[Bostonian]

"Those affected by homelessness receive a small apartment and counselling – without any preconditions."

I doubt it will work in Finland in the long run, and even if it does, Finland and the U.S. have very different populations. Most Americans work to put a roof over their head, and it's unfair to them to "unconditionally" give some people housing. It's also a big disincentive to work. The current unemployment rate is 3.5%. There are homeless shelters to prevent people from freezing to death, but that's very different from giving someone their own apartment. Millions of people would love a "small apartment" in Manhattan or San Francisco but cannot afford to live there. Are you going to allocate the apartments to people who are not contributing to society?

[netsharc]

Freaking hell, "Sorry, you'll have to sleep outside, I can't let you sleep in this warm house and bed, because it wouldn't be fair to others.".

You probably have a meritocratic view of the world (as many Americans do), that hard work will lead to success. If you believe that, you logically would have to believe the opposite: the people failing failed because they are lazy. But you are discounting luck or upbringing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTDGdKaMDhQ . Imagine someone becoming homeless after being dumped by their partner. Or not being able to afford doctor's bills and also losing their job after taking too many sick days (this is not relevant to Finland, since that doesn't happen there, but it is in the US).

And from the article, doesn't sound like the Finns will just let someone stay in such an apartment and be jobless and bum around:

> The result is impressive: 4 out of 5 homeless people will be able to keep their flat for a long time with “Housing First” and lead a more stable life.

So that means 1 in 5 fail to reach that stable life and lose their flat again. As the article also says, their policy is actually cheaper compared to what you think is "fair", they let the homeless have somewhere to sleep, so they can start worrying about the next thing in their lives, which is probably getting a job. Imagine how shitty it is trying to find a job if you're mostly worried about where to sleep, shower, or shit, daily.

[Bostonian]

You ignored what I wrote, "There are homeless shelters to prevent people from freezing to death, but that's very different from giving someone their own apartment."

[netsharc]

Fine. And I think I (and 1 or 2 other replies to your comment) have also addressed that a homeless shelter is not sufficient to put someone on a stable path to return to being a "productive member of society" (all hail capitalism, for productivity is the goal of life).

Or what do you want me to address in regards to this sentence? That you're not that heartless, because hey, the homeless in your world won't freeze to death, they can go to the shelter. Despite the fact that you think actually helping them long term by offering them the apartment (which the article says is cheaper than taking care of them as they remain homeless) and a path to normal life, that's just too much, and unfair?

[retrac]

> It's also a big disincentive to work.

Being homeless is also a big disincentive to work.

Despite the occasional feel-good story you may see in the news about a homeless person (almost invariably a physically and mentally healthy young man) finding work and getting off the street, in reality it's almost impossible to go from rough-sleeping to holding down employment long enough to establish a home.

You smell, your clothes are dirty, everything is riddled with bedbugs, you're probably not properly nourished, you're exhausted, you're probably in physical pain, and most of your time is used up with things like walking to the next soup kitchen for your next meal.

The stability of being properly housed is, for most people, a necessary precursor for holding down work.

[ahelwer]

So would you say you're happy & satisfied to live in a society where people must work under threat of dying in the streets? Try to imagine a better world. People should work because they choose to, not at gunpoint.

I don't feel it's unfair that someone is given a house, even though I "worked for it" (among many other factors which culminated in my not being homeless). Would you mind unpacking why you feel that way?

[Bostonian]

"People should work because they choose to, not at gunpoint."

Ultimately taxes are collected at gunpoint too, and collecting more taxes to pay for free apartments for the homeless and other welfare spending means more coercion.

[ahelwer]

Here, let me help you: try to imagine a society in which you want to live, not a random bunch of ideas like "taxation is theft at gunpoint" without regard to where that would lead.

[SamReidHughes]

A more just society, where if you choose not to work, you don’t eat.

[RodgerTheGreat]

Some people have inherited wealth, and choose not to work. Why do the circumstances of their birth make them entitled to a more comfortable life than anyone else? Luck isn't justice.

Some people are physically incapable of working. Would it be just for them to die?

Advances in automation continue to magnify the productivity of our workers. Many jobs have already been consigned to history forever with simple machines. One day, we may hardly need anyone to work at all to satisfy our consumption.

Our society already generates a surplus of all the necessities of life; there is no innate physical reason why it must be structured as a zero-sum game.

[SamReidHughes]

It's not structured as a zero-sum game.

Unless you take money from some people and give it to people who don't feel like working. That would be zero-sum.

[splitrocket]

Your premise is incorrect: it originated in the US and is the single most effective, lowest cost method we have to address homelessness[1].

It is, in fact, cheaper than shelter [2].

"People not contributing to society"? Really? Perhaps if they had a home they could get a job? I invite you to go to an actual homeless shelter near you and talk to the people there. Ask them what it's like to try to find a job while living in a shelter.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First#Evidence_and_out... [2] https://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/resources/lessons/...

[mnm1]

They're different because they have compassion and empathy? Yeah we could have that too if this toxic, hateful, cruel attitude you describe didn't exist.

[geofft]

Yes.