You’re just wrong. No granular approach is needed. It’s not complicated at all.
Offer people housing without conditions and people do take it. Finland did this and it eliminated homelessness there.
The cousin from a rich family “choosing” to be homeless over living with family is likely “choosing” that option because he doesn’t want to take harsh psychiatric medications, have a curfew of 9 PM in his 20s, and be criticized for going out to socialize. It’s likely the “choice” involves a rejection of extremely oppressive rules and he doesn’t have decent options.
You can actually take a schizophrenic drug addict, throw them in a house, and then declare victory. Often that type of person chooses voluntarily to deal with some issues once housed. What you can’t do is take a schizophrenic drug addict and offer housing contingent upon really harsh anti-psychotics and weekly drug testing plus loss of housing if they don’t comply, administered by extremely expensive social workers who end up feeling like police. That is also what makes traditional programs so expensive.
I often think people who think homelessness is a complex nuanced issue just want there to be homelessness or buy into upper class lies justifying homelessness which keep the lower classes fearful and obedient.
New statistics from the Finnish government body ARA show 3,806 people are now experiencing homelessness in Finland. That’s an increase of 377 people in 2024 compared to the previous year, bringing an end to 11 consecutive years of declining numbers.
This article talks at length about the cause of this rise being increasing economic stress / government cuts and the affordable housing system not having been adjusted to meet the rising demand. Literally it points to a Housing First program under-powered relative to economic needs as the reason for the rise. I don’t know if I necessarily agree with the person you’re replying to but this article strongly supports their argument.
Sure, but they said they “eliminated” homelessness. I would say “addressed it effectively”, but not eliminated. Kind of similar to how measles hasn’t been eliminated but it’s essentially handled.
You’re just wrong. No granular approach is needed. It’s not complicated at all.
Offer people housing without conditions and people do take it. Finland did this and it eliminated homelessness there.
The cousin from a rich family “choosing” to be homeless over living with family is likely “choosing” that option because he doesn’t want to take harsh psychiatric medications, have a curfew of 9 PM in his 20s, and be criticized for going out to socialize. It’s likely the “choice” involves a rejection of extremely oppressive rules and he doesn’t have decent options.
You can actually take a schizophrenic drug addict, throw them in a house, and then declare victory. Often that type of person chooses voluntarily to deal with some issues once housed. What you can’t do is take a schizophrenic drug addict and offer housing contingent upon really harsh anti-psychotics and weekly drug testing plus loss of housing if they don’t comply, administered by extremely expensive social workers who end up feeling like police. That is also what makes traditional programs so expensive.
I often think people who think homelessness is a complex nuanced issue just want there to be homelessness or buy into upper class lies justifying homelessness which keep the lower classes fearful and obedient.
https://www.bigissue.com/news/housing/homelessness-finland-rough-sleeping/
New statistics from the Finnish government body ARA show 3,806 people are now experiencing homelessness in Finland. That’s an increase of 377 people in 2024 compared to the previous year, bringing an end to 11 consecutive years of declining numbers.
This article talks at length about the cause of this rise being increasing economic stress / government cuts and the affordable housing system not having been adjusted to meet the rising demand. Literally it points to a Housing First program under-powered relative to economic needs as the reason for the rise. I don’t know if I necessarily agree with the person you’re replying to but this article strongly supports their argument.
Sure, but they said they “eliminated” homelessness. I would say “addressed it effectively”, but not eliminated. Kind of similar to how measles hasn’t been eliminated but it’s essentially handled.
This is the most naive, ridiculous, privileged bullshit I’ve ever read. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
https://lemmy.world/post/19329178
Am I the one needing to beg for mercy from some imaginary deity?
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/02/how-finland-solved-homelessness/
Go back to making “if you have sex with a clone of yourself is it incest?” threads which are more suitable to your modest intellect.