What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Homelessness in industrialized countries (1 Viewer)

Maurile Tremblay

Administrator
Staff member
Among all domestic political issues, I think homelessness has one of the highest ratios of (a) the severity of the problem to (b) the attention it receives.

My basic philosophy is that there should never be more homelessness in a wealthy, industrialized nation than there is among typical hunter-gatherer societies (where, I believe, there is essentially none).

Private property is awesome, and in combination with capitalism, it has done unmistakable good in lifting whole societies out of poverty and drastically increasing overall standards of living.

But our system of private property, where I can buy more land than I'll ever personally use and then exclude anyone else from building shelter on it, is not a divine economic principle handed down by God. It's just a set of rules that we've collectively (but not unanimously) come up with in order to try to improve our collective lot. And I think part of the trade-off should be that when we adopt a system that makes people on the whole much better off, economically, than we'd ever have been as hunter-gatherers, we should use a fraction of the overall gains to make sure that the least fortunate among us are no worse off than they'd have been as hunter-gatherers.

That means making sure that everyone is able to procure food, clothing, and shelter.

In any case, I don't mean for this OP to be any kind of manifesto. I just came across an article that I thought was worth sharing and realized that we don't have a general homelessness thread to put it in, so I'm creating one.

It's hard to know exactly what to do about the homelessness problem, but as pragmatists, our basic answer should be: whatever works. Here is the article I wanted to share, which suggests that Helsinki's approach is worth closer inspection:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle-helsinkis-radical-solution-to-homelessness

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We don't build enough housing, particularly in places like California where you can sleep outside year-round.

 
I do a lot of work around this. The article mentions this, too, but the evidence strongly supports the idea that without housing security, attempts to solve various other (often co-occuring) issues like unemployment, mental illness, substance abuse, etc. isn't anywhere near as successful as it is when the individual doesn't have to worry about a place to sleep. It sounds really obvious but only recently have nonprofits and government been focusing more on housing first with integrated wraparound services. 

I made a site visit to Denver about a year ago to see the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. They're doing really good work right now. 

 
We don't build enough housing, particularly in places like California where you can sleep outside year-round.
further, in reference to CA specifically, the process to obtain permits for new construction is arduous. labor shortages also play a role.

 
Among all domestic political issues, I think homelessness has one of the highest ratios of (a) the severity of the problem to (b) the attention it receives.

My basic philosophy is that there should never be more homelessness in a wealthy, industrialized nation than there is among typical hunter-gatherer societies (where, I believe, there is essentially none).

Private property is awesome, and in combination with capitalism, it has done unmistakable good in lifting whole societies out of poverty and drastically increasing overall standards of living.

But our system of private property, where I can buy more land than I'll ever personally use and then exclude anyone else from building shelter on it, is not a divine economic principle handed down by God. It's just a set of rules that we've collectively (but not unanimously) come up with in order to try to improve our collective lot. And I think part of the trade-off should be that when we adopt a system that makes people on the whole much better off, economically, than we'd ever have been as hunter-gatherers, we should use a fraction of the overall gains to make sure that the least fortunate among us are no worse off than they'd have been as hunter-gatherers.

That means making sure that everyone is able to procure food, clothing, and shelter.

In any case, I don't mean for this OP to be any kind of manifesto. I just came across an article that I thought was worth sharing and realized that we don't have a general homelessness thread to put it in, so I'm creating one.

It's hard to know exactly what to do about the homelessness problem, but as pragmatists, our basic answer should be: whatever works. Here is the article I wanted to share, which suggests that Helsinki's approach is worth closer inspection:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle-helsinkis-radical-solution-to-homelessness
While I don't like to see anyone homeless, I get it(somewhat).  However in America, there is no reason whatsoever anyone should be hungry

 
How is this much different from public housing projects?
I think, generally, you have to qualify for public housing, no? You have to go through the "different stages of temporary accommodation," as the article describes - to get to the end result of public housing. 

 
I do a lot of work around this. The article mentions this, too, but the evidence strongly supports the idea that without housing security, attempts to solve various other (often co-occuring) issues like unemployment, mental illness, substance abuse, etc. isn't anywhere near as successful as it is when the individual doesn't have to worry about a place to sleep. It sounds really obvious but only recently have nonprofits and government been focusing more on housing first with integrated wraparound services. 

I made a site visit to Denver about a year ago to see the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. They're doing really good work right now. 


I'm not nearly the expert you are, but I have a little knowledge of the issue. Its my understanding that a large percentage of chronically homeless people have at least some (and often severe) mental illness. 

Does a housing first approach help with them? At the least, it seems this would need to be combined with increased mental health treatment. Helsinki's mayor addresses this in the article.

 
There are some things I’m just not well studied on. One is climate change, but I can see the insanely high summer levels of the Mississippi River in the last few years, including right now.

And social policy, which on the whole I have a hard time grasping, but I can see the beggars on the street in so many places in my city, right by my car window and on the sidewalk. It has been so much worse the last few years, and yet under both Obama and Trump we have been spending near record amounts and the economy is great. I go to Houston I see the same thing. What is going on?

 
I think part of the trade-off should be that when we adopt a system that makes people on the whole much better off, economically, than we'd ever have been as hunter-gatherers, we should use a fraction of the overall gains to make sure that the least fortunate among us are no worse off than they'd have been as hunter-gatherers.

That means making sure that everyone is able to procure food, clothing, and shelter.
Maybe I'm just not as up on formal definitions as I should be, but this strikes me as the dead-center bullseye of "economic liberalism".

 
There are some things I’m just not well studied on. One is climate change, but I can see the insanely high summer levels of the Mississippi River in the last few years, including right now.

And social policy, which on the whole I have a hard time grasping, but I can see the beggars on the street in so many places in my city, right by my car window and on the sidewalk. It has been so much worse the last few years, and yet under both Obama and Trump we have been spending near record amounts and the economy is great. I go to Houston I see the same thing. What is going on?
Acceptance.    It's no longer PC to push the homeless under a bridge...

You see a lot more homeosexuals too....I don't think there has been an increase in homosexuality....Its just now Ok to be out

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If this data is accurate, then this entire program, while I guess Ok, wouldn't do squat here in the US. There are over 500,000 homeless in the US.

Housing First’s early goal was to create 2,500 new homes. It has created 3,500. Since its launch in 2008, the number of long-term homeless people in Finland has fallen by more than 35%.

 
There are some things I’m just not well studied on. One is climate change, but I can see the insanely high summer levels of the Mississippi River in the last few years, including right now.

And social policy, which on the whole I have a hard time grasping, but I can see the beggars on the street in so many places in my city, right by my car window and on the sidewalk. It has been so much worse the last few years, and yet under both Obama and Trump we have been spending near record amounts and the economy is great. I go to Houston I see the same thing. What is going on?
Drug addiction and mental illness is a sizable chunk of the problem.

 
If this data is accurate, then this entire program, while I guess Ok, wouldn't do squat here in the US. There are over 500,000 homeless in the US.

Housing First’s early goal was to create 2,500 new homes. It has created 3,500. Since its launch in 2008, the number of long-term homeless people in Finland has fallen by more than 35%.
Finland has 5.5 million people.  U.S. has over 320 million.  I similar scale effort (relative to population size) would certainly do squat.

 
Finland has 5.5 million people.  U.S. has over 320 million.  I similar scale effort (relative to population size) would certainly do squat.
Don't know if that's true..The expense of it might make it impossible.   Just cause something works on a small scale does not at all mean that it automatically will work on a large scale.  

 
The self esteem that the person(s) gain often leads them out of the situation they are in and to a more prosperous life.  In the past this has been severely underestimated.
And it keeps them from making the self harming decisions they typically do when they feel like they aren't worth much.  Keeping people out of that situation to begin with is a big gain.  All my experience is anecdotal...I get that, but it's been the same experience everywhere I've ever lived.  Educate people and help them feel safe and the sky's the limit.  

 
Don't know if that's true..The expense of it might make it impossible.   Just cause something works on a small scale does not at all mean that it automatically will work on a large scale.  
What was the cost? Do you know?

There are between 2200 and 2500 homeless in Austin. Those 2500 units that Finland targeted are about the same we would need. Maybe we should not look at it as a 500k homeless but a bunch of small communities with a few thousand homeless (and then a couple huge communities, obviously).

 
There are some things I’m just not well studied on. One is climate change, but I can see the insanely high summer levels of the Mississippi River in the last few years, including right now.

And social policy, which on the whole I have a hard time grasping, but I can see the beggars on the street in so many places in my city, right by my car window and on the sidewalk. It has been so much worse the last few years, and yet under both Obama and Trump we have been spending near record amounts and the economy is great. I go to Houston I see the same thing. What is going on?
People approaching you in the streets has become an everyday thing now.  I was in Chicago 2 weeks ago and we could not walk anywhere without 4-5 people coming up asking for money and some were aggressive.

The people who are panhandling are difficult to tell if they are really homeless or doing in for profit as work.  A TV station in Detroit ran an undercover operation following panhandlers and so many were scamming.  One guy had a wheel chair and after working the streets all day they followed him to his new SUV parked a couple blocks away as he stood up and folded the chair up and walked to a restaurant. They interviewed another off camera who said he clears between 150-200 a day cash, more when the Tigers or Redwings are playing.

 
When I hear someone say that someone creating wealth for themselves has zero impact on someone else, it makes me cringe. Homelessness is a good example of how that is not true (and there are many other examples.

The wealthy impact the prices of land and homes. In fact, the don't just impact it... the pretty much define it. When the wealthy are buying land and homes, not because they need a place to live, but instead because they are looking for stores of their wealth, the price of land and homes end up being much higher than if the only buyers of such were people who needed them as a residence. The farther the real price is from where it should be will have a direct result in the amount of homelessness in the economy. But again, it's not just the homeless that are affected. Some people can only afford the land and home because they go without so many other things. 

 
Don't know if that's true..The expense of it might make it impossible.   Just cause something works on a small scale does not at all mean that it automatically will work on a large scale.  
It's expensive up front for sure. The thing is though, like preventative services, the up-front costs are often far less than the long-term costs of not doing the prevention. It'd be cheaper to give a guy a house and help him work through his substance abuse problem or get consistent with his meds or whatever, then to keep paying for his incarceration because he lost it on the streets, over and over again. However, it's hard to sell these kinds of things when elected officials need results within election cycles.

There's a ton of other obstacles to getting these things implemented, too. Lack of real estate, landlords unwilling to rent to these populations, etc. 

 
It's expensive up front for sure. The thing is though, like preventative services, the up-front costs are often far less than the long-term costs of not doing the prevention. It'd be cheaper to give a guy a house and help him work through his substance abuse problem or get consistent with his meds or whatever, then to keep paying for his incarceration because he lost it on the streets, over and over again. However, it's hard to sell these kinds of things when elected officials need results within election cycles.

There's a ton of other obstacles to getting these things implemented, too. Lack of real estate, landlords unwilling to rent to these populations, etc. 
Ok then....and I'm asking this seriously..  why dont we just make everything free?

 
What was the cost? Do you know?

There are between 2200 and 2500 homeless in Austin. Those 2500 units that Finland targeted are about the same we would need. Maybe we should not look at it as a 500k homeless but a bunch of small communities with a few thousand homeless (and then a couple huge communities, obviously).
The cost was quoted in the article

 
What was the cost? Do you know?

There are between 2200 and 2500 homeless in Austin. Those 2500 units that Finland targeted are about the same we would need. Maybe we should not look at it as a 500k homeless but a bunch of small communities with a few thousand homeless (and then a couple huge communities, obviously).
Soooo....do you think of Austin created 2500 free houses for the 2500 homeless that would instantly eliminate all homeless in Austin? Come on man.  Get real. 

 
Soooo....do you think of Austin created 2500 free houses for the 2500 homeless that would instantly eliminate all homeless in Austin? Come on man.  Get real. 


I don't understand your point. Maybe? It would go a long way to helping.

A couple of years ago, Austin effectively ended veteran homelessness. I see no reason we couldn't also effectively eliminate homelessness overall. 

 
To achieve such a solution, we likely need it to be easier to place an adult in guardianship. More than 1 percent of all Finnish adults is under guardianship. (51,000 adults under guardianship out of less than 5 million adults).

For the USA to have a similar figure, almost three million adults would need to be under guardianship. Our reporting is lousy, but estimates are about half that number. 
Easing the guardianship restrictions likely goes against the American ethos of self-sufficiency.

 
I don't understand your point. Maybe? It would go a long way to helping.

A couple of years ago, Austin effectively ended veteran homelessness. I see no reason we couldn't also effectively eliminate homelessness overall. 
My point is it wouldn't end.  You build 2500 free homes for the 2500 homeless, and in days or weeks..more homeless.  Keep building more?  When does it stop? 

 
My point is it wouldn't end.  You build 2500 free homes for the 2500 homeless, and in days or weeks..more homeless.  Keep building more?  When does it stop? 
I'll never understand this mentality.

We can't help people because there will always be more people to help. We can't fix pollution because there will always be more pollution. We can't end world hunger because there will always be hungry people.

No, you may not be able to build a home for every person. But you can try and do a lot of good by doing so.

 
I'll never understand this mentality.

We can't help people because there will always be more people to help. We can't fix pollution because there will always be more pollution. We can't end world hunger because there will always be hungry people.

No, you may not be able to build a home for every person. But you can try and do a lot of good by doing so.
So again I ask....why dont we make everything free?  People need cars too..Why aren;t we giving them free cars?  

 
So again I ask....why dont we make everything free?  People need cars too..Why aren;t we giving them free cars?  
No, not everyone needs cars. There are plenty of people that actually choose to not own one. Same with "everything".

Stop being obtuse. 

Nobody chooses to not have a roof over their head.  Shelter (i.e. a home) is a basic requirement for humans. That's the whole point of the thread and the article linked.  It's the start of getting people on their feet so they can further provide for themselves.

 
To achieve such a solution, we likely need it to be easier to place an adult in guardianship. More than 1 percent of all Finnish adults is under guardianship. (51,000 adults under guardianship out of less than 5 million adults).

For the USA to have a similar figure, almost three million adults would need to be under guardianship. Our reporting is lousy, but estimates are about half that number. 
Easing the guardianship restrictions likely goes against the American ethos of self-sufficiency.
A very good point.  But partially we are substituting policies like guardianship and psychiatric hospitals for higher prison populations and homelessness.

 
No, not everyone needs cars. There are plenty of people that actually choose to not own one. Same with "everything".

Stop being obtuse. 

Nobody chooses to not have a roof over their head.  Shelter (i.e. a home) is a basic requirement for humans. That's the whole point of the thread and the article linked.  It's the start of getting people on their feet so they can further provide for themselves.
I am not being obtuse....I keep hearing how everyone will be better off if we give housing to the homeless.....i mean everyone on this board says that,  yet, we don't do it.  And if that is true, why does it stop at housing.  Forgetting cars then..Everyone needs food right?  Why do people have to pay for food?  Or electricity? Or water? Or heat?   If I have a home, and decide to stop paying my mortgage so I can get a free one...is that OK?  What are the limits on this?  If I am a habitual drug user, and I use this home to further my drug activities..do i get to keep this free home? There are many reasons why people are homeless, and I am willing to bet that the majority of them(will need a poll for this) are that way because of poor decisions they have made in life and will continue to make.  Not this mythical happy land attitude of "oh they just need a hand to help them get back on their feet"    My opinion of course.

 
A very good point.  But partially we are substituting policies like guardianship and psychiatric hospitals for higher prison populations and homelessness.
I can't disagree with your point. I'd also point out that the costs to society from prisons and chronic homelessness are likely higher than the costs of guardianship and psychiatric treatment.

I am not being obtuse....I keep hearing how everyone will be better off if we give housing to the homeless.....i mean everyone on this board says that,  yet, we don't do it.  And if that is true, why does it stop at housing.  Forgetting cars then..Everyone needs food right?  Why do people have to pay for food?  Or electricity? Or water? Or heat?   If I have a home, and decide to stop paying my mortgage so I can get a free one...is that OK?  What are the limits on this?  If I am a habitual drug user, and I use this home to further my drug activities..do i get to keep this free home? There are many reasons why people are homeless, and I am willing to bet that the majority of them(will need a poll for this) are that way because of poor decisions they have made in life and will continue to make.  Not this mythical happy land attitude of "oh they just need a hand to help them get back on their feet"    My opinion of course.
Why do you live in a $250,000 house when there are apartments available for $75,000? Why do you eat steak when hamburger's cheaper? Why use hot water in your shower when tepid will get you just as clean? 

Everyone on this board trades money for creature comfort. So, if you're willing to trade your house payment for an apartment that's in a complex shared with others that can't/won't find other stable housing and give up the autonomy required to live in such an apartment (the Finnish example was no drugging/drinking) more power to you.

NYC is spending 3.2 Billion dollars on homelessness this year. There's a homeless population of almost 100,000. That's $32,000 per person that's getting spent. The cost to hold someone in prison is 118K a year. Society should be relentless about providing ways for people to not make bad decisions in life, even if that person has previously made bad decisions, because the cost to put that person in prison or to take care of that person when they are homeless is much higher than earlier intervention. 

 
They are paying rent within the Finnish model, correct?  So it’s not “free”.  Obviously there’s a massive majority of public funding for overall cost, but is that actually bad?  Is cost a valid deterrent to such problems?  If that’s the case, I can find a lot of budgetary items within every level of government that should be nixed.  What about benefits to those individuals in need and the community/society as a whole, should not that concern be large enough to at least consider such solutions and scaling/adjusting them to fit our problems?

 
Of course not. This question doesn't really make sense in the context of combating homelessness, though. 


I can't disagree with your point. I'd also point out that the costs to society from prisons and chronic homelessness are likely higher than the costs of guardianship and psychiatric treatment.

Why do you live in a $250,000 house when there are apartments available for $75,000? Why do you eat steak when hamburger's cheaper? Why use hot water in your shower when tepid will get you just as clean? 

Everyone on this board trades money for creature comfort. So, if you're willing to trade your house payment for an apartment that's in a complex shared with others that can't/won't find other stable housing and give up the autonomy required to live in such an apartment (the Finnish example was no drugging/drinking) more power to you.

NYC is spending 3.2 Billion dollars on homelessness this year. There's a homeless population of almost 100,000. That's $32,000 per person that's getting spent. The cost to hold someone in prison is 118K a year. Society should be relentless about providing ways for people to not make bad decisions in life, even if that person has previously made bad decisions, because the cost to put that person in prison or to take care of that person when they are homeless is much higher than earlier intervention. 
I've read this a few times and it makes no sense.  Free is free..YOU may not drop your 250000 house, but those aren't the only situations right?  I mean I am trying to understand what you're trying to say and yeah, you're not saying anything

Hmmm..rent an apartment, or go homeless and get free housing?  what do you think will happen?

As far as what I bolded..no matter what society does people will still make bad decisions..over and over.....I don't want to reward them for that behavior.

 
They are paying rent within the Finnish model, correct?  So it’s not “free”.  Obviously there’s a massive majority of public funding for overall cost, but is that actually bad?  Is cost a valid deterrent to such problems?  If that’s the case, I can find a lot of budgetary items within every level of government that should be nixed.  What about benefits to those individuals in need and the community/society as a whole, should not that concern be large enough to at least consider such solutions and scaling/adjusting them to fit our problems?
Wait what? Dont we do that with housing projects now? So why is this any different than what we currently do?

 
I don't want to reward them for that behavior.
This is another obstacle. It's tough to convince people who feel like someone is getting over on society to create good policy that seems like it rewards people who made bad choices, even if it was because of mental illness. Even if the economics make sense (and t does), people will feel cheated so it's tough to get these things started. "I paid MY student loans, so why shouldn't THEY?" 

"I didn't go through life with undiagnosed bipolar disorder that subsequently led to homelessness and the need for services, so why should THEY?"

 
This is another obstacle. It's tough to convince people who feel like someone is getting over on society to create good policy that seems like it rewards people who made bad choices, even if it was because of mental illness. Even if the economics make sense (and t does), people will feel cheated so it's tough to get these things started. "I paid MY student loans, so why shouldn't THEY?" 

"I didn't go through life with undiagnosed bipolar disorder that subsequently led to homelessness and the need for services, so why should THEY?"
Sorry..You sneaking in the comment  that the economics make sense...I disagree with.   Appreciate your thoughts on the matter, but yeah I don't agree with that comment

 
I've read this a few times and it makes no sense.  Free is free..YOU may not drop your 250000 house, but those aren't the only situations right?  I mean I am trying to understand what you're trying to say and yeah, you're not saying anything

Hmmm..rent an apartment, or go homeless and get free housing?  what do you think will happen?

As far as what I bolded..no matter what society does people will still make bad decisions..over and over.....I don't want to reward them for that behavior.
Today, I could stop paying my $2740 a month rent and bring myself and my family to a NYC homeless shelter. Anyone in the City could do so and avoid paying rent. 8.4 of the 8.5 million people in NYC don't do that. 

Why don't I do so? Because living in a homeless shelter sucks. I'd much rather spend the money to live where I do than live in a shelter.

Now, let's say there's an apartment available instead of a shelter. It's not a nice apartment. My neighbors are folks who used to be in shelters themselves. I can't have too many assets to live there. I give up some personal autonomy to live there, perhaps there's no alcohol allowed. Do I stop paying rent to go live in this apartment? Of course not. It's no more a choice that I'd make than it would be to go live in a shelter.

So, to answer your question, I expect people to move into free housing that have no choice but to move into free housing. People who don't have the means to live anywhere else. People who are OK letting the state into their finances in an ongoing business. I don't expect a hoard of young professionals to take over the tenements.

Your idea of rewards is different than mine. The model clearly sets out expected behavior and punishments for not adhering to the behavioral standard. Allowing someone a clean and safe place to sleep isn't a reward. If anything, it's a cost-saving measure.

 
Sorry..You sneaking in the comment  that the economics make sense...I disagree with.   Appreciate your thoughts on the matter, but yeah I don't agree with that comment
Some of the economic advantages have already been discussed here. You're free to research it  further or you can just go with your gut. Whatever works for you.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top