4 ms·

> 1) How many homeless people are interested in a productive life, with the work/sobriety expectations (and the housing/benefits) that implies? Almost all, as

> 1) How many homeless people are interested in a productive life, with the work/sobriety expectations (and the housing/benefits) that implies? Almost all, as becomes evident if you compare the drastically different homelessness rates in other countries.

thegrimmest 4y ago
I'm not sure such comparisons control very well for climate and cultural factors.
- bildung 4y ago
  Then just look at the distribution in the USA: Among the states with most homelessness per capita are: District of Columbia, New York, Oregon, Washington State, Alaska. Yes, also Californa, but California has most of everything, including housed people.
  - swearwolf 4y ago
    Aside from D.C. and New York, these are all states within the ninth circuit court’s jurisdiction, and therefore are bound to the Martin v. Boise ruling, which allows public camping if there is not adequate shelter space available. If one part of the country allows that while the rest doesn’t, you’d expect that the homeless population will migrate over time to the more permissive area, which seems to be borne out in the growth of the homeless population on the West Coast since the ruling went into effect. Of course, we also mint plenty of new homeless ourselves with our astronomical housing costs, but I see a lot of people with out-of-state plates on the RVs they live in here in Oregon.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  Cultural factors like ethics that entail helping people and educating everyone that anyone could end up in a vulnerable situation and then dedicating resources to make sure everyone has a safety net in case they lose their job, have a mental illness, addiction or something else unexpected?
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      That's not how it works here at all. First, universal insurance isn't "freeloading." Then, drug addiction is treated like an illness like anything else and everyone is entitled to help for it. Drug use is entirely illegal. > Why shouldn't individual suffer the consequences of their actions? The consequences of being laid off? Getting cancer? Having schizophrenia? Being an addict? They do suffer the consequences of all those things, none of which they caused and they get help with them.
      - thegrimmest 4y ago
        Help is fundamentally a voluntary action - you ask for it and the helper decides what help to give and how to give it. In other words, charity. This isn't what you're describing, you're describing compulsion and entitlement. If you need help, you should ask for it, and if others want to help you, they will. Otherwise, your misfortunes and your failures are entirely your own to deal with.
        guerrilla 4y ago
        It's literally insurance. Making up stories about how our system works isn't going to change that.
        thegrimmest 4y ago
        Insurance is also voluntary - you can opt in/out and shop around. We have that too. I think you're proposing some mandatory "I make bad decisions" insurance that we all have to pay into. No thanks, I'll opt out.
        guerrilla 4y ago
asdff 4y ago
Other countries use nonvoluntary methods for dealing with their addicts or mentally ill and have substantial treatment programs and public asylums. That's the big issue with a lot of these homeless populations here. Case workers reach out, offer care, offer shelter, the person out of their mind with a necrotic leg from their intravenous drug habit says no, and in a few months they die on the street. Maybe they luck out and get a 72 hour hold and are able to actually get the medication they need in that span, find some clarity, and decide to take up these offers of help, but most just end up back where they started. We gutted the public institutions we used to have for these issues, now we are dealing with decades of a failure to treat public mental health and addiction.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > Other countries use nonvoluntary methods for dealing with their addicts or mentally ill and have substantial treatment programs and public asylums. What other countries do you mean? In northern Europe, you can't nonvoluntarily do anything to anyone that isn't imminently a danger to themselves or others. Everyone gets help that needs it, no excuses, and we have virtually no homeless people at all.
  - swearwolf 4y ago
    Portugal, if I’m not mistaken, requires mandatory drug treatment to avoid criminal prosecution for drug possession.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      It's complicated, so that could be the case for some specific situations (or maybe not? I don't really know) but in general drug use is decriminalized (for possession of less than a ten day supply of drugs) in Portugal. You can even get a waiver for use if addicted and clean substitutes. They have persuasion therapy and treatment that is covered by healthcare. Although one can be summoned to a dissuasion committee periodically, they can't mandate compulsory treatment.
      - 4y ago

thegrimmest 4y ago

I'm not sure such comparisons control very well for climate and cultural factors.

bildung 4y ago
Then just look at the distribution in the USA: Among the states with most homelessness per capita are: District of Columbia, New York, Oregon, Washington State, Alaska. Yes, also Californa, but California has most of everything, including housed people.
- swearwolf 4y ago
  Aside from D.C. and New York, these are all states within the ninth circuit court’s jurisdiction, and therefore are bound to the Martin v. Boise ruling, which allows public camping if there is not adequate shelter space available. If one part of the country allows that while the rest doesn’t, you’d expect that the homeless population will migrate over time to the more permissive area, which seems to be borne out in the growth of the homeless population on the West Coast since the ruling went into effect. Of course, we also mint plenty of new homeless ourselves with our astronomical housing costs, but I see a lot of people with out-of-state plates on the RVs they live in here in Oregon.
guerrilla 4y ago
Cultural factors like ethics that entail helping people and educating everyone that anyone could end up in a vulnerable situation and then dedicating resources to make sure everyone has a safety net in case they lose their job, have a mental illness, addiction or something else unexpected?
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    That's not how it works here at all. First, universal insurance isn't "freeloading." Then, drug addiction is treated like an illness like anything else and everyone is entitled to help for it. Drug use is entirely illegal. > Why shouldn't individual suffer the consequences of their actions? The consequences of being laid off? Getting cancer? Having schizophrenia? Being an addict? They do suffer the consequences of all those things, none of which they caused and they get help with them.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      Help is fundamentally a voluntary action - you ask for it and the helper decides what help to give and how to give it. In other words, charity. This isn't what you're describing, you're describing compulsion and entitlement. If you need help, you should ask for it, and if others want to help you, they will. Otherwise, your misfortunes and your failures are entirely your own to deal with.
      - guerrilla 4y ago
        It's literally insurance. Making up stories about how our system works isn't going to change that.
        thegrimmest 4y ago
        Insurance is also voluntary - you can opt in/out and shop around. We have that too. I think you're proposing some mandatory "I make bad decisions" insurance that we all have to pay into. No thanks, I'll opt out.
        guerrilla 4y ago

asdff 4y ago

Other countries use nonvoluntary methods for dealing with their addicts or mentally ill and have substantial treatment programs and public asylums. That's the big issue with a lot of these homeless populations here. Case workers reach out, offer care, offer shelter, the person out of their mind with a necrotic leg from their intravenous drug habit says no, and in a few months they die on the street. Maybe they luck out and get a 72 hour hold and are able to actually get the medication they need in that span, find some clarity, and decide to take up these offers of help, but most just end up back where they started. We gutted the public institutions we used to have for these issues, now we are dealing with decades of a failure to treat public mental health and addiction.

guerrilla 4y ago
> Other countries use nonvoluntary methods for dealing with their addicts or mentally ill and have substantial treatment programs and public asylums. What other countries do you mean? In northern Europe, you can't nonvoluntarily do anything to anyone that isn't imminently a danger to themselves or others. Everyone gets help that needs it, no excuses, and we have virtually no homeless people at all.
- swearwolf 4y ago
  Portugal, if I’m not mistaken, requires mandatory drug treatment to avoid criminal prosecution for drug possession.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    It's complicated, so that could be the case for some specific situations (or maybe not? I don't really know) but in general drug use is decriminalized (for possession of less than a ten day supply of drugs) in Portugal. You can even get a waiver for use if addicted and clean substitutes. They have persuasion therapy and treatment that is covered by healthcare. Although one can be summoned to a dissuasion committee periodically, they can't mandate compulsory treatment.
    - 4y ago