So, it is almost the end of small hours where I am so I'll leave reading the entirety of this for tomorrow, but I'll write this: I love when the best practical solution to inequality is sharing...
Finland is the only EU country where homelessness is falling. Its secret? Giving people homes as soon as they need them – unconditionally
So, it is almost the end of small hours where I am so I'll leave reading the entirety of this for tomorrow, but I'll write this: I love when the best practical solution to inequality is sharing what we already have in abundance, and then "it is a miracle". No, it is the obvious and moral solution that sat there before our eyes for centuries if not millennia, and we were dumb enough to not do it. I mean, that we take so long to notice is the true miracle.
We have enough food and enough shelter for everybody in the world. All we need to do is stop being so utterly selfish and quit piling stuff nobody---including us----uses up for profits. If governments---i.e. the people---ovened at least some significant portion of housing, the competition would fix the prices and the unable would have shelter in the meantime.
This will be hard to pass in the States until we change the entire “they don’t deserve it” OR the other thought that says “they didn’t earn it”. As long as those mindsets are around we are likely...
This will be hard to pass in the States until we change the entire “they don’t deserve it” OR the other thought that says “they didn’t earn it”. As long as those mindsets are around we are likely to never see this change.
I'm in favour of housing-first solutions for the simple reason that they've been shown effective. I'm also very aware that many people don't think through their positions much beyond the news,...
I'm in favour of housing-first solutions for the simple reason that they've been shown effective. I'm also very aware that many people don't think through their positions much beyond the news, which tends to be overtly hostile to the poor.
Putting both of those thoughts aside, imagine the following: finally, after all these years, you have a place to call your own. It's been blindingly difficult. You forced yourself through rehab, knowing the whole time how easy it would be to make all the pain go away; you did it more than once, in fact, after the relapse. You held a job from the week your parents kicked you out, lost and penniless. You stuck to it through soul crushing retail, into construction until your knees finally gave out, and finally as a night security guard - it keeps you away from the few friends you still have, and the sleep pattern is doing worrying things to your mental health, but at least it's warm and you can sit down. It's probably the best you can hope for, and that's a thought that brings a bitter tear of frustration to your eye as you look down the barrel of another decade of this, even knowing how much worse it could still be otherwise. But it lets you have a place of your own, and you won't give that up for anything.
And then you find out that an old acquaintance has a place of his own too. He didn't try to get a job. Didn't want to, never saw the point. Of course, now that he's got somewhere comfortable he's a changed man - he's taking classes to become a counsellor, do something meaningful with his life. He said he might even try to start his own business on the side. You're happy for him. You really are. Even though you did everything right, fought with every fibre of your being, and have so much less to show for it than him.
Obviously that's all hypothetical; it also doesn't suggest that we shouldn't give housing to those who need it. It's just a reminder that sometimes "good" policy is in conflict with "fair" policy - and it takes an exceptionally strong person to accept that when they're the one caught in the middle.
I don't think I agree. First of all, when this sort of policy is there, it will be there for everyone. Yes there will be a transitionary period, but that is there for everything. Not much...
I don't think I agree. First of all, when this sort of policy is there, it will be there for everyone. Yes there will be a transitionary period, but that is there for everything. Not much different than Python 3, the 2to3 was painful, but we're well rewarded in the end for bearing with it. Second, these people won't be given a villa along the shores. It'll be an aptly-sized apartment in a condo. The bare minimum for a dignified life. Third, when this is in place, you too simply won't have to do what you described in the second paragraph. And yes, policy change can cause some remorse, but what, then, do we do about the millions that died of illnesses that we cure today with a week-long prescription of antibiotics? Is it fair that we don't treat people now, because so many died before? And isn't sleeping rough a bigger pain than anything already? Your reputation is none, your hygiene is none, your health is messed up more every other day, you face constant discrimination, you can't find work let alone suffer working.
I want to say again that I am fully in favour of this policy. I'm not arguing against it, I'm not defending those who argue against it because of propaganda. What I am doing is outlining how hard...
I want to say again that I am fully in favour of this policy. I'm not arguing against it, I'm not defending those who argue against it because of propaganda. What I am doing is outlining how hard it is for those left behind. If anything, my point is to give more to everyone, not just to the homeless.
First of all, when this sort of policy is there, it will be there for everyone.
It will be there for everyone who meets the requirements. There's always a cut off - and while that may not mean a lot to those far below or far above, it's everything to the people on the margin.
Yes there will be a transitionary period, but that is there for everything.
Even when it's the status quo, the cut off point is relevant. Again, the margins matter - the person who worked themselves to the bone to avoid homelessness by a hair is left to fend for themselves "because they clearly can". The person who couldn't keep it up, and lost their home, gets help and ends up better off in the long run.
Obviously the latter has greater need, but it still stings if you're the former. They start to calculate: would I rather take an awful job, or should I intentionally become homeless and endure it until I get help? Best case, enough people choose the latter that the awful jobs can't be filled - but if that's our end goal then it's a different conversation.
Second, these people won't be given a villa along the shores.
Of course. But if one person has basic accommodation for nothing, and another has similar basic accommodation only from working long and thankless hours, it's tough to swallow.
Third, when this is in place, you too simply won't have to do what you described in the second paragraph.
Exactly. So the logical person has to make themselves intentionally homeless to avoid doing what I described. Honestly, that probably is better than the current option, but at best it's an oblique and dangerous way of doing so.
Is it fair that we don't treat people now, because so many died before?
To take your analogy: I'm saying that of course, with limited resources, we treat those near death first. But I'm also saying that those who go through years of "non-critical" pain and suffering, never quite crossing that point where they get treatment, are essentially being left to suffer for the greater good.
I think this is the meat of our divergence here, and yeah I've failed to look at it from this angle. An easy and practical solution to this would be to extend the right to free homes to those who...
Obviously the latter has greater need, but it still stings if you're the former. They start to calculate: would I rather take an awful job, or should I intentionally become homeless and endure it until I get help? Best case, enough people choose the latter that the awful jobs can't be filled - but if that's our end goal then it's a different conversation.
I think this is the meat of our divergence here, and yeah I've failed to look at it from this angle. An easy and practical solution to this would be to extend the right to free homes to those who pay a significant portion of their income for housing. So our hard-working guy could just liberate themselves from rent and become neighbours with the former-rough-sleeper. Maybe they'd pay a nominal fee, say a tenth of their income. So if the hard-worker was earning $1000 and paying $800 just to feed a landlord—who's the guy that works the least and earns the most in this scenario—, now they can pay $80–100 which goes to help the community and provides them decent housing. This could be a great option for students for example. They could even help the community with workshops, teaching them skills so that they can climb up the ladders of society. In the end, this is quite similar to how we pay taxes actually: proportional to our income.
On this, it sounds like we agree entirely. Change needs to be structural in order not to leave anyone behind, and that's a damn difficult thing to achieve.
On this, it sounds like we agree entirely. Change needs to be structural in order not to leave anyone behind, and that's a damn difficult thing to achieve.
I don't in any way disagree with you in a general sense, but it's worth pointing out that Utah actually has had this housing-first policy for years, with massive success rates:...
I don't in any way disagree with you in a general sense, but it's worth pointing out that Utah actually has had this housing-first policy for years, with massive success rates: https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how. There are obviously lots of things specific to Utah that made this easier than it would be in other places. Utah only had about 2,000 homeless people in total at the beginning of the project, and the Mormon Church supported the effort and has a huge influence there. Still, it's a really awesome pilot.
incidentally since i stumbled on it just now, here's an example of the contrast in how homeless people in the US might be handled in trying to get their lives back together, straight out of st....
incidentally since i stumbled on it just now, here's an example of the contrast in how homeless people in the US might be handled in trying to get their lives back together, straight out of st. louis:
So, it is almost the end of small hours where I am so I'll leave reading the entirety of this for tomorrow, but I'll write this: I love when the best practical solution to inequality is sharing what we already have in abundance, and then "it is a miracle". No, it is the obvious and moral solution that sat there before our eyes for centuries if not millennia, and we were dumb enough to not do it. I mean, that we take so long to notice is the true miracle.
We have enough food and enough shelter for everybody in the world. All we need to do is stop being so utterly selfish and quit piling stuff nobody---including us----uses up for profits. If governments---i.e. the people---ovened at least some significant portion of housing, the competition would fix the prices and the unable would have shelter in the meantime.
This will be hard to pass in the States until we change the entire “they don’t deserve it” OR the other thought that says “they didn’t earn it”. As long as those mindsets are around we are likely to never see this change.
I'm in favour of housing-first solutions for the simple reason that they've been shown effective. I'm also very aware that many people don't think through their positions much beyond the news, which tends to be overtly hostile to the poor.
Putting both of those thoughts aside, imagine the following: finally, after all these years, you have a place to call your own. It's been blindingly difficult. You forced yourself through rehab, knowing the whole time how easy it would be to make all the pain go away; you did it more than once, in fact, after the relapse. You held a job from the week your parents kicked you out, lost and penniless. You stuck to it through soul crushing retail, into construction until your knees finally gave out, and finally as a night security guard - it keeps you away from the few friends you still have, and the sleep pattern is doing worrying things to your mental health, but at least it's warm and you can sit down. It's probably the best you can hope for, and that's a thought that brings a bitter tear of frustration to your eye as you look down the barrel of another decade of this, even knowing how much worse it could still be otherwise. But it lets you have a place of your own, and you won't give that up for anything.
And then you find out that an old acquaintance has a place of his own too. He didn't try to get a job. Didn't want to, never saw the point. Of course, now that he's got somewhere comfortable he's a changed man - he's taking classes to become a counsellor, do something meaningful with his life. He said he might even try to start his own business on the side. You're happy for him. You really are. Even though you did everything right, fought with every fibre of your being, and have so much less to show for it than him.
Obviously that's all hypothetical; it also doesn't suggest that we shouldn't give housing to those who need it. It's just a reminder that sometimes "good" policy is in conflict with "fair" policy - and it takes an exceptionally strong person to accept that when they're the one caught in the middle.
I don't think I agree. First of all, when this sort of policy is there, it will be there for everyone. Yes there will be a transitionary period, but that is there for everything. Not much different than Python 3, the 2to3 was painful, but we're well rewarded in the end for bearing with it. Second, these people won't be given a villa along the shores. It'll be an aptly-sized apartment in a condo. The bare minimum for a dignified life. Third, when this is in place, you too simply won't have to do what you described in the second paragraph. And yes, policy change can cause some remorse, but what, then, do we do about the millions that died of illnesses that we cure today with a week-long prescription of antibiotics? Is it fair that we don't treat people now, because so many died before? And isn't sleeping rough a bigger pain than anything already? Your reputation is none, your hygiene is none, your health is messed up more every other day, you face constant discrimination, you can't find work let alone suffer working.
I want to say again that I am fully in favour of this policy. I'm not arguing against it, I'm not defending those who argue against it because of propaganda. What I am doing is outlining how hard it is for those left behind. If anything, my point is to give more to everyone, not just to the homeless.
It will be there for everyone who meets the requirements. There's always a cut off - and while that may not mean a lot to those far below or far above, it's everything to the people on the margin.
Even when it's the status quo, the cut off point is relevant. Again, the margins matter - the person who worked themselves to the bone to avoid homelessness by a hair is left to fend for themselves "because they clearly can". The person who couldn't keep it up, and lost their home, gets help and ends up better off in the long run.
Obviously the latter has greater need, but it still stings if you're the former. They start to calculate: would I rather take an awful job, or should I intentionally become homeless and endure it until I get help? Best case, enough people choose the latter that the awful jobs can't be filled - but if that's our end goal then it's a different conversation.
Of course. But if one person has basic accommodation for nothing, and another has similar basic accommodation only from working long and thankless hours, it's tough to swallow.
Exactly. So the logical person has to make themselves intentionally homeless to avoid doing what I described. Honestly, that probably is better than the current option, but at best it's an oblique and dangerous way of doing so.
To take your analogy: I'm saying that of course, with limited resources, we treat those near death first. But I'm also saying that those who go through years of "non-critical" pain and suffering, never quite crossing that point where they get treatment, are essentially being left to suffer for the greater good.
I think this is the meat of our divergence here, and yeah I've failed to look at it from this angle. An easy and practical solution to this would be to extend the right to free homes to those who pay a significant portion of their income for housing. So our hard-working guy could just liberate themselves from rent and become neighbours with the former-rough-sleeper. Maybe they'd pay a nominal fee, say a tenth of their income. So if the hard-worker was earning $1000 and paying $800 just to feed a landlord—who's the guy that works the least and earns the most in this scenario—, now they can pay $80–100 which goes to help the community and provides them decent housing. This could be a great option for students for example. They could even help the community with workshops, teaching them skills so that they can climb up the ladders of society. In the end, this is quite similar to how we pay taxes actually: proportional to our income.
On this, it sounds like we agree entirely. Change needs to be structural in order not to leave anyone behind, and that's a damn difficult thing to achieve.
I don't in any way disagree with you in a general sense, but it's worth pointing out that Utah actually has had this housing-first policy for years, with massive success rates: https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how. There are obviously lots of things specific to Utah that made this easier than it would be in other places. Utah only had about 2,000 homeless people in total at the beginning of the project, and the Mormon Church supported the effort and has a huge influence there. Still, it's a really awesome pilot.
We didn't (don't) care enough to do it. This is a moral failure, not an intellectual one.
The whole miracle is that it's possible to do this, compared to many other countries where this just isn't an option for Bob knows what reason.
Nordic countries, bro.
incidentally since i stumbled on it just now, here's an example of the contrast in how homeless people in the US might be handled in trying to get their lives back together, straight out of st. louis:
'Put the pieces back together'; St. Louis homeless clean the streets to get back on their feet.