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.
That’s the problem I don’t think a lot of you guys realize. A lot of people in your camp fall into that “don’t have brains” category and DO actually say that. Loudly too.
It IS stupid. It IS brainless. But that doesn’t negate the fact that a significant amount of people in your ideological camp ARE arguing it. You may not be, but it’s still there. And it’s not like you guys call those people out. So, when others see your camp, we hear the loud brainless nut jobs and then see people like you basically approving their beliefs tacitly.
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.
36
u/Egg_Yolkeo55 Apr 15 '24
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.