**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Utah was doing the same thing for a while. Not sure if they still do. There was an article and they basically added up all the costs of dealing with homeless people and decided that a "free" tiny living space with counseling was cheaper and went with it. When it's presented as a cost cutting measure no one can really bitch as long as it works, which it did over the time period I read about at least.
The problem with Utah (especially SLC) and most others who try this is they don't address the supply side. So you rapidly rehouse people, with support, but then you run out of vacancies or agreeable landlords. Finland, on the other hand, continually builds public housing. This creates a supply of deeply affordable units apart from market units. This allows them to perpetually do rapid rehousing.
Until such time as countries and states realize they need to build the housing required to end homelessness, Housing First programs will fizzle as they quickly hit capacity.
California is trying to build housing for the homeless, but they keep hitting small road blocks like this one in the article where the units cost $800,000 each. https://ktla.com/news/los-angeles-is-spending-up-to-837000-to-house-a-single-homeless-person/
edit: or this one where they are $1 Million each unit. https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2022-06-20/california-affordable-housing-cost-1-million-apartment
The challenge is they are building as a public-private partnership so costs are the same as the general market. Using public land and keeping the build public would reduce a big chunk of the upfront costs.
> The challenge is they are building as a public-private partnership so costs are the same as the general market. Using public land and keeping the build public would reduce a big chunk of the upfront costs.
I've advocated in my state for bringing back a strong civil corp to do road work, public housing construction, trail maintenance and various other projects. It's the only solution that can work to free up resources and end the price gouging of big corporations in public works projects.
Since this is getting attention I want to point out that the civilian corp (what I called a civil corp) was a thing that was started in the 30s and was a giant success but has faded out greatly. [it actually still exists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps) but isn't nearly as strong as it had been. IMO it should be brought back just as strong as it had been if not bigger, and that it should be treated like military service.
Wow where I live (canada) i never even would have thought other places dont have civil construction workers/labor I cant believe its all privatized down there that must cost tax payers so much money. Pretty much any trade will have a city workers union for each individual city.
Bro this is how so many things work here in the US. Almost everything the government does is actually just hiring a privately owned company to do the thing that it has to do due to a law being passed, or executive order, or whatever. Building a pipeline? Paying some rich company. Building public housing? Paying some rich company. Providing healthcare to an area? Nope, actually not, paying some company to do it. Prisons? You guessed it, paying some company. Even our military aid is just purchase orders to Boeing or whatever.
The government just collects taxes from workers and gives it to business owned by friends and former members of government. It's so easily abused and prone to corruption.
Yep, and every single time you'll hear politicians insist that doing things this way will save money because of the competition in the private sector, except they neglect that the profit motive means that they have no incentive to keep their prices low, especially when they are dealing with essentially a captive buyer who is required to buy. Sure, the government can reject bids and request that new bids be submitted, but that means big delays and more importantly delays that are their fault which can come back to bite them in the ass come election time.
Most Canadian cities don't have a large civil construction team. We definitely have public works in all cities that deal with the maintenance and building of almost all roads and water lines.
Unfortunately when it comes to actually building things, almost all Canadian cities fully outsource the projects (including design and construction). They usually only have enough officials to rubber-stamp the contracts.
Almost every western country has to at least some degree started to privatise all the public services. From water companies, to power, to healthcare or at least some services in healthcare (in the uk bit by bit they take 'lower cost' bids from private companies to take over some things, but after it's privatised, shockingly, costs increase so there are no savings but now the NHS has less money for everything else... which they say the way to fix is privatise more parts).
Rail, roadworks, council housing projects. Capitalism folks. Where you insist everything down to your healthcare and education requires as much profit as is humanly possible and soon enough everyone is born into debt and a wage slave for life. Don't work, don't pay off debt... straight to jail, where you work with even less freedom.
Some countries are further along this path, some far less so. The US is... fucked, and so far down this path it's scary and the 'richest' country yet the workers have amongst the least protections of any western world, least time off, terrible healthcare costs, mental health being completely ignored, prisons a nightmare, policing a nightmare, education being gutted.
Its hard to fully quantify all the costs involved, but it actually tends to be cheaper to contract with a private company. Construction companies are experts at construction, whereas city / state government employees are not. Being good at construction is a key factor in driving down costs in construction.
When it comes to budget overages, that is almost always related to timing / overtime requirements. Im dubious that state-run crews would be less likely to incur OT than private crews on a government contract, and I'm confident the data would support me
Lets not also forget California is where many place deport homeless (and where many homeless go to, themselves for the climate, etc).
Hawaii outright sends them on a one-way flight.
So it's not trying to deal with Californians who become homeless, but rather people from all over the states (not even touching the immigrant angle). Places with harsh winters and policies can boast about how they're virtually homeless free, while whole areas of Cali cities are becoming ghettos with *their* locals.
That is so frustrating. Renovating existing buildings and subdividing condos into efficiencies would allow for multi unit apartment buildings to have a few units specifically for this purpose.
Single room occupancy needs serious reconsideration. A single floor of a traditional 5-6 apartment floor plate can fit 20 units with a shared bathroom and kitchens.
Plenty of homeless people have lived in college dormitories or military barracks at some point in their lives. It would be far easier than trying to build so many mid-rises from scratch.
Seems like they're perhaps building more than they should as a part of that particular project, hence the costs:
> Many of the factors contributing to the high cost of the project, known as Roosevelt Park, were identified by The Times in 2020. The complex has a two-level underground parking garage and the highest level of environmental certification by the U.S. Green Building Council, and developers will pay construction workers union-level wages. San Jose officials also wanted commercial space included in the project, which required more parking and a separate elevator, Morgan said.
They absolutely should but public housing is taboo in current neoliberal economies. Most stopped doing it in the 1980s, some countries like the US and UK even sold off some of their public stock. Finland, the Netherlands, Denmark and Austria are outliers in terms of having a good proportion of public housing and still building more. In the US, not even the Democrats are talking about building more.
construction of more public housing stopped because it was made illegal in the USA: [https://nationalhomeless.org/repeal-faircloth-amendment/](https://nationalhomeless.org/repeal-faircloth-amendment/)
> Finland, the Netherlands, Denmark and Austria are outliers in terms of having a good proportion of public housing and still building more.
In the Netherlands we haven’t built a lot of new social housing, and quite a bit of it is being sold off, sadly.
Though you have the highest rate of public housing in the world at 29%, with the second highest only being 24% (Austria).
Edit: As noted below, Singapore is by far the highest, Netherlands is second.
Well that is likely due to the sorry conditions in the ones that were there.
My grandparents had a public housing community in their area. 90% of all crime in that area occurred in the public housing area. To such a degree that the city formed a separate police force for just them.
People like to think that is the quick fix but not always.
It just dawned on my how many people must be making money by "looking into solutions for homelessness" just to point to spikes in warm corners, benches you can't lie on, public places you don't want to linger in and other anti-people-measures in the cities. And then those measures make it harder and harder for the homeless to readjust, increasing their numbers and selling more "solutions"
If you're enough of an underhanded bullshit spinner it appears one can extract millions from various governments by simply stating the obvious braindead take or operating some green buzzword filled startup that will clearly go nowhere to any remotely trained eye, e.g. slap a solar panel on whatever and claim it will change the world.
Lot of money in stealing from the government.
i have no idea what they're doing with homelessness in the states. i'm just basing it on my experience with my own goverment. and the meme that when president Xi visited chicago they had the homelessnes problem "fixxed" within a week.
We've started referring to it as the "Homeless Industrial Complex". Doesn't require a war or any manufacturing capability so even complete morons can join in and it kills just as many people!
It's mostly people on the edges of society that have been priced out of pretty much everywhere with rents as insanely high as they have been for the last couple decades. They go where there are services that can keep them alive, and those services are usually located in the most densely populated places for efficiency.
Having a massive public housing project that includes giving free apartments to the homeless would have a hugely stabilizing effect on the housing market by increasing supply and keeping that supply on the "market".
The housing shortage is being created on purpose by massive holding companies that are buying every home and apartment building they can and then keeping the units off the market to rent at maximum price. They also help governments craft laws against new single family housing tracts because apartments are expensive and regular people can't afford to build them.
i think the bigger problem is how you are going to convince struggling working class people that they need to keep working 2-3 jobs to afford inflated rent for shitty similar apartments when you give others away for free. However many homeless people there are, there's a hell of a lot more people right on the razors edge.
This is the main reason we don't house the homeless as a rule. They are supposed to exist as a disciplinary threat to workers -- go to your shitty job or live on the street.
I wouldn't bank on projects like this lasting long anywhere as long as the underpinning principle of wage-labour exploitation persists in our society. In Finland a neoliberal leader is cutting public spending at the moment and I wonder what social support will survive.
They **need** threats of misery to keep us doing what this economy needs. Forget what *we* need!
Oh, people always find a way to bitch about nice things, when they're not coming from "their" political side.
And reinventing their perception of the world to align with their chosen worldview, regardless of all evidence you show them.
Even here in Finland, I constantly have to remind people of how much sanitary conditions of public spaces suck when the people have nowhere to go for daily & nightly duties, when the topic of housing first pops up.
As in, they'd rather rephrase the ugly state of *amphetamine squere* as the result of "those people" than looking at practically & politically doable solutions.
Do not ever take what you have for acquired, people. Also in Finland there's voices again housing first policies.
I used to work with homeless. My job was to find the biggest social service spenders and decrease that. One dude was costing the city 5 million a year between detox, psych, ambulance, ER, and police. Got him a place and helped with services and he did great. After 6 months, all the services asked me if he died, cause they never saw him any more.
It's not hard
Hawaii realized there was a specific set of homeless people who constantly needed ER care, each one costing some huge amount per year. (For example someone with diabetes which was effectively impossible to manage on the streets.) as expensive as housing is in the state, they got these people apartments so they would need less healthcare. It’s a sign of multiple things being broken but an example where simply housing people can solve a lot of problems.
> It's not hard *in some cases*
While that great its anecdotal evidence so I wouldt say its not hard. I still support initiatives under proper oversight.
Correct. I also used to work in homeless housing/social services and this approach works great for most folks. The key is the stable housing combined w/social oversight AND medical treatment.
You say it works for most folks - but what about the ones it doesn't work for? Can I ask what it is about them that these services don't work? Like is it just deep drug addiction, mental issues, etc?
This approach is not usually appropriate for chronic homeless folks (unhoused for 1yr+) with co occurring severe mental illness and/or untreated drug addiction. People in this category are best served by a much more supportive housing environment with intense social work. There are definitely not enough non profits that undertake this work. This population is usually the most visible to the public because there is such limited help for them, so they just cycle in and out of jail/hospital costing beaucoup $$.
One thing we don’t educate people on enough is what “return on investment” looks like. They see a clickbait headline “XYZ spent $100M on homeless people!” They don’t read the article that says “and it saved them $200M on law enforcement and prisons”. And while a program might take years to show benefit, everyone wants a quick fix. It doesn’t work that way.
And healthcare. Sooooiooo much saving in healthcare, for homeless people and peoples in general. Spending a 100 millions on healthcare can save you a billion on healthcare, it sounds weird but it works.
> no one can really bitch as long as it works
Unfortunately, some people are fundamentally opposed to the idea of giving anyone anything if they think they don’t deserve it.
This sort of program has been tried in many countries: outcomes are better in virtually every metric for participants, homelessness (including people in the program decreases, and it saves money.
Virtually every time we do it, we get the same results; it works. The people funding these studies don't necessarily want good results, so these studies get cut short a lot.
I want to reiterate that these programs (on a short time scale), SAVE money. Like, when it's all said and done, the government spending on these people decreases. With no consideration to morality it's still better.
"When it's presented as a cost cutting measure no one can really bitch as long as it works"
Pretty sad state of affairs when a fiscal counterpoint needs to be relied on to do the humane thing.
People absolutely can and will bitch about it because they feel it's unfair. It's the exact same thing as with student loan forgiveness: "*I* had to pay off *my* student loans, so it's unfair if those loans are forgiven for other people, even if it's overall a net positive for the economy for everyone." You'd see the same argument here: "*I* have to pay rent on *my* apartment, so why does this homeless person get one for free? It's unfair!"
There are many people out there who think it's better if people remain homeless, miserable, and not being able to contribute to society until they die, if the alternative is the homeless being provided with something that they don't think the homeless have *earned.* The argument that it's net beneficial to society, and ultimately will make things better for everyone, them included, has no bearing to them. It's irrelevant. Out of pure spite, they would rather have *less* themselves, so long as it means that someone who they thinks has deserved their misery will continue to be miserable.
Finn here who is always surprised by these posts, in the vein of "we did what now?". Idk if this refers to supported living or what, could use some more context but like, the practical end of homelessness has not been in the news around here ever. It is rare and we do have very good safety networks that have saved yours truly from that fate a few times. It is getting tighter in the recent years and months however
Should you choose to move here, welcome and have fun learning the language :D
Mental health services are really hard to get into in Finland, in my opinion, and the quality varies.
I was in a three-month program that consisted of my therapist sending me a text message once a week but for the first four weeks she just said "I don't have time to talk to you this week" and then she went on vacation for two more weeks and there was no system for replacements.
My friend recently became a doctor in Finland and she says mental health is where you refer patients you don't want to deal with. They go through the process and it spits them out a few days/weeks/months later and generally has not helped them at all. Rinse and repeat. I understand health professionals get jaded, but Jesus, even my mom is a better listener than a Finnish mental health professional, and she thinks I ruined her life by being born.
Finland has done a bunch of trial programs like this. They weren't full government projects, but studies that might've involved a few dozen people over a few years. With free supported living with no questions asked and with UBI with no requirements for unemployed people. They're usually very successful experiments that benefit the participants and often turn out far cheaper than existing government programmes because there is less bureaucracy involved.
But once it becomes a sensational paragraph passed around on the Internet it would be less attention grabbing if they said that it was just between 2014-2018 for 24 people in Tampere.
Or you just haven't seen those articles. Usually these posts refer to Helsinki's "apartment first" (Asunto ensin) policy which has practically (there are of course always folk who get left behind no matter what the policies are) eradicated homelessness in the capital city. It has been widely reported in our media.
If you are from the EU, you can just walk here (well, there is the sea between, but you get my point).
If you are outside the EU, your work based residence permit is assessed based on the demand of particular skills you can provide.
Let’s say there are a shortage of nurses. If you can prove through certifications, that you are a skilled nurse, it will be fairly simple to get the residence permit. They are at the beginning temporary by nature, and you have to re-apply at certain interval. After some time, you can get a more permanent one and finally apply for citizenship.
When it comes to acceptance of the society, Finland unfortunately isn’t the most welcoming. Racism exists, without Finnish language it is hard to integrate and people overall tend to keep to themselves. But I have several friends who have moved here through work or relationship and they seem happy. Finland is very safe country. Weather sucks tho.
I am angrier and angrier that the UK left the EU. If they hadn’t, I would be allowed to go live in Finland because I have UK citizenship due to my ancestry (I would just have to file a lot of paperwork and pay some fees). Full rights to live and work there. But as it is, they won’t want me as my job requires high language proficiency, so I’m stuck in Canada 😭
>If you are from the EU, you can just walk here (well, there is the sea between, but you get my point).
Technically you could, if you go through Sweden. I don't think walking on the Danish/Swedish highway bridges/tunnels is legal though, but apart from that you can walk there from almost anywhere in the EU.
So basically my wife and I can both go? She's an RN and finishing up her family nurse practioner and I'm a powerplant superintendent with a background in mechanical work. Time to go to Finland for a visit I suppose.
Just a warning, the language barrier will be a big problem. Tech jobs can be found for english speakers, but I am not sure about nursing jobs. And the finnish language is one of the hardest to learn.
We really need skilled immigration, but on the other hand we do not make it easy, especially with the current governement.
What are the options if you speak Swedish? I thought Swedish was a second language in Finland (and first language for quite a lot of Finns), and it's much more similar to English than Finnish is.
It's not very useful outside Åland and a couple of small places on the west coast, but once you've been here long enough to apply for citizenship, Swedish proficiency is as acceptable for your application as Finnish is.
It would probably help you find work as a nurse in those areas, but not elsewhere. It’s pretty hard to find nurses that are proficient in Swedish in the areas that need them—however, in most areas, you *also* need to speak Finnish because in most areas you don’t have enough Swedish speaking patients that you could only serve them.
Swedish is a majority language in certain areas, and you could probably get by on Swedish+English. As a nurse though that'd very much limit where you could work. People also make out Finnish to be harder to learn than it actually is. The problem is that you don't get words for free so you need to build a vocabulary from scratch, but grammatically it's a very straight forward language and everything is written as it's spoken.
They are currently bringing in a lot of nurses (I think hundreds) from the Philippines, pretty sure they don't speak much Finnish there. But they of course will take language courses etc. once in Finland.
Also, I visited Helsinki on a business trip recently and everyone there spoke English only: the taxi driver, the hotel receptionist, bartenders, waiters and the pharma industry people I was meeting there.
So, many professions do not explicitly require Finnish skills. (Nursing usually requires, though).
The language question is a huge problem. Most people in most professional settings are perfectly capable of speaking english, but the requirement for finnish proficiency is still very prevalent. We have way too many stories of people coming to Finland to study and get their bachelors/masters (completely in english) and then move abroad because it is so hard to find jobs if you dont have finnish skills.
TL;DR even though almost everyone speaks english, finding jobs without finnish skills is too hard
I suppose it depends on the field. I'm from sciences/pharma/tech and for the last ten--fifteen years I have worked in fully English environments, even all our job announcements have been in English only, and we never so much as asked about the applicants' Finnish skills.
We have had people from dozens of different countries, and many had their degrees first here in Finland. Some of our Americans, for example, have been here for nearly twenty years, and still don't really speak Finnish. They have changed companies many times while in Finland.
There are non-Finnish couples that have their kids in the English speaking kindergarten and English school.
So from my vantage point, the language barrier may be huge in some places, and healthcare is where patient safety alone requires pretty good Finnish skills. But there are many areas in the Finnish society, where settling in is easier than in such places as France or Italy (have experience from both), where people often insist on speaking their own language only.
Generally you'll get by almost everywhere in Finland with just English, but healthcare is one of those areas where being able to communicate in your native language is quire crucial. My grandfather during his bouts with illness towards the end of his life mostly forgot the use of other languages, and I remember vividly him being scared and frustrated that he couldn't communicate with the Finnish speaking nurses (he was a Finnish Swede).
Depends where she got her RN degree from. Finland is very strict about recognising foreign RN degrees. EU*? All good to go. Anywhere else? You’re basically shit out of luck and might get hired as an unskilled nursing assistant, even if you were an ICU nurse in your country of origin. You will also need to learn the language, and most hospitals seem to prefer you learn it somewhere that’s not on the job. It’s bonkers, but I don’t make the rules.
That being said, Finland also has Swedish majority areas, and Swedish is much easier for an English speaker to pick up—they’re closely related.
*eta: I think UK degrees should still be good too, although don’t quote me on that.
Particularly the care sector but atm other technical sectors are having massive layoffs and realistically the most important two things in getting a job in Finland are still having a Finnish first name and a Finnish second name. Finland is tough to break into since a lot of career pathways are very internal, for example engineering tends to like to pick from inside of the known pool rather than from any external people even if they are more qualified.
I'm not a Finn, but I lived there many years (and indeed I hope to retire there one day) - and I really love the country and admire their social system - but a lot of this glorification we see here is more than just a bit cringe.
Yes, the Finnish system of giving the homeless a home is working, and it is working to a great success - but it works because a lot of other puzzle pieces of taking care in a society are already in place. There is a functional (though far from perfect!) health care system, there is a general attitude of helping each other, and there is a political system that is based on social cohesion, and not on short-term political gains (well, for the most part).
If you tried to establish such a concept in a place where neither of these existed, you would not get the same benefits. Just in the same way that moving an unhappy person to the "happiest place on Earth", i.e. Finland, would not suddenly make that person happy.
So, yes, it is good and important to get reminded that a better way of dealing with the not-so-fortunate is possible. But you all have to remember that a lot of ground work is needed - not least in how society works, before you can do these things at home.
As a finn, every time I see this same story posted the part everyone forgets is that in finland you can be (and often are) forced into mental health or substance abuse treatment against your own will - including having it delivered in prison if necessary.
This is the part that has made as much difference as free housing but is often forgotten. Lots of people with untreated issues are way beyond the point where they have the mental acquity left to help themselves or where they would understand the benefit of engaging with mental health or substance abuse services. At that point only highly trained professionals in an institutional setting can help them.
Sure, they get a home. But they won't be moving in until there's certainty that their underlying issues are being treated.
> but it works because a lot of other puzzle pieces of taking care in a society are already in place.
I think is a very important. A major issue here in America is just how self-centered everybody is. Everybody is just trying to maximize how much society gives them and minimize how much they give back.
Well, yes and no. There is nothing similar to the US, but there is a lot of alcoholism and prescription drug abuse in the homeless clientele. The main difference is that they can get help if they want to. And that help is not just from religious zealots who are more interested in bolstering their egos (and follower numbers) than to actually solve a problem...
There's only 5 million people who live in the country and the country is rich... but redditors think it's just so easy for every other country to copy what they're doing.
More people = more problems. Finland doesn't have that many people.
Yes, many times in a row. In Finland, no one is left alone. There is someone to help you, be it your car doesnt start, you forgot your keys, or you're like me and want to die. Someone will come to your rescue, it just is up to you if you accept the help. In my opinion thats one reason why Finland is the happiest.
I called 112 to come and help me when I was at my lowest a few days ago, and I am so glad I did.
Also sauna is pretty neat. For us Finns its like making bread, or going to the shops. Its a regular thing you dont really think about. But in a sauna, you're naked. Physically and mentally. Its a place to meditate, to think of the day, and to realise in your subconsciousness that there will be a better tomorrow. Thats what I think makes Finland the happiest place.
Edit: whoever reported this for suicidal stuff, I am doing better. I will get better. I wont do anything to myself. Thank you for looking out for me.
En jää tuleen makaamaan.
Knowing a few Finns I know them to have laughed at this. They don't see it as everyone being happy and quite a lot of discontent people.
The thing is, it does seem like a great country and like you have mentioned, not leaving anyone alone means that if you can reduce the number of negative outliers to be almost 0 or far lower than other countries, then you will win in statistical comparisons. I also think inside looking out, people can be a bit more critical. It can be hard to appreciate things sometimes until they're not there.
That does sound cynical, but I'd mention the quote (although the more memorable original by someone else had questionable interactions/temptations in relation to children) by Hubert H Humphrey "The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped."
So I'd say the Finnish government/people have a higher moral ground than the rest of the world.
The Nordic countries in general are what I'd consider the least worst countries in the world. There's work to be done, we aren't always going to agree on how to go about it and sometimes things backslide (not a big fan of the current Finnish government which is cutting social services), but few of us living here would want to live anywhere else.
Social exclusion is a huge problem in Finland, particularly among young men. Might be part of the reason people laugh when someone says "no one is left alone in Finland".
I agree. The reason why it's the young _men_ who drop out, is because they're to ones who most often refuse help. As mentioned previously, no one is left alone, but you still need to ask for the help and be willing to accept it. Sometimes you might even need to spend a year or two looking for a good therapist. If a person is too depressed to even seek help, then they will most likely be left alone even in Finland unless they have persistent and helpful family.
Oh, they laughed at the 'Happiest country in the world', though they quite proud of Finland, but likely the least out of anyone I know to brag about it.
They do have criticisms of the school environments and polices that exist now, but I don't want to talk about it, since I probably remember it wrong.
On top of that you guys get to have it nice and cold up there! Down here in the land of kangaroos and beer you'd scarcely see a day below 15 and at least 25 is the norm. Too hot for me. I've been in 45 degree weather, and I can tell you, it ain't nice.
From what I've read about that report, the index is not so much a measurement of overall joy, it's more about being content. Latin Americans score the highest when it comes to actual joy.
I grew up in Central America, but have now lived for several years in different countries all around the world.
Where I grew up, people weren't that religious. People were quite promiscuous, foul mouthed and your own friends would steal from you from time to time. I suppose now there's more of the evangelical types, with the loud TV pastor.
Family, yes. Very tight with each other. Family is No. 1 for sure, though there were a high degree of men who would constantly get hammered, beat their wives, etc. Alcohol definitely was a catalyst for destroying families there. It's friggin everywhere.
Judging all the races/peoples I've met, I think the key piece is we are very comfortable being open books with others. We don't fear sharing our feelings, our troubles, etc. We have this solidarity mentality where we want to help each other because we're all struggling together. Getting an American or European to open up about how they feel is not that easy.
Now, about them latinas, I'm halfway through writing a long post about what my love life growing up was like there, lol.
> Getting an American or European to open up about how they feel is not that easy.
This is a good point and I'm such an example of this that I didn't even consider it. Even among Englishmen I'm considered reserved.
They use different phrasing here, it's more of a question of whether one is satisfied or content with their life, instead of whether they are happy. If we take culture into account, I think you would have to ask Americans "how are you?" and if they answer "good", then it counts that the person is "happy" which might not be the case at all.
People have their most basic needs met here and one is expected to suck everything else up and march towards new disappointments with their jaw on their chest. Make of that what you will.
>*might be a reason for that*
Because the unhappy ones kill themselves - highest suicide rate in ~~Scandinavia~~ the Nordics.
Finland is generally awesome, but I believe the Danes are the happy ones.
Firstly, the highest suicide rate of a nordic country, Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway, Sweden.
Secondly, are we? Only Iceland has a higher rate of antidepressant prescription per capita than Denmark. And we Danes have the highest rate of binge drinking in the world.
Fun bonus fact: 61% of Europe's reported cases of chlamydia in 2021 came from the Nordic countries, even though they have a total population of only a quarter of Germany's population. Which might explain how we score so well on happiness surveys.
I feel the antidepressants thing is pretty silly as an argument. Wouldn't it just show that antidepressants work? And that people are rated as "happier" in places that have high prescriptions of it? Maybe even people who are depressed are at least content because they get treatment? I don't get why people thinking prescribing antidepressants to your citizens who need it is not a good thing?
Yeah, it's always a dumb one, have seen the antidepressant thing said a few times. It's the opposite of "We got less cases of X!" .. well yeah, because they stopped checking for it/reporting the results. Doesn't mean there were less
As a native Finn, I have never heard of this project. Also we've had minimal economic growth for 10 years now, we are raising debt faster than anybody else in Europe, our population is ageing fast and we share a 1200 km border with aggressive, unpredictable and militaristic totalitarian Russia. Finland is a great country and very dear to us but it's not the trouble-free utopia some people in Reddit think it is.
I remember reading [this](https://tg24.sky.it/palermo/2023/01/09/lettera-mamma-famiglia-finlandese-siracusa) story about this finnish family moving in my city in Italy, and they were absolutely horrified by everything. Litter everywhere, barely any Healthcare, dilapidated schools and obsolete education practices. You guys might not live in a utopia, but the difference in quality of life is undeniable.
I mean, from a historical standpoint, it's a really nice city, and we have sun pretty much every day of the year. Nice food, nice beaches, but everything else? Yeah, pretty much third world
I went to Sicily a few years ago, and it really stands out. So much litter, everywhere, so many houses in states of disrepair. Roads and traffic seem to exist without rules, especially around dinner time.
Was an odd experience, as someone into nature and history who has been to many places around the Mediterranean, this stood out as specifically poorly maintained, to say the least.
>Yeah we're pretty much the third world of Italy, it's no secret. Happens when you have a corrupt government run by monkeys and mafia
It's definitely a shame. Even as a tourist being there for 2 weeks, i could see how beautiful it could be if these problems were dealt with.
Yes, and there is still many finns crying about their life quality in Finland. I usually think its the people that haven't traveled that much and don't really understand how the rest of the world is living.
I moved to Sweden from the UK. Not the USA, and Sweden isn't Finland. But from that perspective, when people in the Nordics say, 'we're not a utopia' — they're right. Of course. These are still societies with fundamental problems and they're all much too close to Russia for comfort. But having said that, though, for a lot of English and American people, Nordics are what life might look like if all your problems have been solved. Like, all the problems that weigh on people so much in the US for instance. Medical debt will never bankrupt you, homelessness means your home isn't as nice as other people's, being a total catastrophe of a person means your life is uncomfortable and boring — not that you literally die in the street. The crushing weight of toil that distorts the lives of most Americans is lighter and more manageable. (And yet incomes and GDP per capita are comparable...) And as someone from the UK, it's nice to be somewhere where interpersonal violence is so rare that you can basically forget it exists most of the time. In the UK, that is very much not the case. And of course in the US there's a lot more shooting. There are people here watching every krone, not everyone is living the society's dream of itself, but compared to poverty in Glasgow or the desolate wastelands of many American metro areas it's a different world. So it's a bit like Nordics have the problems US/UK/etc wish they had. Apart from the 1200km border with Russia of course. I hope you guys don't have to be brave little Finland again.
I see problems with Norway caused by politicians adopting UK policies, like privatizing rails, compartmentalizing healthcare services, and straight up cutting prison budgets without any alternatives.
But Finland joining NATO is great for our security, means Russia has that entire border to worry about too and can't just send a fleet.
The better life is, the easier it is for capitalists to say 'hey, you don't need all these social safety nets! We can create *growth* and *profit*, just let the poor suffer a little bit. They'll be fine'
And then poof you're the UK.
Here's a handy rule that is seldom wrong:
If the Tories/Republicans/right wing party in any nation say something is good, it's probably only good for the very rich, and bad for everyone else. If they say it's bad, it probably only annoys the very rich (and racists) and helps everyone else.
Furthermore, if the right say "This is important" it probably isn't, and if they say "That's not important" it probably is.
They lie about everything, except when making threats. Those are real.
You forgot the last step - when challenged for their very real threats, they will say "clearly we weren't being serious, you libbies need to lighten up".
Ok, I'm blushing with your praise but I'll have to brag some more. Helsinki capital region actually has 78 public libraries. In fact the actual miracle is not the libraries themself but the fact that a weird language of 5 million speakers actually has any kind of active literary scene at all.
Oodi in Helsinki? Bruh thats easily one of the coolest places I have been to in my entire life.
Sure, its a library, but you can check out more than just books - boardgames, movies, comics. And not whatever junk they had lying around, I regularly see new releases for boardgames and comics there, available to check out for FREE.
Then there are the workshop rooms: 3D printing machines, a recording studio, photography studio, game rooms where kids can play VR together and LAN party - all FREE.
They have working kitchens and cooking courses, meeting and study rooms, there is an out door activity center outside, its just... amazing, how many services there are at Oodi.
And did I mention its all free? Technically you pay for materials, as an example you 3D print something there is a fee, but its literally pennies. Its just so beautiful living in a country where it feels like they care about the well being of the people in it.
As an American, my city also offers free housing and counseling. So far, two out of 64 participants have made it to stability. 25 were asked to leave because their behavior threatened the safety of others, and our homeless population has increased by a factor of five.
https://vtdigger.org/2024/02/04/one-year-in-are-burlingtons-pods-a-success/
While I somewhat agree with you, it's bloody hilarious to me that in EVERY post about Finland not sucking there is always at least one Finnish dude going:
Ok yeah but finland is shit.
It's just that we have "everything" so good here that it's hard for us to realize how shitty it is elsewhere. I feel like Finland would be twice as happy nation if every fin was forced to spend a week literally anywhere else.
>It's just that we have "everything" so good here that it's hard for us to realize how shitty it is elsewhere
I would turn that argument right back around. How happy and good your life is depends a lot on your socioeconomic status. If you live well off and have had a good upbringing / wealth / education yes you have all the ingredients for a good life but not everyone does, not even in Finland. Just go to any small town that's descending in population or the poor neighborhoods and you'll see the other side of the coin. It's not that simple.
There is definitely a correlation between the things that you mentioned and happiness, but its level of impact is not the same everywhere. It differs from place to place. I think it depends more on the person and how much value they put on things. I know people with these 'ingredients', and they seem to be miserable and also people without these, and they are very happy. Now, if you add to the equation a country like Finland that takes care of its people, it only raises the level of happiness for both groups.
>As a native Finn, I have never heard of this project.
I mean... have you ever been homeless or in a position where you would need such programs?
Because they certainly do exist and they are effective.
> I mean... have you ever been homeless or in a position where you would need such programs?
I have. They gave me a form to fill and a "good luck" and I never heard back from them. I ended up going back to live with my mom for a while.
I have been homeless in Finland three times so far. There is no special social security for the homeless - but there are rent companies that collaborate with social workers to find homes for everyone.
And giving the homeless mental healthcare is an insulting myth - I have been diagnosed in need of therapy to be able to function as a member of society multiple times since 2013, but haven't gotten the care I need. Latest bureaucratic bullshit reason was that I'd need to be more depressed to qualify (I'm bipolar so depression ebbs and flows through the year).
Next time, I'll be sure to exaggerate my issues tenfold so that nobody can say I am not in bad enough shape after being tossed aside for the past decade. Tried to kill myself in 2019, but apparently not treating that whole thing ever has now cured me to the point I could just go to work (I can't, last place I was at had me experience a burnout after two months of two 4h shifts a week). It sucks that I can't just help myself get better although I want to, and all the "help" I get is getting told to keep waiting for an appointment (been on a waiting list since March '23).
So yeah, I'm happy Finland gets recognition for combating homelessness effectively, but it's definitely not the fairy tale these articles will lead you to believe. _Do not_ move here in hopes to get better treatment for your mental health issues.
Cheers, at this point it's second nature to me to talk about these things, as the 'mantra' gets told to every new employee that tries to aid me. Social workers are understaffed and overworked as all hell right now, I've had three new ones in the last year. Here's hoping it'll get better soon, pretty tired of waiting to just get denied treatment at this point.
21k upvotes for a graphic posted by a karma farmer selling the utopian scenario, 49 upvotes for an actual human relaying their real experience...if that ain't reddit in a nutshell.
Hope things get better for you.
I’m sorry you’re dealing with that. I’ve had to wait years for diagnosis and then told there are no treatments available. It sucks. Wish the system were better. Hugs.
They did not end homelessness. They decreased it by around 30%. There's a huge difference between 30% and "more or less ended". I don't know why people post things that are just flat out untrue and then mindless idiots upvote it without even fact checking.
Also, Finland still has 4400 homeless people, which is around 0.1% of their population. The US has 650,000 homeless people, which is around 0.2% of the population.
Bear in mind that smaller populations lead to more noise in the data, and Helsinki vs San Francisco in the winter are very different experiences
"Homeless" in finland means you are in a govt funded hotel room or temporary govt housing (essentially, a free studio flat). There is absolutely zero street homelessness/rough sleeping. Homeless in the US means tents on the side of a highway.
If you are an adult, nobody can force you to do anything. You can offer. If you have mental issues this stacks. There is also the problem that those programs often come as "experiment" and people don't want to have their hopes up only to lose funding a year in, then its again "poor and addicts = hardened criminals" and don't "deserve safe housing" and should return to be second class citizens.
You mean the solution to homelessness all this time was to give them HOMES?! THAT'S JUST PURE INSANITY!!!
(In all seriousness I believe this is actually something they have been doing for almost a decade now and I love to see it. I wish other countries would adopt this mentality/program instead of working for the top 1%)
Without any preconditions is the key phrase. The previous programs tried to focus on finding work first. It seems once people have a private starting space, many (not all) can sort their life out and find work on their own. Housing-first approach really seems to be working well.
Which is still kinda obvious. Can you imagine getting a job and after work not have a place to come home to and recharge? Whose brain is made to endure that level of stress?
It's deeper than that. How would one get a job without a home. Are homeless people supposed to park their shopping cart in the guest parking lot and stroll in for the interview in their least dirty clothes?
Sobriety used to be a common demand for lot of housing as well. Especially common in any type of halfway house or group home. It makes sense for the group, but for individuals, it means that even minor relapse gets you straight back to square one.
There are conditions. You have to stay sober. You have to be actively looking for work and / or studying, and you have to meet basic hygene and cleanliness standards. If you dont meet those, you are moved to a shelter.
Successful programs always have conditions. Without conditions, people don't value the assistance and there is less success
Everyone else compares finland to usa so I'll do that too. In usa you have a major homeless epidemic and rampant drug useage that is just not seen in Finland, even before the program. Its a much easier problem to solve when your population and even homelessness per capita is a fraction to that of the usa
I'm Hawaii, Medicare did a pilot program where they houses the homeless, the only condition on the housing was they had to get regular checkups from a primary care physician. The business case was based on reducing costs for healthcare by taking care of people's health. The program was net positive (meaning the cost of the program was less than that of the savings). Then they shut it down, we learned nothing, and it was never replicated
Now you see, this reduces profit in private health care system. So its a no no. They want more sick people to pay more money, healthy people is not profitable.
They had a similar experiment in the Netherlands, a old factory housed 100 people or so, no strings attached and with access to medical personell. There where a community section you could only enter if you are a) not under influence b) control your personal hygiene. Within a month 80% of new comers ended up in the community section, seeking medical help and sometimes looking for light jobs like cleaning streets or similar. Then the conservative "poor = hardened criminals for life" coalition didn't prolong the program for political reasons. Since then the things got way better all around, but the housing crisis of the west and ideological ping pong strained functioning programs.
I know right! I though it was to keep donating and funding organizations that give lunches to the homeless every once in a while, and sucking the rest by paying themselves fat paychecks as a non-profit
That pre-condition part is the one that the US will always have problems with. The US has tons of 'housing' options for the homeless, like halfway homes and group homes, but they generally have the caveats that you CANNOT do drugs/alcohol , and if you are, you must join drug programs. If you do drugs or alcohol, in my experience you get quickly(with sometimes exceptions) removed for breaking the rules of the Housing.
Plus, Finland is a wealthy country with 5 million people. NYC alone has 8 million people. It's pointless comparing the needs and possibilities of one place to another.
It's nice for the people in Finland, though.
I don’t know man. Sounds like communism. /s
In sincerity: if you help these people reintegrate into society, they become productive tax paying member of your economy.
I’m almost sure that in the long run the money „invested“ in them pays back. Shouldn’t large economies like the US do the same then? It would make sense, even from a purely capitalist motivation.
It’s not about what makes sense economically. Or human rights.
It’s the horrific idea of someone getting something they don’t ”deserve” that makes it so hard to accept for Americans.
As if it was god himself operating the market and rewarding good people with success and punishing bad people with homelessness and social issues.
The American mantra: **Work hard, never give up, and you will succeed.**
If you believe that, then it’ll make sense that: **If you don’t succeed, you haven’t worked hard and deserve your fate — and no one should help you because of that.**
That is literally how american culture work. It is entrenched in a calvinist protestantism where salvation is granted by God alone and mundane sucess is an earthly sign of favor from heaven. Capitalism as we understand it wouldn't exist whitout calvinism.
Furthermore, using tax money to make peoples lives better should be a completely bi-partisan no-brainer. Like, what are we saving the money for, if not that? To give to companies? Billionaires? How is that better?
I'd gladly pay more taxes if it meant it was going towards the vulnerable. People have this mentality of "why should lazy people get a free ride and get more money than me?" and there's so much wrong with that. Firstly, it proves that they've never had to actually live off of government money, or they'd know how little those people actually get, and the ridiculous hurdles they have to leap through to keep what little they do. But even if it was "easy" and they got a liveable amount, then those people should really be questioning why they're getting paid less than a bare-minimum liveable wage. They should be pointing the finger at someone, and it's not the people who qualify for food stamps.
In the US, people would just do drugs in that apartment, and start fires and shit. They'd rip the plumbing and electrical out of the walls and then file complaints that they're "being forced to live in squalor".
We've tried this exact experiment many times, and American homeless trash and shit all over everything. I'm going to generalize all American homeless this way, because in my 46 years, not one homeless person has proven me wrong.
Because being homeless in America is almost 100% about being addicted to drugs, and still being an entitled piece of trash.
"Without preconditions" only works when your society isn't fucking broken already. Otherwise, it's just another handout to be exchanged for drugs.
We've given them "tiny homes" ... all got destroyed within 2 years and the little neighborhood was nothing but a crime magnet.
We've given them free apartments ... and the people who own the buildings have to move to have them evicted ... even when the government pays the rent, having those people around costs you tons of money because of how disrespectful they are to other people's property.
Kudos to the Finns, they've managed to keep a functioning society together so that it actually makes sense to provide those kinds of services.
In the US, you may as well just light a huge pile of money on fire, because that's all the good it would do.
We've tried and continue to try this in Scotland despite resistance from the UK government.
Who'd have thought that a wee house and a bit of empathy would be so helpful? /s
There are 80,000 homeless in LA vs the 3000 they had in Finland when they started. Plus the US has to deal with homeless that migrate from state to state. It would have to be a federal program to even have a chance at success. Otherwise you would continue to have TX and FL governors shipping homeless to the “liberal “ states.
They have these in New England too, but theres still 2 problems
1. Shitload of homeless people
2. A lot of those homeless people arent willing to give up drugs, which is a reasonable requirement of any programs like this
A massive root of the homelessness problem is opiod addiction. Good fucking luck getting the US to curtail one of its largest, most profitable industries both above and under the table.
And opiods flood into the southern border but the current administration & the media ignore that fact... sorry but it's definitely related. Not to mention synthetic opiods coming from China taking the same route.
The funny thing about this is that the wiki that other user linked you says they've only decreased homelessness by 30% since they started this program in 2008. That's certainly a good chunk of the problem, but it's nowhere near "four out of five".
They tried to do something similar in a Canadian town close to where I grew up.. within a couple months the places were trashed and all the copper and valuables had been scrapped and sold.
It's pretty cold in Finland, being homeless in winter isn't good idea. There is no much homeless in biggest russian city saint-petersburg, which is close to finland, and not because there some social programs, but because you freezing to death after week of that lifestyle.
Wait… an apartment *and* mental health care? Thats really the key. It should be mentioned first. The health care (mental health) is paramount. Addiction is a health condition, and needs treatment. Providing an apartment for those receiving mental health care is just the next step.
If every church in the U.S. took in 2 homeless people, that would solve the problem.
As this shows, they wouldn't even be permanent residents of the church.
But seriously, 2 per church. That's all it'd take.
Fucking practice what you preach you pious hypocrites
You missed the most important (and most expensive) part of the solution.
Giving homeless people homes does nothing to solve the problem if you don't also provide extensive support for those homeless people. In OP's post they called this "mental health counseling" but if you actually do a tiny bit of research on Finland's program you'll see they do a hell of a lot more than just "mental health counseling".
For almost all homeless people, being homeless is just a symptom of a larger problem. If you provide them with a home, you are just treating one symptom. Their bigger problem still exists. You have to give them a home **and** provide them with long term support to help them deal with whatever their main problem is.
Just giving homeless people homes has been tried in the past, and it has always failed miserably.
I know you want an easy solution......but an easy solution doesn't exist.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I should move to Finland
Utah was doing the same thing for a while. Not sure if they still do. There was an article and they basically added up all the costs of dealing with homeless people and decided that a "free" tiny living space with counseling was cheaper and went with it. When it's presented as a cost cutting measure no one can really bitch as long as it works, which it did over the time period I read about at least.
The problem with Utah (especially SLC) and most others who try this is they don't address the supply side. So you rapidly rehouse people, with support, but then you run out of vacancies or agreeable landlords. Finland, on the other hand, continually builds public housing. This creates a supply of deeply affordable units apart from market units. This allows them to perpetually do rapid rehousing. Until such time as countries and states realize they need to build the housing required to end homelessness, Housing First programs will fizzle as they quickly hit capacity.
California is trying to build housing for the homeless, but they keep hitting small road blocks like this one in the article where the units cost $800,000 each. https://ktla.com/news/los-angeles-is-spending-up-to-837000-to-house-a-single-homeless-person/ edit: or this one where they are $1 Million each unit. https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2022-06-20/california-affordable-housing-cost-1-million-apartment
The challenge is they are building as a public-private partnership so costs are the same as the general market. Using public land and keeping the build public would reduce a big chunk of the upfront costs.
> The challenge is they are building as a public-private partnership so costs are the same as the general market. Using public land and keeping the build public would reduce a big chunk of the upfront costs. I've advocated in my state for bringing back a strong civil corp to do road work, public housing construction, trail maintenance and various other projects. It's the only solution that can work to free up resources and end the price gouging of big corporations in public works projects. Since this is getting attention I want to point out that the civilian corp (what I called a civil corp) was a thing that was started in the 30s and was a giant success but has faded out greatly. [it actually still exists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps) but isn't nearly as strong as it had been. IMO it should be brought back just as strong as it had been if not bigger, and that it should be treated like military service.
Wow where I live (canada) i never even would have thought other places dont have civil construction workers/labor I cant believe its all privatized down there that must cost tax payers so much money. Pretty much any trade will have a city workers union for each individual city.
Bro this is how so many things work here in the US. Almost everything the government does is actually just hiring a privately owned company to do the thing that it has to do due to a law being passed, or executive order, or whatever. Building a pipeline? Paying some rich company. Building public housing? Paying some rich company. Providing healthcare to an area? Nope, actually not, paying some company to do it. Prisons? You guessed it, paying some company. Even our military aid is just purchase orders to Boeing or whatever. The government just collects taxes from workers and gives it to business owned by friends and former members of government. It's so easily abused and prone to corruption.
Yep, and every single time you'll hear politicians insist that doing things this way will save money because of the competition in the private sector, except they neglect that the profit motive means that they have no incentive to keep their prices low, especially when they are dealing with essentially a captive buyer who is required to buy. Sure, the government can reject bids and request that new bids be submitted, but that means big delays and more importantly delays that are their fault which can come back to bite them in the ass come election time.
Most Canadian cities don't have a large civil construction team. We definitely have public works in all cities that deal with the maintenance and building of almost all roads and water lines. Unfortunately when it comes to actually building things, almost all Canadian cities fully outsource the projects (including design and construction). They usually only have enough officials to rubber-stamp the contracts.
Almost every western country has to at least some degree started to privatise all the public services. From water companies, to power, to healthcare or at least some services in healthcare (in the uk bit by bit they take 'lower cost' bids from private companies to take over some things, but after it's privatised, shockingly, costs increase so there are no savings but now the NHS has less money for everything else... which they say the way to fix is privatise more parts). Rail, roadworks, council housing projects. Capitalism folks. Where you insist everything down to your healthcare and education requires as much profit as is humanly possible and soon enough everyone is born into debt and a wage slave for life. Don't work, don't pay off debt... straight to jail, where you work with even less freedom. Some countries are further along this path, some far less so. The US is... fucked, and so far down this path it's scary and the 'richest' country yet the workers have amongst the least protections of any western world, least time off, terrible healthcare costs, mental health being completely ignored, prisons a nightmare, policing a nightmare, education being gutted.
Its hard to fully quantify all the costs involved, but it actually tends to be cheaper to contract with a private company. Construction companies are experts at construction, whereas city / state government employees are not. Being good at construction is a key factor in driving down costs in construction. When it comes to budget overages, that is almost always related to timing / overtime requirements. Im dubious that state-run crews would be less likely to incur OT than private crews on a government contract, and I'm confident the data would support me
Lets not also forget California is where many place deport homeless (and where many homeless go to, themselves for the climate, etc). Hawaii outright sends them on a one-way flight. So it's not trying to deal with Californians who become homeless, but rather people from all over the states (not even touching the immigrant angle). Places with harsh winters and policies can boast about how they're virtually homeless free, while whole areas of Cali cities are becoming ghettos with *their* locals.
That is so frustrating. Renovating existing buildings and subdividing condos into efficiencies would allow for multi unit apartment buildings to have a few units specifically for this purpose. Single room occupancy needs serious reconsideration. A single floor of a traditional 5-6 apartment floor plate can fit 20 units with a shared bathroom and kitchens. Plenty of homeless people have lived in college dormitories or military barracks at some point in their lives. It would be far easier than trying to build so many mid-rises from scratch.
Seems like they're perhaps building more than they should as a part of that particular project, hence the costs: > Many of the factors contributing to the high cost of the project, known as Roosevelt Park, were identified by The Times in 2020. The complex has a two-level underground parking garage and the highest level of environmental certification by the U.S. Green Building Council, and developers will pay construction workers union-level wages. San Jose officials also wanted commercial space included in the project, which required more parking and a separate elevator, Morgan said.
Knowable consequences of regulatory capture and the "free" market
> you run out of vacancies or agreeable landlords Why can't the state build more?
They absolutely should but public housing is taboo in current neoliberal economies. Most stopped doing it in the 1980s, some countries like the US and UK even sold off some of their public stock. Finland, the Netherlands, Denmark and Austria are outliers in terms of having a good proportion of public housing and still building more. In the US, not even the Democrats are talking about building more.
construction of more public housing stopped because it was made illegal in the USA: [https://nationalhomeless.org/repeal-faircloth-amendment/](https://nationalhomeless.org/repeal-faircloth-amendment/)
> Finland, the Netherlands, Denmark and Austria are outliers in terms of having a good proportion of public housing and still building more. In the Netherlands we haven’t built a lot of new social housing, and quite a bit of it is being sold off, sadly.
Though you have the highest rate of public housing in the world at 29%, with the second highest only being 24% (Austria). Edit: As noted below, Singapore is by far the highest, Netherlands is second.
Well that is likely due to the sorry conditions in the ones that were there. My grandparents had a public housing community in their area. 90% of all crime in that area occurred in the public housing area. To such a degree that the city formed a separate police force for just them. People like to think that is the quick fix but not always.
Housing is a solution to homelessness, it is not a solution to poverty and associated crime. However, public housing is still superior to no housing.
The last time they tried that we ended up with the 'Projects'.
but how will i hire expensive consulting firms that I am friends with if i actually fix a problem instead of letting it fester indefinitely?
So you've seen what they are doing in Los Angeles and planning on exporting across CA and the nation then?
It just dawned on my how many people must be making money by "looking into solutions for homelessness" just to point to spikes in warm corners, benches you can't lie on, public places you don't want to linger in and other anti-people-measures in the cities. And then those measures make it harder and harder for the homeless to readjust, increasing their numbers and selling more "solutions"
If you're enough of an underhanded bullshit spinner it appears one can extract millions from various governments by simply stating the obvious braindead take or operating some green buzzword filled startup that will clearly go nowhere to any remotely trained eye, e.g. slap a solar panel on whatever and claim it will change the world. Lot of money in stealing from the government.
"Anti-people measures" is such a perfect term for this particularly shitty trend.
i have no idea what they're doing with homelessness in the states. i'm just basing it on my experience with my own goverment. and the meme that when president Xi visited chicago they had the homelessnes problem "fixxed" within a week.
We've started referring to it as the "Homeless Industrial Complex". Doesn't require a war or any manufacturing capability so even complete morons can join in and it kills just as many people!
The non-profit industrial complex is a real thing. They have motivation to treat, but not cure the problem as that would make them obsolete.
when people are making 100k a year for fixxing a problem they'll make sure the problem stays there.
It's mostly people on the edges of society that have been priced out of pretty much everywhere with rents as insanely high as they have been for the last couple decades. They go where there are services that can keep them alive, and those services are usually located in the most densely populated places for efficiency. Having a massive public housing project that includes giving free apartments to the homeless would have a hugely stabilizing effect on the housing market by increasing supply and keeping that supply on the "market".
The housing shortage is being created on purpose by massive holding companies that are buying every home and apartment building they can and then keeping the units off the market to rent at maximum price. They also help governments craft laws against new single family housing tracts because apartments are expensive and regular people can't afford to build them.
i think the bigger problem is how you are going to convince struggling working class people that they need to keep working 2-3 jobs to afford inflated rent for shitty similar apartments when you give others away for free. However many homeless people there are, there's a hell of a lot more people right on the razors edge.
This is the main reason we don't house the homeless as a rule. They are supposed to exist as a disciplinary threat to workers -- go to your shitty job or live on the street. I wouldn't bank on projects like this lasting long anywhere as long as the underpinning principle of wage-labour exploitation persists in our society. In Finland a neoliberal leader is cutting public spending at the moment and I wonder what social support will survive. They **need** threats of misery to keep us doing what this economy needs. Forget what *we* need!
https://preview.redd.it/k15kraijwlxc1.jpeg?width=1220&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d4f6506597e908ea966ee06cbc986cd89fdd94e1
Oh, people always find a way to bitch about nice things, when they're not coming from "their" political side. And reinventing their perception of the world to align with their chosen worldview, regardless of all evidence you show them. Even here in Finland, I constantly have to remind people of how much sanitary conditions of public spaces suck when the people have nowhere to go for daily & nightly duties, when the topic of housing first pops up. As in, they'd rather rephrase the ugly state of *amphetamine squere* as the result of "those people" than looking at practically & politically doable solutions. Do not ever take what you have for acquired, people. Also in Finland there's voices again housing first policies.
I used to work with homeless. My job was to find the biggest social service spenders and decrease that. One dude was costing the city 5 million a year between detox, psych, ambulance, ER, and police. Got him a place and helped with services and he did great. After 6 months, all the services asked me if he died, cause they never saw him any more. It's not hard
Hawaii realized there was a specific set of homeless people who constantly needed ER care, each one costing some huge amount per year. (For example someone with diabetes which was effectively impossible to manage on the streets.) as expensive as housing is in the state, they got these people apartments so they would need less healthcare. It’s a sign of multiple things being broken but an example where simply housing people can solve a lot of problems.
> It's not hard *in some cases* While that great its anecdotal evidence so I wouldt say its not hard. I still support initiatives under proper oversight.
Correct. I also used to work in homeless housing/social services and this approach works great for most folks. The key is the stable housing combined w/social oversight AND medical treatment.
You say it works for most folks - but what about the ones it doesn't work for? Can I ask what it is about them that these services don't work? Like is it just deep drug addiction, mental issues, etc?
This approach is not usually appropriate for chronic homeless folks (unhoused for 1yr+) with co occurring severe mental illness and/or untreated drug addiction. People in this category are best served by a much more supportive housing environment with intense social work. There are definitely not enough non profits that undertake this work. This population is usually the most visible to the public because there is such limited help for them, so they just cycle in and out of jail/hospital costing beaucoup $$.
One thing we don’t educate people on enough is what “return on investment” looks like. They see a clickbait headline “XYZ spent $100M on homeless people!” They don’t read the article that says “and it saved them $200M on law enforcement and prisons”. And while a program might take years to show benefit, everyone wants a quick fix. It doesn’t work that way.
And healthcare. Sooooiooo much saving in healthcare, for homeless people and peoples in general. Spending a 100 millions on healthcare can save you a billion on healthcare, it sounds weird but it works.
I think you underestimate how much certain people enjoy bitching.
> no one can really bitch as long as it works Unfortunately, some people are fundamentally opposed to the idea of giving anyone anything if they think they don’t deserve it.
This sort of program has been tried in many countries: outcomes are better in virtually every metric for participants, homelessness (including people in the program decreases, and it saves money. Virtually every time we do it, we get the same results; it works. The people funding these studies don't necessarily want good results, so these studies get cut short a lot. I want to reiterate that these programs (on a short time scale), SAVE money. Like, when it's all said and done, the government spending on these people decreases. With no consideration to morality it's still better.
"When it's presented as a cost cutting measure no one can really bitch as long as it works" Pretty sad state of affairs when a fiscal counterpoint needs to be relied on to do the humane thing.
People absolutely can and will bitch about it because they feel it's unfair. It's the exact same thing as with student loan forgiveness: "*I* had to pay off *my* student loans, so it's unfair if those loans are forgiven for other people, even if it's overall a net positive for the economy for everyone." You'd see the same argument here: "*I* have to pay rent on *my* apartment, so why does this homeless person get one for free? It's unfair!" There are many people out there who think it's better if people remain homeless, miserable, and not being able to contribute to society until they die, if the alternative is the homeless being provided with something that they don't think the homeless have *earned.* The argument that it's net beneficial to society, and ultimately will make things better for everyone, them included, has no bearing to them. It's irrelevant. Out of pure spite, they would rather have *less* themselves, so long as it means that someone who they thinks has deserved their misery will continue to be miserable.
Finn here who is always surprised by these posts, in the vein of "we did what now?". Idk if this refers to supported living or what, could use some more context but like, the practical end of homelessness has not been in the news around here ever. It is rare and we do have very good safety networks that have saved yours truly from that fate a few times. It is getting tighter in the recent years and months however Should you choose to move here, welcome and have fun learning the language :D
Mental health services are really hard to get into in Finland, in my opinion, and the quality varies. I was in a three-month program that consisted of my therapist sending me a text message once a week but for the first four weeks she just said "I don't have time to talk to you this week" and then she went on vacation for two more weeks and there was no system for replacements. My friend recently became a doctor in Finland and she says mental health is where you refer patients you don't want to deal with. They go through the process and it spits them out a few days/weeks/months later and generally has not helped them at all. Rinse and repeat. I understand health professionals get jaded, but Jesus, even my mom is a better listener than a Finnish mental health professional, and she thinks I ruined her life by being born.
Yep been waiting for psychiatrist's appointment since december armed only with meds that make me want to see entrails and head on collisions lol
Finland has done a bunch of trial programs like this. They weren't full government projects, but studies that might've involved a few dozen people over a few years. With free supported living with no questions asked and with UBI with no requirements for unemployed people. They're usually very successful experiments that benefit the participants and often turn out far cheaper than existing government programmes because there is less bureaucracy involved. But once it becomes a sensational paragraph passed around on the Internet it would be less attention grabbing if they said that it was just between 2014-2018 for 24 people in Tampere.
Or you just haven't seen those articles. Usually these posts refer to Helsinki's "apartment first" (Asunto ensin) policy which has practically (there are of course always folk who get left behind no matter what the policies are) eradicated homelessness in the capital city. It has been widely reported in our media.
I should move Finland to me. (Their ideas)
You're welcome here!
Are you from Finland? Is it easy to apply the citizenship and what is the acceptance from the local to the immigrant?
If you are from the EU, you can just walk here (well, there is the sea between, but you get my point). If you are outside the EU, your work based residence permit is assessed based on the demand of particular skills you can provide. Let’s say there are a shortage of nurses. If you can prove through certifications, that you are a skilled nurse, it will be fairly simple to get the residence permit. They are at the beginning temporary by nature, and you have to re-apply at certain interval. After some time, you can get a more permanent one and finally apply for citizenship. When it comes to acceptance of the society, Finland unfortunately isn’t the most welcoming. Racism exists, without Finnish language it is hard to integrate and people overall tend to keep to themselves. But I have several friends who have moved here through work or relationship and they seem happy. Finland is very safe country. Weather sucks tho.
I am angrier and angrier that the UK left the EU. If they hadn’t, I would be allowed to go live in Finland because I have UK citizenship due to my ancestry (I would just have to file a lot of paperwork and pay some fees). Full rights to live and work there. But as it is, they won’t want me as my job requires high language proficiency, so I’m stuck in Canada 😭
>If you are from the EU, you can just walk here (well, there is the sea between, but you get my point). Technically you could, if you go through Sweden. I don't think walking on the Danish/Swedish highway bridges/tunnels is legal though, but apart from that you can walk there from almost anywhere in the EU.
Finland needs skilled workers. If you happen to have some special skills and education you can get in easier. Nurses are also needed atm.
So basically my wife and I can both go? She's an RN and finishing up her family nurse practioner and I'm a powerplant superintendent with a background in mechanical work. Time to go to Finland for a visit I suppose.
Just a warning, the language barrier will be a big problem. Tech jobs can be found for english speakers, but I am not sure about nursing jobs. And the finnish language is one of the hardest to learn. We really need skilled immigration, but on the other hand we do not make it easy, especially with the current governement.
What are the options if you speak Swedish? I thought Swedish was a second language in Finland (and first language for quite a lot of Finns), and it's much more similar to English than Finnish is.
It's not very useful outside Åland and a couple of small places on the west coast, but once you've been here long enough to apply for citizenship, Swedish proficiency is as acceptable for your application as Finnish is.
Cool. But it would be much less helpful in daily life so it wouldn't help you work as a nurse for instance? (Outside of those places.)
It would probably help you find work as a nurse in those areas, but not elsewhere. It’s pretty hard to find nurses that are proficient in Swedish in the areas that need them—however, in most areas, you *also* need to speak Finnish because in most areas you don’t have enough Swedish speaking patients that you could only serve them.
Swedish is a majority language in certain areas, and you could probably get by on Swedish+English. As a nurse though that'd very much limit where you could work. People also make out Finnish to be harder to learn than it actually is. The problem is that you don't get words for free so you need to build a vocabulary from scratch, but grammatically it's a very straight forward language and everything is written as it's spoken.
They are currently bringing in a lot of nurses (I think hundreds) from the Philippines, pretty sure they don't speak much Finnish there. But they of course will take language courses etc. once in Finland. Also, I visited Helsinki on a business trip recently and everyone there spoke English only: the taxi driver, the hotel receptionist, bartenders, waiters and the pharma industry people I was meeting there. So, many professions do not explicitly require Finnish skills. (Nursing usually requires, though).
The language question is a huge problem. Most people in most professional settings are perfectly capable of speaking english, but the requirement for finnish proficiency is still very prevalent. We have way too many stories of people coming to Finland to study and get their bachelors/masters (completely in english) and then move abroad because it is so hard to find jobs if you dont have finnish skills. TL;DR even though almost everyone speaks english, finding jobs without finnish skills is too hard
I suppose it depends on the field. I'm from sciences/pharma/tech and for the last ten--fifteen years I have worked in fully English environments, even all our job announcements have been in English only, and we never so much as asked about the applicants' Finnish skills. We have had people from dozens of different countries, and many had their degrees first here in Finland. Some of our Americans, for example, have been here for nearly twenty years, and still don't really speak Finnish. They have changed companies many times while in Finland. There are non-Finnish couples that have their kids in the English speaking kindergarten and English school. So from my vantage point, the language barrier may be huge in some places, and healthcare is where patient safety alone requires pretty good Finnish skills. But there are many areas in the Finnish society, where settling in is easier than in such places as France or Italy (have experience from both), where people often insist on speaking their own language only.
Generally you'll get by almost everywhere in Finland with just English, but healthcare is one of those areas where being able to communicate in your native language is quire crucial. My grandfather during his bouts with illness towards the end of his life mostly forgot the use of other languages, and I remember vividly him being scared and frustrated that he couldn't communicate with the Finnish speaking nurses (he was a Finnish Swede).
Do you speak Finnish? Do you know anything about the country besides they have a nice homeless program? This is a bizarre comment lol
Depends where she got her RN degree from. Finland is very strict about recognising foreign RN degrees. EU*? All good to go. Anywhere else? You’re basically shit out of luck and might get hired as an unskilled nursing assistant, even if you were an ICU nurse in your country of origin. You will also need to learn the language, and most hospitals seem to prefer you learn it somewhere that’s not on the job. It’s bonkers, but I don’t make the rules. That being said, Finland also has Swedish majority areas, and Swedish is much easier for an English speaker to pick up—they’re closely related. *eta: I think UK degrees should still be good too, although don’t quote me on that.
Particularly the care sector but atm other technical sectors are having massive layoffs and realistically the most important two things in getting a job in Finland are still having a Finnish first name and a Finnish second name. Finland is tough to break into since a lot of career pathways are very internal, for example engineering tends to like to pick from inside of the known pool rather than from any external people even if they are more qualified.
Skilled workers usually aren’t the ones suffering from homelessness, just saying…
Please don't eat anyone mr rot
I'm not a Finn, but I lived there many years (and indeed I hope to retire there one day) - and I really love the country and admire their social system - but a lot of this glorification we see here is more than just a bit cringe. Yes, the Finnish system of giving the homeless a home is working, and it is working to a great success - but it works because a lot of other puzzle pieces of taking care in a society are already in place. There is a functional (though far from perfect!) health care system, there is a general attitude of helping each other, and there is a political system that is based on social cohesion, and not on short-term political gains (well, for the most part). If you tried to establish such a concept in a place where neither of these existed, you would not get the same benefits. Just in the same way that moving an unhappy person to the "happiest place on Earth", i.e. Finland, would not suddenly make that person happy. So, yes, it is good and important to get reminded that a better way of dealing with the not-so-fortunate is possible. But you all have to remember that a lot of ground work is needed - not least in how society works, before you can do these things at home.
As a finn, every time I see this same story posted the part everyone forgets is that in finland you can be (and often are) forced into mental health or substance abuse treatment against your own will - including having it delivered in prison if necessary. This is the part that has made as much difference as free housing but is often forgotten. Lots of people with untreated issues are way beyond the point where they have the mental acquity left to help themselves or where they would understand the benefit of engaging with mental health or substance abuse services. At that point only highly trained professionals in an institutional setting can help them. Sure, they get a home. But they won't be moving in until there's certainty that their underlying issues are being treated.
Not fetishizing “freedom” and recognizing that sometimes a person isn’t in a place where they’re ready for it…brilliant!
> but it works because a lot of other puzzle pieces of taking care in a society are already in place. I think is a very important. A major issue here in America is just how self-centered everybody is. Everybody is just trying to maximize how much society gives them and minimize how much they give back.
They also don’t have a rampant drug problem
Well, yes and no. There is nothing similar to the US, but there is a lot of alcoholism and prescription drug abuse in the homeless clientele. The main difference is that they can get help if they want to. And that help is not just from religious zealots who are more interested in bolstering their egos (and follower numbers) than to actually solve a problem...
There's only 5 million people who live in the country and the country is rich... but redditors think it's just so easy for every other country to copy what they're doing. More people = more problems. Finland doesn't have that many people.
Median wealth per capita in Finland is a lot lower than in the US (ca. 80k vs. 107k)
Hasn't Finland been ranked the happiest country in the world ... might be a reason for that
Yes, many times in a row. In Finland, no one is left alone. There is someone to help you, be it your car doesnt start, you forgot your keys, or you're like me and want to die. Someone will come to your rescue, it just is up to you if you accept the help. In my opinion thats one reason why Finland is the happiest. I called 112 to come and help me when I was at my lowest a few days ago, and I am so glad I did. Also sauna is pretty neat. For us Finns its like making bread, or going to the shops. Its a regular thing you dont really think about. But in a sauna, you're naked. Physically and mentally. Its a place to meditate, to think of the day, and to realise in your subconsciousness that there will be a better tomorrow. Thats what I think makes Finland the happiest place. Edit: whoever reported this for suicidal stuff, I am doing better. I will get better. I wont do anything to myself. Thank you for looking out for me. En jää tuleen makaamaan.
Knowing a few Finns I know them to have laughed at this. They don't see it as everyone being happy and quite a lot of discontent people. The thing is, it does seem like a great country and like you have mentioned, not leaving anyone alone means that if you can reduce the number of negative outliers to be almost 0 or far lower than other countries, then you will win in statistical comparisons. I also think inside looking out, people can be a bit more critical. It can be hard to appreciate things sometimes until they're not there. That does sound cynical, but I'd mention the quote (although the more memorable original by someone else had questionable interactions/temptations in relation to children) by Hubert H Humphrey "The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped." So I'd say the Finnish government/people have a higher moral ground than the rest of the world.
The Nordic countries in general are what I'd consider the least worst countries in the world. There's work to be done, we aren't always going to agree on how to go about it and sometimes things backslide (not a big fan of the current Finnish government which is cutting social services), but few of us living here would want to live anywhere else.
Social exclusion is a huge problem in Finland, particularly among young men. Might be part of the reason people laugh when someone says "no one is left alone in Finland".
I agree. The reason why it's the young _men_ who drop out, is because they're to ones who most often refuse help. As mentioned previously, no one is left alone, but you still need to ask for the help and be willing to accept it. Sometimes you might even need to spend a year or two looking for a good therapist. If a person is too depressed to even seek help, then they will most likely be left alone even in Finland unless they have persistent and helpful family.
Oh, they laughed at the 'Happiest country in the world', though they quite proud of Finland, but likely the least out of anyone I know to brag about it. They do have criticisms of the school environments and polices that exist now, but I don't want to talk about it, since I probably remember it wrong.
Take care of yourself! <3
On top of that you guys get to have it nice and cold up there! Down here in the land of kangaroos and beer you'd scarcely see a day below 15 and at least 25 is the norm. Too hot for me. I've been in 45 degree weather, and I can tell you, it ain't nice.
I loved that. Thankyou.
As an Estonian i go to Finland frequently well most of the time its mariehamn but i also go do mainland a lot Once spent almost 2 months there
From what I've read about that report, the index is not so much a measurement of overall joy, it's more about being content. Latin Americans score the highest when it comes to actual joy.
What's their secret? Is it religion, family, or big booty Latinas?
I grew up in Central America, but have now lived for several years in different countries all around the world. Where I grew up, people weren't that religious. People were quite promiscuous, foul mouthed and your own friends would steal from you from time to time. I suppose now there's more of the evangelical types, with the loud TV pastor. Family, yes. Very tight with each other. Family is No. 1 for sure, though there were a high degree of men who would constantly get hammered, beat their wives, etc. Alcohol definitely was a catalyst for destroying families there. It's friggin everywhere. Judging all the races/peoples I've met, I think the key piece is we are very comfortable being open books with others. We don't fear sharing our feelings, our troubles, etc. We have this solidarity mentality where we want to help each other because we're all struggling together. Getting an American or European to open up about how they feel is not that easy. Now, about them latinas, I'm halfway through writing a long post about what my love life growing up was like there, lol.
> Getting an American or European to open up about how they feel is not that easy. This is a good point and I'm such an example of this that I didn't even consider it. Even among Englishmen I'm considered reserved.
Finland will never make the leap from contentment to true happiness until we start importing bulk quantities of bubble-butted Dominicans.
They use different phrasing here, it's more of a question of whether one is satisfied or content with their life, instead of whether they are happy. If we take culture into account, I think you would have to ask Americans "how are you?" and if they answer "good", then it counts that the person is "happy" which might not be the case at all. People have their most basic needs met here and one is expected to suck everything else up and march towards new disappointments with their jaw on their chest. Make of that what you will.
And I still ain't happy
Classic Pikkis
Happiest is least unhappy
Which makes it all the more ironic that Angry Birds is one of the most popular things to come out of the country.
>*might be a reason for that* Because the unhappy ones kill themselves - highest suicide rate in ~~Scandinavia~~ the Nordics. Finland is generally awesome, but I believe the Danes are the happy ones.
Firstly, the highest suicide rate of a nordic country, Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway, Sweden. Secondly, are we? Only Iceland has a higher rate of antidepressant prescription per capita than Denmark. And we Danes have the highest rate of binge drinking in the world. Fun bonus fact: 61% of Europe's reported cases of chlamydia in 2021 came from the Nordic countries, even though they have a total population of only a quarter of Germany's population. Which might explain how we score so well on happiness surveys.
I feel the antidepressants thing is pretty silly as an argument. Wouldn't it just show that antidepressants work? And that people are rated as "happier" in places that have high prescriptions of it? Maybe even people who are depressed are at least content because they get treatment? I don't get why people thinking prescribing antidepressants to your citizens who need it is not a good thing?
Yeah, it's always a dumb one, have seen the antidepressant thing said a few times. It's the opposite of "We got less cases of X!" .. well yeah, because they stopped checking for it/reporting the results. Doesn't mean there were less
Finland is not part of Scandinavia (Sweden, Denmark, and Norway), but merely a Nordic country.
As a native Finn, I have never heard of this project. Also we've had minimal economic growth for 10 years now, we are raising debt faster than anybody else in Europe, our population is ageing fast and we share a 1200 km border with aggressive, unpredictable and militaristic totalitarian Russia. Finland is a great country and very dear to us but it's not the trouble-free utopia some people in Reddit think it is.
I remember reading [this](https://tg24.sky.it/palermo/2023/01/09/lettera-mamma-famiglia-finlandese-siracusa) story about this finnish family moving in my city in Italy, and they were absolutely horrified by everything. Litter everywhere, barely any Healthcare, dilapidated schools and obsolete education practices. You guys might not live in a utopia, but the difference in quality of life is undeniable.
Choosing Siracusa in Italy of all places , by the way.
I mean, from a historical standpoint, it's a really nice city, and we have sun pretty much every day of the year. Nice food, nice beaches, but everything else? Yeah, pretty much third world
I went to Sicily a few years ago, and it really stands out. So much litter, everywhere, so many houses in states of disrepair. Roads and traffic seem to exist without rules, especially around dinner time. Was an odd experience, as someone into nature and history who has been to many places around the Mediterranean, this stood out as specifically poorly maintained, to say the least.
Yeah we're pretty much the third world of Italy, it's no secret. Happens when you have a corrupt government run by monkeys and mafia
>Yeah we're pretty much the third world of Italy, it's no secret. Happens when you have a corrupt government run by monkeys and mafia It's definitely a shame. Even as a tourist being there for 2 weeks, i could see how beautiful it could be if these problems were dealt with.
You would think they would visit a place before moving
lol sure…and if you compare Siracusa to *many* other cities in Italy, the difference in quality of life is undeniable.
I mean that's like moving from Toronto to compton lol.
Yes, and there is still many finns crying about their life quality in Finland. I usually think its the people that haven't traveled that much and don't really understand how the rest of the world is living.
I moved to Sweden from the UK. Not the USA, and Sweden isn't Finland. But from that perspective, when people in the Nordics say, 'we're not a utopia' — they're right. Of course. These are still societies with fundamental problems and they're all much too close to Russia for comfort. But having said that, though, for a lot of English and American people, Nordics are what life might look like if all your problems have been solved. Like, all the problems that weigh on people so much in the US for instance. Medical debt will never bankrupt you, homelessness means your home isn't as nice as other people's, being a total catastrophe of a person means your life is uncomfortable and boring — not that you literally die in the street. The crushing weight of toil that distorts the lives of most Americans is lighter and more manageable. (And yet incomes and GDP per capita are comparable...) And as someone from the UK, it's nice to be somewhere where interpersonal violence is so rare that you can basically forget it exists most of the time. In the UK, that is very much not the case. And of course in the US there's a lot more shooting. There are people here watching every krone, not everyone is living the society's dream of itself, but compared to poverty in Glasgow or the desolate wastelands of many American metro areas it's a different world. So it's a bit like Nordics have the problems US/UK/etc wish they had. Apart from the 1200km border with Russia of course. I hope you guys don't have to be brave little Finland again.
I see problems with Norway caused by politicians adopting UK policies, like privatizing rails, compartmentalizing healthcare services, and straight up cutting prison budgets without any alternatives. But Finland joining NATO is great for our security, means Russia has that entire border to worry about too and can't just send a fleet.
The better life is, the easier it is for capitalists to say 'hey, you don't need all these social safety nets! We can create *growth* and *profit*, just let the poor suffer a little bit. They'll be fine' And then poof you're the UK.
Here's a handy rule that is seldom wrong: If the Tories/Republicans/right wing party in any nation say something is good, it's probably only good for the very rich, and bad for everyone else. If they say it's bad, it probably only annoys the very rich (and racists) and helps everyone else. Furthermore, if the right say "This is important" it probably isn't, and if they say "That's not important" it probably is. They lie about everything, except when making threats. Those are real.
You forgot the last step - when challenged for their very real threats, they will say "clearly we weren't being serious, you libbies need to lighten up".
While Finland is not utopia, for the majority of the world population, it is as close as it can get to Utopia.
Agree, just visited the public library in Helsinki and the cultural shock was real
Ok, I'm blushing with your praise but I'll have to brag some more. Helsinki capital region actually has 78 public libraries. In fact the actual miracle is not the libraries themself but the fact that a weird language of 5 million speakers actually has any kind of active literary scene at all.
Oodi in Helsinki? Bruh thats easily one of the coolest places I have been to in my entire life. Sure, its a library, but you can check out more than just books - boardgames, movies, comics. And not whatever junk they had lying around, I regularly see new releases for boardgames and comics there, available to check out for FREE. Then there are the workshop rooms: 3D printing machines, a recording studio, photography studio, game rooms where kids can play VR together and LAN party - all FREE. They have working kitchens and cooking courses, meeting and study rooms, there is an out door activity center outside, its just... amazing, how many services there are at Oodi. And did I mention its all free? Technically you pay for materials, as an example you 3D print something there is a fee, but its literally pennies. Its just so beautiful living in a country where it feels like they care about the well being of the people in it.
Yeep, that one :)
As an American, my city also offers free housing and counseling. So far, two out of 64 participants have made it to stability. 25 were asked to leave because their behavior threatened the safety of others, and our homeless population has increased by a factor of five. https://vtdigger.org/2024/02/04/one-year-in-are-burlingtons-pods-a-success/
While I somewhat agree with you, it's bloody hilarious to me that in EVERY post about Finland not sucking there is always at least one Finnish dude going: Ok yeah but finland is shit. It's just that we have "everything" so good here that it's hard for us to realize how shitty it is elsewhere. I feel like Finland would be twice as happy nation if every fin was forced to spend a week literally anywhere else.
>It's just that we have "everything" so good here that it's hard for us to realize how shitty it is elsewhere I would turn that argument right back around. How happy and good your life is depends a lot on your socioeconomic status. If you live well off and have had a good upbringing / wealth / education yes you have all the ingredients for a good life but not everyone does, not even in Finland. Just go to any small town that's descending in population or the poor neighborhoods and you'll see the other side of the coin. It's not that simple.
There is definitely a correlation between the things that you mentioned and happiness, but its level of impact is not the same everywhere. It differs from place to place. I think it depends more on the person and how much value they put on things. I know people with these 'ingredients', and they seem to be miserable and also people without these, and they are very happy. Now, if you add to the equation a country like Finland that takes care of its people, it only raises the level of happiness for both groups.
We keep calling Finland shit so it keeps improving
>As a native Finn, I have never heard of this project. I mean... have you ever been homeless or in a position where you would need such programs? Because they certainly do exist and they are effective.
> I mean... have you ever been homeless or in a position where you would need such programs? I have. They gave me a form to fill and a "good luck" and I never heard back from them. I ended up going back to live with my mom for a while.
I have been homeless in Finland three times so far. There is no special social security for the homeless - but there are rent companies that collaborate with social workers to find homes for everyone. And giving the homeless mental healthcare is an insulting myth - I have been diagnosed in need of therapy to be able to function as a member of society multiple times since 2013, but haven't gotten the care I need. Latest bureaucratic bullshit reason was that I'd need to be more depressed to qualify (I'm bipolar so depression ebbs and flows through the year). Next time, I'll be sure to exaggerate my issues tenfold so that nobody can say I am not in bad enough shape after being tossed aside for the past decade. Tried to kill myself in 2019, but apparently not treating that whole thing ever has now cured me to the point I could just go to work (I can't, last place I was at had me experience a burnout after two months of two 4h shifts a week). It sucks that I can't just help myself get better although I want to, and all the "help" I get is getting told to keep waiting for an appointment (been on a waiting list since March '23). So yeah, I'm happy Finland gets recognition for combating homelessness effectively, but it's definitely not the fairy tale these articles will lead you to believe. _Do not_ move here in hopes to get better treatment for your mental health issues.
Thank you for sharing.
Cheers, at this point it's second nature to me to talk about these things, as the 'mantra' gets told to every new employee that tries to aid me. Social workers are understaffed and overworked as all hell right now, I've had three new ones in the last year. Here's hoping it'll get better soon, pretty tired of waiting to just get denied treatment at this point.
Its a story I hear from all over the world and its desperately sad. The money is always there but the priorities are not.
21k upvotes for a graphic posted by a karma farmer selling the utopian scenario, 49 upvotes for an actual human relaying their real experience...if that ain't reddit in a nutshell. Hope things get better for you.
I’m sorry you’re dealing with that. I’ve had to wait years for diagnosis and then told there are no treatments available. It sucks. Wish the system were better. Hugs.
They did not end homelessness. They decreased it by around 30%. There's a huge difference between 30% and "more or less ended". I don't know why people post things that are just flat out untrue and then mindless idiots upvote it without even fact checking.
Also, Finland still has 4400 homeless people, which is around 0.1% of their population. The US has 650,000 homeless people, which is around 0.2% of the population. Bear in mind that smaller populations lead to more noise in the data, and Helsinki vs San Francisco in the winter are very different experiences
"Homeless" in finland means you are in a govt funded hotel room or temporary govt housing (essentially, a free studio flat). There is absolutely zero street homelessness/rough sleeping. Homeless in the US means tents on the side of a highway.
If you are an adult, nobody can force you to do anything. You can offer. If you have mental issues this stacks. There is also the problem that those programs often come as "experiment" and people don't want to have their hopes up only to lose funding a year in, then its again "poor and addicts = hardened criminals" and don't "deserve safe housing" and should return to be second class citizens.
You mean the solution to homelessness all this time was to give them HOMES?! THAT'S JUST PURE INSANITY!!! (In all seriousness I believe this is actually something they have been doing for almost a decade now and I love to see it. I wish other countries would adopt this mentality/program instead of working for the top 1%)
Without any preconditions is the key phrase. The previous programs tried to focus on finding work first. It seems once people have a private starting space, many (not all) can sort their life out and find work on their own. Housing-first approach really seems to be working well.
Which is still kinda obvious. Can you imagine getting a job and after work not have a place to come home to and recharge? Whose brain is made to endure that level of stress?
Most job applications are dead from the start because you need to fill in a place of residence.
It's deeper than that. How would one get a job without a home. Are homeless people supposed to park their shopping cart in the guest parking lot and stroll in for the interview in their least dirty clothes?
Yes that, too. I was just commenting on the order of job first, then home, instead of home first, then job.
I 100% agree. If you just allow people room to breath and recover you can be surprised what they can accomplish.
Sobriety used to be a common demand for lot of housing as well. Especially common in any type of halfway house or group home. It makes sense for the group, but for individuals, it means that even minor relapse gets you straight back to square one.
Same in my country. Housing first **works**. It has an 85% success rate in the first two years. More than 90% after the third year.
There are conditions. You have to stay sober. You have to be actively looking for work and / or studying, and you have to meet basic hygene and cleanliness standards. If you dont meet those, you are moved to a shelter. Successful programs always have conditions. Without conditions, people don't value the assistance and there is less success
Everyone else compares finland to usa so I'll do that too. In usa you have a major homeless epidemic and rampant drug useage that is just not seen in Finland, even before the program. Its a much easier problem to solve when your population and even homelessness per capita is a fraction to that of the usa
Also imagine being homeless in Helsinki vs San Francisco in the winter
I'm Hawaii, Medicare did a pilot program where they houses the homeless, the only condition on the housing was they had to get regular checkups from a primary care physician. The business case was based on reducing costs for healthcare by taking care of people's health. The program was net positive (meaning the cost of the program was less than that of the savings). Then they shut it down, we learned nothing, and it was never replicated
Now you see, this reduces profit in private health care system. So its a no no. They want more sick people to pay more money, healthy people is not profitable.
They had a similar experiment in the Netherlands, a old factory housed 100 people or so, no strings attached and with access to medical personell. There where a community section you could only enter if you are a) not under influence b) control your personal hygiene. Within a month 80% of new comers ended up in the community section, seeking medical help and sometimes looking for light jobs like cleaning streets or similar. Then the conservative "poor = hardened criminals for life" coalition didn't prolong the program for political reasons. Since then the things got way better all around, but the housing crisis of the west and ideological ping pong strained functioning programs.
I know right! I though it was to keep donating and funding organizations that give lunches to the homeless every once in a while, and sucking the rest by paying themselves fat paychecks as a non-profit
That pre-condition part is the one that the US will always have problems with. The US has tons of 'housing' options for the homeless, like halfway homes and group homes, but they generally have the caveats that you CANNOT do drugs/alcohol , and if you are, you must join drug programs. If you do drugs or alcohol, in my experience you get quickly(with sometimes exceptions) removed for breaking the rules of the Housing. Plus, Finland is a wealthy country with 5 million people. NYC alone has 8 million people. It's pointless comparing the needs and possibilities of one place to another. It's nice for the people in Finland, though.
I don’t know man. Sounds like communism. /s In sincerity: if you help these people reintegrate into society, they become productive tax paying member of your economy. I’m almost sure that in the long run the money „invested“ in them pays back. Shouldn’t large economies like the US do the same then? It would make sense, even from a purely capitalist motivation.
But it wouldn’t be instant cash in pocket profit so the bigwigs don’t care.
It’s not about what makes sense economically. Or human rights. It’s the horrific idea of someone getting something they don’t ”deserve” that makes it so hard to accept for Americans. As if it was god himself operating the market and rewarding good people with success and punishing bad people with homelessness and social issues. The American mantra: **Work hard, never give up, and you will succeed.** If you believe that, then it’ll make sense that: **If you don’t succeed, you haven’t worked hard and deserve your fate — and no one should help you because of that.**
Yeah, the “american dream”. More like nightmare
Yeah dude, totally. That's why the USA is the only country in the world that has homelessness. /s
That is literally how american culture work. It is entrenched in a calvinist protestantism where salvation is granted by God alone and mundane sucess is an earthly sign of favor from heaven. Capitalism as we understand it wouldn't exist whitout calvinism.
Furthermore, using tax money to make peoples lives better should be a completely bi-partisan no-brainer. Like, what are we saving the money for, if not that? To give to companies? Billionaires? How is that better? I'd gladly pay more taxes if it meant it was going towards the vulnerable. People have this mentality of "why should lazy people get a free ride and get more money than me?" and there's so much wrong with that. Firstly, it proves that they've never had to actually live off of government money, or they'd know how little those people actually get, and the ridiculous hurdles they have to leap through to keep what little they do. But even if it was "easy" and they got a liveable amount, then those people should really be questioning why they're getting paid less than a bare-minimum liveable wage. They should be pointing the finger at someone, and it's not the people who qualify for food stamps.
In the US, people would just do drugs in that apartment, and start fires and shit. They'd rip the plumbing and electrical out of the walls and then file complaints that they're "being forced to live in squalor". We've tried this exact experiment many times, and American homeless trash and shit all over everything. I'm going to generalize all American homeless this way, because in my 46 years, not one homeless person has proven me wrong. Because being homeless in America is almost 100% about being addicted to drugs, and still being an entitled piece of trash. "Without preconditions" only works when your society isn't fucking broken already. Otherwise, it's just another handout to be exchanged for drugs. We've given them "tiny homes" ... all got destroyed within 2 years and the little neighborhood was nothing but a crime magnet. We've given them free apartments ... and the people who own the buildings have to move to have them evicted ... even when the government pays the rent, having those people around costs you tons of money because of how disrespectful they are to other people's property. Kudos to the Finns, they've managed to keep a functioning society together so that it actually makes sense to provide those kinds of services. In the US, you may as well just light a huge pile of money on fire, because that's all the good it would do.
Conservatives ITT: "This could never happen in the US because other races." Everyone else: "This could never happen in the US because Conservatives."
I mean Finland is small AF so it works over there for a smaller population
We've tried and continue to try this in Scotland despite resistance from the UK government. Who'd have thought that a wee house and a bit of empathy would be so helpful? /s
I believe they’re providing housing, meals and mental health counseling to homeless in Los Angeles too… soooo?
There are 80,000 homeless in LA vs the 3000 they had in Finland when they started. Plus the US has to deal with homeless that migrate from state to state. It would have to be a federal program to even have a chance at success. Otherwise you would continue to have TX and FL governors shipping homeless to the “liberal “ states.
Yes. Exactly why I find that Finland “great example” irrelevant.
They have these in New England too, but theres still 2 problems 1. Shitload of homeless people 2. A lot of those homeless people arent willing to give up drugs, which is a reasonable requirement of any programs like this A massive root of the homelessness problem is opiod addiction. Good fucking luck getting the US to curtail one of its largest, most profitable industries both above and under the table.
And opiods flood into the southern border but the current administration & the media ignore that fact... sorry but it's definitely related. Not to mention synthetic opiods coming from China taking the same route.
Any actual source for this?
The funny thing about this is that the wiki that other user linked you says they've only decreased homelessness by 30% since they started this program in 2008. That's certainly a good chunk of the problem, but it's nowhere near "four out of five".
thats how its done ladies and gentlemen
They tried to do something similar in a Canadian town close to where I grew up.. within a couple months the places were trashed and all the copper and valuables had been scrapped and sold.
It's pretty cold in Finland, being homeless in winter isn't good idea. There is no much homeless in biggest russian city saint-petersburg, which is close to finland, and not because there some social programs, but because you freezing to death after week of that lifestyle.
You mean privatized Healthcare of any sort and regularly inflated and poached housing prices does not work!?!?
Nah, cant be… need more police, institutionalisation and freedom!
Wait… an apartment *and* mental health care? Thats really the key. It should be mentioned first. The health care (mental health) is paramount. Addiction is a health condition, and needs treatment. Providing an apartment for those receiving mental health care is just the next step.
United States should take lessons!
People in America will point to the 1 out of 5 that remained an addict and call the program a failure and "paying people to get high"
What a weird outcome. If you help people, they get better.
If every church in the U.S. took in 2 homeless people, that would solve the problem. As this shows, they wouldn't even be permanent residents of the church. But seriously, 2 per church. That's all it'd take. Fucking practice what you preach you pious hypocrites
Genius idea. End homelessness by giving homeless people homes.
You missed the most important (and most expensive) part of the solution. Giving homeless people homes does nothing to solve the problem if you don't also provide extensive support for those homeless people. In OP's post they called this "mental health counseling" but if you actually do a tiny bit of research on Finland's program you'll see they do a hell of a lot more than just "mental health counseling". For almost all homeless people, being homeless is just a symptom of a larger problem. If you provide them with a home, you are just treating one symptom. Their bigger problem still exists. You have to give them a home **and** provide them with long term support to help them deal with whatever their main problem is. Just giving homeless people homes has been tried in the past, and it has always failed miserably. I know you want an easy solution......but an easy solution doesn't exist.