6 ms·

I wanted to point out that the approach adopted by Finland may not be suitable for the United States. Finland has a population of only 5.6 million—less than two

by tlogan 2y ago

I wanted to point out that the approach adopted by Finland may not be suitable for the United States. Finland has a population of only 5.6 million—less than two-thirds of the Bay Area—so their solutions, unfortunately, may not scale effectively in a larger, more complex environment. The other - even more important issue with all these approaches, however, lies in treating all homeless individuals as a single category. This is a common flaw in most homelessness strategies. In reality, there are at least 5 to 10 broad categories—such as former convicts, individuals with substance abuse issues, those with mental health challenges, people who lost jobs or income, refugees, and more. Each of these groups requires a unique approach tailored to their specific circumstances. A one-size-fits-all solution simply doesn’t work. That said, simplifying the issue makes for great marketing, which is why we often see oversimplified strategies being proposed and success reported (as in this report). Unfortunately, this also means we’re unlikely to solve the homelessness crisis in the U.S. anytime soon.

epistasis 2y ago
Why would they not scale? We have more people, more capacity to build, and greater opportunities for economies of scale. Every homeless person, regardless of mental state, still needs housing. It is the one unifying aspect of homelessness.
- tlogan 2y ago
  > Why would they not scale? Due to the complexity and diversity in economic, cultural, and social value networks. For example, the approach which is working for Modesto will probably not work for San Francisco.
  - epistasis 2y ago
    That has less to do with the size of the US but everything to do with the lack of size in the US. We make it impossible to do things by making each city small independent, and having a lack of unity. Our government is not more complex than Finland's because we have more people, it's because we chose to make it inefficient and complex. Removing local cities' power to be different for the sake of complexity would solve the issue quickly. If the Bay Area had a regional government rather than tiny fiefdoms devoted to allowing wealthy people to extract the maximum economic value from shared business interests, while willing away their own tax dollars in tiny enclaves that are protected by minimum lot sizes and apartment bans, not only would we have far less homelessness to begin with, but we could solve the leftover homelessness much better, refuse crime and poverty, and have a far better functioning society.
    - zdragnar 2y ago
      Why do you think a regional government would be any more altruistic and charitable than a city government? I've seen a regional governmental (a metropolitan council like you suggest) that covers multiple cities in a metro area that have done nothing but squander money to justify their own existence. It got so bad that they ended up getting their powers curtailed by the state. Everything else you mention is just wishful thinking that could be applied to any government regardless of size or scope.
    - throwawayq3423 2y ago
      > Our government is not more complex than Finland's because we have more people, it's because we chose to make it inefficient and complex. Name an efficient government of a country with hundreds of millions of people.
  - hshshshshsh 2y ago
    Disagree. Due to the complexity and diversity in economic, cultural, and social value networks it's actually easier to build housing.
    - devvvvvvv 2y ago
      Yes, just like how due to the diversity of Whole Foods workers it's easier for them to unionize.
- bdowling 2y ago
  Homeless people want to live in cities, for all the reasons other people want to live in cities. In cities, affordable housing is extremely expensive. For example, in Santa Monica, California, an affordable housing project can cost over $1 million per unit. https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2024/April-2024/04_10_2024_Council_Approves_1_Million_Per_Unit_Homeless_Housing_Project.html https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/Ne...
  - epistasis 2y ago
    The reason it's expensive is or because the US is bigger. It's because the people in cities want to keep people out so they make it very expensive. Which in turn fuels homelessness. The desire to exclude, the refusal to permit enough housing, and the rejection of density are the fundamental cause. The scale of the US has nothing to do with it. It's merely a cultural choice by a prior generation that younger generations have not yet been able to overrule. But they will.
    - bdowling 2y ago
      The answer is to just build a lot more housing. Increasing the housing stock by 10% everywhere would be a good start. If there is so much housing available that buyers don’t get into bidding wars and landlords have to struggle to find tenants, then prices will come down. Why doesn’t this happen? Because developers will have to do more work for less money.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - epistasis 2y ago
        More housing is absolutely the answer. But your cause is wrong. The impediment to housing in California is capture of land use policy by homeowners and landlords. We should expand the category of home builders beyond developers, but developers make zero money when they are not building. So developers are not holding back housing in California. The few remaining developers in California tend to be more land bankers than developers. But if we made the process for decelopnrt straightforward, then small builders and contractors could build all sorts of projects. At the moment the process is so complex and difficult that getting approval to build on a site is a hugely valuable financial product that increases the value of a parcel of land significantly (though necessarily less than the cost of getting that approval). The reason we do not have enough housing all comes down to that NIMBY neighbor who doesn't want to allow apartments anywhere nearby and who has also been given lots of wrenches to throw into the process of approval. We don't have that sort of approval process for single family homes, it's a night and day difference. Anybody is allowed to build a massive mansion without any community input, but for anything more affordable, neighbors can veto it, and do.
friend_Fernando 2y ago
> such as former convicts, individuals with substance abuse issues, those with mental health challenges, people who lost jobs or income, refugees, and more The one thing they all have in common is how much more expensive it is to house them than it used to be.
14 2y ago
You make great points and yes there are definitely many causes and they might need different approaches. But it is bullshit in this day and age that as a society we have people living in the cold and on the streets. Elon Musk has billions of dollars, good for him. But if he was to spend $500k each day it would take him around 2200-2400 years to spend it all. Ridiculous. There is no reason that kids have to come to school hungry or wear one set of clothes in this day and age. It’s sad. Capitalism for the win. But sorry to the child who goes hungry. I don’t think everything should come easy but having seen a kid steal free food from the breakfast club at school then when asked hey how come you are hiding food you don’t need to it’s free and he says because his little brother not yet in school is at home and has no food your heart fucking breaks. I pray I live long enough to see money and capitalism fail.
wslh 2y ago
It’s also about cultural homogeneity. Countries like Finland, Denmark, and Norway often have relatively uniform cultural frameworks, which can make it easier to implement broad social policies. The U.S., by contrast, is among the most multicultural nations in the world. This isn’t a critique of diversity, but an acknowledgment that diversity often leads to more complex social dynamics and outcomes than homogeneity. An interesting case might be Israel. While it has a Jewish majority, there’s significant diversity within that cultural framework: religious, ethnic, and ideological [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Israel
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Denmark > According to 2021 figures from Statistics Denmark, 86%[21][22] of Denmark's population of over 5,840,045 was of Danish descent.[23][21] The remaining 14% were of a foreign background, defined as immigrants or descendants of recent immigrants. ... More than 817,438 individuals (14%)[21][22] are migrants and their descendants (199,668 second generation migrants born in Denmark[22]). ... Of these 817,438[21] immigrants and their descendants: 522,640 (63.9%)[22] have a non-Western background (Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Thailand and Somalia; all other countries). 522.6k non-western background peoples for a country of 5,840,045 is not really what I would call homogeneity. The big cities (like Copenhagen and Aarhus) probably are even less homogenous.
  - wslh 2y ago
    Your numbers don't contradict my message, look at the demographics of US which shows real complexity [1]. You should also take into consideration the evolution of demographics not just a single point. Last, but not least you should take into account their refugee programs [2] and how power is really distributed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta... [2] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/DNK/denmark/refugee-statistics#:~:text=Denmark%20refugee%20statistics%20for%202023,a%202.37%25%20decline%20from%202019 https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/DNK/den....
sedatk 2y ago
> may not scale effectively in a larger, more complex environment It's definitely more likely to scale than any other solution that has never been implemented.
kmmlng 2y ago
You sound like you have a good overview. Is there any chance you could point me into the direction of good literature? I'm used to reading scientific literature and would love to learn a bit more, ideally through reviews and meta-analyses.

by tlogan 2y ago

epistasis 2y ago

Why would they not scale? We have more people, more capacity to build, and greater opportunities for economies of scale. Every homeless person, regardless of mental state, still needs housing. It is the one unifying aspect of homelessness.

tlogan 2y ago
> Why would they not scale? Due to the complexity and diversity in economic, cultural, and social value networks. For example, the approach which is working for Modesto will probably not work for San Francisco.
- epistasis 2y ago
  That has less to do with the size of the US but everything to do with the lack of size in the US. We make it impossible to do things by making each city small independent, and having a lack of unity. Our government is not more complex than Finland's because we have more people, it's because we chose to make it inefficient and complex. Removing local cities' power to be different for the sake of complexity would solve the issue quickly. If the Bay Area had a regional government rather than tiny fiefdoms devoted to allowing wealthy people to extract the maximum economic value from shared business interests, while willing away their own tax dollars in tiny enclaves that are protected by minimum lot sizes and apartment bans, not only would we have far less homelessness to begin with, but we could solve the leftover homelessness much better, refuse crime and poverty, and have a far better functioning society.
  - zdragnar 2y ago
    Why do you think a regional government would be any more altruistic and charitable than a city government? I've seen a regional governmental (a metropolitan council like you suggest) that covers multiple cities in a metro area that have done nothing but squander money to justify their own existence. It got so bad that they ended up getting their powers curtailed by the state. Everything else you mention is just wishful thinking that could be applied to any government regardless of size or scope.
  - throwawayq3423 2y ago
    > Our government is not more complex than Finland's because we have more people, it's because we chose to make it inefficient and complex. Name an efficient government of a country with hundreds of millions of people.
- hshshshshsh 2y ago
  Disagree. Due to the complexity and diversity in economic, cultural, and social value networks it's actually easier to build housing.
  - devvvvvvv 2y ago
    Yes, just like how due to the diversity of Whole Foods workers it's easier for them to unionize.
bdowling 2y ago
Homeless people want to live in cities, for all the reasons other people want to live in cities. In cities, affordable housing is extremely expensive. For example, in Santa Monica, California, an affordable housing project can cost over $1 million per unit. https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2024/April-2024/04_10_2024_Council_Approves_1_Million_Per_Unit_Homeless_Housing_Project.html https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/Ne...
- epistasis 2y ago
  The reason it's expensive is or because the US is bigger. It's because the people in cities want to keep people out so they make it very expensive. Which in turn fuels homelessness. The desire to exclude, the refusal to permit enough housing, and the rejection of density are the fundamental cause. The scale of the US has nothing to do with it. It's merely a cultural choice by a prior generation that younger generations have not yet been able to overrule. But they will.
  - bdowling 2y ago
    The answer is to just build a lot more housing. Increasing the housing stock by 10% everywhere would be a good start. If there is so much housing available that buyers don’t get into bidding wars and landlords have to struggle to find tenants, then prices will come down. Why doesn’t this happen? Because developers will have to do more work for less money.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - epistasis 2y ago
      More housing is absolutely the answer. But your cause is wrong. The impediment to housing in California is capture of land use policy by homeowners and landlords. We should expand the category of home builders beyond developers, but developers make zero money when they are not building. So developers are not holding back housing in California. The few remaining developers in California tend to be more land bankers than developers. But if we made the process for decelopnrt straightforward, then small builders and contractors could build all sorts of projects. At the moment the process is so complex and difficult that getting approval to build on a site is a hugely valuable financial product that increases the value of a parcel of land significantly (though necessarily less than the cost of getting that approval). The reason we do not have enough housing all comes down to that NIMBY neighbor who doesn't want to allow apartments anywhere nearby and who has also been given lots of wrenches to throw into the process of approval. We don't have that sort of approval process for single family homes, it's a night and day difference. Anybody is allowed to build a massive mansion without any community input, but for anything more affordable, neighbors can veto it, and do.

friend_Fernando 2y ago

> such as former convicts, individuals with substance abuse issues, those with mental health challenges, people who lost jobs or income, refugees, and more The one thing they all have in common is how much more expensive it is to house them than it used to be.

14 2y ago

You make great points and yes there are definitely many causes and they might need different approaches. But it is bullshit in this day and age that as a society we have people living in the cold and on the streets. Elon Musk has billions of dollars, good for him. But if he was to spend $500k each day it would take him around 2200-2400 years to spend it all. Ridiculous. There is no reason that kids have to come to school hungry or wear one set of clothes in this day and age. It’s sad. Capitalism for the win. But sorry to the child who goes hungry. I don’t think everything should come easy but having seen a kid steal free food from the breakfast club at school then when asked hey how come you are hiding food you don’t need to it’s free and he says because his little brother not yet in school is at home and has no food your heart fucking breaks. I pray I live long enough to see money and capitalism fail.

wslh 2y ago

It’s also about cultural homogeneity. Countries like Finland, Denmark, and Norway often have relatively uniform cultural frameworks, which can make it easier to implement broad social policies. The U.S., by contrast, is among the most multicultural nations in the world. This isn’t a critique of diversity, but an acknowledgment that diversity often leads to more complex social dynamics and outcomes than homogeneity. An interesting case might be Israel. While it has a Jewish majority, there’s significant diversity within that cultural framework: religious, ethnic, and ideological [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Israel

seanmcdirmid 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Denmark > According to 2021 figures from Statistics Denmark, 86%[21][22] of Denmark's population of over 5,840,045 was of Danish descent.[23][21] The remaining 14% were of a foreign background, defined as immigrants or descendants of recent immigrants. ... More than 817,438 individuals (14%)[21][22] are migrants and their descendants (199,668 second generation migrants born in Denmark[22]). ... Of these 817,438[21] immigrants and their descendants: 522,640 (63.9%)[22] have a non-Western background (Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Thailand and Somalia; all other countries). 522.6k non-western background peoples for a country of 5,840,045 is not really what I would call homogeneity. The big cities (like Copenhagen and Aarhus) probably are even less homogenous.
- wslh 2y ago
  Your numbers don't contradict my message, look at the demographics of US which shows real complexity [1]. You should also take into consideration the evolution of demographics not just a single point. Last, but not least you should take into account their refugee programs [2] and how power is really distributed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta... [2] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/DNK/denmark/refugee-statistics#:~:text=Denmark%20refugee%20statistics%20for%202023,a%202.37%25%20decline%20from%202019 https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/DNK/den....

sedatk 2y ago

> may not scale effectively in a larger, more complex environment It's definitely more likely to scale than any other solution that has never been implemented.

kmmlng 2y ago

You sound like you have a good overview. Is there any chance you could point me into the direction of good literature? I'm used to reading scientific literature and would love to learn a bit more, ideally through reviews and meta-analyses.