4 ms·

>>The big issue is that the USA doesn’t have a national strategy for dealing with homelessness. This is likely saying "the EU does not have strategy for dealin

>>The big issue is that the USA doesn’t have a national strategy for dealing with homelessness. This is likely saying "the EU does not have strategy for dealing" remember the USA stands for "United STATES" States here is the key... We are 50 independent states, and most of our problems are because we look to the incompetent and corrupt federal government to solve problems they are not constitutional empowered to solve. There is a reason we are not "America" but instead our United States we seem to be losing that foundation, to our own demise. Not every problem is a national one, and homelessness certainly is not >>We could always do what Finland does: admit that these people will never be productive members of society again and get them into housing with social workers on staff. Well we used to do that, after many many many human rights abuses the US stopped doing that, and if you look at the graphs of institutionalization, and homelessness there is a striking correlation as the rate of institutionalization drops the rate of homelessness increases. I am not sure bringing back institutionalization is going to be a popular solution

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Finland is part of the EU and has a national strategy. While migration is easier between member countries, it isn’t unrestricted. You have to live in an EU country for some time before qualifying for welfare there, which means poor people can’t easily shop for the best social welfare. Finland doesn’t put its homeless in institutions, just in semi assisted living situations. Homelessness is definitely a national problem. The fact that someone without housing from Great Falls Montana first winds up in Spokane and then Seattle should give you a clue. Yes, you can’t be homeless in great falls because you’ll die, so you move to a place where you’d at least survive with services and maybe better weather. Expecting the west coast cities to shoulder the nation’s homelessness burden is not just ludicrous, it is ultimately futile. The premise is important in how the problem can be solved or not. If it’s a national problem and we treat it like a local problem, no solution can possibly work. If it is a local problem and we treat it like a national problem, likewise. Non-profits that count these things don’t do it very well, eg when they did the count in Seattle they found out 70% of its homeless population was from pioneer square (probably where they were counted), which is crazy if you know Seattle. We have a huge data problem which leads to bad solutions given wrong assumptions.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>Finland is part of the EU and has a national strategy. While migration is easier between member countries, it isn’t unrestricted. You have to live in an EU country for some time before qualifying for welfare there, which means poor people can’t easily shop for the best social welfare. Finland doesn’t put its homeless in institutions, just in semi assisted living situations. you have completely missed the Point, Finland is comparable to the single state of California, in fact Finland by most measurements is smaller both in economics and population than California. California has a State wide (in this analogy would be a "national" Strategy) The US is comparable to the entire EU, so it would be a "union wide" strategy not a "national" strategy. Each State in the US, in this analogy would be a "nation" in the EU. Critically here as well, most states do not have any kind of time limit on welfare, and I am not sure if it would be legal to do so in the US. >>Homelessness is definitely a national problem. Homelessness is a State Problem. >Expecting the west coast cities to shoulder the nation’s homelessness burden is not just ludicrous, it is ultimately futile. yet we expect Boarder stated to shoulder the nations burden for unregulated boarder? Any attempts by those states to move that population is viewed negatively, and any attempt to stop that migration is likewise negative. >>We have a huge data problem which leads to bad solutions given wrong assumptions. And you believe the federal government will solve this? Really? What examples do you have of them solving any social problem ever.?
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    You can easily move from Texas to California (greyhound flows are still vastly biased that way). You can’t easily move from Greece to Finland. It isn’t comparable at all, in fact, the fallacious premises you hold are why we can’t make any progress on this problem despite dumping billions of dollars of resources into it (LA alone has a $1.3b/year budget for the problem).
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      You believe migration from Texas to California is the reason LA has wasted 1.3 Billion on failed homeless programs? What evidence do you have to support that claim...
arp242 3y ago
Most states also don't really have a comprehensive strategy for dealing with homelessness. And social care is not institutionalization. In Finland specifically homeless people are given independent housing. It's a completely different thing. Look it up before you start comparing it with failed Titicut Follies-esque institutions in the US.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

Finland is part of the EU and has a national strategy. While migration is easier between member countries, it isn’t unrestricted. You have to live in an EU country for some time before qualifying for welfare there, which means poor people can’t easily shop for the best social welfare. Finland doesn’t put its homeless in institutions, just in semi assisted living situations. Homelessness is definitely a national problem. The fact that someone without housing from Great Falls Montana first winds up in Spokane and then Seattle should give you a clue. Yes, you can’t be homeless in great falls because you’ll die, so you move to a place where you’d at least survive with services and maybe better weather. Expecting the west coast cities to shoulder the nation’s homelessness burden is not just ludicrous, it is ultimately futile. The premise is important in how the problem can be solved or not. If it’s a national problem and we treat it like a local problem, no solution can possibly work. If it is a local problem and we treat it like a national problem, likewise. Non-profits that count these things don’t do it very well, eg when they did the count in Seattle they found out 70% of its homeless population was from pioneer square (probably where they were counted), which is crazy if you know Seattle. We have a huge data problem which leads to bad solutions given wrong assumptions.

phpisthebest 3y ago
>>Finland is part of the EU and has a national strategy. While migration is easier between member countries, it isn’t unrestricted. You have to live in an EU country for some time before qualifying for welfare there, which means poor people can’t easily shop for the best social welfare. Finland doesn’t put its homeless in institutions, just in semi assisted living situations. you have completely missed the Point, Finland is comparable to the single state of California, in fact Finland by most measurements is smaller both in economics and population than California. California has a State wide (in this analogy would be a "national" Strategy) The US is comparable to the entire EU, so it would be a "union wide" strategy not a "national" strategy. Each State in the US, in this analogy would be a "nation" in the EU. Critically here as well, most states do not have any kind of time limit on welfare, and I am not sure if it would be legal to do so in the US. >>Homelessness is definitely a national problem. Homelessness is a State Problem. >Expecting the west coast cities to shoulder the nation’s homelessness burden is not just ludicrous, it is ultimately futile. yet we expect Boarder stated to shoulder the nations burden for unregulated boarder? Any attempts by those states to move that population is viewed negatively, and any attempt to stop that migration is likewise negative. >>We have a huge data problem which leads to bad solutions given wrong assumptions. And you believe the federal government will solve this? Really? What examples do you have of them solving any social problem ever.?
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  You can easily move from Texas to California (greyhound flows are still vastly biased that way). You can’t easily move from Greece to Finland. It isn’t comparable at all, in fact, the fallacious premises you hold are why we can’t make any progress on this problem despite dumping billions of dollars of resources into it (LA alone has a $1.3b/year budget for the problem).
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    You believe migration from Texas to California is the reason LA has wasted 1.3 Billion on failed homeless programs? What evidence do you have to support that claim...

arp242 3y ago

Most states also don't really have a comprehensive strategy for dealing with homelessness. And social care is not institutionalization. In Finland specifically homeless people are given independent housing. It's a completely different thing. Look it up before you start comparing it with failed Titicut Follies-esque institutions in the US.