically it makes sense. (I recall seeing an engineer in Palestine post in a recent Who wants to be hired? and I tread similar thoughts.)
> a “Housing First” approach, which provides people experiencing homelessness with immediate, independent, permanent housing
Could timing have something to do with it? Maybe if the cycle is broken right at the start, when one becomes homeless, it prevents some of the mental health issues and addiction issues that come from living without support for too long. People here in NA often have lived on the streets for years or decades. That's so much trauma, many say it's impossible to heal at that point.
> Maybe if the cycle is broken right at the start, when one becomes homeless, it prevents some of the mental health issues and addiction issues that come from living without support for too long
What fraction of the homeless addicts or mentally ill started out that way?
It’s a fun fact that -40 c == -40 f, but if you leave off the units people who aren’t ‘in the know’ would be confused. Also they might (adversarially) wonder if the units are in a lesser known scale like rømer
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.
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.
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.
> in USA, I bet the overwhelming majority of homeless are citizens born in USA, not immigrants
Correct.
"There was no significant difference in rates of lifetime adult homelessness between foreign-born adults and native-born adults (1.0% vs 1.7%). Foreign-born participants were less likely to have various mental and substance-use disorders, less likely to receive welfare, and less likely to have any lifetime incarceration." ("The foreign-born population was 46.2 million (13.9% of the total population)" in 2022 [2].)
This is extremely relevant. Finland is basically Sweden without mass migration. The cracks in our society that the multi-culti ideology has opened up is difficult for an American to comprehend, because you never experienced the benefits of a true monoculture.
> 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
Meh. They've got two different official languages. It's not as ethnically uniform as a lot of other European countries.
You need a citation for you to understand people with similar customs/religious believes, similar dna have a higher trust society than a cities of unknown elements?
Yes. It sounds right, but many subtly wrong things often do. At the very least, a measurement of the effect strength would be nice. For instance, is a homogenous society a stronger or weaker signal than GDP?
Controversial, but worth considering. I believe societies have different capacities for assimilation (changing immigrants) and appropriation (changing themselves), with the hallmark of any era's great societies being their ability to maximise both.
That said, the evidence is mixed [1], with fairness and economic inequality [2][3] seeming to matter more than racial homogeneity. (Lots of tiny, racially-homogenous societies–high trust or not–bordering each other also have a one-way historical track record.)
A very often ignored fact is the cultural homogeneity. I do not thing racial homogeneity is of any benefit whatsoever, but I do believe that cultural is.
When someone raised in a culture where cheating to win by any means is acceptable (most of India) or where bartering, persuading and microfrauding in trade (most of Middle east and sup-sahara Africa) is not frowned upon, it is not a stretch to imagine that the introduction of such cultural elements will lead to dilution of the overall interpersonal trust in let's say, Swedish society.
Putnam indeed reported a correlation between the mean herfindahl index of ethnic homogeneity and trust in societies (both own-race trust, other race trust & neighbour trust).
If you had actually read the paper (which I have), you would realise that the relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust is inverse.
Is it boring reading about the meta or how something works. Understanding the inner workings of a system or society is something we can use as an outsider to the system.
Hearing that these opinions get downvoted helps explain why these comments were judged this way.
> Hearing that these opinions get downvoted helps explain why these comments were judged
HN greys and hides downvoted comments. The commentary adds nothing.
An analysis around why would have been interesting. It isn’t what that comment did. Nor what most comments complaining about downvoting do, for the simple reason that said comment is almost always stronger without the whining.
i think you've got it backwards- the xenophobia of so called 'high trust' bigots are holding back the global society of our future, and their low homelessness is in reality an unfair burden on other more troubled countries
A working mom with a 2 year old doesnt want to live next door to violent actors and drug dealers.
More specifically, I think the US is unwilling to distinguish between lawful and unlawfully behaving poor, and segregate them accordingly when providing shelter.
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.
"unwilling or unable" is extremely key. I recall a US Senator talking about his son who has schizophrenia. The father would pay for an apartment for his son, no strings attached, and still find him sleeping in the street.
It may be possible to "solve" homelessness for some majority of people. But I doubt 100% is ever humanly achievable. At least, not without some massive breakthrough in understanding and intervention for mental illnesses.
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.
Comparing the homlessness chart in the article to Finland's net immigration chart (https://stat.fi/en/publication/cl8n2ksks2yau0dukaxe3it75) the country's net negative immigration created much of the housing availability to house people immediately. Next door in Sweden, the situation is different.
Their approach of building flats and committing to getting homeless people into them absolutely worked and should be an example, but not without a relatively fixed homeless rate. This is the general issue with the nordic social model. it was the model of functioning social programs, but in a vacuum of relative isolation and homegeneity.
Without digging too deep into the nature of the statistics they use, I'm a little skeptical of this.
The transition to using the word "homeless" has resulted in transforming something we can't easily measure -- "drug addicted or mentally ill people being a public menace" -- into something that we can measure -- "people without a good living arrangement".
Sure, the latter is important in a lot of ways too. And there housing is a tolerable solution.
But the former is the actual problem that we care about. It's nearly impossible to measure. It's nearly impossible to fix. The horrors of involuntary commitment vs. the horrors of not having involuntary commitment vs. the horrors of using the criminal justice system vs. the horrors of not using the criminal justice system.
The fact is that we have no real model for treatment of severely mentally ill people. We have a number of effective drugs, but they rapidly become ineffective if not taken. Our ability to treat or "cure" people in these conditions is essentially non-existent.
The question I would ask of Finland before considering this data or analysis to be interesting is what is their state of involuntary indefinite commitment.
My understanding is that Northern Europe has a much more robust system of using Long Acting Injectable Antipsychotics (under court order if nessecary) and various group home options or Assertive Community Treatment teams that have nurses visit patients daily. They are also quicker to use lithium and clozapine when indicated. They also do much longer hospital stays when needed than our revolving door policies here. Also they don't have meth and fentanyl epidemics yet.
We know that the longer psychosis goes untreated/the more times someone goes off the meds, the harder it is to treat, and that what happens in the first few years of someone developing a psychotic disorder makes a huge difference in long term outcomes.
An American might develop psychosis in their mid 20s, end up committed for a few weeks and placed on antipsychotic pills until they're no longer floridly psychotic, and then go home, not follow up with doctors/refill meds, and end up on a cycle of this with more and more brittle symptoms until they're homeless and have no real chance of recovery.
The same person in Northern Europe would likely be hospitalized for longer initially, started on an injectable that only needs to be given once a month, and they leave the hospital with fewer residual symptoms. They're then followed by an ACT team with a nurse visiting to check on them and make sure they're eating and keeping housing, and ensuring that shot goes in their arm every month. They don't necessarily fully recover, but a lot of them end up being able to do some kind of schooling/employment/volunteering and they are either stable enough to keep housing without being evicted for disruption, or are shuffled into staffed group homes.
Do we have any numbers on the number of people that are in this system? I'm frankly curious if the numbers in the original article can effectively be completely explained by this system rather than the policies listed in the article.
In the US the system broke down in the 50s and 60s and collapsed completely in the 70s and 80s due to bad treatment options and often very inhumane conditions and cases of misdiagnoses. The widespread misdiagnosis problem only stretched the system further and compounded the existing problems. I would be curious to see where Finland's trajectory in this regard lies.
That's a wrong chronology. Before the 1950s we did not have effective treatments for schizophrenia other than incarceration.
In old books you read about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catatonia
being intractable, now it usually clears up in 15-30 minutes with benzodiazepine medication. In the 1950s we got the Phenothiazines which were the first hope for many patients, there has been a huge amount of progress since then and managing most of these people outside the hospital is possible. People also came to see involuntary commitment as immoral as described by Thomas Szasz, depicted by the movie "One Flew out of the Cuckoo's Nest" and shown by this experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
The trouble isn't that we tore down the old system but that we didn't completely build a new system to replace it. There are deep issues involving people's agency. Right now we are in a society that thinks it is wrong to make people to take drugs they don't want to take, a different society (maybe even ours in N years) will think is it wrong to not make people take drugs for serious mental illness.
I was responding to the commenter above me discussing the phenomenon of mentally disturbed people sleeping rough and I think that's been a small phenomenon in Finland the entire time due to their different history with mental health, with economic homelessness being most of what they've reduced via housing first.
To clarify, I don't know much about Finnish mental health in particular as opposed to the general trends in Northern Europe.
Sleeping rough has always been rare in Finland for the simple reason that it gets down to -20 quite often in winter. Freezing to death is not an uncommon fate for alcoholics.
There’s a reason why you have lower homeless population in the temperate zone than in the tropical zone of the world.
> due to bad treatment options and often very inhumane conditions and cases of misdiagnoses.
I thought that it broke down due to a Supreme Court decision (O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975)) but perhaps they were interrelated.
Psychiatry has some of the worst reproducability of any science. People who are forced to live on the streets without good access to services begin to exhibit symptoms of psychosis within one to two days and lose those symptoms after a similar duration of one or two days with housing.
In Europe such a policy might make sense, but in America where being dumped on the street is rather common the situation is different. Also, in America the general social situation is quite different from life in Finland.
> Psychiatry has some of the worst reproducability of any science. People who are forced to live on the streets without good access to services begin to exhibit symptoms of psychosis within one to two days and lose those symptoms after a similar duration of one or two days with housing.
Is this a studied phenomenon I can read about? I'd appreciate any literature suggestions if you have them.
Have you ever considered that it may be the other way around? That the horrors of living on the street (and "horrors" is an appropriate term here, you are fighting for survival every day; it is beyond the realm of comprehension of the housed) might be causing the mental illness and drug use, rather than the other way around?
If I want to get a homeless person off of drugs, it sure as crisps is not going to happen until they have a roof over their head. The core issue is the lack of affordable housing. That should be priority number 1.
I'm happy to read evidence I'm wrong (I want to be wrong - it would make me much more optimistic about a fix), but my own life and everything I've read suggests the opposite - once someone develops a serious drug or alcohol addiction it leads to them destroying everything good in their lives and inevitably they either sober up or end up homeless. Nearly all of the people who stay homeless in the long term have some severe mental illness (including addiction). Short of an involuntary commitment which is its own kind of hell, helping these people is incredibly difficult.
I have multiple family members who fit this pattern and it's absolutely godawful. The addiction literally rules them. They will perpetually ask for money for "needs" then spend it on drugs. If another family member houses them, they will sneakily maintain their addiction and steal from family to support it when necessary. If you offer them housing on condition of getting sober, they will choose addiction and homelessness. If you offer them housing without condition, they will use it to stay an addict in perpetuity, who everyone else is paying for. I don't think this last is a remotely viable solution with the number of addicts out there, which is only growing.
I'm not saying this to condemn addicts/mentally ill people. I just want to give an idea of just how hard this problem is to fix.
> Nearly all of the people who stay homeless in the long term have some severe mental illness (including addiction)
The problem is that people can end up homeless for all sorts of reasons, and even if that reason is some sort of mental illness, being homeless is an often-traumatic experience that easily exacerbates and worsens a person's mental condition.
There was a period of my life where I slept rough (long story) and I can personally confirm that a lack of sleep security (not to mention "stuff security", the fear of having my meager possessions stolen) will start someone on the path to mental illness; some amount of paranoia and mental fog seems almost inevitable in those conditions.
A stable environment is certainly going to dramatically increase the chance of overcoming an addiction. It obviously does not guarantee success but it's a crucial first step in the process. As pointed out in the article the housing first approach is actually saving money in the long run by reducing subsequent costs incurred by social services, so the "everyone else is paying for their addiction" argument does not really work – there are going to be costs either way, and an addict who has a home is easier and cheaper to care for than one who is roaming the streets.
In fact, that's one thing the article talks about. Finland's successful plan focuses on 'housing first'.
"Finland’s success is not a matter of luck or the outcome of “quick fixes.” Rather, it is the result of a sustained, well-resourced national strategy, driven by a “Housing First” approach, which provides people experiencing homelessness with immediate, independent, permanent housing, rather than temporary accommodation (OECD, 2020)"
You're assuming others share your perspective and understanding.
> The transition to using the word "homeless" has resulted in transforming something we can't easily measure -- "drug addicted or mentally ill people being a public menace" -- into something that we can measure -- "people without a good living arrangement".
> the former is the actual problem that we care about
The word homeless is pretty old, not something people have 'tranistioned' to any time recently.
I haven't seen anyone trying use 'homeless' as a euphemism; they are actually concerned about people without housing. That is the big problem.
You apparently believe "drug addicted or mentally ill people being a public menace" is a comparable problem, but your comment is the first time I've heard that. Nobody is conspiring to hide it; they just don't think about it like you do.
I spend a lot of time in cities and know others who do too. None feel menaced by people who are unhoused - why would that be menacing? - or high. High people generally don't know you are there, and are easily avoided. I've had zero problems; I don't know of anyone else who has.
Also, the subtext is about eroding human rights. You have no more rights than a homeless or high person. Feeling 'menaced' is not sufficient to compromise someone's freedom. That's what freedom means - of course people can always do things that others don't mind; freedom means doing things other people don't like. I find your comment menacing; who decides who gets locked up?
I'll decide without the slightest moral compunction: If you're addicted to fentanyl and living on the street you're getting involuntarily committed.
> I spend a lot of time in cities and know others who do too. None feel menaced by people who are unhoused - why would that be menacing? - or high. High people generally don't know you are there, and are easily avoided. I've had zero problems; I don't know of anyone else who has
This is completely detached from reality. I find it hard to believe you are being truthful unless you're doing some sort of gotcha where you carry a gun or are some sort of jiu-jitsu master. Here's an example of people being afraid of the homeless and another of drug addicts, just from last year in NYC but there's thousands of examples.
- Why throngs of NYC’s homeless are choosing Penn Station over shelters — and leaving commuters in a constant state of fear https://nypost.com/2024/08/28/us-news/nycs-homeless-cheer-pe...
- Business owners and residents along Midtown Manhattan’s “Strip of Despair” are so frequently robbed and harassed by drug-addled “psychopaths” that they’ve stopped trying to resist — or even bother calling the cops for help. https://nypost.com/2024/06/17/us-news/horror-stories-from-ny...
I don't mean to say with this that ALL of them are dangerous, but you trying to portray that you never even heard of someone being afraid of homeless or drug addicts and the trouble they sometimes create is like saying you don't know which color the sky is. Like you honestly never seen an aggressive person who is high?
Anyway if not, I can tell you I've had a drunk homeless guy throw a bottle at me for no reason other than walking home. The next day I talked to him and now I know Cyril, my local homeless drunk and high Russian guy, and sometimes give him socks, but even he admits that when he drinks and huffs nitrous he gets a bit crazy.
> I spend a lot of time in cities and know others who do too. None feel menaced by people who are unhoused - why would that be menacing? - or high. High people generally don't know you are there, and are easily avoided. I've had zero problems; I don't know of anyone else who has.
"Nothing ever happens" says person nothing happened to. Meanwhile, these are just some examples that made the news:
* https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67386865 "A suspect has been arrested two days after former US Senator Martha McSally reported being sexually assaulted while on a run in Iowa [...] The suspect, who is thought to be homeless,"
* https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-65569357 "Derby homeless man raped women who offered to help him"
* https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41484206 "A "manipulative" homeless man who turned on a family who befriended him has admitted the "frenzied" murder of the mother and her 13-year-old son."
* https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/life-sentence-for-... "A severely mentally ill man was sentenced to life in prison on Friday for beheading a Hollywood screenwriter [...] a homeless former Marine described by his lawyer as "very, very mentally ill", pleaded guilty [...] in a crime without motive."
* https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/long-beach-woman-sex... "Long Beach woman sexually assaulted by homeless man in broad daylight"
Fortunately I haven't witnessed any murders or rapes, but the most shocking for me was that I've visited Vancouver twice in my life, and on both visits, lone women walking down the street in broad daylight were chased after and opportunisticly molested by drunk vagrants hanging around on Robson Street. Broad daylight. They had absolutely no shame. And other than the molested women fighting them off and running away, nobody did or said anything.
Everyone has a right to walk about in public unmolested, and I would want the police to arrest those men and prosecute them for sexual assault.
You're delusional or misinformed if you think this doesn't happen. Of course it happens.
On the other hand, you can be molested or assaulted by drunk and beligerent homed people. And, more importantly, homeless people are much more at risk of assault or rape by the homed, than the homed are of being assaulted and raped by the homeless. For all the articles I linked above, they are dwarfed by news reports of homeless people being shot, beaten, stabbed, set on fire or raped.
So, overall, homeless people as a whole are neither saints nor devils. They are who they are, and each individual has a different situation. We should feel a lot of empathy for them, and want to help them into a less precarious position... but we also want to do it because we're mindful of the danger to the public that untreated mental illness poses.
What is the question you’re asking here?
I’m Finnish and I have a close family member with a severe mental illness, so I should be reasonably well positioned to answer your question. But it doesn’t make any sense to me.
How does any of this relate to homelessness?
To get people off the streets, you give them a place to live. Then you can start solving their other problems. It’s common sense.
> "drug addicted or mentally ill people being a public menace"
Finland also is rather aggressive with involuntary detention of those deemed to be a potential danger to themselves or others.
No, there are not "a number of effective drugs." I interviewed 100 mental patients and the rare ones with hallucinations were not cured. Benzos help anxiety, SSRI don't do much, Cobenfy is promising. Involuntary commitment wouldn't be horrible if violating injections and ECT electrocution were voluntary.
Finland is cold. People without adequate housing will freeze to death. Not finding bodies in the spring thaw is probably actually important to them.
People are on the street because they don't have homes. If they had homes, they would be less depressed, less drug addicted, and less destitute and less likely to cause public problems. So just give them homes.
A major upside: if you lose your job, you won't be at risk of becoming homeless! it would allow you to take a much stronger negotiating position with your boss. It would allow you to take a much stronger position with your landlord regarding rent increases too.
It is more painful to treat someone who is homeless and mentally ill as opposed to just mentally ill.
Finland has figured out a number of thing it seems other than homelessness.
Their education system is pretty interesting, and their policing system has some approaches to interacting with the community as well. If I can find the links I'll share.
Skepticism is fine, but it shouldn't be a reason to discount or dismiss something, nor does it mean to accept it. Take it in as a data point.
The Pandremix issue has lots of issues to fix as well that will probably never see the light of the day. Essentially those few hundred with Pandemrix-induced narcolepsy are now a permanently disabled minority without organized legal advocacy. The party-opposing party, that should not be opposing them, Pharmaceutical Injury Insurance Pool (LVP) has significant financial and legal resources. LVP has substantially broader access to archives and expert knowledge. The impaired functional capacity and financial position of those affected makes it difficult to advocate for their rights.
The state implemented the vaccination program and transferred responsibility to the insurance pool system with its own financial interests. The pool system determines assessment criteria and makes evaluations without external oversight. Initially, there was talk of "million-euro compensations." The government guaranteed to finance the remainder if pool funds were depleted.
Legal cases have been fought against LVP regarding time limits of confirmed cases. Compensations have remained a fraction of original expectations. Narcolepsy patients are too small a minority to influence Parliamentary politics or re-enter public discourse. This special group has been left alone to defend their rights within the pool system.
The compensations were based on Käypä Hoito Guidelines for accident injuries, which are unsuitable for narcolepsy: narcolepsy doesn't necessarily cause clear cognitive deficits despite its severity, and comparison to brain trauma is not medically possible. The drafters would probably agree if asked that it wasn't intended for this use. A person with narcolepsy can be formally capable of work, but this might consume all of their alert hours & energy, leaving nothing for actually having a life. The system may equate narcolepsy, in permanent damage, with injuries similar to a broken finger in workplace accidents, hence the permanent disability compensations are insufficient for dignified life.
The wage compensation issue is more significant. The determination basis for loss of earnings compensation is problematic as it's based on achieved education and work history, although the illness has impaired these opportunities. The same neurological illness produces different compensations depending on onset timing, as those with established careers may fare better than those who couldn't compete for university placement. This particularly affects those who became ill in childhood/youth, as it doesn't account for lost opportunities. In practice, even those from educated backgrounds with academic potential (e.g. top grades or plans for university before narcolepsy) may receive compensation based on average or low income.
Opportunity cost compensation appears unlikely. The state has not promoted reassessment of applicability of Käypä Hoito criteria.
There is insufficient monitoring of equality in compensation decisions and appeals, inadequate communication about compensations (the question whether all victims are even aware of their rights seems open), and questionable document management and decision-making transparency. LVP defines compensation terms, makes compensation decisions, and handles appeals, creating a conflict of interest as LVP has financial incentive for strict interpretation.
Permanent damage compensations are treated as earned income by Kela, requiring their use for basic living expenses, though they're meant as lifetime compensations for an incurable neurological illness.
(this is partly machine-translated from personal notes)
A lot of words to say that doing anything at all must be impossible.
Not understanding how homelessness (or poverty generally) leads to mental illness is remarkably disconnected.
This issue is very relevant for me since I have been homeless since May. It's been a bad run of being a target of criminal activity, unemployment and just running out of money during my job search. I cope with a mix of volunteering, overpriced housing (think $1200/month for a room in a rural area before I ran out of money for that), catsitting, house-sitting, staying with family and sleeping in my ancient car. Although I'm a citizen I don't qualify for any government support or programs, even though we have employment insurance here which I paid into for years.
I'm from Ottawa where the cold is obviously deadly, as it is in Finland. I do feel that we need to take shelter more seriously in public policy compared to warm areas because of that. Last week someone froze to death overnight a few blocks away from where I was crashing on a couch with family. Walking through downtown Ottawa and seeing the huge empty, lit, warm buildings with people freezing to death right outside is striking. Any practically minded person can see the problem is political and philosophical, not practical.
I can tell all the posters who think people choose to be homeless that I'm certainly not one of them. The comments about the importance of avoiding a downward spiral are certainly correct. Searching for work is hard enough normally and becomes increasingly difficult without access to things like a kitchen and toilet.
What I see in this Finnish policy is the starting assumption that doing nothing is not a good option. After reaching that point there can a rational discussion about what to do with whatever money is being spent - do you pay more people to hand out blankets and conduct surveys or just use it to buy housing units? As a homeless person I would really like to see Canada have a policy like I'm reading in this article instead of what we are doing now. The crappy temporary shelters and bureaucratic spending strategy obviously isn't working.
Even just economically, to have a government pay for years of schooling and subsidize advanced degrees then just be ready to let that person die on the street when they are ready to work but can't happen to find something seems like a waste. I'd rather see a functioning "social safety net" as described in this article.
The housing situation in Canada is insane and is so obviously due to not building enough housing and bringing too many people into the country via immigration. The fact that it costs 1200$/month for a room in a rural area is incredibly damning.
I went to college in Ottawa, and now I live in Austin Texas. It's similar in size, although Austin has been growing more lately. Curiously, they are also both capitols, college towns and they have a river flowing through them.
A major difference is that Austin has a new development with 200-400 unites on every block it seems. Cranes are everywhere downtown, and even in random neighborhoods they have huge new developments. Ottawa has no shortage of land, there's a huge amount of available land to develop in either direction, but they evidently aren't building nearly as much.
The result? I'm looking at 2 bedroom apartments, and they are 1000$ cheaper than they were 3 years ago when I first moved here. Rent has gone down and continues to go down. I'm seeing studio apartments in the middle of the city renting out for 800$ now!
At least some of the difference is that building codes can be a lot more lax in Texas as compared to Canada. It rarely gets as cold, and certainly not for as long.
>and bringing too many people into the country via immigration.
In a functioning economy, more immigration will just result in more housing being built, as long as the immigrants are working. Especially since the cost of housing construction is largely the cost of labor. Immigration is a distraction from the core inability to build more housing.
> The result? I'm looking at 2 bedroom apartments, and they are 1000$ cheaper than they were 3 years ago when I first moved here. Rent has gone down and continues to go down. I'm seeing studio apartments in the middle of the city renting out for 800$ now!
That's not a result of new construction. It's a result of the Austin population declining in absolute numbers: 978,763 in 2019, 975,418 in 2022. It bounced back a bit to 979,882 in 2023.
Travis County grew a little bit, but all the growth is in the suburban areas.
Stay warm! And thank you for stepping forward to share your story and perspective. HN needs much more of it.
With all due respect, why volunteer? I notice this with a lot of homeless people I chat with (there's a lot here in Boulder) - many of them volunteer their time at various charities while being homeless.
Wouldn't it be better devoting 100% of your spare time to getting back on your feet, and then volunteer, or donate?
Volunteer work can come with benefits other than payment, such as food, access to facilities, etc. It can also provide a support network and contacts for finding work.
With that knowledge (despite not knowing specific circumstances), it sounds like a highly effective way to cope with the situation as an individual.
Why do most people have only one job? Wouldn't it be better to spend evenings at a second job and then have leisure when you retire?
I guess you're trying to make some point, but I don't really see it.
I think the point is that one can only devote a finite amount of time and energy searching for a job each day before they hit diminishing returns, due to both mental fatigue and physical limitations. Though as another commenter pointed out, volunteer work is a common resume-building and networking tactic.
While I'm not homeless, the existence of USB(powerbank) heated clothes have been a very comfy discovery of mine recently. A bit fiddly at times sure but having hours of comfy warmth available at the press of a button is worth it.
I've wondered if this is something adopted by the homeless already? and if not, look into it.
You still need proper insulating layers on top of the heating ones, and many of the cheapest chinese varieties might have undersized heat pads that might not use the quick charge ability and merely provide warmth as opposed to heat. But I'm welcoming every extra watt of heat whenever cold.
"Building flats is key: otherwise, especially if housing supply is particularly rigid, the funding of rentals can risk driving up rents (OECD, 2021a), thus reducing the “bang for the buck” of public spending."
So, yes, if you want low homelessness, you build a lot of housing and make sure that rents are low. This is true, and a good strategy.
And don’t “fix” the problem at the expense of the paycheque-to-paycheque lower-working class.
Otherwise it’s zero sum and you create a homeless for every homeless you remove and disincentivize work.
How would it be possible to fix the problem at the expense of the lower working class?
> How would it be possible to fix the problem at the expense of the lower working class?
Not sure if you intended to phrase your question as you did, but if you give cash to the unhoused to rent housing, that takes supply from the bottom of the rental market if you don’t build any more.
Builders tend to build for those that can afford to pay and don’t target the bottom of the market.
Most stock of low-cost housing is due to building neglect or depopulation rather than being purpose-built, in a free market anyway.
I mean, yes, it doesn't matter how you distribute money, when there are 9 beds in town, and 10 people, someone's going to be sleeping rough.
This is obviously true, but misses the point
Even if there are 10 beds and 10 people, if 9 people can afford to pay 2000 for their beds, and that last one can only afford 500, that last one is still going homeless
Because the person selling the last bed is going to want around 2000 for it, just like the other 9 are paying
If you force owners to artificially reduce rent for a single class of properties (here: cheap flats made for the homeless) the rent for others go up a bit.
This has happened in several US cities.
For example just add tax to shoot at the target, eventually salary owners get hurt while riches can get away with an army of lawyers and accountants.
People hate om commie blocks but it was an excellent solution to mass produce affordable housing in war torn Europe. The free market is full of cheap mass produced stuff. Why can't housing be mass produced? Why are there not more economic options? It's almost always restrictive regulations that stops these solutions from happening.
Good luck getting commie blocks pushed through planning approvals today. NIMBYs in general are violently against any kind of public housing.
I think governments should offer free housing to everyone who asks, in their city of choice. "But why should taxpayers pay for that? It's expensive!" Yes, it would be very expensive. But you know what's even more expensive? The sum of everybody's lowered wages, bad bosses, fear for the future, fear of having kids and so on, due to the threat of homelessness. Yes, building housing is expensive, but the removal of fear will pay for it many times over.
I think the challenge is that some will use it as a jumping of point to change their lives and some will use it to stick to their poor lifestyle habits and expect the provider of the housing to provide free house cleaning, free maintenance and free meals and in exchange be a community nuisance.
The latter ruins it for the former.
As a taxpayer, I would be willing to provide free housing in a lower cost of living area, in exchange for the receiver maintaining the home, no issues with the law and perhaps helping others build their homes, etc.
I think it's still much better for a country to have a bunch of untidy annoying people housed for free, than to have the same bunch of untidy annoying people live on the street and serve as a constant reminder to everyone: "keep working and don't annoy the boss or you could be homeless too".
They will still be on the street most of the time though
The street is where they panhandle for money and get their drugs
Everyone wants to live in the centre of Helsinki, because why not?
I'm not saying give everyone the nicest center flat. Let's say an acceptable commute distance away, up to 30min by public transport.
Why not? Am I worse than others?
Yes, or just unlucky. The goal of my proposal is not to create equality, but to establish a minimum below which people cannot fall.
Who gets to determine the minimum threshold? And how will they enforce it?
Most people have little to no money, hence being without the ability to afford housing. You’re obviously not familiar with the social security system we have in place now. The only thing lacking is the inspiration to escape that system as Medicaid and social security insurance don’t allow for any savings so participants are frightened to lose the only thing keeping them and their family alive. Provide them with housing at no expense, higher education at no expense, and a food stipend and you’ll see a lot more success and a lot less homeless.
The government and laws?
Which part of what government?
With what legal basis?
Things aren’t magically legal and viable in the real world just because an HN user imagines it.
I'd like to live in Honolulu.
What you're proposing is classical Soviet communism. Particularly Khrushchev era communism. Much have been said and written about it, if you're interested.
What nonsense. Did you hear me proposing nationalizing all industry? Having a state ideology? Closing the borders? Removing freedom of speech? No, what I proposed was giving people free housing. Another thing I'd propose is giving people free healthcare. Both these things are good ideas. Mentioning the USSR doesn't make them bad ideas.
Quite an interesting perspective, sadly it’ll likely never get implemented in any capitalistic economy
That rumor is the biggest obstacle. If you believed it was possible, and instead told others it was possible, it might actually be.
> In the United Kingdom, for instance, people who had been living on the streets or in shelters were housed in individual accommodations in a matter of days.
So it was always possible. We just didn’t care to do so.
I get the impression "individual accommodations" were hotel rooms; and the goal was also to subsidize hotels that had no business due to the pandemic.
Housing homeless people in hotels is not sustainable. (It's also overkill, as adequate shelter doesn't need to be a motel with a queen bed. It can be a much smaller room and still be humane.)
And then we told ourselves it wasn't possible so we could sleep at night.
it was striking to see Hong Kong in the British-law phase.. there used to be social layers including homeless and "boat people" but the British changed that .. under the British law, every single person and every single place to sleep was counted, numbered, licensed and taxed.
Didn't the British control Hong Kong from the mid-19th century until the 1990s?
When they refuse to go inside do you jail them? Some cities with big hearts have been through this before.
Depends on circumstances. IE, if someone's camping in the woods, who cares. But, if someone is camping in a public park, or on someone's doorstep, or in a tunnel, than that's a different story.
Everything won't be perfect immediately, so let's do nothing instead! /s
The US chooses not to end homelessness. We have the highest GDP in the world. We could end it if we wanted to.
I was in Japan recently. A choice was made there as well.
It's funny how every westerner visits Japan and comes home thinking we can "solve crime" or "solve homelessness" or "have clean subway stations."
Japan's culture is why those things are the way they are. It's not due to funding. It's because people raise their children differently than we do in the west. The family's obligations are also greater.
And, yes, there are homeless people in Japan. But they typically are invisible by choice because of their cultural norms around discretion.
Homelessness in Japan and the invisibility thereof is a theme in this game
https://store.steampowered.com/agecheck/app/1235140/
I can't help but think that homelessness in downtown San Francisco is a spectacle.
For one thing, there has been a decision to concentrate people there, which is why people think homelessness is worse in SF than LA, whereas I understand there are more homeless per capita in LA. If you tried to "live outside" in a residential area I think the authorities would deal with you as harshly they would deal with anyone who tried to build more housing.
The messages are: (1) you'd better not stand up to your jackass boss because this could be you, (2) you'd better not ask politicians for a more generous welfare state (especially in the bluest state in America) because we'll never give it to you.
Even if it's cultural, it can be fixed. Culture can change and can be changed by choice
I hope you’re right.
It’s very difficult to address culture in the US without being accused of victim blaming or bias.
But the uncomfortable truth is that some cultural practices simply do produce better neighbors and coworkers and compatriots than do others.
What if culture springs from genetic inheritance? How do you change that?
Culture changes, but it's very hard to deliberately effect specific changes.
Not really. People deliberately persuade the public of things all the time. Some persuade them of absolutely false, awful things with regularity.
When you say "things", I assume you don't mean "to change deeply held values and cultural traditions".
We can change our culture as well. American culture is dynamic.
The major issue with US even in blue cities is how apathetic they are to build new infrastructure (homes, roads, hospitals, schools) e.t.c
At the end of the day demand-supply dynamics dictate the price.
Finland (pop 5.5M) Norway (pop 5.5M) Sweden (pop 10M)
I look at WA state with a similar population 7M , and higher GDP from tech boom at ~$700B
Seattle & Bellevue should have solved homelessness, but that is not the case. Millions are spent on homeless but little towards long term solving of the solution.
There is a lot of money to be made by many problems not being solved.
The US just spent 8 billion on continuing a certain genocide in the middle east. Spend such expenditures on housing, and homelessness is solved. It costs about 200k to build a house. The US has 600000 homeless people. If you do the math, the US could've solved 5% of homelessness instead of bombing more children. But they chose not to.
Geopolitical commentary aside, the city of San Francisco has spent billions of dollars on homelessness and it has only gotten worse. I'm not opposed to paying higher taxes to house people less fortunate than me, but I expect the government to get their money's worth. If I wouldn't want to spend a million on a shoebox, then the city shouldn't either.
What is the point? Not everything has worked, so do nothing? If we read the OP, we can find out about some things that have worked.
The US does spend tens of billions fighting homelessness though. The US is very generous in this regard.
The problem is it’s not solvable by building homes. It’s about addiction and mental illness. And because of the US constitution, it’s very difficult to help Americans that do not want to be helped.
The US approach to fighting homelessness is the equivalent of hiring more and more cleaners to mop the floor instead of spending a little bit more upfront to fix the leaky pipes. It's both expensive and ineffective (much like the healthcare system).
> it’s very difficult to help Americans that do not want to be helped
This is true but if you were to offer free housing to 100 homeless people how many of them do you reckon would decline the offer? Many if not most of them could be helped back on their feet if there was political will to do so.
It’s definitely cultural. I’ve been to every major city in the US and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a homeless Indian. Some groups have broken familial cultures that does not churn out good citizens. Did the US in the past play a major role in breaking down those groups and surrounding them with abject poverty that makes it hard to escape from? Absolutely.
Mental illness is a major factor that makes it hard to help people. A majority of homeless people don't have mental illness, but a large fraction do, but those are the hardest to help.
I have a friend right now who is in a precarious housing situation who has schizophrenia but does not have a DX and has no insight into her condition. If my wife tries to set a time to pick her up and take her out to our farm, odds are 1/10 that she will really be there, will really get in the car, will not get out of the car for some hare-brained reason or otherwise not make it out. You've got to have the patience of a saint to do anything for her.
If she had some insight into her condition she could go to DSS and get TANF and then get on disability and have stable housing but she doesn't. No matter how I try to bring up the issue that she does have a condition she just "unhears" it.
Indians and other people from traditional cultures have stronger "family values" and won't wash their hands of intractable relatives the way people who grew up in the US monoculture will. (Or if they do it, they'll do it in a final way)
India is overwhelmed with poverty far beyond anything I've seen in the US.
The people of India started from even worse poverty and have generally made progress (especially since recently-deceased PM Singh). I'm not criticizing. But holding forth India's culture [1] as a model of preventing homelessness is pretty incredible.
[1] India may have the largest, most diverse collection of 'cultures' within one national border in the world, so which one are we talking about?
OP is referring to a homeless Indian in the US, not in India.
Have you ever seen a homeless Indian in India? I would assume not, since evidently Indians have intact familial cultures that churn out good citizens.
> I’ve been to every major city in the US and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a homeless Indian.
1) I have.
2) There are plenty of homeless or impoverished people in India, they just don't come to the US. Immigrants need a visa or permanent residency, and that usually comes with a requirement to maintain a job or have some level of financial security. Later generation Indian-Americans are, hopefully, kept out of poverty by the work their parents and families put in to establish a foothold in the US. But none of this is guaranteed; homelessness can happen to just about anyone if they have the right run of bad luck, and one's culture is only a small part of that equation.
That's because it's very affluent Indians who have been granted citizenship historically.
Homelessness goes down in places where housing is cheap and also in places where the government intervenes sensibly.
How do you end homelessness, when some percent of homeless people will, if you give them a place to stay, smoke meth all day and make their apartment and nearby apartments health hazards?
Many drug addicts don't want to be addicted, and would try to go through treatment if provided. But some are inveterate, and don't want to quit. What do you do with them?
Jail: At this point 2nd and 3rd chances have been burned up.
And, to be quite blunt: If someone wants to be a meth-head, there's plenty of ways to consume it that don't create hazards for other people.
Edit: I think it's perfectly acceptable, in guaranteed housing situations, to say "If you create a hazard you will go to jail."
“[…] if you give them a place to stay, smoke meth all day and make their apartment and nearby apartments health hazards”
You skipped a step or two in there, but I will note that if you had real health care, the homeless adhd and such would be on their vyvanse prescriptions rather than self-medicating with meth.
Not all homeless people are dangerous drug addicts.
Notice how I never said they were.
You do however seem to be implying "this won't work because some won't go along with it, therefore we should not do it".
In which case you're essentially saying "meth users decide everyone's housing status".
No, that is not what I'm saying. Notice, I never said we shouldn't do anything.
I'm saying reaching the state of "no homelessness" is dependent upon finding something to do with the worst of the homeless.
For a tech analogy, imagine you've architected a system that has 99.5% uptime. You might be able to imagine a way to get to 99.9% up time.
With enough resources, you might even be able to get to 99.99% uptime. With laser focus and a giant dedicated team and an immense budget, maybe you can get it to 99.995%.
But what would you do if some exec came in and said we need 100% uptime, and we are a failure as a company unless we reach that?
Is anyone here saying we need to reach literally 0% homelessness? Reducing current numbers by 99% would be amazing.
Well, people have used the phrase "end homelessness", which I take to mean no homeless.
US and Europe have different reasone for homelessnes. Give free houses in US and next day you will have +400mln people from South America. In EU (I can speak for Poland) most homeless have alcohol and violence problems - people removed from homes for domestic violence by court (divorce). You must be quite bad person if no one takes care of you, in a country with a) strong family tights and b) many people owning a home.
> Give free houses in US and next day you will have +400mln people from South America.
I don't know that at all. People in public housing that I know and see are not especially from South America.
How could the United States end homelessness? It is a mix of federal government, state governments, and local/county/municipal governments. The level of government best suited to do the actual work is hamstrung... if any one city fixes homelessness (somehow), more homeless will show up. If they do that again for the new arrivals, more homeless show up.
The first to solve it is punished with tens of thousands of newly arriving homeless who, as you might imagine, will find a way to get there if it means not being homeless anymore. But budgets are finite and the cost per homeless must he higher than zero, but in a practical sense the number of homeless aren't entirely finite.
If you start from the other end, with the feds, then you might as well hold your breath. Homelessness is so far down the list of priorities, that even if it somehow did bubble to the top, the polarization in Congress will sabotage any effort, and we'll end up with boondoggles that both sides can criticize and that won't really help any homeless at all.
This isn't a choice being made, it's just the complexity of the real world that some are still blind to even after graduating college and (theoretically) turning into grownups.
There's actually a technical solution too, but since it's dry and boring, most leftists (and quite a few of the rightists) find it too boring to ever want to try. Obviously the solution is either love and compassion (from the left) or maybe "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps" (from the right).
70-80% of homeless people are local. Fixing homelessness in your community does not attract large numbers of additional people.
This argument is so lame. "Actually the overall structure of the USA is designed so that its basicalyl impossible to solve the crisis".
You're not wrong in the fact that America is a shit country designed to intentionally to use homelessness as an implicit threat against the working class. You are wrong in the sense that all the things you listed aren't reasons, just excuses to cover up the intentionality of homelessness, and that homelessness could be solved if there was the political will to do so. Which there will never be in the USA because again, the homelessness crisis is intentional.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
Create a federal jobs program to build apartments in large quantities, not just in cities but in rural, suburban and exurban areas as well. Anybody who's an American citizen and able bodied (including ex-convicts and felons) can apply and get a good paying job with health insurance. Use the federal government's power of eminent domain to override zoning laws and seize land that's being sat on, and finally pay for it by heavily taxing the tech giants, cutting military spending and legalizing (and taxing) cannabis.
Will politicians ever do it? No, they're in the pocket of the military and the 1%. Will voters ever vote for it? No, they're fed a steady stream of propaganda that tells them that this would be "socialism". But that's how the problem would be solved.
> The first to solve it is punished with tens of thousands of newly arriving homeless
I've seen nothing to support this claim. It does fit the right-wing disinformation pattern of demonizing people, encouraging division and hate between people, undermine social programs, and making baseless claims to put others in the defensive position of having to disprove them.
Can you support that claim?
Here's some evidence to the contrary, from another comment: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30739834/
The US could end homelessness but would need to stop immigration and change the constitution which could force people in shelter. Not sure it's the outcome we all want.
> US could end homelessness but would need to stop immigration and change the constitution which could force people in shelter
Immigrants are a tiny fraction of the homeless [1]. And we’ve tried criminalising homelessness; incarceration is forced shelter and incredibly expensive.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30739834/
In Canada the majority of shelter beds go to refugee claimants. I believe it is highly like many illegals in the US are homeless and make up the majority of homeless people. They are not part of the numbers you provided.
> In Canada the majority of shelter beds go to refugee claimants.
Is there data someplace that shows it?
> I believe it is highly like
I believe that angry gods cause rain. What does it matter?
according to that 'adults participating in the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions' .. It also says foreign born is 1% vs native at 1.7% - so they are both 'a tiny fraction'
Whether or not a large percentage, or a large number or small number of immigrants are homeless or not,
one must assume that if 11 million people left the US next month, the price of rent in many places may go down a bit, and some currently unhoused people might be able to afford a cheaper place.
Of course another side is that wages in some industries will rise, and that may put more people into a position where they can afford an apartment.
What I'd like to see is how inexpensive optional housing can be made.
There are 10 million empty homes [0] and ~700,000 homeless. No matter how you slice those numbers you still have more empty housing stock than homeless right now.
[0]: https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf (page 4)
My first read of this document leads me to believe that there are only about 341,000 housing units available for rent, there are some for sale at an average price of $373,000.. but many or most of the empty housing units are like second homes and such and not 'available'.
So we have 350k open units and 700k people without homes, average rent is around $1500..
just looking at the data my guess is that we have about 700k people who don't have an extra 2 grand every month to put into housing. (and I think it's way higher personally, maybe not counting the couch surfing relatives who can't afford their own place, and others who are living in over crowded situations of basements )-
I'm sure there is much more to it than the averages, like a lot of the homeless are in areas where the average rent is much higher and 1500 - and the few places where rent is $800 likely has less homeless, (and also has less other things like jobs and public transit) -
and really if it is 10 million or a quarter a million empty places, I don't see how that matters if no one can afford any of them.
Those houses sitting empty with no-one in them is exactly why the price of rent is so high. The supply is there but it's being hoarded by 1% of the population. Write laws that would force people to rent out their secondary houses, condos and apartments (with the threat of having it seized if they don't) and watch the prices immediately start to fall.
What does that mean for the next steps?
Does the government eminent domain the houses, arrest the homeless, and then ship them out to Detroit or wherever the surplus houses are?
The "surplus houses" are not just in Detroit but also around Central Park, NY, where people buy them as investment.
so what is the operational theory then?
one can describe the situation and its causes without prescribing solutions
You're assuming that the major challenge is the lack of a home, because the term we choose to use as an umbrella implies that. For some people it's even true, but they tend not to be CHRONICALLY homeless, and that's the population of major concern. Chronically homeless people have extremely high rates of mental illness and substance abuse; depending on how you slice it, a third or more are schizophrenic or something similar.
Those are not people you can just stick into a house and wish them well, they need serious help for many years. In most cases that help isn't there, or comes with strings (no drugs, no alcohol) that they refuse to accept. Homelessness in the US is in many respect a mental health and substance abuse issue, exacerbated in the post-Reagan era when our mental health system was gutted and weakened.
If you want to reach those people and keep them off the streets, you need more than just empty houses.
If you're saying that "homeless" means something other than not having a home, that seems unnecessarily confusing. Re strings - I believe there has been some success in providing no-strings housing and then working on the other problems.
It's a broad term, just like "Sick" can mean anything from having a seasonal cold, to terminal cancer. The causes vary, the prognoses vary, the treatments vary. Talking about "Sickness" without specifics is profoundly unhelpful.
Same with homelessness.
Chronically homeless make up about a quarter to a third of the US homeless population.
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2023-...
That's true, but they make up a disproportionate number of the "visible homeless" that people encounter in camps, taking drugs on the street, etc. A lot of homeless people are at a low point in their lives, but use the systems offered to them and dig themselves back out. That's why they aren't CHRONICALLY homeless.
They don't represent the same kind of societal problem that poor students, broke divorcees, and people moving through rough patches do. They also don't represent a single population that needs help they aren't provided with already, unlike the chronically homeless.
Simpler than that: just roll back the restrictive zoning codes which have been making sufficient development infeasible for many years, thus creating a steadily growing housing deficit. When laws have turned the housing market into a game of musical chairs, someone is guaranteed to be left outside.
I'm often skeptical of simple solutions like this. They tend to assume that the regulation causes the problem, but when looked at more critically, it's clear that the regulation is a formalization of a combination of consumer & business preference.
For example, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations. If you get into the gritty details, you'll find that they have a whole bunch ofloopholes that seem to favor larger trucks & SUVs. Many people will point to these regulation as causing people to buy light trucks & SUVs, but the data seems to suggest consumers prefer to buy these vehicles and auto manufacture prefer to sell them (they are extremely profitable). I postulate that, if CAFE requirements were eliminated, the best selling vehicle in the USA would continue to be the F-series and other trucks and SUVs would continue to dominate the top 10, because the regulations are influenced by consumer preference, not the other way around.
I think the same logic applies to zoning. People largely want to own single family homes (SFH) in the suburbs; builders largely want to build SFHs in the suburbs. There's no reason to believe that changes in zoning will cause a meaningful shift in consumer and business preference. In the handful of ultra expensive metro areas, sure it might move the needle because economics trump preference, but in most of the USA, there's plenty of space to build housing. It's hard to imagine a developer in Pittsburgh choosing to build housing in an industrial area in the city over some empty land on the outskirts.
I appreciate your skepticism! The proposition that rates of homelessness are primarily driven by housing costs has actually been well supported in research - this Pew article contains many useful references:
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/...
As per econ 101, high prices are a function of scarcity relative to demand: we can reasonably claim that regulations which restrict housing development, which by their nature must increase scarcity and therefore housing costs, therefore also lead to increased rates of homelessness.
> In the handful of ultra expensive metro areas, sure it might move the needle
That's a good point, but those are exactly the places which have significant homelessness problems.
In general, this is not a housing preference issue, because opposition to upzoning does not come from people who aspire to live in single-family homes, but from people who already own them. This is a typical example:
https://www.change.org/p/whittier-neighbors-against-seattle-...
As usual with these things, the complaints include a cloud of nitpicky nonsense surrounding a central concern over "neighborhood character", which is a polite way of saying "we don't want apartment-dwelling poor people coming to live near us".
>>which is a polite way of saying "we don't want apartment-dwelling poor people coming to live near us".
NO, it is most definitely NOT that.
It is overwhelmingly exactly what people say it is — maintaining the character of a neighborhood that everyone there has paid higher cost of entry, cost of taxes, and cost and time of maintenance and upgrades to maintain. Don't make claims in areas where you have zero knowledge just because you think it helps your point.
I'm in a small sub-/ex-urban town with a rural character which has zoning, and have been involved in local issues. I've never met a single person who feels the way you claim (although there are surely a few examples somewhere). No one looks down on the low income ppl who are here because their families were here before housing started to get tight and expensive. Most everyone either grew up here or came specifically because they WANT to live in a quieter area, have some wildlife, maintain gardens, etc. No one is avoiding poor people, they are SEEKING quiet and green spaces where you can do outdoor activities.
Moreover, saying that zoning in locales like this should be changed to accommodate low-income high-density housing is just stupid. Yes, the current homeowners could get rich subdividing their properties, razing the trees and putting up condos. Great, maybe you get a lower-income population. But getting ANYWHERE useful from here, even groceries or convenience stores, is a 5-10 mile car ride, and the rail station to the big city is 25min away by car. Any low income person is now condemned to replace housing expenses with car expenses, purchase/lease, maintenance, insurance, fuel, etc.. And, they now have a big commute reducing their time available.
It is really simple to just blame other people and yell "they're just greedy!", and it surely makes you feel better and more righteous.
It is much harder to actually figure out complex problems and create solutions that work.
That's your assumption. Instead, mine is that it would require some kind of wealth transfer to pay for the social services.
Paying for the social services is possible. The difficult issue is some people don't want to go to a homeless shelter because they want to maintain a level of freedom while others fear they will be robbed/raped at the shelter.
Do you force them inside?
> The difficult issue is some people don't want to go to a homeless shelter because they want to maintain a level of freedom while others fear they will be robbed/raped at the shelter.
A bit of a strawman, social service doesn't have to mean homeless shelter, so no, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. Problem is in many places at least where I live, there just isn't enough money to serve all the people that need the various levels of help.
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.
It's funny I've considered going there when my life imploded. Just get dropped off and live there Venice beach but yeah I get how annoying that would be to a non-homeless.
I have family who are poor (3rd world) and I think about how it's fair for me to b here and they are over there but yeah etc etc idk. Why does it feel bad to be. I do help (virtue signal) donate but I'm also in a shit ton of debt but I'm not technically poor/homeless. I have a car/apt/toys. Still thinking about it.
Oh yeah giving money isn't a fix it turns out because people fight over it/demand more. Next thing you know everyone is your relative hunting you down online. My personal gmail chat pops up "hey man..."
It does piss me off when I pull up to a light and there's a guy right there with a sign. How do I know he's homeless? I'm coming out of a grocery store at night somebody's like "sir, sir, sir..." trying to get my attention. I guess it shouldn't be a problem to just hand em a dollar. But then they say "that's it?".
Again I donate to a local food shelter, NHA, etc... just funny is altruism real idk why do I feel annoyed (greed?). I can't even ask people for money without feeling shame but other people don't care. Alright rant over I am privileged I know.
I'm gonna live a life though, mid sports car, land, not give up. I'll continue to donate too whether in cash or open source work but first I have to get out of debt, been in debt for 15 years now crazy. That's why I have my tech job, drive for UE, donate plasma and freelance to speed run my debt off. Thankfully I'm single so it's only my own life I gotta worry about.
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.
Helsinki, at least is an interesting place. Much like any other capital if you go to certain neighbourhoods you can see drug dealers, drug users (many which are living in shelters) - even in downtown. They kind of blend in, are part of the scenery and on the whole only interact with their "own kind". You might hear some grumbling, shouting, smelly folk on the tram - but they aren't treated with the same contempt at existing as I've seen in other countries.
Seeing comments from few homeless folks here, I wish you good luck and hope your situation changes. I have a very different image in mind when it comes to homeless people and having to live on roadside let alone afford a phone and time to comment on hacker news.
Phones are pretty cheap, and probably essential for finding work and staying in contact with family/other resources, and I imagine a homeless person has time more than anything else. I'm also a bit surprised at first when I see a post from someone is such a different economic situation here on HN but logically it makes sense. (I recall seeing an engineer in Palestine post in a recent Who wants to be hired? and I tread similar thoughts.)
> a “Housing First” approach, which provides people experiencing homelessness with immediate, independent, permanent housing
Could timing have something to do with it? Maybe if the cycle is broken right at the start, when one becomes homeless, it prevents some of the mental health issues and addiction issues that come from living without support for too long. People here in NA often have lived on the streets for years or decades. That's so much trauma, many say it's impossible to heal at that point.
> Maybe if the cycle is broken right at the start, when one becomes homeless, it prevents some of the mental health issues and addiction issues that come from living without support for too long
What fraction of the homeless addicts or mentally ill started out that way?
Suffering from mental trauma does not mean that one cannot suffer from additional mental trauma.
1. Build a house for each homeless person
2. Remove them from the homeless count, because they now have a house.
3. Reach zero homelessness!
4. There are still people living on the streets... But we don't call them homeless!
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. From the article, basically no one was sleeping on the streets in Finland in 2020.
I don't know where the #4 is from, but I can point to https://kritisches-netzwerk.de/sites/default/files/homelessn... with a more complete breakdown:
at least now they can't say there's no home for them, it's just choice - some prefer that way.
Also -40C winters might have something to do with it.
If you’re going to use -40, why include the “C”?
It’s a fun fact that -40 c == -40 f, but if you leave off the units people who aren’t ‘in the know’ would be confused. Also they might (adversarially) wonder if the units are in a lesser known scale like rømer
I use nerdy in-jokes a bit too much.
I for one have no idea how much is -40f, is it colder or hotter than -40c?
I do remember -32 or something is the same?
It helps to have a winter.
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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Finland#:~:tex....
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.
While homogeneity may play a factor I think it's dwarved by other things. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Romania
Finland has almost 3x the GDP per capita as Romania [1]. I think being rich (i.e., good social programs) accounts for the trust gap.
https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/finland/romania
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.
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.
> in USA, I bet the overwhelming majority of homeless are citizens born in USA, not immigrants
Correct.
"There was no significant difference in rates of lifetime adult homelessness between foreign-born adults and native-born adults (1.0% vs 1.7%). Foreign-born participants were less likely to have various mental and substance-use disorders, less likely to receive welfare, and less likely to have any lifetime incarceration." ("The foreign-born population was 46.2 million (13.9% of the total population)" in 2022 [2].)
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30739834/
[2] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024/foreign-...
This is extremely relevant. Finland is basically Sweden without mass migration. The cracks in our society that the multi-culti ideology has opened up is difficult for an American to comprehend, because you never experienced the benefits of a true monoculture.
So are there other techniques for fixing homelessness that work in these so-called "low-trust" societies?
> 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
Meh. They've got two different official languages. It's not as ethnically uniform as a lot of other European countries.
We also have an indigenous people, the Sami (who are not always treated that well).
> it's easier to have a high-trust society if you eschew immigration.
citation needed
You need a citation for you to understand people with similar customs/religious believes, similar dna have a higher trust society than a cities of unknown elements?
Yes. It sounds right, but many subtly wrong things often do. At the very least, a measurement of the effect strength would be nice. For instance, is a homogenous society a stronger or weaker signal than GDP?
So you mean GDP per capita?
I do indeed, thanks.
Yes!
Controversial, but worth considering. I believe societies have different capacities for assimilation (changing immigrants) and appropriation (changing themselves), with the hallmark of any era's great societies being their ability to maximise both.
That said, the evidence is mixed [1], with fairness and economic inequality [2][3] seeming to matter more than racial homogeneity. (Lots of tiny, racially-homogenous societies–high trust or not–bordering each other also have a one-way historical track record.)
[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000169931772161...
[2] https://www.jstor.org/stable/23324182
[3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7454994/
A very often ignored fact is the cultural homogeneity. I do not thing racial homogeneity is of any benefit whatsoever, but I do believe that cultural is.
When someone raised in a culture where cheating to win by any means is acceptable (most of India) or where bartering, persuading and microfrauding in trade (most of Middle east and sup-sahara Africa) is not frowned upon, it is not a stretch to imagine that the introduction of such cultural elements will lead to dilution of the overall interpersonal trust in let's say, Swedish society.
Putnam found a linear correlation between diversity and social trust.
Putnam indeed reported a correlation between the mean herfindahl index of ethnic homogeneity and trust in societies (both own-race trust, other race trust & neighbour trust).
If you had actually read the paper (which I have), you would realise that the relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust is inverse.
[flagged]
> you are getting downvoted
"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Is it boring reading about the meta or how something works. Understanding the inner workings of a system or society is something we can use as an outsider to the system.
Hearing that these opinions get downvoted helps explain why these comments were judged this way.
> Hearing that these opinions get downvoted helps explain why these comments were judged
HN greys and hides downvoted comments. The commentary adds nothing.
An analysis around why would have been interesting. It isn’t what that comment did. Nor what most comments complaining about downvoting do, for the simple reason that said comment is almost always stronger without the whining.
i think you've got it backwards- the xenophobia of so called 'high trust' bigots are holding back the global society of our future, and their low homelessness is in reality an unfair burden on other more troubled countries
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.
> I did not see anything about mental illness or addicts
Maybe it's not actually a problem. Maybe it's another way to promote fear, hate, division, and cynicism about social spending.
> Both groups have people who want to be homeless, so they can be left alone
Why can't they be left alone in a home?
disruptive behavior
A working mom with a 2 year old doesnt want to live next door to violent actors and drug dealers.
More specifically, I think the US is unwilling to distinguish between lawful and unlawfully behaving poor, and segregate them accordingly when providing shelter.
They destroy it.
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.
"unwilling or unable" is extremely key. I recall a US Senator talking about his son who has schizophrenia. The father would pay for an apartment for his son, no strings attached, and still find him sleeping in the street.
It may be possible to "solve" homelessness for some majority of people. But I doubt 100% is ever humanly achievable. At least, not without some massive breakthrough in understanding and intervention for mental illnesses.
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.
Comparing the homlessness chart in the article to Finland's net immigration chart (https://stat.fi/en/publication/cl8n2ksks2yau0dukaxe3it75) the country's net negative immigration created much of the housing availability to house people immediately. Next door in Sweden, the situation is different.
Their approach of building flats and committing to getting homeless people into them absolutely worked and should be an example, but not without a relatively fixed homeless rate. This is the general issue with the nordic social model. it was the model of functioning social programs, but in a vacuum of relative isolation and homegeneity.
So, they reduced homelessness by giving people a permanent place to live?
Inconceivable! Who would have ever thought of that?
Those commonist Scandinavians, they just don't understand the "power of the market"...
Why would anyone even live indoors if it mitigated investor ROI?
I thought building houses was a skill lost to history, like Damascus steel!
[flagged]
I don't get the joke or are you actually suggesting a significant number of homeless people are so by choice?
My comment was about how tolerance affects the way homelessness is viewed and addressed, nothing more nothing less.