3 ms·
So many people in these comments are arguing some form of: “Let’s first figure out if the homelessness is actually the person’s own fault. If we can really be
by pavlov 2y ago
So many people in these comments are arguing some form of:
“Let’s first figure out if the homelessness is actually the person’s own fault. If we can really be confident that they’re repentant and sober, then we should perhaps consider helping them find housing.”
This is the approach that Finland had in the 1950s! And it didn’t work. Hundreds of young WWII veterans were dying under the bridges after years in the streets drinking illegal booze (and many also abusing stronger substances, since e.g. amphetamine was given to soldiers during the war). Post-war Finland was not some socialist wonderland but a hard, poor, unforgiving place.
Finland’s U-turn on treating homelessness came after the dismal failure that left so many of these deeply traumatized men and women to die. For the past decades, the policy has been to try to get everyone off the streets into safe and private housing, and then sort out the rest. And the numbers show it has worked.
Many of America’s homeless are also war veterans, just like 1950s Finland. They deserve better.
- itake 2y agoyou're not wrong, but I think the underlying premise is: "We have limited resources. Lets identify the most impactful places for our $$." Presumably, people with social disorders will be much more expensive to house than someone that is more recently functioning in our society.