5 ms·

This is not a whole lot different from public housing projects that are subsidize by the state, just more subsidized. The system works in a number of countries

by steve19 13y ago

This is not a whole lot different from public housing projects that are subsidize by the state, just more subsidized. The system works in a number of countries. As far as I know, it works. Eventually the only people on the street are people who are unable to cope/deal with the system and who fall through the cracks, such as mentally ill. Of course one of the costs of any state welfare system is the tragedy of the commons. For example people keeping houses they no longer need and people not maintaing the houses they are in. I would be surprised if the former social problems of slums are improved by bricks and mortar. I was in South Africa for a vacation recently. They are giving inhabitants of shanty towns small houses. Once they have moved them out they bulldoze the now-vacated land to build more houses. Someone I met asked me if I could give an old woman a ride to her government provided house at the edge of a shanty town she used to live in. She told me that the solar heating water system installed by the government on all these houses does not work. I could see her house, which could not have been more than 5 years old, was already decaying. I suspect corrupt builders/politicians cheaping out. It was also clear that some of the ever newer houses were quickly deteriorating and were blending into the slum across the small dirt road that separated them, mostly from lack of rudimentary maintenance. I could not help but wonder what those housing developments will look like in 10 years or 15 years and if the government will have to start rebuilding them at a huge expense.

Crake 13y ago
Probably, but it doesn't mean the idea is flawed--just the execution. Also Africa has a rather horrific corruption index, IIRC. I'd almost be surprised if things were planned ahead properly there. With some laudable exceptions, their governments and politicians tend to have a remarkable and depressing lack of foresight.
_delirium 13y ago
Eventually the only people on the street are people who are unable to cope/deal with the system and who fall through the cracks, such as mentally ill. This is a pretty variable part too, perhaps even more important than the actual "official" level of benefits. One of the bigger differences I've noticed moving from the U.S. to Denmark is not so much that the social welfare system is more generous (though that's true also), but especially that it's more proactive and less bureaucratic. If someone mentally ill is in need of support, qualifies for it, and cannot navigate the system themselves, a social worker will help them out. If they need somewhere to live and can't rent their own apartment, they'll get helped out there too. Someone will literally rent them an apartment, take them to it, make sure they settle in, and then check back later. In the U.S., none of that is true. I have some pretty recent experience with an American uncle who has advanced M.S. and has gotten basically no useful support. For a while he was unable to live alone, but officially the government didn't give a shit, so he did anyway, and injured himself regularly. He alternated between living in his apartment for a few weeks at a time, and ending up in the emergency room several times per month each time he injured himself. You might think: at this point, shouldn't he move to an assisted-living facility? It'd actually be more cost-effective, but nope, neither SSI Disability nor Medicare Disability cover that. SSI Disability will pay his rent to live at home, and Medicare Disability will pay his hospital visits, but neither will pay for him to move to somewhere that makes more sense. He would probably have ended up homeless or dead if some family members hadn't agreed to take over power of attorney, navigate the system on his behalf, and find money to pay for his rent. The U.S.'s joke of a stingy social system surely hasn't done anything on that front.
- Crake 13y ago
  >would probably have ended up homeless or dead if some family members...navigate the system on his behalf. This is what I've observed as well. Part of the reason I feel like I have to move out of the US as soon as I possibly can is that I have no blood relations to take care of me if I become fully disabled again. It's absolutely terrifying.
- gcb0 13y ago
  > but especially that it's more proactive this was my main shock moving to work in the US. americans sell the image of workaholics. but... from dmv, cafe baristas, to VPs on the fortune 500 companies... nobody, bloody nobody will move a finger to do something that is not strictly what they are being paid to do. sometimes i think that if any of my coworkers would drop a pen during a meeting, it would be socially acceptable as an excuse for not taking any notes, since it is not his job to pick up a pen.
  - midas007 13y ago
    Spoiled children -> learned selfishness.
    - fauigerzigerk 13y ago
      In my experience, it's the people who fear that they are going to be taken advantage of the moment they do anything they don't absolutely have to. It seems unlikely that getting spoiled as a child causes that kind of distrust.
  - yardie 13y ago
    That's just the power in the word "no". It's easy to say no, requires little thought, and no effort. This is not endemic to the US, I encounter it all the time in France as well. So you learn not to ask, just do it. Or use a bit of reverse psychology to get to why it can't be done.
    - gcb0 13y ago
rXoX 13y ago
"the tragedy of the commons" - For example people keeping houses they no longer need and people not maintaing the houses they are in. This is what happens when a persuasive argument with absolutely no empirical evidence (the 'tragedy of the commons') meets a cognitive bias. I admit that old chestnut of an essay from '68 sounds reasonable, but unfortunately there's not a speck of data in it; meaning it's all bafflegab and opinion. Also, you don't seem to have an especially sound grip on what the 'tragedy of the commons' actually is, at least based on the examples you're providing. Home ownership has nothing do with 'the commons' in any way, shape or form.
kaonashi 13y ago
That's kind of why public housing failed in the first place: rents alone could not make up the entirety of the needed maintenance and staffing budgets.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
> This is not a whole lot different from public housing projects that are subsidize by the state, just more subsidized. They seem very, very different to me. The homeless are a teeny, tiny demographic, compared to, say, the entire lowest income quintile.
ohwp 13y ago
I think this is why Utah is also providing a social worker to each person.

by steve19 13y ago

Crake 13y ago

Probably, but it doesn't mean the idea is flawed--just the execution. Also Africa has a rather horrific corruption index, IIRC. I'd almost be surprised if things were planned ahead properly there. With some laudable exceptions, their governments and politicians tend to have a remarkable and depressing lack of foresight.

_delirium 13y ago

Eventually the only people on the street are people who are unable to cope/deal with the system and who fall through the cracks, such as mentally ill. This is a pretty variable part too, perhaps even more important than the actual "official" level of benefits. One of the bigger differences I've noticed moving from the U.S. to Denmark is not so much that the social welfare system is more generous (though that's true also), but especially that it's more proactive and less bureaucratic. If someone mentally ill is in need of support, qualifies for it, and cannot navigate the system themselves, a social worker will help them out. If they need somewhere to live and can't rent their own apartment, they'll get helped out there too. Someone will literally rent them an apartment, take them to it, make sure they settle in, and then check back later. In the U.S., none of that is true. I have some pretty recent experience with an American uncle who has advanced M.S. and has gotten basically no useful support. For a while he was unable to live alone, but officially the government didn't give a shit, so he did anyway, and injured himself regularly. He alternated between living in his apartment for a few weeks at a time, and ending up in the emergency room several times per month each time he injured himself. You might think: at this point, shouldn't he move to an assisted-living facility? It'd actually be more cost-effective, but nope, neither SSI Disability nor Medicare Disability cover that. SSI Disability will pay his rent to live at home, and Medicare Disability will pay his hospital visits, but neither will pay for him to move to somewhere that makes more sense. He would probably have ended up homeless or dead if some family members hadn't agreed to take over power of attorney, navigate the system on his behalf, and find money to pay for his rent. The U.S.'s joke of a stingy social system surely hasn't done anything on that front.

Crake 13y ago
>would probably have ended up homeless or dead if some family members...navigate the system on his behalf. This is what I've observed as well. Part of the reason I feel like I have to move out of the US as soon as I possibly can is that I have no blood relations to take care of me if I become fully disabled again. It's absolutely terrifying.
gcb0 13y ago
> but especially that it's more proactive this was my main shock moving to work in the US. americans sell the image of workaholics. but... from dmv, cafe baristas, to VPs on the fortune 500 companies... nobody, bloody nobody will move a finger to do something that is not strictly what they are being paid to do. sometimes i think that if any of my coworkers would drop a pen during a meeting, it would be socially acceptable as an excuse for not taking any notes, since it is not his job to pick up a pen.
- midas007 13y ago
  Spoiled children -> learned selfishness.
  - fauigerzigerk 13y ago
    In my experience, it's the people who fear that they are going to be taken advantage of the moment they do anything they don't absolutely have to. It seems unlikely that getting spoiled as a child causes that kind of distrust.
- yardie 13y ago
  That's just the power in the word "no". It's easy to say no, requires little thought, and no effort. This is not endemic to the US, I encounter it all the time in France as well. So you learn not to ask, just do it. Or use a bit of reverse psychology to get to why it can't be done.
  - gcb0 13y ago

rXoX 13y ago

"the tragedy of the commons" - For example people keeping houses they no longer need and people not maintaing the houses they are in. This is what happens when a persuasive argument with absolutely no empirical evidence (the 'tragedy of the commons') meets a cognitive bias. I admit that old chestnut of an essay from '68 sounds reasonable, but unfortunately there's not a speck of data in it; meaning it's all bafflegab and opinion. Also, you don't seem to have an especially sound grip on what the 'tragedy of the commons' actually is, at least based on the examples you're providing. Home ownership has nothing do with 'the commons' in any way, shape or form.

kaonashi 13y ago

That's kind of why public housing failed in the first place: rents alone could not make up the entirety of the needed maintenance and staffing budgets.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

> This is not a whole lot different from public housing projects that are subsidize by the state, just more subsidized. They seem very, very different to me. The homeless are a teeny, tiny demographic, compared to, say, the entire lowest income quintile.

ohwp 13y ago

I think this is why Utah is also providing a social worker to each person.