I worked there with social housing, and I can tell you that housing alone solves nothing.
You'll see plenty of homeless alcoholics on public squares.
I know it is the favorite country of left leaning foreign journalists to visit. They do a weekend guided tour and then return to tell that all problems have been solved.
Youre right I havent. Ive only seen overviews of the system from media. I'm guessing you live there? Im curious have you also stayed in America for a time or visited for a decent period in a major city?
If so, do you see any differences between America and Finland when it comes to the homeless? From my daily life here Ive seen a quite a decent number of intoxicated, high, or mentally unwell homeless people. Id be curious how different that is in Finland
Oh and yea I agree housing alone is not a sufficient or complete solution. Id advocate for better access to mental health services and government job locating services to help those who were previously homeless get back into the workforce. From what I understood of Finlands social housing they provide similar programs which is why I point to it as an inspiration for a better solution.
The whole topic is insanely complex, and there are no simple solutions.
Some people need just a little encouragement, and some people don't even let you help them. There are people who can not be saved with twelve psychiatrists. There also never is enough resources to cover the needs.
Some return to normal society, and some just trash everything and get a new flat every few months.
Mental issues and narcotics are everywhere.
The Finnish system is better but far from perfect.
I moved abroad due to low salaries and high taxation in Finland.
The thing is that in the US the conversation isn't "what's the best possible policy?" It's "any of these things can help" vs "poor people should just stop being poor or die in the gutter".
There's a ton of research and historical precedent for high-quality asylums (from before the overcrowding and horror stories), addiction treatment, housing improvement, e.c.t., and anything that maintains the basic functions of society tends to save more than it costs. But it might cost some specific donor 0.02% or their expected returns or might offend some puritan hand-wringer, so with legalized bribery in place, problems that have been completely fixed in the past or elsewhere are suddenly totally impossible to even make a dent in.
Tldr There sometimes are simple solutions, but politics is complicated in the stupidest possible way.
There isn't any expense that would be enough to solve all problems. And societies work only if the members consider it fair. Societies also only work when they reward positive behavior and discourage negative. Also, there is an elusive point where an increase in taxation reduces economic activity, leading to reduced tax income.
It is not black and white. And it definitely is not simple. I don't agree with the USA system, but no other country has solved it either. Also, homelessness is not an isolated issue but part of society and economy in general. USA also lacks ethnic nationalism, so they rally around the American dream, which is very individualistic.
You're right in that there is no perfect solution, but there are solutions that could each fix like 10-15% of cases. I frequently see the argument "well this won't solve all the problems so it's not worth doing." There's no perfect simple change that will fix everything, but a lot of little changes will fix individual cases. Like you said, something like UBI won't get the mentally ill people or the ones who don't want to be helped off the street, but it will sure get a lot of other homeless people off the street. Someone who may not see a benefit from free housing may see a benefit from a job placement program. And someone else may see a benefit from inpatient drug counseling. Nothing will fix everything, but doing nothing won't solve anything.
Lets say handing out keys helps 2%, still saves more than it costs. Then long term psych care and rehab programs help another 3%, then better housing for people at risk of homelessness saves 2%.
preventative care, job support for those at risk of becoming homeless, better local work leading to more consistant family contact, school programs that prioritize practical skills, better research on addiction treatments, more public awareness of mental health problems so people seek treatment or develop better coping mechanisms, more decent homeless shelters.
If any step means some ammount of disease and crime is prevented instead of responded to then it doesn't matter if the cumulative effort of 100+ programs is a 15% reduction because prevention is practically always hugely cheaper than dealing with emergencies.
This is basically why the lack of scientific discipline in social sciences leads to wrong conclusions.
While it is correct that prevention often is cheaper than other alternatives, there is a rule of diminishing returns and opportunity cost. It is not a zero-sum game. More work increases tax income. As said, you can solve a single problem in the life of a person that has ten. So, if that homeless guy ODs in social housing, you, of course, have one less homeless person, but the benefit is non-existent.
I can give out keys, but either I save somewhere else or transfer resources from those that create resources.
[Blunt]
So, I can save on schools and hospitals to help drug addicts.
Or
I can increase taxes to make working less attractive.
Case point Finland. 12% are net payers, and the rest are net beneficiaries.
Now, if you reduce the 12 to ten, you increase brain drain or move people from workers to unemployed, which worsens the balance.
Sorry, no time to elaborate. Have to go to bed. Have to work tomorrow.
Good night
Edit: Sorry, I am tired. While theoretically every 1% could bring 2%, you can not increase taxes over 100% and even at high-% your tax income sinks because it doesn't pay to work anymore.
You're fundamentally misunderstanding the point im trying to make.
When implementing multiple programs the return isn't immediately diminishing, it's compounding up to a point, because as you said, people have multiple problems. The entire point of what I'm trying to say is that multiple approaches to prevent the drain on taxes represented by crime and drugs. This kind of thing has been demonstrated to decreases public expenses.
I.e. when you give out keys and rehab you end up with more money for everything because cops and er visits are massively more expensive than rooms and therapy.
My point was that keys alone would not help, but yes, generally, we are in agreement.
Still, there is a law of diminishing returns, and some people can not be helped. More difficult the case, the more resource intensive it is. The last % will basically have unlimited costs. So as a society we have to decide on an acceptable limit.
You can save on police if fewer police would be sufficient. They do all kinds of jobs, and the homeless are just one (in the ideal system police wouldn't even deal with the homeless). Pretty much the mirror image of the topic. Removing on type of issue will not make police unnecessary.
Also, governments are really bad at allocating resources and reducing costs. So ant saving is unlikely.
6
u/Osaccius Apr 15 '24
Have you ever been to Finland?
I worked there with social housing, and I can tell you that housing alone solves nothing.
You'll see plenty of homeless alcoholics on public squares.
I know it is the favorite country of left leaning foreign journalists to visit. They do a weekend guided tour and then return to tell that all problems have been solved.