Hacker News Reader

Comment by 988747 | Hacker News Reader

I forsee a lot of people becoming "homeless" in the near future, so that they can get the free housing.

You should try reading the article instead of having an instant reaction to the headline alone. They don't simply give free houses to people who claim they don't have one.

Even if this is true, so what? All types of assistance will be gamed by a minority.

Please provide data to back this unfounded assertion.

There is nothing unfounded about the claim that people are driven by self-interest. What data is he/she supposed to produce for a new policy that is only going to show the full scope of its impact over 50 years?

EDIT, I'm being rate-limited, so I'll respond to the below here:

No, there is very clear negative correlation between economic growth and government spending levels:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170821004405/http://ime.bg/upl...

Calling it "wild speculation" is disingenuous given social welfare spending's well documented negative impact on economic efficiency, and the basic economic theory that predicts this outcome.

>>there are overwhelming examples of entitlement systems that are solvent and functional despite a level of free ridership.

The most commonly cited example, Scandinavia, shows the opposite of what's popularly believed:

https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/scandinavian-unexce...

>>Stop holding back progress with unconstructive and uneducated critiques of iterative improvements to the social safety net apparatus.

Stop taking it as a priori that any move toward your preferred economic system; social democracy, is progress, and any one who questions it is being "unconstructive and uneducated". It's a very emotional/unconstructive attitude to bring to a discussion of such importance.

Wild speculation masquerading as an educated opinion holds negative value. If you make the assertion, provide facts to back it. People are self interested and yet there are overwhelming examples of entitlement systems that are solvent and functional despite a level of free ridership (which is unavoidable). We provide food assistance to people, some of whom might be able to work a bit more to not need it, but the benefit is overwhelmingly positive. Everyone will not immediately become reckless if universal healthcare is provided. This is no different. Everyone will not quit their jobs tomorrow to get a free home, just as everyone has not quit their jobs to live off of food stamps (or your country's equivalent benefit).

The worst that happens is its an experiment that fails, and there is still value in the data point. If you're not in Finland, and you're not contributing financially to this, I'd like you share why you feel so revolted by this idea, as we have to get to the heart of the core belief or value system being challenged by this effort.

(removed last sentence quoted in comment I replied to because it felt unhelpful and unkind to the discussion)

How is it unfounded? They created a crazy incentive to do so.

as usual you're just using your market fundamentalist links to prove your market fundamentalist ideas despite overwhelming on-the-ground evidence that e.g. Scandinavia has been a remarkable success.

If you dismiss any evidence that shows that social democracy doesn't work, including the evidence I provided about Scandinavia, which clearly shows how unsuccessful social democracy has been there, then of course you're only going to see the evidence supporting your pre-conceived notions. It would be impossible for any amount of evidence to cause you to change your mind when you take it as a priori that such evidence is from "market fundamentalists" and thus not credible.

"as usual",

the only thing "usual" is how reluctant those conforming to the mainstream ideology are to examine evidence that contradicts their narrative.

The housing isn’t free, which is clearly stated in the article. Your prediction is based in your own bias and not any form of data or reality.

Hi Finnish guy here.

The housing is subsidized by the government, as most homeless people do not have an income. So essentially, the taxpayers are paying for the housing, not the tenants.

The company mentioned in the article has just found a way to tap into those government funds to provide housing, nothing more.

>“Housing First”, on the other hand, reverses the path: Homeless people get a flat – without any preconditions. Social workers help them with applications for social benefits and are available for counselling in general. In such a new, secure situation,

It's more of an IOU handout. We will help you if you're willing to help yourself. Although this is somewhat of a detractor:

>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.

Not sure that I'd like to live somewhere with constantly changing tenants and people who may have bouts of mental issues that I'd have to suffer through. I've lived in a low cost apartment. It's fine so long as you ignore the relationship issues.

My only beef with this is then it gives a lot of people the reason to believe that it's okay to live a lifestyle outside your means because you can always get free housing if you lose it all. Part of the incentive to prevent you from blowing all your money on toys is ending up homeless since you can't pay your bills.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com