Hacker News Reader

You also have to question why they're addicted.

If I flee from my abusive parent, end up on the streets, with nothing to do and no hope and eventually turn to drink to blot out the deep untreated depression, should I be housed or vilified?

"so she probably doesn't want to work or get better"

Wow. Or doesn't know how whilst sunk in depression, or without losing the demons of 20 years of abuse or PTSD. Just as seen with ex services people who fight PTSD for years.

The trouble with "common sense" restrictions and limits is people often don't magically fix from depression, addiction, PTSD in neat allotted time windows. I would far rather have the world return to the British System (1900-1960s drug policy: "treat, discourage, but prescribe". Prior to the adoption of a US style war on drugs around 1970 we effectively had no drug problem. No policeman believed there was a link between drugs and crime.).

You may not be aware of this but many people in gainful employment are drinking or taking drugs, and addicted. Should they be thrown out of their mortgaged properties?

I contend it's cheaper and better for society to offer solutions unconditionally. Offer help for addiction, rough sleeping, PTSD, depression. Less crime, less violence, fewer police needed, fewer health emergencies etc.

I think you may not have read my comment properly.

I said I support the fact that people should get housing if they need it.

However what I said was that they should help them get off the drugs, help them with their depression and help them get better and do some training so that they can actually get out of the state housing and move into their own place once they have saved enough money.

The problem I have is that in the article, the lady is an alcoholic, she does not want to get better. She says it herself, she is happy to go to her room and get hammered. Does that sound like somebody who is trying to turn their life around?

So yes I stand by what I said in my previous comment, if addicts get free housing, in exchange they should at least try to get clean. They should at least try to get some kind of job, training, whatever. Because doing something is always better than not. And it certainly is better than getting drunk every day.

If they are not willing to do that even though they, as the article said, have access to staff and carers that can help them, then yes, in this case, I do believe that priority should be given to single mom and kids, or teenagers.

As for this: `You may not be aware of this but many people in gainful employment are drinking or taking drugs, and addicted. Should they be thrown out of their mortgaged properties?`

What does that have to do with anything??? Did I say that anywhere in my comment?

`I contend it's cheaper and better for society to offer solutions unconditionally. Offer help for addiction, rough sleeping, PTSD, depression.`

That's exactly what I said with one small caveat, which is that given the fact that housing is a finite resource, if somebody is living in a free room/apartment and do not want to even try to change/get clean, then this room should be given to somebody who actually wants to get out of this awful situation.

Otherwise, you end up with a lot of people using up a lot of resources when those resources could be spent on people who actually want to turn around their life and get better.

To me, that doesn't sound fair that the first group gets housing and not the second.

It should not be conditional though. Both the single mum and the ageing alcoholic should get provision, not either/or.

Provide everyone with a room, it need not be luxurious, just basic enough to allow needs to be met. To be clean, warm and dry. Realistically a 64 year old isn't going to get much chance of a job. A couple of sentences in the article give no insight into the background. Who knows the history or cause of that addiction. Though I still feel it irrelevant to housing, while very relevant to a working treatment. No amount of "turning around" is going to see her getting housed without some level of outside assistance, just a year or two before retirement.

What's the alternative, leave her to age and die, and probably suffer worse health outcomes, with more cost to the state, on the streets?

I briefly alluded to the British System[1], it was once globally famous. Addicts were offered treatment, but prescribed free heroin or whatever. They could be an addict and hold down a job, perhaps support a family. There was literally no need to push drugs, or commit crime to support a habit - that came after their outlawing.

To imagine it in combination with this housing first policy, I would expect it to see everyone housed. Then everyone offered help (counselling for abuse or PTSD, addiction treatment, AA, anti-depressants, mental conditions or whatever's needed and just as would be offered to the population at large). Then allow them to choose, with encouragement rather than compulsion to take up those treatments.

I made the comment about people in gainful employment being addicted as you seemed, and still seem, to be suggesting that the housing be conditional. Which is then not housing first, but housing maybe if deserving enough.

Housing is indeed finite, but it's not so rare or expensive that Helsinki (or London, or NYC etc) can't provide enough single apartments to ensure that sleeping on a park bench or in a tent under a bridge is a memory of an unimaginable former time. Like child labour, workhouses, corn laws or rickets. There aren't so many homeless that it's remote and unachievable, or unaffordable. Then we can try and help resolve some of the issues that might have landed them homeless in the first place.

With that all said, either variation would be a huge step forward from ignoring the problem. :)

[1] https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/yw4nnk/when-boots-prescri...

>I contend it's cheaper and better for society to offer solutions unconditionally.

>That's exactly what I said with one small caveat

unconditionally means no caveats....

I think it’s hard for someone who isn’t homeless to appreciate how important it is to have a home you can rely on. I can’t imagine how much harder it would be to kick an addiction if you have the extra stress of knowing that if you fail to live up to X standard, not only will you have failed to have quit, but you’ll get kicked out to the street as well.

I believe most people want to be contributing members of society. In the short run, maybe some people have no interest, but that gets old fast. And I would much rather that one person who wants to turn their life around is able to, even if it means that 10 people who are content to wallow in addiction live in a clean, safe place where they don’t have to piss on the subway stairs off of my tax dollars.

It's much cheaper to house the homeless than leave them on the streets.

https://shnny.org/research/the-cost-of-long-term-homelessnes...

Only under a bizarre set of assumptions. We could not give them free housing while also not giving them free medical care.

We could also measure cost by "this is what the hospital spent on the homeless" as opposed to "this is what the hospital would have billed had the homeless had any money". Your source doesn't specify how costs were measured.

>Only under a bizarre set of assumptions. We could not give them free housing while also not giving them free medical care.

Why not? It seems bizarre to non US citizens that you could even think about not giving some healthcare that you give free housing.

Imagine how hard it is to stop an addiction.

Now imagine how much harder it is if you're living on the street. It makes simple things (eg attend an appointment on $DAY at $TIME at $PLACE) much much harder.

I've never had a problem with alcohol or drugs, but I know I'd be an addict if I lived on the streets just to make it tolerable.

>In the article, the lady who is alcoholic says she can just keep drinking in her room, so she probably doesn't want to work or get better. In this case, I would much rather have her room go to a single mum struggling with her kids or to somebody who actually wants to do something with their lives.

Why not for all of them if it's the cheapest option in the long run?

So you would find it fair that she should be required to freeze to death on the streets if she will not go through treatment for her addiction?

"Rough sleepers have been almost eradicated in the Midwest"

This particular woman is in Helsinki.

I have no idea how anyone could look at homeless people and think, “what they really need is a bit more suffering to finally get their act together”.

As an actual attempt to convince you of the value of even poor people’s lives, I invite you to consider if homelessness could possibly seen as a disease more than any personal lack of virtue. The view has somewhat changed wrt drug dependency (thanks white people on opioids), and there is ample evidence that schizophrenia is widespread among the homeless.

There have also been some recent studies that a rather large fraction of homeless people had experienced head trauma before becoming homeless. The rate was something like 30% (vs. 3% among the general population).

Finally, the “tough love, minus actual love” approach is obviously the status quo. To insist on a failed strategy just to satisfy some moral standard/sadistic instinct seems indefensible. The worst part is that people are obviously willing to incur far larger costs in the criminal justice system, through crimes themselves, and the inconvenience to actually see these people they thoroughly despise/fear: they are willing to pay extra, as long as they are assured the money does not possibly help anyone.

Consider any other scenario where you’re trying to get people to behave in certain ways: parenting, dog training, employment reviews, etc: if you’re beating the crap out of your child twice weekly for being difficult, would you expect their behavior to improve?

> I have no idea how anyone could look at homeless people and think, “what they really need is a bit more suffering to finally get their act together”.

As a person who used to eat with the homeless every day in London, I absolutely do.

There is so much opportunity for lazy and stupid people, especially in the West. A large proportion of the people lining up with me for food from the Hare Krishna people (and a local Christian church too) in Holborn were rude, entitled, and lazy.

If kids were brought up with a little more discipline, they might become adults who appreciate hard graft. If this were true in London and that discipline were implemented, half the people in that food line wouldn't be there.

Maybe that's why I rarely see homeless people in Poland.

They work.

Wow, this is... quite something.

It just doesn’t make that much sense: if homeless life in London is so excellent, have you ever considered taking it up?

And because, of course, you didn’t: if you really believe it’s just their lazy choice, what’s the difference between you (and me) and them that we would rather work a few hours five days a week instead of spending winter nights outside in the London rain?

As to why you see fewer homeless in Poland:

- draconian laws banning these people from the streets (a practice most western countries consider a violation of some principles like just basic decency)

- London happens to be a magnet for homeless people. Because the only thing worse than being homeless in the city is being homeless in rural areas

- London and UK rents are something like 5x those in Poland

- Poland’s homeless population tends to do that “digital nomad” thing, only without the MacBook. I. e. they prefer southern France, Berlin, or, yes, London

- Poland tends to still have families living together, making it more likely that the cousin with schizophrenia is cared for within the family, instead of becoming homeless

Some of your points seem to be based on the assumption that I'm tarring everyone with the same brush. That shouldn't be the case; I don't think all the homeless in London are just lazy.

> if homeless life in London is so excellent, have you ever considered taking it up?

It's not excellent. That's why I'm not doing it. The fact that it is not excellent was a motivator for me to work harder and make better life choices.

This contrasts with the woman mentioned in the article who is happy with her free home because she can continue being an alcoholic.

> what’s the difference between you (and me) and them that we would rather work a few hours five days a week instead of spending winter nights outside in the London rain?

Attitude, mostly. I can't speak on your behalf, but I would have taken any job at the time. In fact, I did. I've worked several shitty jobs. Some people (including my fellow Hare Krishna free-street-food patrons) believe they're above certain kinds of work.

> London and UK rents are something like 5x those in Poland

This is an argument for more affordable housing, not for free houses. I certainly agree with a greater housing supply. In general, I am in support of improving people's opportunities of self-determination, rather than just giving people free stuff.

> Poland tends to still have families living together, making it more likely that the cousin with schizophrenia is cared for within the family, instead of becoming homeless

That is true, but I'm not such how it makes a case for either argument. If it's just to downplay my point about the Polish generally having a different attitude to work, then yes, I think that's a reasonable point, though our discussion is completely unscientific and there are no numbers to suggest how much of each is true.

Apparently rough sleepers from other European countries are over represented in London at 30% (not judging them btw, just the facts) so I'd say it's not a simple matter of 'work ethic':

https://www.nao.org.uk/naoblog/growing-number-of-rough-sleep...

Thanks for adding some data; that’s certainly useful.

From the article, the data show a high proportion of rough sleepers abusing substances. I would lump this in together with work ethic.

You may want to re-read my comment because I don't think you understood what I wrote.

This is not though love. What I am talking about is incentives. In exchange for free housing, you should at least try to get clean/ do some training/ do something.

To expect that society should provide free meals/housing without even the possibility of asking addicts to get clean does not sound fair to me.

Priority should be given to people who are at least trying to turn around their lives.

So yes I stand by what I said, I think a single mum with kids, a scared teenager/ somebody down on their luck should get free housing. Addicts should have access to care, to treatment, to food to everything that a human being deserves but they should at least try to get clean.

if they won't don't want to then priority should be given to somebody else.

Drug addiction already comes with so many negative side affects that you don't need the added incentive of potentially losing access to housing. If I offered you lifetime room and board in return for a crippling heroin addiction would you take that offer? If not, why not?

Off the top of my head, there are already some fantastic incentives to not be a drug addict such as:

- Massive social stigma and alienation from everyone in your life

- Irreversible mental health issues

- Serious physical health issues (often death)

- The impossibility of doing anything productive or fulfilling