6 ms·

Across the entire country, Finland had 3x fewer homeless people at its worst than San Francisco the city does. The problem is of such different magnitudes that

Across the entire country, Finland had 3x fewer homeless people at its worst than San Francisco the city does. The problem is of such different magnitudes that it's unlikely Finland has much to teach.

doctorpangloss 2y ago
Ah, the old scientific adage, "if something innovative works at a small scale, that guarantees it will not work at a large scale." I mean this guy shared something interesting and thoughtful, more interesting than the article's complaining, and your thought is really this?
- shuckles 2y ago
  That was not the logic of my comment, and it seems like you didn't try very hard to consider what I meant. For example: the "interesting and thoughtful" article linked describes Finland's "Housing First" model adopted in 2008. Guess what: Housing First was first introduced as a policy idea in San Francisco in 1994, adopted as de facto city policy about ten years after that, and set as statewide policy in California ten years later. Ten years later, the problem is worse than ever! Perhaps Finland and California are different enough that looking to Finland as a policy playground is a waste of time. This isn't physics; it's political economy.
  - doctorpangloss 2y ago
    The bad faith reasoning in your original comment is what you wrote. You are welcome to write interesting stuff in your comments, you should.
    - shuckles 2y ago
      There was no bad faith reasoning in my original comment. I, pretty evidently, understand the history of Housing First better than you do and am still convinced policy outcomes in Finland aren't very informative to San Francisco because the societies and challenges are very different.
      - Log_out_ 2y ago
        Us is deeply anti social at the heart. The original reason it got away with it was the American dream aka upward mobility. That is dead for two generations now, and it has developed a corresponding "anti-system" movement the society refused to acknowledge and deal with beyond declaring them "deplorables". The day the leader dies, such movements are up for grabs and can spin on the proverbial ideological dime. Maga will go sendero, but there was just nothing to be done.
        shuckles 2y ago
        I don't really buy this doomerism. The USA passed the biggest COVID safety net, in absolute and relative terms. It's still one of the best countries to get ahead. Most of its problems are not framed through grand narratives about decline. They're more pedestrian issues related to mechanisms like common law, a dysfunctional Senate and two party system, and replacement of state capacity with nonprofits (as this article poorly discusses).
  - resolutebat 2y ago
    Adopting policies is one thing, but is SF actually giving housing first to the homeless? Because my rough understanding is that the answer to that is "no".
    - shuckles 2y ago
      Depends what you mean. All the subsidized housing available is operated under the housing first model with no sobriety requirement. Is there sufficient housing on offer? Clearly not. But SF expanded subsidized housing inventory substantially during the pandemic and has more such inventory than basically any other west coast city. For political reasons having to do with the NPIC, the city does not invest much in shelter beds. So it’s a $750k-$1m apartment or bust.
  - blamestross 2y ago
    California also gets at least one countries worth of homeless shipped to it BECAUSE of the resources it provides (And political spite). This is the bad Nash Equilibrium in action, being punished for improving the situation.
baq 2y ago
They also have less population than Bay Area by a couple million. Of course it’s different but don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
- shuckles 2y ago
  And Finland is a country so there are less regional differences in policymaking. And Finland doesn't have balkanized healthcare systems. And Finland doesn't have suburban land use that sets a high minimum cost to participating in society. And Finland doesn't have open borders with Republican states which openly advertise that they bus indigent migrants with no work permits to sanctuary cities. Science works best when you have controls that let you measure the consequences of changes precisely. Saying that results from a Nordic social democracy probably don't apply to a city with no administrative capacity and machine politics is not controversial. It's the null hypothesis!
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    > Finland doesn't have suburban land use that sets a high minimum cost to participating in society. What does this mean?
    - shuckles 2y ago
      Practically, to earn income in most parts of America, you need to own a car and pay rent on a single family home. That is a $800-$1000 additional expense versus living in a micro-studio and taking transit to work. For someone on the margins, that is a huge and often insurmountable price of entry. Many can make do by, e.g., being housemates in a larger home to reduce the minimum expense. Folks on the margins are often not able to find others willing to live with them.
      - throwaway2037 2y ago
        So... Finland, exactly, right? I assume that you already know that Finland is huge but only has a population of ~5.5M. Except for central Helsinki, the entire country is suburban or rural. I'll offer a counterpoint that people rarely consider: Most of the populated land in Japan in rural. Many people who live more than 50km from a major city drive. Almost all people who live 100km from a major city have 2x cars in their home. This shocks many people. Please stop assuming that the US is special or amazing. It has pockets of very dense cities and the rest is mostly suburban or rural... like other highly advanced countries in Europe or East Asia.

doctorpangloss 2y ago

Ah, the old scientific adage, "if something innovative works at a small scale, that guarantees it will not work at a large scale." I mean this guy shared something interesting and thoughtful, more interesting than the article's complaining, and your thought is really this?

shuckles 2y ago
That was not the logic of my comment, and it seems like you didn't try very hard to consider what I meant. For example: the "interesting and thoughtful" article linked describes Finland's "Housing First" model adopted in 2008. Guess what: Housing First was first introduced as a policy idea in San Francisco in 1994, adopted as de facto city policy about ten years after that, and set as statewide policy in California ten years later. Ten years later, the problem is worse than ever! Perhaps Finland and California are different enough that looking to Finland as a policy playground is a waste of time. This isn't physics; it's political economy.
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
  The bad faith reasoning in your original comment is what you wrote. You are welcome to write interesting stuff in your comments, you should.
  - shuckles 2y ago
    There was no bad faith reasoning in my original comment. I, pretty evidently, understand the history of Housing First better than you do and am still convinced policy outcomes in Finland aren't very informative to San Francisco because the societies and challenges are very different.
    - Log_out_ 2y ago
      Us is deeply anti social at the heart. The original reason it got away with it was the American dream aka upward mobility. That is dead for two generations now, and it has developed a corresponding "anti-system" movement the society refused to acknowledge and deal with beyond declaring them "deplorables". The day the leader dies, such movements are up for grabs and can spin on the proverbial ideological dime. Maga will go sendero, but there was just nothing to be done.
      - shuckles 2y ago
        I don't really buy this doomerism. The USA passed the biggest COVID safety net, in absolute and relative terms. It's still one of the best countries to get ahead. Most of its problems are not framed through grand narratives about decline. They're more pedestrian issues related to mechanisms like common law, a dysfunctional Senate and two party system, and replacement of state capacity with nonprofits (as this article poorly discusses).
- resolutebat 2y ago
  Adopting policies is one thing, but is SF actually giving housing first to the homeless? Because my rough understanding is that the answer to that is "no".
  - shuckles 2y ago
    Depends what you mean. All the subsidized housing available is operated under the housing first model with no sobriety requirement. Is there sufficient housing on offer? Clearly not. But SF expanded subsidized housing inventory substantially during the pandemic and has more such inventory than basically any other west coast city. For political reasons having to do with the NPIC, the city does not invest much in shelter beds. So it’s a $750k-$1m apartment or bust.
- blamestross 2y ago
  California also gets at least one countries worth of homeless shipped to it BECAUSE of the resources it provides (And political spite). This is the bad Nash Equilibrium in action, being punished for improving the situation.

baq 2y ago

They also have less population than Bay Area by a couple million. Of course it’s different but don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

shuckles 2y ago
And Finland is a country so there are less regional differences in policymaking. And Finland doesn't have balkanized healthcare systems. And Finland doesn't have suburban land use that sets a high minimum cost to participating in society. And Finland doesn't have open borders with Republican states which openly advertise that they bus indigent migrants with no work permits to sanctuary cities. Science works best when you have controls that let you measure the consequences of changes precisely. Saying that results from a Nordic social democracy probably don't apply to a city with no administrative capacity and machine politics is not controversial. It's the null hypothesis!
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  > Finland doesn't have suburban land use that sets a high minimum cost to participating in society. What does this mean?
  - shuckles 2y ago
    Practically, to earn income in most parts of America, you need to own a car and pay rent on a single family home. That is a $800-$1000 additional expense versus living in a micro-studio and taking transit to work. For someone on the margins, that is a huge and often insurmountable price of entry. Many can make do by, e.g., being housemates in a larger home to reduce the minimum expense. Folks on the margins are often not able to find others willing to live with them.
    - throwaway2037 2y ago
      So... Finland, exactly, right? I assume that you already know that Finland is huge but only has a population of ~5.5M. Except for central Helsinki, the entire country is suburban or rural. I'll offer a counterpoint that people rarely consider: Most of the populated land in Japan in rural. Many people who live more than 50km from a major city drive. Almost all people who live 100km from a major city have 2x cars in their home. This shocks many people. Please stop assuming that the US is special or amazing. It has pockets of very dense cities and the rest is mostly suburban or rural... like other highly advanced countries in Europe or East Asia.