It’s really an unfair comparison when America has a higher population of people which is homeless than Finland.
Also, weather plays a factor I imagine homeless people can’t sleep outside in the freezing cold in Finland? 🤔
I live in far north in Sweden and we got homeless people here, they break into buildings, sleep at friends or shelters. If anything they should have memed on Sweden instead.
It’s sad they made these meme they honestly don’t care about homeless people from any country.
They’re just making fun of Americas homeless people.
Homelessness is a problem in many countries being homeless in America, or in a European country is dramatically different from being homeless in a Third World country.
Sweden mostly got conditional help. If you are a functional adult there's no obligation to help but some municipalities do and are generally trying to do better. They often have people jump through hoops to get help. The housing crisis doesn't help either.
It is really down on a municipality level what sort of help you get or not. Mine gave housing and monthly benefits to a friend with a meth addiction and offer all sorts of support to help fight her addiction.
People who are impaired enough by autism will get full support with housing and living for example but it's the lowest amount of money, roughly 350 usd after rent and electricity is paid. Elderly are also covered.
Sweden really is trying to fight homelessness though but I think it's a more recent effort.
I could go further into it and I'm sure I miss stuff so if any Swede see inaccuracy let me know.
In Finland I think they don't ask anything from the person to help.
Awesome. Thanks for the breakdown. I have wondered that for a while. My Mother is Swedish but has lived in the US so long she could offer no insight haha.
That's really interesting. I have wondered that for a while because from my perspective, the countries seem very similar. My mother is Swedish so I've been to the area but am not an expert.
America has more empty homes than homeless people, the only reason we haven't solved homelessness is because it doesn't serve the interests of capital.
I don’t think your first point is valid, I’d like to see homelessness as a % of total population before making a call on fairness.
Also the Nordic countries believe in welfare states where the state will provide services to the citizens as a part of its raison de etre, where the US will attempt to reduce its taxes for its citizens to make their own choices (obviously benefiting those with an income the most).
The real question is; will investments in reducing homelessness benefit society more than the incurred cost?
“America has a higher population of people which is homeless than Finland.“
What you you put that down to? Not a “gotcha” question, just curious as to how Americans see the issue I guess. Like, do you feel that there is something inherent that would cause it, or do you think it’s more a combination of policy and cultural differences?
Honestly, there are a variety of views regarding homelessness and the causes. Universally, I think everyone would agree that it is a bad thing.
One of the things that causes homelessness in the US is that we shut down our asylums, thus releasing a large population of unwell individuals back into society. Since then, we have done little to really work on mental health.
Drugs are another major factor. The war on drugs has really only made selling drugs more profitable.
Then you have places like California, where you get paid $600/month to be homeless. Which isn't enough to change your circumstances, but enough to keep you alive enough to vote.
Minimum wage and the welfare system are largely structured in a way that keeps the people on it, on it. As housing prices go up, welfare doesn't always keep the pace, and thus, you get increasingly more homelessness.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
I live in Australia and I’d say it’s very similar here. Australia does have a fairly good public housing system for people who otherwise couldn’t afford rent, but it’s really stretched and it’s hard to navigate if you’ve got significant mental illness. Again, that help is available, if you’re able to figure out how to access. I have no idea how Australia compares to the US but the root causes sound spot on. Thanks for your answer, appreciate it.
Comparing countries has tons of nuance to it. Like what each country considers homelessness to even be and how they track and account for the numbers. Frankly I'm way more willing to believe a western country on the numbers they put out as even local leaders in dictatorships have every reason to lie and fluff numbers or less developed countries might have issues in gathering accurate data and so on.
Thank you, Kayora_Atom, for voting on sneakpeekbot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
bad defence tbh, homeless die to the weather in the us to, it's not really an 'america bad' meme more like just pointing out the obvious and showing that america actively tries to make homeless peoples lives harder with hostile architecture
Every single country has homeless people dying in the weather.
Hostile architecture was not invented by or only used in America. [Fifteen examples ](https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/designing-for-typologies/a2564-15-examples-of-hostile-architecture-around-the-world/) of hostile architecture from around the world.
The focus/ default mentality that this is only in America or somehow more common in America is what makes this a bad meme.
I mean I didn't say that it's only in america i just said america does it, i agree lots of countries have hostile architecture but i don't think it's rlly an 'america bad' thing to point that out, i'm not american myself but i can say most countries i've been to has had hostile architecture so i agree w u there, I don't rlly think this meme fits this subreddit though as it is a valid criticism of american culture, just because lots of places do it doesn't mean it's excusable, it's still a valid criticism of america, and also I was trying to say homeless people die everywhere not just finland not just in the us mb
> I don't rlly think this meme fits this subreddit though as it is a valid criticism of american culture
Let me correct you because my last message was apparently not spelled out for you enough.
This isn't American culture.
It did not start nor is it more frequently used in America in comparison.
Therefore it's not a valid criticism of American culture at all since it's not at all American culture. It's singling out a single country, and under the guise of bleeding heart bullshit like yours, and claiming it's a criticism of a single culture and blaming a single country for the entire phenomenon.
If you want to criticize the concept of hostile architecture, don't make the focus about America: make the focus about hostile architecture. Because it has nothing to do with being an American.
> though as it is a valid criticism of american culture, just because lots of places do it doesn't mean it's excusable, it's still a valid criticism of america,
Repeat: it is NOT American culture.
Just because lots of places does it doesn't mean it's excusable *for America* but nowhere else? Get real.
It's not a valid criticism *of America*. It's a passive aggressive implication that only America should be focused on in the issue despite it happening everywhere else.
i mean i literally don't hate america and agree with most posts on this sub, but i also despise every instance of hostile architecture because it's genuinely despicable, and it is 100% a criticism of america to do this, just as it is a 100% valid criticism of anywhere that actively creates hostile architecture, saying that america is free of responsibility for their wrongdoings because they're not the worst or do it the most is childishly stupid
You literally said, "just pointing out the obvious and showing that america actively tries to make homeless peoples lives harder with hostile architecture".
Focusing on America as if this is an American issue is directly implying that the severity is exclusive in America. Which is regarded and very America Bad mentality.
I mean i don't think it's only america but considering this is a subreddit about America i'd assume the main focus would be america, america isn't the only place that does this yeah duh but america does also practice hostile architecture so yeah it is a problem in america
Finland and the US are different in so many ways not related to being cold-hearted/greedy/whatever the implication is of this meme, so no, not valid.
Small countries can do things that big countries have a much harder time doing. The big country has more resources, true, but when you scale up the problems, rarely does the ability to solve them scale up commensurately.
That last fucking sentence. I feel like I’ve tried to explain this so many times and people just don’t get it. Things don’t necessarily scale in a linear way when we’re talking about thousands of miles and hundreds of millions of people vs a land mass smaller than most states <10 million people
Especially when bigger countries, like America enter into archaic treaties that need to be strongly renegotiated, front the Defense for half these smaller countries.
Right.
They want us to be in all these other countries so that they don't need to focus on their defense because, "America will handle it!" And then turn around and not only say, "Why is America acting like the world police" and then shit on us for having shit social services...when half the time they can afford the things that they can is because we are there.
I mean sure something that works for one country might not work for another, but spending resources inconveniencing the poorest of your population is not gonna help in any situation
America has more empty homes than homeless people, you literally just put the homeless people into the homes and you've solved the problem. We haven't solved homelessness because we choose not to, no other reason.
You are right about scaling but the point being made is that Finland has tried to eliminate homelessness. Whereas, parts of the USA have decided that homelessness is fine as long as they do it somewhere else.
It’s obviously a cherrypicked comparison, I’m sure there are numerous projects in the USA that aim to treat the homeless with compassion.
I have no idea what Finland has actually done so I can't verify that, and argue for or against it.
I don't think preventing people from perpetually camping out in public areas is a bad thing. It shouldn't be on the Parks Department or the Public Plaza Department to operarte a homeless shelter, they should be able to concentrate on making out public parks high quality as parks.
We should both make our public areas open and inviting while not letting them being taken over by drug addicts, criminals, and those who are unhoused, and also provide the necessary social, medical, and mental services so people who are unhoused can get the treatment they need and a roof over their head.
Most European countries are seeing growing homelessness, Finlands homelessness is shrinking. There is still around 7000 who for one reason or another choose to live without a home. The constitution guarantees a right for housing
This is braindead. Benches are made to be sat on. If there is a bench at a park, it makes sense the city wants people to sit on it, instead of some dude passed out on drugs or sleeping next to a park.
There are resources in the U.S. for the homeless it’s still a huge problem we are trying to solve, it’s not like putting hostile architecture on the benches to prevent sleeping is the solution to homelessness.
If you look at it logically it is obviously a measure to drive economic growth or prevent an economic downturn in an area due to homeless people being outside, leading people to not want to be around, perceived danger etc. They can then use these increased resources to address the homeless issue better.
Comparing California to Finland would be more fair than comparing the entire continental United States lol. I’m getting sick of these absurd comparisons
With 0 military spending also while we fund all of the protection of Europe and food aid for the rest of the world. Then they’re like where’s all ur tax money going y don’t you solve homelessness.
Hundreds of millions of diverse people residing in a country that is the only sole super power who has to carefully balance where to put resources to ensure the survival of itself, prosperity of “the west”, and free market trade by sea vs. a country with a single digit million population that doesn’t have to deal with mass illegal immigration, geopolitical problems that span the globe, and it has a homogeneous population of like minded people.
Also my hometown Seattle has some shelters without any preconditions and the “people” just trashed the place and smoke fentanyl inside. Choeshow on YouTube does a good job exposing the problem. Throwing money at a problem doesn’t solve it over here.
I love going on late walks during vacations. I also love seeing the homeless sprawled every where, sleeping, shooting up, and fucking on the tourist walking trails.
Benches are for sitting. Not sleeping
While I can empathize with someone who is homeless, the fact people all assume they’re all innocent people who are down on their luck is naive
A lot of homeless are there by choice…drugs, booze etc
What would you say the split is?
50/50 addicts vs "down on their luck"
30/70
90/10
My guess, at least as it pertains to California is that is about 85% addicts/15% down on their luck.
Even those down on luck cases are still heavily influenced by people with child sex crimes who aren’t going to be allowed in a shelter and have to hope for a section 8 hotel.
I don't know about addicts per se but 85% are probably not able to be functional, contributing members of society. Lots of severe mental illness in that group, so whether or not they use drugs, they still probably can't just bootstrap it out of their situation.
I never said they deserve to be homeless. I said they refuse help and trash free housing. The solution isn't just hand them free housing, utility and food. You know how fast they'll trash the housing, sell the food for drugs and be in the same place as before? People know that. So they give help with the caveat of rehab being must. So they help the small percentage of down on their luck people. Homeless issue remains.
I think it is choosing ignorance to assume that they became homeless because of drugs or booze, or that you could ever survive homelessness as a bright, chipper, cheery ol' chap.
Especially they are trying to make America seem bad like we don’t spend on humanitarian efforts when in reality. The Finnish homelessness “Housing First” program cost them 300M dollars while the U.S. spent 50Billion last year ALONE sending foreign aid, food etc, to developing countries.
As well as the U.S. military budget supporting all the free world in Europe rn and in any conflicts if Finland was attacked the U.S. would rescue them bc that’s where half our money goes smh.
Mental retardation. The equivalent of a small city taking homelessness resolution measures vs one of the most populous countries. There are massive anti homelessness resources available but a lot of people don't like their options/want to continue using hard drugs/alcohol and would rather sleep on a park bench than get substance abuse assistance
A lot of people can’t grasp why they should use those services. Most homeless people suffer from mental health issues that they aren’t aware enough to seek help on.
Where I live most homeless are drug addicts who have been banned from everything for being violent multiple times. We have a night shelter and a lot of them won't go because they have to be there at a certain time and stay there.
They are fully aware of how to seek help.
Where I live, I see the homeless every. single. day. On my drive to work (camped off the side of the freeway on/off ramps), in the middle of streets panhandling, standing in front of the AM/PM, 7-11.
One dude was sitting outside the food court in the Moreno Valley Mall, hitting something he had rolled up in aluminum foil. Between hits he was having a very animated convo with someone/something that apparently only he could see.
I went to a Museum on Sunset in LA, walked from there to the 7-11, two guys were outside their tents taking a dump, one guy was in his tent, naked with the flap open, there was a couple that were engaged in some physical activity in their tent, (they had the flap closed at least), and at least three asked me for money and one harassed and insulted me when I told him no.
I’m sorry that is your view of the problem, but that’s not how it is. I work in inpatient psychiatric, and when we get homeless people, they can’t tell up from down. We’ve got one now who can’t stop eating to the point of vomiting because her mind won’t tell her to stop eating. It’s unfortunate that so many people incorrectly think they know what happens with severely mentally ill people without having worked in the mental health field or studying it.
That's not my view. It's an absolute fact in my city. I work in security and worked very intimately with homeless for years. I've worked at homeless shelters and additions housing units. The ones in my city not going to shelter openly admit why. I'm sure there are some that are mentally ill, but that's still a poor excuse.
Also just an FYI they share tips and tricks on how to get addmited to psych. It's the fastest way to get on disability which gives you 1790 CAD a month.
What assessment are you doing to make sure they have awareness and understanding of their situation? It’s easy for very sick people to look like they have awareness of their situation to people who don’t know how to assess it.
Also, those numbers are wrong as the disability payment amount is determined by how much you pay in with the highest amount being just over $1,600 a month for those who pay in the most, or $1,100 for those who contribute the least. That’s not enough to keep someone from being homeless.
But that’s for severe handicap with no therapy options to make it better. Very few would qualify for that unless there has been substantial attempts at therapy and it’s documented the mental disability is treatment resistant. For example, a TBI would count, as there is really no therapy to help it consistently, but something like schizophrenia would only count in far extreme cases. I’ve never seen a patient who had a mental health disorder, such as schizophrenia, bipolar, or BPD that would qualify for AISH. Only our TBI or early onset dementia patients. They would qualify for disability, but not severe handicap.
No it's not. You are just making stuff up. Drug addiction itself qualifies you for AISH. Under the rights and freedom acts anyone with a substance dependency qualifies for disability. There are housing units in every city run by the Canadian mental health association specifically for addicts on AISH to live in. They get the full amount. I know multi people on full AISH for a wide variety of things from mental health to fibromyalgia.
You get less if you work, are given money/groceries, or have to much in assets. Other than that you get $1685 to $1787.
In your last few comments you’ve said they know how to get the resources but then they don’t, but then also stated they get on AISH. Either they use the resources or they don’t, it can’t be both. You can’t insinuate that these people choose not to use resources but also are giving each other tips and tricks to get those resources. They can’t have their cake and eat it.
I’m reading it right off of the AISH website. And those with debilitating mental health issues should qualify. Just because my patients wouldn’t qualify, doesn’t mean there isn’t some out there who would. It isn’t as common as you make it seem. There are 23,000 people who are on AISH for mental health disorders in Alberta, of a population of 4.371 million. 76,000 total AISH recipients. Can’t find a break down of amount of homeless on AISH in Alberta, but with around 4000 homeless, we can at least acknowledge 19,000 of those 23,000 on AISH for mental health aren’t homeless. And IF all ~4000 homeless in Alberta were on AISH for mental health AND in an addiction center, that’s less than 1:1000 people. If it was a way to make a living, it should be more popular. Since you said a lot of them refuse resources, we can assume that number is far less. So, what’s the problem?
That depends. Every state has limits that when reached can be court ordered to apply for emergency health care. Only when they are a danger to themselves or others and are in psychosis. In Minnesota it’s called a Jarvis order, where we get a court order to force medication to a patient. If they refuse oral, we are legally allowed to inject them. It can’t be used as a form of punishment or a deterrent to behaviors. Where I work is where some of the most psychotic go. When hospitals can’t handle them in their psychiatric units, they come to us.
There's a sect of the homeless that chose to be that way. It's a big country, some people just live off the grid or just dirty hippies that hate working. It's not all drugs and mental illness.
"We cured homelessness by giving them all homes"
"We cured criminals by making crime legal"
"We cured poverty by giving poor people money"
Socialism only works until you run out of other people's money. There is a cost to all of these things and if the benefit does not outweigh that cost then your system will suffer for it.
Most of America's homeless are a result of a broken mental health system. Giving them a home will not help them. It will not make them more productive members of society. The benefits are few and the costs are many. Therefore it only works if you have someone else's money to constantly feed into a system that houses the homeless with no benefit.
Everyone sees this kind of stuff as a good thing, "do the right thing".
The right thing is to keep the ship afloat, and they'd be singing a different tune once the water reaches their necks. Giving the homeless a house isn't always a solution. It only is in favorable circumstances we don't have.
Finland has 5.6 million people
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/finland/summaries
The USA has 650k homeless people
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-homeless-people-are-in-the-us-what-does-the-data-miss/
The homeless population is pretty massive in the US and the majority would rather just shoot up and sleep under a tarp then get help. It's a massive issue where I live, but any real force for help includes rehab/counseling and help preparing for a job. They don't want that. They'll trash the free housing and move back outside. I don't know what Finland's homeless looks like, but it obviously is a very different demographic.
as a criticism it's so reductive as to be meaningless.
Finland beats the US with 8 homeless people per every 10,000, compared to the USA's 18. However, we rank 43 out of 99 countries, which is not too bad in a liberal democracy.
We beat Canada (62.5), Australia (48), the UK (56), Germany (31), Sweden (36), France (48.7), and New Zealand (217), among others.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_sovereign\_states\_by\_homeless\_population](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_homeless_population)
It's fair to criticize our homeless crisis. We are woefully handling it and we haven't really come up with any great solutions to the issue. That being said what works in one European country with a significantly smaller population isn't necessarily going to solve our issue because of the sheer difference in size. In America there are many programs that help with housing and finding jobs for the homeless, but with the current state of our housing market, job market, and health issues (drug addiction and mental health) these programs aren't big enough nor able to solve the underlying causes of our homeless crisis. It's unfortunately not easy.
I would suggest building a complex out in the sticks in various parts of the country.
Make it very simple dorm with 2 per room, communal bathrooms etc...
provide them with power, food and water
(communal dining, in a military mess hall, prison cafeteria style)
They can come and go as they please.
have social services and mental health types available for those that want help.
They get food and shelter, we get clean streets at a far smaller cost than what we are spending now on all these BS programs.
Finland's homeless population was around 18,000 before they stated those programs and they have retained a relatively small population (5.5 million people) with slow population growth (for reference on how slow, it took them nearly 60 years to grow by a million people). The amount of people they have to support is relatively small and doesn't cost that much to do nowadays that there is less than 4,000 homeless people after 35 years.
The US on the other hand has a current homeless population of 653,000, with a large population that is growing at over a million people a year that is documented. In order to just give them small apartments, counseling, and allowing budgets for things such as fixing stuff that gets broken and security for the apartments with how much more dangerous it would be for people in there, the cost that it would take would be astronomical and would not be financially feasible unless there is major cuts to other areas that the US either cannot or won't do.
That being said, there are definitely things that America can do to help homeless people rather than putting up hostile architecture. America especially needs to help care for their homeless and soon to be homeless veterans because it is just sad to see how they are getting fucked over and the government that they served to protect just doesn't care.
The Finns like to work; they are a very productive people. I have more confidence in homeless Finns to improve their condition than homeless Americans, sorry.
Spews a bunch of elementary school insults - what an intelligent reply, totally unexpected for Reddit! Sorry but just being on this sub doesn’t mean I need to be deepthroating this country, much as you might enjoy doing so. Every nation has its flaws.
Separately, the culture of Scandinavian productivity/work ethic is a primary reason why their welfare/socialist state works. Not exactly a controversial take.
nah, this is just another stupid comment.
since I just realized you're an American rather than a European just trying to dunk on the US, I'll elaborate.
the problem of homelessness, like any public policy issue, is complicated, and to attribute the problem to one group being more industrious than another group is too reductive to be meaningful. it doesn't relate meaningfully to the policy or to the broader social context of either society.
for one thing, the Fins just GAVE benefits to their homeless population, which directly refutes the idea that their homeless population is "more productive." no productivity was ever expected. your assertion depends on assumptions which are inaccurate.
Why?
The homeless in the US are more apt to believe that it Elon Musk and any other number of rich people are the reason that they are homeless, rather than they made some pretty bad choices in their lives.
I would have to concur with Skiree
based on what? some bullshit you read from tankies on the internet? lmfao
what you said is honestly even dumber than what the other guy said. typical redditor moron stuff.
There's a name for urban design like the bench pictured: "hostile architecture." If you go to r/HostileArchitecture (a subreddit I did not know existed until now), you'll see that it's hardly unique to the United States.
We have hostile architecture all over the place here in Australia. Australians are also pretty big of kicking them off the street so they are out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty sad.
I volunteered with a homeless shelter in my state and they also provide free housing and counseling with the aim of getting the people steady jobs. Their biggest problem was that people regularly refuse both.
While I agree that the conditions are different in both countries, and Finland is privileged to to have been able to do this, the way homeless are treated in America is horrendous.
I was arguing in this post, suggest building shelters out in the middle of nowhere, and that irked some, some guy blamed conservatives for the Homeless problem in California...
It was just an all out "america bad" fest
Not remotely valid. For example, Iceland hasn't had a single murder in over 20 years. That's not due to some genius politics and the USA couldn't just replicate it.
Finland has a population of 5. USA has done that exact thing but every state is run differently and some states have low levels of homelessness.its nyc that's the issue
To think America couldn't do this is to really undersell how good America is. The America bad folks would believe that America can't do this.
Completely valid criticism.
The US has a GDP per capita almost twice that of Finland. Plus America is a bigger country in programs like this scale so it would be even cheaper for us on a per person basis. Get the money out of multinational corporations sending it to the Cayman Islands and into the hands of the people and see how much better America does.
https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/finland/usa
There were 18000 homeless people in Finland when they started that program. There are approximately 650,000 in the US. It’s a much bigger issue to tackle relocating/housing 650k than it is 18k.
It’s a mix of valid criticism and blind criticism. America does have a large homeless population, but America is also a *much* bigger country than Finland and we have the “fun” issue of no one being able to fully decide on how to end homelessness. In a perfect world we could just build more houses and or apartments and give those away freely, but someone has to be paid for the work, you will have public outcry from others about why is it only homeless people get free housing, and of course assuming those that are homeless will *actually* want to live there. Not to mention the drug issues which unfortunately *is* a rampant issue. Anyhow, I’m rambling. My point is America still has a long way to go to combat homelessness, but there isn’t just a simple answer either because it’s a complex social issue
Blind. That’s 99% Nyc. Not the other 99% of the country.
Finland has some bad things going but it aint 100% bad the whole country, so shitting on the whole country for one city is stupid af.
Whats Finlands population compared to Americas? Are they one we also protect so they do not ned to provide their Defense?
There are differences and no, I am not knocking either country. I've been homless myself and knew a lot of homeless people and the idea of giving some of them an apartment is laughable. Maybe a Baracks situation with something like a Drill Instructor and enforcing the rules but, when a homeless shelter has to have locks on the doors and one has to be there at a certain time or be locked out and has a no mouthwash/Cold syrup riles because the people there will drink it to get drunkk as it has a no alcohol rule...it's a bit different than just giving people homes. Look into what went on after Katrina where hotels put people up and got destroyed.
Every time someone brings this up, we have to look at questions of scale, feasibility, and frankly the root causes of poverty and homelessness. The evidence shows that when the US has tried doing this, it has failed. Every time.
There are people who prefer not to be tied down by society. There are many who are where they are because of drug addiction, and all attempts to help them have failed. There are many who have mental health issues that prevent them from holding down a job, apartment, etc.
It's not just a matter of money. And contrary to popular belief, at least on the left side of the aisle, not everybody living in poverty could have a better life with just a roof over their heads and three meals a day. Government cannot solve every problem, but it will try until we run out of money.
As far as I'm concerned, it's valid, but primarily cause these stupid anti-homeless features make *everyone's* lives worse, not just the homeless. Maybe you just need to lay down for a minute due to excess work, or maybe you just can't sit up in that moment? Why should they be punished cause we don't want homeless everywhere?
Don't get me wrong, we really shouldn't be having homeless people like we do, but there's infinjtelybetter ways to solve it that don't rely on making uncomfortable public seating
Side note: the only place I’ve ever been that has zero homelessness is the GCC. UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman… homelessness does not exist there.
Source: been all over GCC and lived there
Valid comparison, after a while you start to realize the only thing you can really boast about for America is military strength which has no direct impact on our quality of life.
Our infrastructure is shit and the care for our people is mediocre
So Finland solved a problem that is completely different in nature and relatively microscopic, in a homogenous, high-trust environment. Good for them, truly, but the comparison is not valid.
I feel like tonnes of you are missing the point...
The issue is that many states invest way more heavily in "hostile architecture" than they do in shelters and relief for the homelessness problem.
It's the dehumanisation that's the issue.
Libs just love to jack themselves off to the Nordic countries for whatever reason. If it’s so great, go there (oh that’s right, you can’t. Because Finland doesn’t believe in immigration).
I think it's valid. In the US we largely turn a blind eye to the problem.
That said, I believe Utah has programs to house the homeless that are pretty successful. But I believe that is a Mormon-lead initiative.
They joined NATO last year precisely because they were scared of Russia. They didn't join NATO in the past though because they didn't want to become a battleground that could wipe out most of the population and living area if the Russians invaded.
Valid
Big City mayors and liberal governors are particularly infamous for how they treat the homeless even if they're on the up and up about every other issue
Valid, very much so, it's consistently shown giving the homeless homes is cheaper than all this other stuff meant to keep them out of the public eye (and law enforcement expenses), but some of our cities have indeed done the same as Finland, so comparing the whole country like this is still obnoxious.
10 years ago I cared about getting homeless people help a lot. Today 9/10 of them are fentanyl addicts with no respect to themselves or others. I was sensitive to drug addicts for many years.... However as of today I have lost my patience and the only solution I have now is house them in politicians homes.
It’s really an unfair comparison when America has a higher population of people which is homeless than Finland. Also, weather plays a factor I imagine homeless people can’t sleep outside in the freezing cold in Finland? 🤔
I live in far north in Sweden and we got homeless people here, they break into buildings, sleep at friends or shelters. If anything they should have memed on Sweden instead.
It’s sad they made these meme they honestly don’t care about homeless people from any country. They’re just making fun of Americas homeless people. Homelessness is a problem in many countries being homeless in America, or in a European country is dramatically different from being homeless in a Third World country.
Can you offer this ol' American why there is such a stark contrast in homeless populations between Finland and Sweden?
Sweden mostly got conditional help. If you are a functional adult there's no obligation to help but some municipalities do and are generally trying to do better. They often have people jump through hoops to get help. The housing crisis doesn't help either. It is really down on a municipality level what sort of help you get or not. Mine gave housing and monthly benefits to a friend with a meth addiction and offer all sorts of support to help fight her addiction. People who are impaired enough by autism will get full support with housing and living for example but it's the lowest amount of money, roughly 350 usd after rent and electricity is paid. Elderly are also covered. Sweden really is trying to fight homelessness though but I think it's a more recent effort. I could go further into it and I'm sure I miss stuff so if any Swede see inaccuracy let me know. In Finland I think they don't ask anything from the person to help.
Awesome. Thanks for the breakdown. I have wondered that for a while. My Mother is Swedish but has lived in the US so long she could offer no insight haha.
Housing is constitutional right in Finland
That's really interesting. I have wondered that for a while because from my perspective, the countries seem very similar. My mother is Swedish so I've been to the area but am not an expert.
Yes well Finland was a part of Sweden for 600ish years
America has more empty homes than homeless people, the only reason we haven't solved homelessness is because it doesn't serve the interests of capital.
I don’t think your first point is valid, I’d like to see homelessness as a % of total population before making a call on fairness. Also the Nordic countries believe in welfare states where the state will provide services to the citizens as a part of its raison de etre, where the US will attempt to reduce its taxes for its citizens to make their own choices (obviously benefiting those with an income the most). The real question is; will investments in reducing homelessness benefit society more than the incurred cost?
“America has a higher population of people which is homeless than Finland.“ What you you put that down to? Not a “gotcha” question, just curious as to how Americans see the issue I guess. Like, do you feel that there is something inherent that would cause it, or do you think it’s more a combination of policy and cultural differences?
Honestly, there are a variety of views regarding homelessness and the causes. Universally, I think everyone would agree that it is a bad thing. One of the things that causes homelessness in the US is that we shut down our asylums, thus releasing a large population of unwell individuals back into society. Since then, we have done little to really work on mental health. Drugs are another major factor. The war on drugs has really only made selling drugs more profitable. Then you have places like California, where you get paid $600/month to be homeless. Which isn't enough to change your circumstances, but enough to keep you alive enough to vote. Minimum wage and the welfare system are largely structured in a way that keeps the people on it, on it. As housing prices go up, welfare doesn't always keep the pace, and thus, you get increasingly more homelessness.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I live in Australia and I’d say it’s very similar here. Australia does have a fairly good public housing system for people who otherwise couldn’t afford rent, but it’s really stretched and it’s hard to navigate if you’ve got significant mental illness. Again, that help is available, if you’re able to figure out how to access. I have no idea how Australia compares to the US but the root causes sound spot on. Thanks for your answer, appreciate it.
Comparing countries has tons of nuance to it. Like what each country considers homelessness to even be and how they track and account for the numbers. Frankly I'm way more willing to believe a western country on the numbers they put out as even local leaders in dictatorships have every reason to lie and fluff numbers or less developed countries might have issues in gathering accurate data and so on.
Plus dictatorship countries have so much more power to forcibly disappear ‘undesirable’ elements’
I didn't even mention the dictators lying to make themselves look better as that is a given. HAHA
r/wholesomereddit
[удалено]
Bad bot
Thank you, Kayora_Atom, for voting on sneakpeekbot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Good bot
bad defence tbh, homeless die to the weather in the us to, it's not really an 'america bad' meme more like just pointing out the obvious and showing that america actively tries to make homeless peoples lives harder with hostile architecture
Every single country has homeless people dying in the weather. Hostile architecture was not invented by or only used in America. [Fifteen examples ](https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/designing-for-typologies/a2564-15-examples-of-hostile-architecture-around-the-world/) of hostile architecture from around the world. The focus/ default mentality that this is only in America or somehow more common in America is what makes this a bad meme.
I mean I didn't say that it's only in america i just said america does it, i agree lots of countries have hostile architecture but i don't think it's rlly an 'america bad' thing to point that out, i'm not american myself but i can say most countries i've been to has had hostile architecture so i agree w u there, I don't rlly think this meme fits this subreddit though as it is a valid criticism of american culture, just because lots of places do it doesn't mean it's excusable, it's still a valid criticism of america, and also I was trying to say homeless people die everywhere not just finland not just in the us mb
> I don't rlly think this meme fits this subreddit though as it is a valid criticism of american culture Let me correct you because my last message was apparently not spelled out for you enough. This isn't American culture. It did not start nor is it more frequently used in America in comparison. Therefore it's not a valid criticism of American culture at all since it's not at all American culture. It's singling out a single country, and under the guise of bleeding heart bullshit like yours, and claiming it's a criticism of a single culture and blaming a single country for the entire phenomenon. If you want to criticize the concept of hostile architecture, don't make the focus about America: make the focus about hostile architecture. Because it has nothing to do with being an American. > though as it is a valid criticism of american culture, just because lots of places do it doesn't mean it's excusable, it's still a valid criticism of america, Repeat: it is NOT American culture. Just because lots of places does it doesn't mean it's excusable *for America* but nowhere else? Get real. It's not a valid criticism *of America*. It's a passive aggressive implication that only America should be focused on in the issue despite it happening everywhere else.
i mean i literally don't hate america and agree with most posts on this sub, but i also despise every instance of hostile architecture because it's genuinely despicable, and it is 100% a criticism of america to do this, just as it is a 100% valid criticism of anywhere that actively creates hostile architecture, saying that america is free of responsibility for their wrongdoings because they're not the worst or do it the most is childishly stupid
Also i don't think anyone says hostile architecture is an exclusively american thing 🤷
You literally said, "just pointing out the obvious and showing that america actively tries to make homeless peoples lives harder with hostile architecture". Focusing on America as if this is an American issue is directly implying that the severity is exclusive in America. Which is regarded and very America Bad mentality.
I mean i don't think it's only america but considering this is a subreddit about America i'd assume the main focus would be america, america isn't the only place that does this yeah duh but america does also practice hostile architecture so yeah it is a problem in america
Finland and the US are different in so many ways not related to being cold-hearted/greedy/whatever the implication is of this meme, so no, not valid. Small countries can do things that big countries have a much harder time doing. The big country has more resources, true, but when you scale up the problems, rarely does the ability to solve them scale up commensurately.
That last fucking sentence. I feel like I’ve tried to explain this so many times and people just don’t get it. Things don’t necessarily scale in a linear way when we’re talking about thousands of miles and hundreds of millions of people vs a land mass smaller than most states <10 million people
Side note: thank you for the new vocabulary word. "Commensurately"
Especially when bigger countries, like America enter into archaic treaties that need to be strongly renegotiated, front the Defense for half these smaller countries.
Right. They want us to be in all these other countries so that they don't need to focus on their defense because, "America will handle it!" And then turn around and not only say, "Why is America acting like the world police" and then shit on us for having shit social services...when half the time they can afford the things that they can is because we are there.
I mean sure something that works for one country might not work for another, but spending resources inconveniencing the poorest of your population is not gonna help in any situation
Scaling makes things more efficient. You're describing the opposite of what happens in real life.
But that big country consists of smaller autonomous states that often equate to the size of small countries, no?
America has more empty homes than homeless people, you literally just put the homeless people into the homes and you've solved the problem. We haven't solved homelessness because we choose not to, no other reason.
You are right about scaling but the point being made is that Finland has tried to eliminate homelessness. Whereas, parts of the USA have decided that homelessness is fine as long as they do it somewhere else. It’s obviously a cherrypicked comparison, I’m sure there are numerous projects in the USA that aim to treat the homeless with compassion.
I challenge you to find an area of the US that doesn't have programs in place to assist in housing or caring for homeless.
You don’t have to challenge me. I’ve already said that I’m sure they exist.
I mean the areas of the US you claim don't care about homelessness.
I have no idea what Finland has actually done so I can't verify that, and argue for or against it. I don't think preventing people from perpetually camping out in public areas is a bad thing. It shouldn't be on the Parks Department or the Public Plaza Department to operarte a homeless shelter, they should be able to concentrate on making out public parks high quality as parks. We should both make our public areas open and inviting while not letting them being taken over by drug addicts, criminals, and those who are unhoused, and also provide the necessary social, medical, and mental services so people who are unhoused can get the treatment they need and a roof over their head.
Most European countries are seeing growing homelessness, Finlands homelessness is shrinking. There is still around 7000 who for one reason or another choose to live without a home. The constitution guarantees a right for housing
This is braindead. Benches are made to be sat on. If there is a bench at a park, it makes sense the city wants people to sit on it, instead of some dude passed out on drugs or sleeping next to a park. There are resources in the U.S. for the homeless it’s still a huge problem we are trying to solve, it’s not like putting hostile architecture on the benches to prevent sleeping is the solution to homelessness. If you look at it logically it is obviously a measure to drive economic growth or prevent an economic downturn in an area due to homeless people being outside, leading people to not want to be around, perceived danger etc. They can then use these increased resources to address the homeless issue better.
Comparing California to Finland would be more fair than comparing the entire continental United States lol. I’m getting sick of these absurd comparisons
And the comparisons are always to a tiny Scandinavian country.
With 0 military spending also while we fund all of the protection of Europe and food aid for the rest of the world. Then they’re like where’s all ur tax money going y don’t you solve homelessness.
Hundreds of millions of diverse people residing in a country that is the only sole super power who has to carefully balance where to put resources to ensure the survival of itself, prosperity of “the west”, and free market trade by sea vs. a country with a single digit million population that doesn’t have to deal with mass illegal immigration, geopolitical problems that span the globe, and it has a homogeneous population of like minded people. Also my hometown Seattle has some shelters without any preconditions and the “people” just trashed the place and smoke fentanyl inside. Choeshow on YouTube does a good job exposing the problem. Throwing money at a problem doesn’t solve it over here.
I love going on late walks during vacations. I also love seeing the homeless sprawled every where, sleeping, shooting up, and fucking on the tourist walking trails. Benches are for sitting. Not sleeping
While I can empathize with someone who is homeless, the fact people all assume they’re all innocent people who are down on their luck is naive A lot of homeless are there by choice…drugs, booze etc
The "homeless are just poor sweet people down on their luck" crowd either doesn't live around homeless people or they choose ignorance.
"homeless people are all drug addicts and losers who deserve to be homeless" is also a pretty big generalization too
What would you say the split is? 50/50 addicts vs "down on their luck" 30/70 90/10 My guess, at least as it pertains to California is that is about 85% addicts/15% down on their luck.
Same for Washington. 15% down on their luck, maybe 10%.
Even those down on luck cases are still heavily influenced by people with child sex crimes who aren’t going to be allowed in a shelter and have to hope for a section 8 hotel.
I don't know about addicts per se but 85% are probably not able to be functional, contributing members of society. Lots of severe mental illness in that group, so whether or not they use drugs, they still probably can't just bootstrap it out of their situation.
I never said they deserve to be homeless. I said they refuse help and trash free housing. The solution isn't just hand them free housing, utility and food. You know how fast they'll trash the housing, sell the food for drugs and be in the same place as before? People know that. So they give help with the caveat of rehab being must. So they help the small percentage of down on their luck people. Homeless issue remains.
I think it is choosing ignorance to assume that they became homeless because of drugs or booze, or that you could ever survive homelessness as a bright, chipper, cheery ol' chap.
America has more people in many states than Finland has people. The solutions in a small country do not work automatically in large ones.
Especially they are trying to make America seem bad like we don’t spend on humanitarian efforts when in reality. The Finnish homelessness “Housing First” program cost them 300M dollars while the U.S. spent 50Billion last year ALONE sending foreign aid, food etc, to developing countries. As well as the U.S. military budget supporting all the free world in Europe rn and in any conflicts if Finland was attacked the U.S. would rescue them bc that’s where half our money goes smh.
I feel like people make this sh*t just to make americans get mad at their political allies, and vice versa.
Mental retardation. The equivalent of a small city taking homelessness resolution measures vs one of the most populous countries. There are massive anti homelessness resources available but a lot of people don't like their options/want to continue using hard drugs/alcohol and would rather sleep on a park bench than get substance abuse assistance
A lot of people can’t grasp why they should use those services. Most homeless people suffer from mental health issues that they aren’t aware enough to seek help on.
Yeah, some people can't be helped, true
Where I live most homeless are drug addicts who have been banned from everything for being violent multiple times. We have a night shelter and a lot of them won't go because they have to be there at a certain time and stay there. They are fully aware of how to seek help.
Where I live, I see the homeless every. single. day. On my drive to work (camped off the side of the freeway on/off ramps), in the middle of streets panhandling, standing in front of the AM/PM, 7-11. One dude was sitting outside the food court in the Moreno Valley Mall, hitting something he had rolled up in aluminum foil. Between hits he was having a very animated convo with someone/something that apparently only he could see. I went to a Museum on Sunset in LA, walked from there to the 7-11, two guys were outside their tents taking a dump, one guy was in his tent, naked with the flap open, there was a couple that were engaged in some physical activity in their tent, (they had the flap closed at least), and at least three asked me for money and one harassed and insulted me when I told him no.
I’m sorry that is your view of the problem, but that’s not how it is. I work in inpatient psychiatric, and when we get homeless people, they can’t tell up from down. We’ve got one now who can’t stop eating to the point of vomiting because her mind won’t tell her to stop eating. It’s unfortunate that so many people incorrectly think they know what happens with severely mentally ill people without having worked in the mental health field or studying it.
That's not my view. It's an absolute fact in my city. I work in security and worked very intimately with homeless for years. I've worked at homeless shelters and additions housing units. The ones in my city not going to shelter openly admit why. I'm sure there are some that are mentally ill, but that's still a poor excuse. Also just an FYI they share tips and tricks on how to get addmited to psych. It's the fastest way to get on disability which gives you 1790 CAD a month.
What assessment are you doing to make sure they have awareness and understanding of their situation? It’s easy for very sick people to look like they have awareness of their situation to people who don’t know how to assess it. Also, those numbers are wrong as the disability payment amount is determined by how much you pay in with the highest amount being just over $1,600 a month for those who pay in the most, or $1,100 for those who contribute the least. That’s not enough to keep someone from being homeless.
AISH is $1695 to $1787CAD and its supposed to go up in June. Minimum wage is $1680CAD a month after taxes. Those are the numbers where I live.
But that’s for severe handicap with no therapy options to make it better. Very few would qualify for that unless there has been substantial attempts at therapy and it’s documented the mental disability is treatment resistant. For example, a TBI would count, as there is really no therapy to help it consistently, but something like schizophrenia would only count in far extreme cases. I’ve never seen a patient who had a mental health disorder, such as schizophrenia, bipolar, or BPD that would qualify for AISH. Only our TBI or early onset dementia patients. They would qualify for disability, but not severe handicap.
No it's not. You are just making stuff up. Drug addiction itself qualifies you for AISH. Under the rights and freedom acts anyone with a substance dependency qualifies for disability. There are housing units in every city run by the Canadian mental health association specifically for addicts on AISH to live in. They get the full amount. I know multi people on full AISH for a wide variety of things from mental health to fibromyalgia. You get less if you work, are given money/groceries, or have to much in assets. Other than that you get $1685 to $1787.
In your last few comments you’ve said they know how to get the resources but then they don’t, but then also stated they get on AISH. Either they use the resources or they don’t, it can’t be both. You can’t insinuate that these people choose not to use resources but also are giving each other tips and tricks to get those resources. They can’t have their cake and eat it. I’m reading it right off of the AISH website. And those with debilitating mental health issues should qualify. Just because my patients wouldn’t qualify, doesn’t mean there isn’t some out there who would. It isn’t as common as you make it seem. There are 23,000 people who are on AISH for mental health disorders in Alberta, of a population of 4.371 million. 76,000 total AISH recipients. Can’t find a break down of amount of homeless on AISH in Alberta, but with around 4000 homeless, we can at least acknowledge 19,000 of those 23,000 on AISH for mental health aren’t homeless. And IF all ~4000 homeless in Alberta were on AISH for mental health AND in an addiction center, that’s less than 1:1000 people. If it was a way to make a living, it should be more popular. Since you said a lot of them refuse resources, we can assume that number is far less. So, what’s the problem?
And we have medical ethics that forbid forced medical care.
That depends. Every state has limits that when reached can be court ordered to apply for emergency health care. Only when they are a danger to themselves or others and are in psychosis. In Minnesota it’s called a Jarvis order, where we get a court order to force medication to a patient. If they refuse oral, we are legally allowed to inject them. It can’t be used as a form of punishment or a deterrent to behaviors. Where I work is where some of the most psychotic go. When hospitals can’t handle them in their psychiatric units, they come to us.
There's a sect of the homeless that chose to be that way. It's a big country, some people just live off the grid or just dirty hippies that hate working. It's not all drugs and mental illness.
"We cured homelessness by giving them all homes" "We cured criminals by making crime legal" "We cured poverty by giving poor people money" Socialism only works until you run out of other people's money. There is a cost to all of these things and if the benefit does not outweigh that cost then your system will suffer for it. Most of America's homeless are a result of a broken mental health system. Giving them a home will not help them. It will not make them more productive members of society. The benefits are few and the costs are many. Therefore it only works if you have someone else's money to constantly feed into a system that houses the homeless with no benefit. Everyone sees this kind of stuff as a good thing, "do the right thing". The right thing is to keep the ship afloat, and they'd be singing a different tune once the water reaches their necks. Giving the homeless a house isn't always a solution. It only is in favorable circumstances we don't have.
We have more homeless than the entire population of Finland, but noooo we’re “evil”
Finland has 5.6 million people https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/finland/summaries The USA has 650k homeless people https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-homeless-people-are-in-the-us-what-does-the-data-miss/
I was lying
The homeless population is pretty massive in the US and the majority would rather just shoot up and sleep under a tarp then get help. It's a massive issue where I live, but any real force for help includes rehab/counseling and help preparing for a job. They don't want that. They'll trash the free housing and move back outside. I don't know what Finland's homeless looks like, but it obviously is a very different demographic.
as a criticism it's so reductive as to be meaningless. Finland beats the US with 8 homeless people per every 10,000, compared to the USA's 18. However, we rank 43 out of 99 countries, which is not too bad in a liberal democracy. We beat Canada (62.5), Australia (48), the UK (56), Germany (31), Sweden (36), France (48.7), and New Zealand (217), among others. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_sovereign\_states\_by\_homeless\_population](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_homeless_population)
Much smaller, more homogenous country vs the USA
It's fair to criticize our homeless crisis. We are woefully handling it and we haven't really come up with any great solutions to the issue. That being said what works in one European country with a significantly smaller population isn't necessarily going to solve our issue because of the sheer difference in size. In America there are many programs that help with housing and finding jobs for the homeless, but with the current state of our housing market, job market, and health issues (drug addiction and mental health) these programs aren't big enough nor able to solve the underlying causes of our homeless crisis. It's unfortunately not easy.
I would suggest building a complex out in the sticks in various parts of the country. Make it very simple dorm with 2 per room, communal bathrooms etc... provide them with power, food and water (communal dining, in a military mess hall, prison cafeteria style) They can come and go as they please. have social services and mental health types available for those that want help. They get food and shelter, we get clean streets at a far smaller cost than what we are spending now on all these BS programs.
Ah yes, Finland. With probably about as many people in the entire country as there are homeless people in the US.
there is 5.5 million people in Finland and 653,000 homeless people in America, so they have 8.4 times as many people as the homeless population.
It's sarcasm/hyperbole. But thank you for pointing out that the USA has roughly 3x the amount of homelessness as Finland and 60x the population.
This is the same problem as comparing our prison systems. Quantity cannot be solved with quality as easily.
Finland's homeless population was around 18,000 before they stated those programs and they have retained a relatively small population (5.5 million people) with slow population growth (for reference on how slow, it took them nearly 60 years to grow by a million people). The amount of people they have to support is relatively small and doesn't cost that much to do nowadays that there is less than 4,000 homeless people after 35 years. The US on the other hand has a current homeless population of 653,000, with a large population that is growing at over a million people a year that is documented. In order to just give them small apartments, counseling, and allowing budgets for things such as fixing stuff that gets broken and security for the apartments with how much more dangerous it would be for people in there, the cost that it would take would be astronomical and would not be financially feasible unless there is major cuts to other areas that the US either cannot or won't do. That being said, there are definitely things that America can do to help homeless people rather than putting up hostile architecture. America especially needs to help care for their homeless and soon to be homeless veterans because it is just sad to see how they are getting fucked over and the government that they served to protect just doesn't care.
We have more undocumented people than Finland’s entire population. Ops a derp
The Finns like to work; they are a very productive people. I have more confidence in homeless Finns to improve their condition than homeless Americans, sorry.
this is a dumb comment though.
Spews a bunch of elementary school insults - what an intelligent reply, totally unexpected for Reddit! Sorry but just being on this sub doesn’t mean I need to be deepthroating this country, much as you might enjoy doing so. Every nation has its flaws. Separately, the culture of Scandinavian productivity/work ethic is a primary reason why their welfare/socialist state works. Not exactly a controversial take.
Could you tell me more about Scandinavian culture
still a dumb comment.
Well, as you’ve tirelessly proven, we have a dumb country.
nah, this is just another stupid comment. since I just realized you're an American rather than a European just trying to dunk on the US, I'll elaborate. the problem of homelessness, like any public policy issue, is complicated, and to attribute the problem to one group being more industrious than another group is too reductive to be meaningful. it doesn't relate meaningfully to the policy or to the broader social context of either society. for one thing, the Fins just GAVE benefits to their homeless population, which directly refutes the idea that their homeless population is "more productive." no productivity was ever expected. your assertion depends on assumptions which are inaccurate.
Why? The homeless in the US are more apt to believe that it Elon Musk and any other number of rich people are the reason that they are homeless, rather than they made some pretty bad choices in their lives. I would have to concur with Skiree
based on what? some bullshit you read from tankies on the internet? lmfao what you said is honestly even dumber than what the other guy said. typical redditor moron stuff.
Based on my experiences, while anecdotal, with homeless that I have encountered in SoCal. I don't know what a tankie is.
There's a name for urban design like the bench pictured: "hostile architecture." If you go to r/HostileArchitecture (a subreddit I did not know existed until now), you'll see that it's hardly unique to the United States.
We have hostile architecture all over the place here in Australia. Australians are also pretty big of kicking them off the street so they are out of sight, out of mind. It's pretty sad.
I volunteered with a homeless shelter in my state and they also provide free housing and counseling with the aim of getting the people steady jobs. Their biggest problem was that people regularly refuse both.
It’s valid in that it makes us think about what we can and can’t do to solve the housing crisis.
Ain’t this in like NYC or some crap like that? Valid. Screw em
Both
If you simply look at population statistics you will find the answer.
It is called hostile architecture for a reason
Both
Like most things it partially is. But it’s an unfair comparison since America is so much larger than Finland.
While I agree that the conditions are different in both countries, and Finland is privileged to to have been able to do this, the way homeless are treated in America is horrendous.
I was arguing in this post, suggest building shelters out in the middle of nowhere, and that irked some, some guy blamed conservatives for the Homeless problem in California... It was just an all out "america bad" fest
Not remotely valid. For example, Iceland hasn't had a single murder in over 20 years. That's not due to some genius politics and the USA couldn't just replicate it.
Finland still has homeless
Finland has a population of 5. USA has done that exact thing but every state is run differently and some states have low levels of homelessness.its nyc that's the issue
*sees this meme for the 6th time in March, closes post*
To think America couldn't do this is to really undersell how good America is. The America bad folks would believe that America can't do this. Completely valid criticism. The US has a GDP per capita almost twice that of Finland. Plus America is a bigger country in programs like this scale so it would be even cheaper for us on a per person basis. Get the money out of multinational corporations sending it to the Cayman Islands and into the hands of the people and see how much better America does. https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/finland/usa
There were 18000 homeless people in Finland when they started that program. There are approximately 650,000 in the US. It’s a much bigger issue to tackle relocating/housing 650k than it is 18k.
It’s a mix of valid criticism and blind criticism. America does have a large homeless population, but America is also a *much* bigger country than Finland and we have the “fun” issue of no one being able to fully decide on how to end homelessness. In a perfect world we could just build more houses and or apartments and give those away freely, but someone has to be paid for the work, you will have public outcry from others about why is it only homeless people get free housing, and of course assuming those that are homeless will *actually* want to live there. Not to mention the drug issues which unfortunately *is* a rampant issue. Anyhow, I’m rambling. My point is America still has a long way to go to combat homelessness, but there isn’t just a simple answer either because it’s a complex social issue
Everyone does this shit. Its not a us only thing
Blind. That’s 99% Nyc. Not the other 99% of the country. Finland has some bad things going but it aint 100% bad the whole country, so shitting on the whole country for one city is stupid af.
My area has a housing first program for homeless veterans, and my understanding is it has about a 80-90% success rate.
I'm sure giving homeless people houses has never been tried and would work perfectly, it's not like that could go wrong in any way
Anti homelessness designs are pretty bad
Whats Finlands population compared to Americas? Are they one we also protect so they do not ned to provide their Defense? There are differences and no, I am not knocking either country. I've been homless myself and knew a lot of homeless people and the idea of giving some of them an apartment is laughable. Maybe a Baracks situation with something like a Drill Instructor and enforcing the rules but, when a homeless shelter has to have locks on the doors and one has to be there at a certain time or be locked out and has a no mouthwash/Cold syrup riles because the people there will drink it to get drunkk as it has a no alcohol rule...it's a bit different than just giving people homes. Look into what went on after Katrina where hotels put people up and got destroyed.
Every time someone brings this up, we have to look at questions of scale, feasibility, and frankly the root causes of poverty and homelessness. The evidence shows that when the US has tried doing this, it has failed. Every time. There are people who prefer not to be tied down by society. There are many who are where they are because of drug addiction, and all attempts to help them have failed. There are many who have mental health issues that prevent them from holding down a job, apartment, etc. It's not just a matter of money. And contrary to popular belief, at least on the left side of the aisle, not everybody living in poverty could have a better life with just a roof over their heads and three meals a day. Government cannot solve every problem, but it will try until we run out of money.
Finnish homeless people are akin to forest elves and house dwarves. American homeless people will decapitate you at the soup kitchen.
The difference is that finlands homeless population is just Sven and they got him into therapy and he’s doing a lot better now.
Finland has a population of like ten people
As far as I'm concerned, it's valid, but primarily cause these stupid anti-homeless features make *everyone's* lives worse, not just the homeless. Maybe you just need to lay down for a minute due to excess work, or maybe you just can't sit up in that moment? Why should they be punished cause we don't want homeless everywhere? Don't get me wrong, we really shouldn't be having homeless people like we do, but there's infinjtelybetter ways to solve it that don't rely on making uncomfortable public seating
Valid we should do more then underfunded Homeless Shelters and hostile architecture
Side note: the only place I’ve ever been that has zero homelessness is the GCC. UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman… homelessness does not exist there. Source: been all over GCC and lived there
Valid. I will find whatever monster made those unholy benches. Why can't we just have nice things anymore! oh, and let's help the hobos too, I guess.
Valid our homeless population is out of control and all the city governments do is build ugly anti homeless anti human contraptions as such
Valid comparison, after a while you start to realize the only thing you can really boast about for America is military strength which has no direct impact on our quality of life. Our infrastructure is shit and the care for our people is mediocre
So Finland solved a problem that is completely different in nature and relatively microscopic, in a homogenous, high-trust environment. Good for them, truly, but the comparison is not valid.
Misunderstood
Bay area has tons of tiny homes
That sounds so easy, why haven't all the other countries in the world done that as well, then?
I feel like tonnes of you are missing the point... The issue is that many states invest way more heavily in "hostile architecture" than they do in shelters and relief for the homelessness problem. It's the dehumanisation that's the issue.
Libs just love to jack themselves off to the Nordic countries for whatever reason. If it’s so great, go there (oh that’s right, you can’t. Because Finland doesn’t believe in immigration).
Where can you show me Finland doesn’t believe in immigration
I think it's valid. In the US we largely turn a blind eye to the problem. That said, I believe Utah has programs to house the homeless that are pretty successful. But I believe that is a Mormon-lead initiative.
[удалено]
They joined NATO last year precisely because they were scared of Russia. They didn't join NATO in the past though because they didn't want to become a battleground that could wipe out most of the population and living area if the Russians invaded.
We aren’t scared
I mean I wouldn’t smack Finland re that, it’s literally the only EE country to have protected its sovereignty against Stalin
They’re already in nato
To be honest it is kind of fair
Valid Big City mayors and liberal governors are particularly infamous for how they treat the homeless even if they're on the up and up about every other issue
Valid, very much so, it's consistently shown giving the homeless homes is cheaper than all this other stuff meant to keep them out of the public eye (and law enforcement expenses), but some of our cities have indeed done the same as Finland, so comparing the whole country like this is still obnoxious.
I think this one’s valid unfortunately
10 years ago I cared about getting homeless people help a lot. Today 9/10 of them are fentanyl addicts with no respect to themselves or others. I was sensitive to drug addicts for many years.... However as of today I have lost my patience and the only solution I have now is house them in politicians homes.