3 ms·

practically zero is 1.4 per 1000, the US is only at 1.7 per 1000. Norway might be able to lay claim to practically zero because the nations population is so sma

practically zero is 1.4 per 1000, the US is only at 1.7 per 1000. Norway might be able to lay claim to practically zero because the nations population is so small. A smaller number does not indicate it is solved, the per 1000 is the number to watch. the majority of conditions you give for people falling through the cracks applies to the vast majority of Western countries. The world has a need to better mental health treatment. Cities in the US spend tens of millions and more to combat homelessness but it is not a simple problem. there were stories about banning begging in Norway, I guess hiding a problem makes it go away. Don't fret, it is a practice many big American cities use as well, especially when large number of visitors are in town. hence the problem, we want to pretend it doesn't exist so we hide it

marvin 9y ago
It's not quite as simple as "persons per 1000 without a fixed address". _Yes_, strictly speaking this is the definition of homelessness (and this number was indeed around 1.2 at the last count in Norway), but the debate is in reality about the misery of the poorest in society. No one will debate that a person without a fixed domicile that receives $800/month[0] by the state and is regularly encouraged to seek free mental health care, is much better off than someone that receives no financial aid and is forced to beg or eat trash in order to stay alive. The situation with begging in Norway is complex and not a direct proxy for extreme poverty[1]. Do agree that better mental health treatment is required in large parts of the world, and that homelessness and poverty are complex and cannot be solved by simply paying someone to fix things. What I was trying to say was that it is a problem that can to a large extent be mitigated, if there is a cultural will to do it. It is by no means a phenomenon that will always be unacceptably bad if some moderate measures are taken to alleviate it. [0]: https://www.nav.no/no/NAV+og+samfunn/Kontakt+NAV/Utbetalinger/Snarveier/satser--380089?kap=380109 https://www.nav.no/no/NAV+og+samfunn/Kontakt+NAV/Utbetalinge... [1]: https://tv.nrk.no/serie/brennpunkt/mddp11000617/18-04-2017 https://tv.nrk.no/serie/brennpunkt/mddp11000617/18-04-2017, documentary following beggars in Bergen for two years. A large proportion is found to be part of specific human trafficking schemes.

marvin 9y ago

It's not quite as simple as "persons per 1000 without a fixed address". _Yes_, strictly speaking this is the definition of homelessness (and this number was indeed around 1.2 at the last count in Norway), but the debate is in reality about the misery of the poorest in society. No one will debate that a person without a fixed domicile that receives $800/month[0] by the state and is regularly encouraged to seek free mental health care, is much better off than someone that receives no financial aid and is forced to beg or eat trash in order to stay alive. The situation with begging in Norway is complex and not a direct proxy for extreme poverty[1]. Do agree that better mental health treatment is required in large parts of the world, and that homelessness and poverty are complex and cannot be solved by simply paying someone to fix things. What I was trying to say was that it is a problem that can to a large extent be mitigated, if there is a cultural will to do it. It is by no means a phenomenon that will always be unacceptably bad if some moderate measures are taken to alleviate it. [0]: https://www.nav.no/no/NAV+og+samfunn/Kontakt+NAV/Utbetalinger/Snarveier/satser--380089?kap=380109 https://www.nav.no/no/NAV+og+samfunn/Kontakt+NAV/Utbetalinge... [1]: https://tv.nrk.no/serie/brennpunkt/mddp11000617/18-04-2017 https://tv.nrk.no/serie/brennpunkt/mddp11000617/18-04-2017, documentary following beggars in Bergen for two years. A large proportion is found to be part of specific human trafficking schemes.