6 ms·

I don't think it is an issue of pride but more of fairness. If you find yourself on the streets because you lost your job or because you had a rough upbringing

I don't think it is an issue of pride but more of fairness. If you find yourself on the streets because you lost your job or because you had a rough upbringing or because you had to flee from an abusive parent or partner, you should get housing paid by the state. Where I draw the line, personally is to give free housing unconditionally to addicts. I am not saying they shouldn't get it, I am saying they should get it under certain conditions, for example entering a program, doing some sort of training, get a job, anything. Because how is it doing any good to society if you just give housing without people having to change their bad habits? In the article, the lady who is alcoholic says she can just keep drinking in her room, so she probably doesn't want to work or get better. In this case, I would much rather have her room go to a single mum struggling with her kids or to somebody who actually wants to do something with their lives. Instead, she is probably going to keep drinking and nothing will change. Housing being a finite resource and taxpayers money being finite as well, priorities should be given to people who actually want to get better. In an ideal world, maybe you can give a room/apartment to everybody out there who needs one including the people who just want to drink or shoot up all day. But as it stands it does not makes sense and is ripe for abuse if everybody expects free housing even if they are not willing to change just a little bit.

elabajaba 8y ago
It's much cheaper to house the homeless than leave them on the streets. https://shnny.org/research/the-cost-of-long-term-homelessness-in-central-florida/ https://shnny.org/research/the-cost-of-long-term-homelessnes...
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  Only under a bizarre set of assumptions. We could not give them free housing while also not giving them free medical care. We could also measure cost by "this is what the hospital spent on the homeless" as opposed to "this is what the hospital would have billed had the homeless had any money". Your source doesn't specify how costs were measured.
  - chefkoch 8y ago
    >Only under a bizarre set of assumptions. We could not give them free housing while also not giving them free medical care. Why not? It seems bizarre to non US citizens that you could even think about not giving some healthcare that you give free housing.
lazyasciiart 8y ago
So you would find it fair that she should be required to freeze to death on the streets if she will not go through treatment for her addiction?
- orthoxerox 8y ago
  "Rough sleepers have been almost eradicated in the Midwest"
  - lazyasciiart 8y ago
    This particular woman is in Helsinki.
rflrob 8y ago
I think it’s hard for someone who isn’t homeless to appreciate how important it is to have a home you can rely on. I can’t imagine how much harder it would be to kick an addiction if you have the extra stress of knowing that if you fail to live up to X standard, not only will you have failed to have quit, but you’ll get kicked out to the street as well. I believe most people want to be contributing members of society. In the short run, maybe some people have no interest, but that gets old fast. And I would much rather that one person who wants to turn their life around is able to, even if it means that 10 people who are content to wallow in addiction live in a clean, safe place where they don’t have to piss on the subway stairs off of my tax dollars.
matt4077 8y ago
I have no idea how anyone could look at homeless people and think, “what they really need is a bit more suffering to finally get their act together”. As an actual attempt to convince you of the value of even poor people’s lives, I invite you to consider if homelessness could possibly seen as a disease more than any personal lack of virtue. The view has somewhat changed wrt drug dependency (thanks white people on opioids), and there is ample evidence that schizophrenia is widespread among the homeless. There have also been some recent studies that a rather large fraction of homeless people had experienced head trauma before becoming homeless. The rate was something like 30% (vs. 3% among the general population). Finally, the “tough love, minus actual love” approach is obviously the status quo. To insist on a failed strategy just to satisfy some moral standard/sadistic instinct seems indefensible. The worst part is that people are obviously willing to incur far larger costs in the criminal justice system, through crimes themselves, and the inconvenience to actually see these people they thoroughly despise/fear: they are willing to pay extra, as long as they are assured the money does not possibly help anyone. Consider any other scenario where you’re trying to get people to behave in certain ways: parenting, dog training, employment reviews, etc: if you’re beating the crap out of your child twice weekly for being difficult, would you expect their behavior to improve?
- yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
  > I have no idea how anyone could look at homeless people and think, “what they really need is a bit more suffering to finally get their act together”. As a person who used to eat with the homeless every day in London, I absolutely do. There is so much opportunity for lazy and stupid people, especially in the West. A large proportion of the people lining up with me for food from the Hare Krishna people (and a local Christian church too) in Holborn were rude, entitled, and lazy. If kids were brought up with a little more discipline, they might become adults who appreciate hard graft. If this were true in London and that discipline were implemented, half the people in that food line wouldn't be there. Maybe that's why I rarely see homeless people in Poland. They work.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    Wow, this is... quite something. It just doesn’t make that much sense: if homeless life in London is so excellent, have you ever considered taking it up? And because, of course, you didn’t: if you really believe it’s just their lazy choice, what’s the difference between you (and me) and them that we would rather work a few hours five days a week instead of spending winter nights outside in the London rain? As to why you see fewer homeless in Poland: - draconian laws banning these people from the streets (a practice most western countries consider a violation of some principles like just basic decency) - London happens to be a magnet for homeless people. Because the only thing worse than being homeless in the city is being homeless in rural areas - London and UK rents are something like 5x those in Poland - Poland’s homeless population tends to do that “digital nomad” thing, only without the MacBook. I. e. they prefer southern France, Berlin, or, yes, London - Poland tends to still have families living together, making it more likely that the cousin with schizophrenia is cared for within the family, instead of becoming homeless
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
You also have to question why they're addicted. If I flee from my abusive parent, end up on the streets, with nothing to do and no hope and eventually turn to drink to blot out the deep untreated depression, should I be housed or vilified? "so she probably doesn't want to work or get better" Wow. Or doesn't know how whilst sunk in depression, or without losing the demons of 20 years of abuse or PTSD. Just as seen with ex services people who fight PTSD for years. The trouble with "common sense" restrictions and limits is people often don't magically fix from depression, addiction, PTSD in neat allotted time windows. I would far rather have the world return to the British System (1900-1960s drug policy: "treat, discourage, but prescribe". Prior to the adoption of a US style war on drugs around 1970 we effectively had no drug problem. No policeman believed there was a link between drugs and crime.). You may not be aware of this but many people in gainful employment are drinking or taking drugs, and addicted. Should they be thrown out of their mortgaged properties? I contend it's cheaper and better for society to offer solutions unconditionally. Offer help for addiction, rough sleeping, PTSD, depression. Less crime, less violence, fewer police needed, fewer health emergencies etc.
- rdm_blackhole 8y ago
  I think you may not have read my comment properly. I said I support the fact that people should get housing if they need it. However what I said was that they should help them get off the drugs, help them with their depression and help them get better and do some training so that they can actually get out of the state housing and move into their own place once they have saved enough money. The problem I have is that in the article, the lady is an alcoholic, she does not want to get better. She says it herself, she is happy to go to her room and get hammered. Does that sound like somebody who is trying to turn their life around? So yes I stand by what I said in my previous comment, if addicts get free housing, in exchange they should at least try to get clean. They should at least try to get some kind of job, training, whatever. Because doing something is always better than not. And it certainly is better than getting drunk every day. If they are not willing to do that even though they, as the article said, have access to staff and carers that can help them, then yes, in this case, I do believe that priority should be given to single mom and kids, or teenagers. As for this: `You may not be aware of this but many people in gainful employment are drinking or taking drugs, and addicted. Should they be thrown out of their mortgaged properties?` What does that have to do with anything??? Did I say that anywhere in my comment? `I contend it's cheaper and better for society to offer solutions unconditionally. Offer help for addiction, rough sleeping, PTSD, depression.` That's exactly what I said with one small caveat, which is that given the fact that housing is a finite resource, if somebody is living in a free room/apartment and do not want to even try to change/get clean, then this room should be given to somebody who actually wants to get out of this awful situation. Otherwise, you end up with a lot of people using up a lot of resources when those resources could be spent on people who actually want to turn around their life and get better. To me, that doesn't sound fair that the first group gets housing and not the second.
DanBC 8y ago
Imagine how hard it is to stop an addiction. Now imagine how much harder it is if you're living on the street. It makes simple things (eg attend an appointment on $DAY at $TIME at $PLACE) much much harder. I've never had a problem with alcohol or drugs, but I know I'd be an addict if I lived on the streets just to make it tolerable.
chefkoch 8y ago
>In the article, the lady who is alcoholic says she can just keep drinking in her room, so she probably doesn't want to work or get better. In this case, I would much rather have her room go to a single mum struggling with her kids or to somebody who actually wants to do something with their lives. Why not for all of them if it's the cheapest option in the long run?

elabajaba 8y ago

It's much cheaper to house the homeless than leave them on the streets. https://shnny.org/research/the-cost-of-long-term-homelessness-in-central-florida/ https://shnny.org/research/the-cost-of-long-term-homelessnes...

thaumasiotes 8y ago
Only under a bizarre set of assumptions. We could not give them free housing while also not giving them free medical care. We could also measure cost by "this is what the hospital spent on the homeless" as opposed to "this is what the hospital would have billed had the homeless had any money". Your source doesn't specify how costs were measured.
- chefkoch 8y ago
  >Only under a bizarre set of assumptions. We could not give them free housing while also not giving them free medical care. Why not? It seems bizarre to non US citizens that you could even think about not giving some healthcare that you give free housing.

lazyasciiart 8y ago

So you would find it fair that she should be required to freeze to death on the streets if she will not go through treatment for her addiction?

orthoxerox 8y ago
"Rough sleepers have been almost eradicated in the Midwest"
- lazyasciiart 8y ago
  This particular woman is in Helsinki.

rflrob 8y ago

I think it’s hard for someone who isn’t homeless to appreciate how important it is to have a home you can rely on. I can’t imagine how much harder it would be to kick an addiction if you have the extra stress of knowing that if you fail to live up to X standard, not only will you have failed to have quit, but you’ll get kicked out to the street as well. I believe most people want to be contributing members of society. In the short run, maybe some people have no interest, but that gets old fast. And I would much rather that one person who wants to turn their life around is able to, even if it means that 10 people who are content to wallow in addiction live in a clean, safe place where they don’t have to piss on the subway stairs off of my tax dollars.

matt4077 8y ago

I have no idea how anyone could look at homeless people and think, “what they really need is a bit more suffering to finally get their act together”. As an actual attempt to convince you of the value of even poor people’s lives, I invite you to consider if homelessness could possibly seen as a disease more than any personal lack of virtue. The view has somewhat changed wrt drug dependency (thanks white people on opioids), and there is ample evidence that schizophrenia is widespread among the homeless. There have also been some recent studies that a rather large fraction of homeless people had experienced head trauma before becoming homeless. The rate was something like 30% (vs. 3% among the general population). Finally, the “tough love, minus actual love” approach is obviously the status quo. To insist on a failed strategy just to satisfy some moral standard/sadistic instinct seems indefensible. The worst part is that people are obviously willing to incur far larger costs in the criminal justice system, through crimes themselves, and the inconvenience to actually see these people they thoroughly despise/fear: they are willing to pay extra, as long as they are assured the money does not possibly help anyone. Consider any other scenario where you’re trying to get people to behave in certain ways: parenting, dog training, employment reviews, etc: if you’re beating the crap out of your child twice weekly for being difficult, would you expect their behavior to improve?

yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
> I have no idea how anyone could look at homeless people and think, “what they really need is a bit more suffering to finally get their act together”. As a person who used to eat with the homeless every day in London, I absolutely do. There is so much opportunity for lazy and stupid people, especially in the West. A large proportion of the people lining up with me for food from the Hare Krishna people (and a local Christian church too) in Holborn were rude, entitled, and lazy. If kids were brought up with a little more discipline, they might become adults who appreciate hard graft. If this were true in London and that discipline were implemented, half the people in that food line wouldn't be there. Maybe that's why I rarely see homeless people in Poland. They work.
- matt4077 8y ago
  Wow, this is... quite something. It just doesn’t make that much sense: if homeless life in London is so excellent, have you ever considered taking it up? And because, of course, you didn’t: if you really believe it’s just their lazy choice, what’s the difference between you (and me) and them that we would rather work a few hours five days a week instead of spending winter nights outside in the London rain? As to why you see fewer homeless in Poland: - draconian laws banning these people from the streets (a practice most western countries consider a violation of some principles like just basic decency) - London happens to be a magnet for homeless people. Because the only thing worse than being homeless in the city is being homeless in rural areas - London and UK rents are something like 5x those in Poland - Poland’s homeless population tends to do that “digital nomad” thing, only without the MacBook. I. e. they prefer southern France, Berlin, or, yes, London - Poland tends to still have families living together, making it more likely that the cousin with schizophrenia is cared for within the family, instead of becoming homeless

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

You also have to question why they're addicted. If I flee from my abusive parent, end up on the streets, with nothing to do and no hope and eventually turn to drink to blot out the deep untreated depression, should I be housed or vilified? "so she probably doesn't want to work or get better" Wow. Or doesn't know how whilst sunk in depression, or without losing the demons of 20 years of abuse or PTSD. Just as seen with ex services people who fight PTSD for years. The trouble with "common sense" restrictions and limits is people often don't magically fix from depression, addiction, PTSD in neat allotted time windows. I would far rather have the world return to the British System (1900-1960s drug policy: "treat, discourage, but prescribe". Prior to the adoption of a US style war on drugs around 1970 we effectively had no drug problem. No policeman believed there was a link between drugs and crime.). You may not be aware of this but many people in gainful employment are drinking or taking drugs, and addicted. Should they be thrown out of their mortgaged properties? I contend it's cheaper and better for society to offer solutions unconditionally. Offer help for addiction, rough sleeping, PTSD, depression. Less crime, less violence, fewer police needed, fewer health emergencies etc.

rdm_blackhole 8y ago
I think you may not have read my comment properly. I said I support the fact that people should get housing if they need it. However what I said was that they should help them get off the drugs, help them with their depression and help them get better and do some training so that they can actually get out of the state housing and move into their own place once they have saved enough money. The problem I have is that in the article, the lady is an alcoholic, she does not want to get better. She says it herself, she is happy to go to her room and get hammered. Does that sound like somebody who is trying to turn their life around? So yes I stand by what I said in my previous comment, if addicts get free housing, in exchange they should at least try to get clean. They should at least try to get some kind of job, training, whatever. Because doing something is always better than not. And it certainly is better than getting drunk every day. If they are not willing to do that even though they, as the article said, have access to staff and carers that can help them, then yes, in this case, I do believe that priority should be given to single mom and kids, or teenagers. As for this: `You may not be aware of this but many people in gainful employment are drinking or taking drugs, and addicted. Should they be thrown out of their mortgaged properties?` What does that have to do with anything??? Did I say that anywhere in my comment? `I contend it's cheaper and better for society to offer solutions unconditionally. Offer help for addiction, rough sleeping, PTSD, depression.` That's exactly what I said with one small caveat, which is that given the fact that housing is a finite resource, if somebody is living in a free room/apartment and do not want to even try to change/get clean, then this room should be given to somebody who actually wants to get out of this awful situation. Otherwise, you end up with a lot of people using up a lot of resources when those resources could be spent on people who actually want to turn around their life and get better. To me, that doesn't sound fair that the first group gets housing and not the second.

DanBC 8y ago

Imagine how hard it is to stop an addiction. Now imagine how much harder it is if you're living on the street. It makes simple things (eg attend an appointment on $DAY at $TIME at $PLACE) much much harder. I've never had a problem with alcohol or drugs, but I know I'd be an addict if I lived on the streets just to make it tolerable.

chefkoch 8y ago

>In the article, the lady who is alcoholic says she can just keep drinking in her room, so she probably doesn't want to work or get better. In this case, I would much rather have her room go to a single mum struggling with her kids or to somebody who actually wants to do something with their lives. Why not for all of them if it's the cheapest option in the long run?