• bitsplease@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This has always felt like one of those arguments that just kicks the can.

    Yes, there are 100% some homeless people who are in such a bad place that they’d outright refuse a home even if you gave it to them free of charge (or would immediately sell it for drug money/burn it down because it’s filled with alien Spyware or something), but I’d wager that if you actually gave a lot of these people a stable home, and food in their fridge so they weren’t literally fighting for their lives on the street, they’d be able to self improve a lot more than people give them credit for.

    A lot of homeless are just people who had one bad turn after another and are just unable to break the cycle because our system really isn’t built to let them do so. I think we should also be providing mental Healthcare and addiction support to these people, but saying that should come before giving them a sense of stability and safety is ass backwards imo

    • azimir@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Other countries are being more aggressive about providing housing for the unhoused. Notably, Finland has been putting people in sponsored housing since the late 80’s. The net result is a rapidly decreasing unhoused population. Most of the people who are given homes get on their feet, get the kinds of support they need, and reach a good place in life. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/how-finland-solved-homelessness

      Many articles title it that Finland has “solved” homlessness, which isn’t 100% true, but the approach has been wildly successful compared to most other nation’s strategies.