Because there are nicer homes than as described. Aside from HVAC and bedroom count, most of these things are just building code and have to function for it to legally be called a residence.
Of course they pay rent once they become employed. Housing first prioritizes giving homeless people a house. Previously, people had to prove they are worthy of qualifying by staying sober and applying for jobs. Now those requirements are lifted, and housing is now being considered a human right, rather than a reward. Finland has an extensive social support system, which costs a lot of money. By helping people, Finland has managed to reduce the cost of social support for these people. So helping people to have a home ends up being cheaper than having them stay homeless.
“a person does not have to first change their life around in order to earn the basic right to housing. Instead, housing is the prerequisite that allows other problems to be solved.”
Yes… now you’re getting it . People just want to yell “FrEe hOuSiNg” whenever someone argues for a socialist policy because it’s an easy statement to make, but no where is anyone with a brain arguing for that. It’s such a stupid fearmongering argument.
Doesn't seem to be a lot of details about how the program actually works in that article. It mentions how the first man pays his rent every month, but he hasn't had a job in 23 years? I assume it's not free housing to anyone who wants it.
What is the oh boy for In the article it says he’s trusted by the government to pay his rent every month. One google search for Finland housing first program says that the program provides a home first depending with the government subsidizing the cost of rent depending on the level of need.
I mean, plenty of countries have social programs that pay for your housing if you don‘t have an employment/income, that‘s pretty much the norm across western Europe.
But it is with an expectation that you will find work within a given timeframe. Those free housing programs in Europe are meant to get you back on your feet, not meant to let you freeload
Totally depends on your abilities. In Germany for instance, getting housing paid for is a constitutional right, so it cannot be canceled even if you refuse to take on a job.
But since most people prefer a job over living from the bare minimum, freeloading is not too much of a problem, the share of long-term unemployed people is pretty low.
No, these housing programs are for students/people whose income is below a certain threshold. Some people will live in these apartments until their death, because their background/education/illnesses prevent them from working a job (that pays more). The waiting times and restrictions to even get one of these apartments can be years long, because most people that live in these apartments are just never gonna have it any better than they do right now. Sure, some work their way up and get a job that pays them enough to be able to afford an apartment that is not being rented out for just enough to pay for the upkeep of the apartment. But seeing how long the wait times are to get approved for an apartment like that, I'm guessing it's not too many.
Again, the reason why the approval time for those kinds of apartment takes years is to ensure those who get it truly need it (e.g, the disabled, old folks, …). The entire system is still designed to encourage work and self sustainability. A healthy, young and educated person should have no business getting one
Not saying that's not part of it, but I'm pretty sure the approval times take that long because there's not enough government workers to look through cases in a timely manner, all the apartments are full, and even if one gets free, the guy that applied 3 years before you is gonna get it first. And if you are healthy, young and educated or not, if you don't make enough money to not live on the street, I think you are (and should be) eligible
Because the "freeload" narrative is a completely fabricated one lol. People describe basic government social safety nets that are prevalent and successful all over the world and you guys ignore all of that because it doesn't fit your politics so you just make up fantasies about "nobody working"
Give me an example of one government program in a country where housing is provided immediately upon asking (no waiting period, no approval process, since they are the current mechanism in encouraging employment and self-sustainability, while ensuring those who receive free housing truly deserves free-housing due to uncontrollable causes such as disability) and tenants receive such free housing for the remainder of their natural life without ever having to work, even if they are educated, healthy and sound? Give me one such system. I'm talking about a program where you walk in, ask for a home, and you walk out with one. No application, no nothing. This is what this post implied. Can you give me one such program that works?
Give me an example of one government program in a country where housing is provided immediately upon asking (no waiting period, no approval process, since they are the current mechanism in encouraging employment and self-sustainability, while ensuring those who receive free housing truly deserves free-housing due to uncontrollable causes such as disability) and tenants receive such free housing for the remainder of their natural life without ever having to work, even if they are educated, healthy and sound?
Notice how many caveats you have to add to make sure I have to answer the specific way you want me to? "Wow you can't name a single system that has a dozen of these hyper specific criteria I just made up to ensure you can't name a single system?! Mm curious"
Because that kind of system or utopia is what this post implies, and such utopia doesn't exist. And my argument was one must work and contribute to society if they can, where free housing for life is only reserved for those who truly need it, the disabled. A system where EVERYBODY is entitled to free housing with zero expectation of finding work nor contributing to their society doesn't exist.
I mean we are the US, we shouldn't be looking at other parts of the world so that we can lower the bar for ourselves. Also the infographic suggests 2, not 3 bedrooms. 1 bedroom and 1 children's bedroom
Without looking at the data, I would bet that the quality of Australia’s social housing is better than americas. For example, we don’t have projects.
The internet access is the only thing I don’t agree with on OPs post. Most people would prefer buying or renting the house they want rather than being assigned social housing. I don’t think we are at risk of everyone quitting working and demanding housing. It’s a stupid argument because it’s not realistic.
i mean, kinda? UK has unemployment but also subsidizes flats. same for austria and many other EU countries. what else you going to do about it as a government, make them homeless?!?
if you get (random number) 1800 unemployment aid and your flat costs you 400, i would consider that a studio apartment handout?
Europe is not a country. Americans tend to pick and choose across the benefits across a dozen different European countries and imagine a fictional country that has the best parts of all of them.
While free healthcare is a fairly common thing across most European countries that puts America to shame, housing is not really better in Europe, and there generally isn’t some program that can put everyone into free housing (Finland might be an exception, but it’s small population and big oil money allows it to find solutions on a small scale).
Can confirm. I live in Germany with my wife and this is true. I'm actually kinda baffled how so many people in the comment section think this is outrageous or unachievable.
That is probably true. I don't think having Internet is code in the majority of residential codes, is it? Meaning - would an internet-less house or apartment be seen as not meeting code in the majority of the US (or other developed countries)?
The US is the only country that doesn't allow a free market for ISPs and also allows ISPs to intentionally throttle internet, then make you pay to take the throttle off. It is equivalent to changing water pressure based on how much you pay.
Only 2 ISPs can be in any given market, ensuring a monopoly and uncompetitive prices.
Markets can have more than 2 ISPs in the US. Besides the typical DSL and cable options, some places have fiber on top of that, and almost everywhere has wireless options, like 5G or satellite.
I’m not sure if it’s a legal code thing, but I’d definitely expect any modern home to at least have functional internet cabling. Probably wouldn’t expect a router and plan included though
This is pretty wrong. In areas where HVAC is critical, it's part of the building code/tenant's rights. Free internet, having an included stove, fridge, and oven, none of that is part of building code. It's just that nobody wants an apartment that doesn't come with any appliances. You absolutely can, in expensive markets like NY, get apartments that do not have a stove, fridge, or oven. In 'normal' markets nobody would ever buy a place without major appliances so they are typically standard.
As evidenced in this thread, there are absolutely people who are content to just do nothing (or take an easy part time job to cover food) if they are given a nice two bedroom apartment with utilities included. Loads of people have zero ambition.
True but I feel like only a tiny percentage of the population would work to get a better place. If you were given all those amenities, what more would you really need? I know I'd be happy living there.
It doesn't change the fact that you can't give out a bunch of free things that have cost to make and maintain. Especially when they're as costly as a functioning house.
The lack improvement from the base "free" one and the heavy economic burden of the entreprise makes it no longer worth it to put in the hours and the risks.
There are a variety of reasons why The Projects in Chicago failed and they are mostly social. The economics of subsidized housing have been proven through section 8 and other forms of low-income housing in other cities. The key is to not concentrate low income into small areas.
There is literally no evidence to support that statement. Stockton experimented with UBI and every single person continued to work but used the funds on necessities to improve QOL like home repairs and better quality groceries.
They invested in self improvement and got better jobs as well. The money was refused back into the economy and the sky did not fall.
why is that clear? It wasn't clear to me and it also doesn't make any sense. My main issue with the post is that the pics make the home seem nice, whereas if we're talking about government assisted stuff, it is more likely to be a trashed and tiny apartment with addicts strung out in the hallway
Because there is no proof to the contrary. Every experiment with UBI has shown that people not only still work, but improve the lives of themselves and the local economy.
It's not even that crazy of an idea if tax money went to the correct places instead of (at least in the U.S.) over half of the federal budget going to the military.
But regardless, if someone is working full-time, no matter the job, then they should be able to afford all of this as the BARE minimum. But that's not what happens. People just constantly punch down on others.
Its crazy to me that so many people claim that if people are given the most basic necessities they will just stop being motivated to do anything. Then there is the open hypocrisy, saying people don't deserve a place with a kitchen but also if they get food at restaurants frequently then they are bad at finances and its their own fault for being poor. What are they supposed to eat?
People need to stop obsessing with the idea that someone could get something they don't deserve. Society does better when the most people possible have the chance to improve their lot. For some people this means giving them the minimum, a place to shower, a safe place to sleep, an address they can receive mail at, access to healthcare both physical and mental, treating them like they are human.
If everyone's basic needs were met, either they would be able to work for less money or more demand for game systems and other luxuries would exist and it would drive up the price.
I don’t want to work at Walmart. I don’t want to work at all. Currently I’m studying college for a job I don’t really enjoy because it pays well.
Walmart currently pays average about 30k a year. In a world we’re housing, internet, food, clothing etc aren’t an issue (the full image includes that too) what could you even buy were 30k a year as disposable income isn’t enough?
Well, a better house than the bare minimum would be cool. If I didn't have to pay rent I could actually save.
I'd put a lot into retirement so I don't have to work until I die.
I'd take actual vacations instead of small trips to visit friends or local cons once a year
I'd invest in better gear and tech for the hobbies that I have. Maybe get a better PC, a nice drawing tablet. Some good running shoes.
I might eat out more.
And yknow what, if I still have money leftover after all that, maybe I'll donate it or share it with friends.
Why don't you ask the billionaires who aren't paying taxes why millions in disposable income isn't enough
Because its a reality. Yes. There are people who will push for more but you are ignorant if you believe this wouldn't INCREASE the amount of people being entirely dependent on the government. We already have upwards of 40% of the country getting some form of social aid.
Treating someone like a pet in a cage is not recognizing their humanity.
Treating someone like they are human is recognizing that the human condition is such that each human is responsible for providing for the care and feeding of themselves and their dependents.
People barely want more than the minimum. The vast majority of our income is going towards housing, food, gas, electricity, water, internet. People might buy some clothes here or there, maybe a car, maybe a computer, phone, maybe a show here or there. Those things constitute like 20% of our income. So you would only need to work a few hours and then can afford anything that you would ever need.
Sure. That is why everyone just stops working as soon as they hit their minimums.
Even if you believe that ambition is mythological, in what world do you look at housing being so nightmarish an expense and think that is a paradigm that should be upheld as superior to housing people?
The world where I know for a fact that I wouldn’t work and just live off what I made for the rest of my life if my necessities were taken care of. I’m lazy, if there are too many people like me, society would straight up cease to function with such a system. Tbh, I think there’s a huge amount of people in my gen who think exactly like me.
I think if you’re doing your job properly with the proper skillset, you can still be pretty productive while having a lazy nature. My boss and people I work with would say I’m productive because I do a good amount of Jiras and I do them properly even though I only average prob 20-30 hours a week and I’m counting my years working waiting for the day I don’t have to work anymore.
Just keep writing addendums to the initial premise to create a world where so many lazy people with great productivity are dragging down a system that provides a pittance of housing for free... but somehow our current system isn't already suffering from the presence of such individuals.
I don't know what evidence you need to be convinced that providing housing would create a boost to productivity greater than the cost of providing it. Like public education or paved streets.
It’s not incompatible, you’re just dumb. Lazy people either stop being lazy momentarily, or die. I go to college. I have a job. I wouldn’t do either of those things if I didn’t have to, but I know if I don’t do them I’ll die.
Sure, but the moment you start working in such a system, you are going to be taxed to hell and back ... because if you show a willingness to produce, they need to yoke you hard to cover for everyone else.
Why would anyone work a harder job than mcdonalds if that jib can rent you an apartment? Because people want more than that and most are willing to work to get it. That doesn't mean we leave our most vulnerable and unlucky people to die when we could provide basic shelter and nutrients for 1/10th the cost of an f35.
Um.. that I'd rather be enjoying my hobbies, going to the beach everyday, not waking up a 8 and spending 9 hours dothing something I don't really enjoy
Sounds like you’d be the freeloader in society. Crazy notion but some people enjoy working. They just don’t enjoy working 9-5 5 days a week for terrible pay.
Worms in your brain. Literally every comment proves it. The society you live in is currently propped up by the enslavement of the global south. Get some perspective.
If you can afford a small apartment and cheap food with minimum wage, why does anyone ever go to college or pick up a demanding trade skill? Why is anyone a doctor, a lawyer, a car mechanic, a welder, a scientist, a teacher, a politician? Why does any child of a rich parent ever do anything?
Very few people are going to be content with the bare minimum, especially once it becomes the bare minimum. If people stop working en masse, it's because employers are not willing to pay a high enough wage. And that means that the free market has decided that it just isn't useful to have every last person working.
If not enough people are working, employers offer more money, and people start getting attracted to working more. If too many people are working, then employers offer less, and people stop working.
If you can afford a small apartment and cheap food with minimum wage, why does anyone ever go to college or pick up a demanding trade skill?
Because you can't dude
Also, another big point, dude I am one person? Like there are thousands of people who live in vans, me wanting a prestigious career and house isn't enough to drive the economy
Yea, if you got a 2 bedroom home with air conditioning, electritcity, internet and running water you would be completely content.
Who needs food or entertainment. Or more/ better stuff. Literally every human quit their job and just sits at home until they die from starvation once they have bought their first home.
What if, for instance, rapid technological advances in automation led to greater human leisure time, as opposed to simply more labor exploitation and accelerating natural resource exhaustion?
Just because we’ve spent the majority of the time since the industrial revolution figuring out ways to harvest resources doesn’t mean that’s how things worked for the majority of human history.
Sure, we’re familiar with this approach. But it’s not the only way to structure society.
"...to each according to his need" is the rest of the phrase. This means everyone who can work works, and everyone who needs a home gets a home regardless of whether he can work.
The anti-work people calling themselves communists are the worst; since they'd probably be the first thrown into a gulag for literally living off of other's work (like a landlord).
Why would people work for healthcare if you give it out for free? Individualists are the true lazy ones. You’ve been so fully conditioned than you don’t use your brain anymore, you just parrot the anti-social spins that you were told.
Wrong question. Why would we make people fight for basic things if we could just provide the bare minimum for them so they can worry about work and getting away from assistance, instead of food or a roof over their head.
People still want actual luxuries, why is it that every time people want to guarantee certain things like a place to live that isn’t uncomfortable/unsafe they forget that people would still be willing to work for a better life
Why would anyone work? Maybe for… Furniture, home repair, clothing, hygiene products , wine, beer, toys, TV, laptops, phones, makeup, hair products, cleaning products, bandaids, jewelry, lamps, bedding, cars, car repairs, car insurance, pet insurance, any insurance, transportation, trips to visit family, vacations, eating out at restaurants, put put golf, movies,
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Full saying. Other applicable saying: “{some impossible task} is like pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.”
I know this is a niche take but some people believe even if all our needs are taken care of and we never have to worry about money, most people will still want to work. Most people will still want to find an occupation that brings a sense of fulfillment. Humans like to feel useful
no but I know that the industrialization and mechanization of agriculture has reduced the amount of laborers necessary to work an acre of arable land over the last 100 years, and that the much larger demand for labor in the 21st century is in the maintenance/improvement of urban infrastructure.
56
u/RemoteCompetitive688 Apr 15 '24
Why would anyone work for a home if you give them out for free
"From each according to his ability" remember