3 ms·

It's simple recognition that Iceland is a very homogenous place so homogenous solutions to problems are more likely to be effective. Iceland doesn't even allow

It's simple recognition that Iceland is a very homogenous place so homogenous solutions to problems are more likely to be effective. Iceland doesn't even allow baby names that aren't listed in their book of acceptable names. Now try to come up with a solution for homelessness that works in both Spokane, Washington and Coral Gables, Florida. They're very different populations with very different needs. It's great that Iceland has been able to reduce youth drug use but it's not applicable to the wider world except in limited circumstances.

lonelappde 7y ago
Why wouldn't it be applicable to small homogenous US towns?
- nervousvarun 7y ago
  Parts of it certainly could be...but a major difference is Federal law versus state/city law. In Iceland where you basically have one city where everyone lives it's all sorta the same thing no? In the US, that can vary widely. Texas is incredibly different from Washington state not to mention Houston vs. Seattle. Personally think there's got to be parts of this though that would be applicable somewhere. Seems rash to be completely dismissive (and to be fair not much of that in these comments).
herbstein 7y ago
> Now try to come up with a solution for homelessness that works in both Spokane, Washington and Coral Gables, Florida Isn't homelessness generally handled at the city and county levels? Both places can independently look at how different areas of the world have combated homelessness, and also share their successes (or failures) with each other without being forced to both do the same exact thing.
- zdragnar 7y ago
  Freedom of movement between municipalities makes most attempts at solving homelessness difficult if not impossible. NY simply shipped them out; cities with nice climates and access to welfare see a large influx from elsewhere. The harder a city works to solve the problem, the bigger the problem becomes. A friend's mother- a chronic drug user who lived off of welfare- moves from state to state as she uses up whatever benefits they offer. Not all people are in that situation or abuse the system like that, of course, but small countries with tighter borders have a much easier time dealing with a less mobile population of homeless and indigent.

lonelappde 7y ago

Why wouldn't it be applicable to small homogenous US towns?

nervousvarun 7y ago
Parts of it certainly could be...but a major difference is Federal law versus state/city law. In Iceland where you basically have one city where everyone lives it's all sorta the same thing no? In the US, that can vary widely. Texas is incredibly different from Washington state not to mention Houston vs. Seattle. Personally think there's got to be parts of this though that would be applicable somewhere. Seems rash to be completely dismissive (and to be fair not much of that in these comments).

herbstein 7y ago

> Now try to come up with a solution for homelessness that works in both Spokane, Washington and Coral Gables, Florida Isn't homelessness generally handled at the city and county levels? Both places can independently look at how different areas of the world have combated homelessness, and also share their successes (or failures) with each other without being forced to both do the same exact thing.

zdragnar 7y ago
Freedom of movement between municipalities makes most attempts at solving homelessness difficult if not impossible. NY simply shipped them out; cities with nice climates and access to welfare see a large influx from elsewhere. The harder a city works to solve the problem, the bigger the problem becomes. A friend's mother- a chronic drug user who lived off of welfare- moves from state to state as she uses up whatever benefits they offer. Not all people are in that situation or abuse the system like that, of course, but small countries with tighter borders have a much easier time dealing with a less mobile population of homeless and indigent.