every time there's a hopeful article about a progressive policy on hn there's some kind of backwards libertarian hottake in the comments. it's simultaneously offensive and demoralizing. the finnish program (according to the article) has been running since 2008. do you really think your hottake (op to whom you responded) is a novel insight? that you in the 30s of writing that comment cut to the core flaw of the program? do you really think they haven't considered all edges cases by now? or do you think they're incompetent in there assessment? the reality is much simpler: Finland is more progressive and egalitarian than the US and so their measures/metrics for success are informed by a different value system.
I don't really get what's libertarian about a claim that the term "homelessness" conflates issues which are best handled separately. Can you elaborate?
Finland doesn't have an open immigration policy. In fact it's citizen oppose immigration because they wish to preserve what is Finish. Finland is not more progressive in this regard.
Now we can start to understand how Finland could end homelessness. With a free immigration policy this would be more difficult both culturally and in terms of costs.
How does Finland get it's wealth? Through clean energy progressive solar or windpower? No through oil. Adding to the global carbon output daily.
When we peel the layers we realize we are comparing apples to oranges.
The homeless population in Finland is ethically and culturely similiar to the population which allows them to identify and provide support. The same conditions do not exist in the US.
This doesn't extend to others. Finland doesn't provide the same level of support to the poorest nations. The US does.
How progressive are we if we help ourselves / our families and people who are genetically like us but we don't provide the same support to other poorer nations.
When you look under the hood things are not as black and white. Finland is not as progressive they appear because of the headline.
literally false according to the stats i posted that you didn't read (or discounted).
>How progressive are we if we help ourselves / our families and people who are genetically like us but we don't provide the same support to other poorer nations.
i don't understand? are you mad at finland for not being progressive enough? originally your point was the US couldn't be as progressive as finland is because of oil? and immigrants? i don't think you have a coherent point.
An open immigration and generous foreign aid policy makes the US more progressive in some areas compared to Finland.
No one is mad at Finland for not providing more external support. I hope my discussion points have caused you to open your mind around global progressive policy. It is never as simple as the headline seems.
"Literally false according to the stats i posted that you didn't read (or discounted"
Finland is made up of one ethnic group, the US many. That link had no relation to my point.
>Finland is made up of one ethnic group, the US many. That link had no relation to my point.
here is what you wrote
>The homeless population in Finland is ethically and culturely similiar to the population which allows them to identify and provide support.
if you look at the statistics that i posted you see the the homeless population is primarily black people and white people which is ethnically and culturally similar to the population of the united states (note that black people doesn't mean recent african immigrants but american black people).
Used to work in Nicaragua for a US company with a local office. We were definitely being paid a lot less than our peers working directly in the US locations, at the same time we were being paid what was at the moment a lot more than the standard for other devs in the country.
There would have been no incentive for that company to open an office in Nicaragua if they would have had to pay similar salaries than what they were paying in USA, i mean, we have a lot more employee benefits and protections. Of course i would have loved to get more money out of it, and i feel we were delivering equal value than our peers, but if i think about it, the economics wouldn't have made sense.
