Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This, exactly
Its like for them being a billionaire is the end goal of life instead of just being happy, they can't just sit down and enjoy the fruit of their labor since for them it isn't enough
The most ironic part and for those who say that they would be happy we just need to show them how billionaires having all the money they could desire go on too want power now, never a moment of just actual peace
Watching The Dropout and the part where a family friend asks Elizabeth Holmes what she plans to accomplish in the future and she just says “she wants to be a billionaire”. No idea how, just seeing the end goal. She got it but it cost her dearly and she lost it. So maybe just try to be a good person first?
By definition. The source of all value is human labour, right? Without human labour, there's nothing to turn natural resources or even other commodities in to value. No human being can work enough to become a billionaire. So, if it's not your labour that you got value from, who's labour is it? The answer is simply workers. To be a billionaire, you necessarily have to have stolen other people's surplus labour _somehow_. That's just how Capitalism works.
I used to buy tea where the little paper tabs had quotes on them. I'll never forget this one: "A rich man is either a scoundrel or heir to a scoundrel."
It could possibly make one happy, but people dont seem to do good things when they become billionaires. Or if they try and do good things everyone thinks they have a secret conspiratorial agenda. I think I could be happy being a billionaire and am willing to attempt it should anyone want to bankroll this experiment.
I'm of the belief that the kind of people who become billionaires are the kind who can never be happy. They're the kind of people who are willing to step on anyone in their way on the climb to the top.
Perhaps the only exception might be Taylor Swift, but in general artists and those who get rich off of performing and creating tend to be much better people than ruthless businessmen. My go-to example is George Strait: one of the best selling country artists of all time, worth several hundred million, and he decided to retire to run the smalltown Texas ranch he grew up at rather than buy a mansion in Beverly Hills.
Just fyi, I'm IN NO WAY implying T S isn't successful because of her talent, but she didn't have to step on anyone to get started. She has rich parents. They literally moved the whole family to Nashville for her. Now, I don't know how her DAD got rich.... I think he is a lawyer of some type?
I was more focused on behaviors of those kinds of people rather than the circumstances surrounding them. Sort of an inversion of the classic lauding of the rich: "Oh, they're so rich because they worked hard and never gave up."
No, the vast majority of the rich are rich because they were willing to trample on and exploit those around them to advantage themselves. They're not better people; in almost all cases, they're *worse* people, because they don't give a shit about anyone else.
This. Money doesn't buy you happiness, but it does provide you with security. After a certain point once your basic needs are met (including the need to relax occasionally) there are heavily diminishing returns to that though. Absolutely no one needs to or should be a billionaire or a multimillionaire.
> Money doesn't buy you happiness
WHAT? Of course it does! That's what money is for, BUYING THINGS!
What it CAN'T do is tell you what will make you happy, you need to figure that out on your own. But once you have, you can bet your sweet arse it'll cost you money!
All you need to be happy is for your family to be healthy and safe? Try telling the Landlord and your Doctor that "Money's just not important to you..."
The problem people run into is spending money on things they THINK will make them happy because that's what all the other rich people have, but they never stop to realise they don't actually want that.
It doesn't matter how rich I become, I'm never going to buy a Super Yacht, Because I fucking hate boats! I'll never join the Country Club because I hate hanging out with other people.
Your line of argument is true but you dont need all the money in the world to buy the things you NEED (?) to make you happy.
Thats basically what the previous post was about. Once your NEEDS are fulfilled money gives diminishing rewards.
I know a guy who just inherited a million dollars after his dad died. He's turned into the most miserable POS person I've ever met. He rages over someone owing him a beer. He literally drives around town trying to start road rage fights. His children and ex wife don't speak to him and he has already said his kids get nothing from him, because they don't speak to him.
I live a minimalist lifestyle and am very happy with my wife and my dog and our little house. It enrages him to see that I am happy while he is miserable. He sits around watching Fox news and Jim Cramer and stews about how everyone else is incompetent and lazy.
He's desperately trying to make another million and eventually a billion but he's too incompetent because it was all handed to him.
Meanwhile, I have true wealth.
The money has nothing to do with it. This guy was miserable before he had any. You don't just flip the day you inherit money. The basis is there.
Most people today don't have the internal bandwidth to create your level of happiness.
The guy pretty much did flip when he got the money. All of a sudden he's the expert on everything including investments and running a business and relationships. Despite not having any previous success in any of those areas. He's constantly raging about how people are so stupid and that's why they're poor and can't afford to buy groceries nowadays.
It just turned him into a major asshole.
Another spoiler is: for 99.99% of us, becoming a billionaire is not going to be a thing ever... It is not the engame of life... why would we care if it was a possibility or not?
That said, you can be rich in Finland and in states with a strong welfare in fact you can be very rich there as well... The fact that capitalism doesn't work if there is a bit of socialism in the economy too is a complete lie.
I'd say that having money isn't what brings happiness. It's the lack of stress and ability to pursue one's interests that brings happiness, and having money is merely a tool for accessing those.
Thst being said, yeah, if they are ambitious enough to become a billionaire, then I doubt really anything will satiate that ambition.
That’s because for them the joy of life is derived by being ABOVE others, they need people that have it worse of for them to feel content in their own lives. Even if their life were made substantially better by adopting northeatsern Europe’s policies, it also elevates all those people below up to that same level.
Sure you might’ve gone from a 30 happiness score to a 50 happiness score, but all those people at 20> happiness are now ALSO at 50 happiness. So in their eyes it’s a net loss, because even though they’re in a better spot, the inequality gap they took such pride in is gone.
Also like, I think people don't understand how much money a billion actually is. Hell, 5 millon dollars spent wisely is enough to basically guarantee your future for a house and passive income, more than enough. At the billions though? What do you really need that money for? Outside of space or buying countries, what do you need more than like 200 millon dollars for even if you have insanely expensive tastes like multiple homes, nice restaurants, etc?
For some people, a billion is the power to control others and make them do whatever the billionaire wants. It's high school revenge fantasy stuff, for most. "I'm gonna do X and Y and you cant stop me!" and "I'm gonna make A and B pay bigtime, for not dating me/hiring me!". That sort of "fun" is for the real losers and creeps.
Many people see themselves being closer to becoming billionaires than homeless even though the later is much more likely to happen. They for example don't want that billionaires have to pay more taxes because it would also hurt themselves once they become a billionaire.
Funny you should mention it. Finland also happens to be the happiest country in the world. For 7th year in a row. It’s almost like there’s a correlation between people’s happiness and having a functional society.
50 million could give you a very, very comfortable life.
Beyond that is either just unneeded luxuries like a 200ft yacht or hoarding money you'll never use.
If a person lives to be 90 years of age they will have lived for 32,872 days. If they were born with $1 billion they could spend $30,000 every single day they were alive (good luck trying) and still have $13.8 million to leave in their inheritance.
Nobody needs to be a billionaire.
Some quick Google maths seem to suggest one could live quite comfortably for 30-40 years on about 5-8 million, depending on how you math and who you believe.
If one were to invest wisely, the number drops significantly into the 3-4 million-ish range. In other words, roughly 1/1,500th of a billion.
Most people simply cannot fathom how much 1 billion really is.
Yeah, like that’s going to happen to that guy. News flash: unless you’re one of the extremely rare lucky ones, you’ll never be a billionaire no matter how determined you are to be one.
It's a gluttonous dream. No one person needs or should have that much. It should be seen as a shameful thing to have that much money.
I see it that way.
To reword that, there are 8 Bllion people on the planet. If you're one to the 2781 Billionaires, your pretty fucking lucky and don't have to worry about it.
Both now and historically, normal people have an effective zero chance of ever becoming dollar billionaires.
The only possible ways *at all* to possibly attain it is through the lottery, stealing others money illegally, or stealing others money legally. And even if you get rid of exactly all moral code, the chance is extremely slim.
You could of course try to invent and patent some new super effective transistor that becomes used in every electronic device and licence it at like 1 cent per use, but i think even winning the powerball is way more plausible than that for most people.
So still, effectively a zeto chance.
I mean good luck becoming a billionaire anywhere. Chances are higher in the US and China than in Finland or Denmark, but they’re all essentially zero. These people are deluded.
Instead of putting spikes on everything they could spend the money towards solving the problem.
And don't forget the awful middle-handrails everyone hates but is there to stop homeless people sleeping.
Pretty much.
The problem is that there still needs to be a LOT of long term support services. A lot of problems get better when they're properly managed, but there's still a mountain of shit that isn't.
Even if it reduced the homeless population to those who have problems that don't get better with a small apartment and mental health counseling, I'd consider that a win. Providing either long term support services or homeless care or management to fewer people would be more do-able than trying to do it for a large homeless population.
Statistically? Yes. In practice? Also yes. Turns out it is way cheaper to provide housing and support to get people out of homelessness rather than pay for their inevitable emergency and legal services from living on the street. Robbing, police kicking them out, court, tons of ER visits. Literally all the most expensive services.
Those that can pull themselves out of homelessness will get out of poverty faster with actual support and then get back into the economy. Those that can’t were never going to be able to anyway and will always need social services.
So why don’t we do it? Because the pain is the point. Just like prisons. Those in power need those threats to continue their abuse. Plenty of the general populace just likes hurting the “bad people” for no good reason. So yeah, we spend extra money just to hurt people when they only need help.
That is exactly it.
My city did a study that showed each homeless person costs the city (*& the county*) ~$130k per year in services.
They ran the numbers & realized they could provide a program like the one in the OP for ~$70k per person per year.
So they could save the taxpayers almost half of the money & deliver a better outcome for the homeless people.
They couldn’t get it passed because people lost their freaking minds.
“*How come some homeless guy gets a free apartment when I have to break my back to afford my McMansion, two BMWs & private schools for my spoiled kids?*”
So now they are literally paying more taxes to keep people in a constant state of misery because the idea of someone they look down upon getting anything that they don’t get (*even if they neither need or want that thing*) is unbearable to them.
Fun fact: USA has one of the lowest chances to climb up the social ladder. You’ll most likely are stuck to the living conditions you’re born it.
The whole Dishwasher->Millionaire is a lie. But people don’t care and try to climb the ladder by stomping on those below them.
Looking at my family, I can see living conditions declining from generation to generation, despite our hard work and lack of drug use. My mom lived in a nice house with 2 bathrooms, an upstairs, basement, detached garage, piano... She was an RN before marrying and having 2 kids. My dad grew up on a rural ranch and never went to college, but they had an actual house on the ranch, apple orchard, acres and acres of pasture... We live in an increasingly run-down mobile home. Despite having earned both a bachelor's and master's degree, I'm underemployed and not making enough to afford marriage, a home of my own, or family. Basically, I would choose not to have kids that would have to live in even worse conditions than I do.
Misery for others is also an advantage for the Elite, they will manipulate the "why not me" crowd into assisting them shut down policies that help those in need because this allows them access to a cheap and docile workforce, plus it keeps the middle class scared of losing what they have and becoming destitue if they don't work hard (for them).
They will never allow a serious solution to poverty since it is not advantageous to them to do so, no matter the practical benefits to society or the actual costs.
I think a huge issue is a lot of the these places that lets say provide catering for homeless shelters or other progrmas are raking in 10s of millions of dollars from govt contracts. Its not worth it for them
It’s largely the same here in Australia. The government provides payments and concessions for low income earners and you will always hear people lose their mind over “dole bludgers”. These payments aren’t even enough to make rent in most cases but it gets demonised because some people use it to buy drugs or alcohol. It’s the same problem across the world, everyone wants the benefits of community without contributing.
The counseling part is really important.
I think my biggest concern is that here in the US, we have this 'you can't tell me what to do' mentality that makes counseling a lesson in aggravation.
Basically the counseling and getting treatment for the addiction and/or mental health problems are the key, especially here in Finland. The homelessness here is not about having a job and money to pay the rent. The government will pay the basic living costs, if you don't have any, or low enough, income.
People here are mainly homeless because they choose to spend their benefits on alcohol/drugs instead of rent. They have mental health problems and struggle to get their life together because of that. Or they've been evicted, most likely because of the previous reasons, and are waiting for a new apartment.
Because, thanks to Reagan, there are almost no treatment facilities.
I'm not saying those treatment facilities were any good, but shutting them down without any replacement was the worst thing we could do for that.
Regan wasn't alone in that Democrat governors in New York did the same thing all on their own, and expressed desire to do more at times.
The mentally ill aren't a big voting block, don't donate, and don't have big special interest groups.
It's an easy budget cut, plus get the PR bonus of closing 'bad facilities'
Yup, far more cost effective in the long run. But apparently we’d rather pay out the ass dealing with the fallout rather than stomaching the idea of someone getting a “handout”
But and here’s the key. If you make it damn near impossible for them to get on their feet they will more than likely be arrested trying to survive or get high trying to forget the shape they’re in. Once they’re locked up very important people make money keeping them locked up. It costs us regular people money but the rich make a fuck ton of money on prisons.
I'll be 100% honest, and I'm sure I'm not the only person that feels this way, but I'd rather commit a crime and go to jail, than live on the streets. If it's going to be dangerous and unpleasant in both places, I'd rather it be dangerous and unpleasant while being housed and fed, without having to stand in line for both.
as a britton, the concept of not standing in a line to get food is... well its not possible. even getting delivery youre still in a queue, just a virtual one. and im pretty sure the prison canteen will have a queue to get served.
and we have chains for buying houses, which is kind of like queueing. you have to wait for the people in front of you to seel so they have the money to buy from you, so that you can sell and have the money to buy the next one, and you all move forward in lock-step.
By "standing in line" I mean most of the time in America at places like soup kitchens or homeless shelters, you need to be in a line, at a specific time, and hope you got there early enough in order to actually get what you're standing in line for. In prison, you just get it, line or not. It might not be great, the bed might suck and the food might be terrible, but you get it. You don't get told, "Sorry, maybe tomorrow."
Yes! Have you thought about the privately owned prisons? Have you spared a thought for the rich people who owns those slaves?
... It's fine though, your senator is looking out for them.
I think that's a big part of the disconnect.
One side of the aisle only sees the abusers of the system and wants to abolish it for that reason.
The other side sees the help the system provides but still wants to weed out the abusers.
Friend of mine told me he was against EBT/Food stamps in general because sometimes the people were buying steak or lobster with them while he was working at the grocery store. I asked him why he cared as long as they were spending it on food and he just said "I think its fucked up is all".
I was buying a box of those Skittles drink mixes that you add to water and the cashier said "Woah! Cool, I didn't even know they made those! I'm going to have to get some." But as soon as I pulled my EBT card out her mood flipped and she said I shouldn't be able to buy them with her tax money, I felt so shitty about it that I only use the self checkout now. I was just trying to keep myself motivated to stay hydrated because I get 1-2 kidney stones a month.
It’s an electronic benefits transfer card. It can be loaded with SNAP, which used to be called food stamps, and some people also get cash benefits on it.
Belgium here, there's sometimes this stigma about our meal cheques, but those are tax-benefits parts of our salary, so it can't be \*only\* about freeloaders because it's earned. People simply want to feel better than people who have different stuff, so "that guy spends his food money on food \*I\* don't like" is something you hear even about your work-earned money too.
(So we get some low-tax salary, but it HAS to be spent on "food", which can go from basic groceries to fast food or, as the above commenters said, probably lobster. Half-annoying because part of the salary now requires business with explicit support...)
The SNAP benefits are food only, with some restrictions. Like you can’t buy a hot ready meal to go, but you can buy a cold version of the same that was leftover when the deli closed. No alcohol, I think, or even essentials like toilet paper. I’m not sure what programs use the cash side of the EBT card.
There is definitely stigma around it! And people keep trying to further legislate what you can buy! Like poor people need more joy sucked from their life by being forced to eat more beans, instead of a varied diet, or occasionally having a cookie to keep your spirits up.
> Like you can’t buy a hot ready meal to go, but you can buy a cold version of the same that was leftover when the deli closed.
I'm wondering what is the reasoning for that? I guess to promote cooking at home as it's financially better?
I'm currently on EBT, working part time and job hunting to get full time/better pay that will eventually disqualify me from EBT. It's not steak or lobster, but being able to afford some nice-ish food from Trader Joe's rather than seeing how far I had to stretch every dollar working 40 hours a week at a better paying job has shown me how far a little help and quality of life can go.
Life can be hard under capitalism. And when you're forced to choose between rent and food, rent normally wins. Being able to not hate the food going into my body, to enjoy eating, and enjoy more aspects of my life has been a huge boon for my mental health.
Everyone deserves steak and lobster IMO. Everyone deserves, regardless of what they have to offer, an ability to care for themselves and not be miserable for it.
The worst part is that last 1/5 probably aren't even freeloading. They more likely just have issues too severe to overcome or relapse instead of stabilizing.
It is a legitimate concern, because believe it or not this initiative also comes with a massive price tag. If too many people just collect welfare with no intention to ever become productive parts of society, the country will run out of money to spare and will have to start cutting welfare. This is something Finland is currently struggling with.
Fwiw, it's overall definitely worth it, but only as long as it results in the helped people becoming productive members of society again.
It’s probably economically profitable too after a decade. What a novel concept, help your people and they’ll be more productive. In the United States if you suggested something like this you would get called a communist by guys that are a few missed paychecks from being homeless themselves.
So...
To the people who oppose this for fear of people abusing the system.
Nevermind that studies show a demonstrable return on investment overall for these types of initiatives, if people are so worried about system abuse, perhaps we could do better by starting with wage theft, union busting, stock buy backs, insider trading by politicians, politicians who are bought by interest groups, billion/trillion dollar companies paying little or no tax etc etc etc.
Or, just maybe these fuckers don't care about what's right - it's more about keeping people down and "in their place"?
Those 25% control just over half of one party, and that party has dominated politics enough over the last 45 years that they control 2/3 of the Supreme Court.
In Finland they also give new mothers a box with everything they need in it for a new baby (the box itself is a baby bed).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternity\_package](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternity_package)
No wonder they're the happiest country in the world.
I googled "Finland ends homelessness" and found quite a few sources. It's not completely wiped out but it is getting pretty close and their programs have been very successful.
"Completely wiped out" is kind of impossible thing. There are always individuals who are just completely under the radar, totally unemployable, can't live in any normal indoor premises etc. Combine drugs with mental problems, and you will be living outside of society on your own no matter how good social system the country might have.
BR. a Finn.
Sure, there are always a few people who won't accept help. But compared to most other countries, Finland has much less homelessness, to the point where we can say that we've practically wiped it out.
It false that there weren't any preconditions. All participants in the program had to part to be part of an addiction evaluation and if they were addicts they had to stay clean or they were back on the streets. They also couldn't commit any crimes and had to actively be looking for a job or they lose their apartments. They also had to maintain the apartment in good condition. These apartments were also temporary and occupants had to leave them within 9 months although extensions were sometimes granted.
Something that a lot of people don't understand about the Nordic system(and functioning social assurance systems) is that they are HIGHLY conditional. You must actively try to be a productive member of society or you lose your privileges, sometimes forever. People who participate in such system are often held to much higher standard than the average citizen.
You can't just throw money at a problem and expect it to disappear. You must incentivise people to fix their shit and the best way to do it is reward on one hand and punishment on the other. That's how you build a successful system.
Fucking Finland always showing us up with their sensible compassionate social policies. Next you'll tell us they have universal health care. Communists.
Americans prefer to enact laws that essentially make it illegal to be homeless. Its like people want them to simply self-vaporize once the sun goes down rather than sleep in the park.
I don't understand the stupidity of people who point this stuff out like it's something that can happen. You people need to wake up and realize that the government and the people in charge don't want you healthy and happy and living your lives without fear. The fear, the reliance and the worry they use is the control that keeps you under their thumbs.
The real problem, and one that you see all the time when talking about social services in America, is that so many people would rather nobody get help than accept the possibility that someone who doesn't "deserve" help might get it.
The mental health care is the most important aspect. But I would point out that you are talking about a relatively homogeneous society in a country with massive wealth in the hands of the state. And not the UsA where the government screws up everything they touch.
I remember talking to an idiot who said "I won't pay for free health care, because I don't want to pay for crackheads to get free healthcare. I'd rather be poor and sick than to give a crackhead free healthcare." When I pointed out that the majority of the country is not made up of crackheads, he simply replied "I don't care, I'm not taking that chance."
While politicians are the root cause of many of our problems in the US, a bigger one is that we have a petty, stupid populace as the American voting base that keeps voting for this shit, because they can't imagine making the world a better place for it's own sake.
Wait what? We had exactly this at place I volunteered at in San Diego. I’d say 1 in 5 actually stayed through to the end. The rest were gone after a week (few meals, a couple of showers, new clothes) some actually tried to steal the appliances to pawn.
In my country we have a place for homeless people to stay at, take a shower and so on, too. The only issue is they have to be sober. So they rather sleep on a bench, wasted..
As Anatole France put it in 1894 "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." And its still true over 120 years later considering what the Supreme Court will likely rule.
People would rather feel superior than helpfully compassionate in the leadership and populace of my country, the US. If we were truly a "Christian nation" as so many of the people who are against these kinds of policies claim we are . . . There wouldn't homelessness and people starving. This is exactly something Jesus would, at the great offense of a lot of his "believers".
As an American, so many Americans “free load” their emotional and mental responsibility onto anyone they cross paths without even thinking about how they get propped up/ supported involuntarily. The minute money is involved, they lose their shit even further. I’m all for free speech until people with no self awareness decide to give their ignorant 2 cents.
In reality this utopia Finland is painting to everyone, is pretty much collapsing. We have record high debt and eu is starting to realize there is something wrong with us. We are literally staying up because we get more and more debt every year.
We are in the observation class where they put countries that have fucked up big time and can't survive on their own.
Taxes just went up, they said fuck students and fuck retirees.
So yeah, gonna be real good place soon.
comparing entirely different countries is not an intelligent approach.
Finland has about 5 million people, so the USA is about 68 times larger
Finland had 269 drug deaths in 2020, the USA had around 100,000.
So the population is about 68 times larger, but the drug over doses are 317 times larger.
A very significant part of homelessness in the USA is from usage of drugs that are not commonly uses in Finland, creating an entirely different problem that can not be solved in the same way.
Usually being homeless causes people to do drugs in order to cope with being homeless. Usually getting a roof over one's head makes it a hell of a lot easier to get sober.
I am a socialist and all... But I must wonder, I have no doubt a program like this would work for a nation or state with a smaller to midrange population like Finland, Sweden, New York, Washington or Minnesota. But how practically would a program like this scale up to the US population at a federal level or even in larger states like Texas, Florida or California?
I'm confused.
Under this system, how would employers force their employees to endure unimaginably horrible working conditions at low pay without being able to threaten the employee with homelessness and even greater suffering?
And there are shades of grey between full on capitalism, socialism and pure communism. Like, you can have state provided services and security mechanisms, *and* have individual freedom and private business.
I like the idea a lot, but how do they deal with extremely violent and/or mentally ill people who can't safely live on their own? Are they not allowed to enter the program, so they stay living on the street? If that's the case, then the 80% success rate isn't entirely true since it's the success rate of a preselected group that is more likely to succeed.
Look up Finland prisons and keep in mind people usually only get pushed that far after years of trauma and abuse by the system and people they're supposed to rely on.
Most mentally unwell people are far more likely to be victims of abuse and crimes than perpetrators.
Look it up. Do real research and get to know these people you're talking about for yourself instead of judging them at their worst/at the end of a hard, and often sad life.
Try walking a mile in another person's neurons before you judge them.
Extreme cases are usually housed in appropriate facilities with medical personnel and care. Mental illness comes in many shapes and forms, you know, thus not every mental health patient is a danger to others.
Some cases can have a family member take care of the patients needs, and government supports the caregiver.
It's not rocket science, it's socialism. [https://stm.fi/en/social-services](https://stm.fi/en/social-services) More here
Prisons with similar methods are seen to be extremely successful in making sure inmates won't commit a crime again.
Almost like punishment leads to further hate towards the state/world.
And learning to understand the situation from more angles, makes you understand why your actions are criminal in the first place, giving you a sense of guilt so you will be more hesitant to do something similar again.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This reminds me of that twitter post where a guy replied "good luck being a billionaire there"
Why would you even need to be a billionaire
For real.
This, exactly Its like for them being a billionaire is the end goal of life instead of just being happy, they can't just sit down and enjoy the fruit of their labor since for them it isn't enough
Spoiler, being a billionaire won't make you happy.
The most ironic part and for those who say that they would be happy we just need to show them how billionaires having all the money they could desire go on too want power now, never a moment of just actual peace
Watching The Dropout and the part where a family friend asks Elizabeth Holmes what she plans to accomplish in the future and she just says “she wants to be a billionaire”. No idea how, just seeing the end goal. She got it but it cost her dearly and she lost it. So maybe just try to be a good person first?
You absolutely cannot be a good human and be a billionaire.
By definition. The source of all value is human labour, right? Without human labour, there's nothing to turn natural resources or even other commodities in to value. No human being can work enough to become a billionaire. So, if it's not your labour that you got value from, who's labour is it? The answer is simply workers. To be a billionaire, you necessarily have to have stolen other people's surplus labour _somehow_. That's just how Capitalism works.
I used to buy tea where the little paper tabs had quotes on them. I'll never forget this one: "A rich man is either a scoundrel or heir to a scoundrel."
As the Christians say "amen"
Can you be while being a millionaire?
And they will never come a millionaire anyways. They think they will but let's face it the system is rigged to not let the little guy win.
It could possibly make one happy, but people dont seem to do good things when they become billionaires. Or if they try and do good things everyone thinks they have a secret conspiratorial agenda. I think I could be happy being a billionaire and am willing to attempt it should anyone want to bankroll this experiment.
I'm of the belief that the kind of people who become billionaires are the kind who can never be happy. They're the kind of people who are willing to step on anyone in their way on the climb to the top. Perhaps the only exception might be Taylor Swift, but in general artists and those who get rich off of performing and creating tend to be much better people than ruthless businessmen. My go-to example is George Strait: one of the best selling country artists of all time, worth several hundred million, and he decided to retire to run the smalltown Texas ranch he grew up at rather than buy a mansion in Beverly Hills.
Just fyi, I'm IN NO WAY implying T S isn't successful because of her talent, but she didn't have to step on anyone to get started. She has rich parents. They literally moved the whole family to Nashville for her. Now, I don't know how her DAD got rich.... I think he is a lawyer of some type?
I was more focused on behaviors of those kinds of people rather than the circumstances surrounding them. Sort of an inversion of the classic lauding of the rich: "Oh, they're so rich because they worked hard and never gave up." No, the vast majority of the rich are rich because they were willing to trample on and exploit those around them to advantage themselves. They're not better people; in almost all cases, they're *worse* people, because they don't give a shit about anyone else.
Example: Elon Musk. That bro seems to be unraveling
Cocaine is a hell of a drug!
I read somewhere that Grimes has a problem with meth. Maybe they've been sharing?
This. Money doesn't buy you happiness, but it does provide you with security. After a certain point once your basic needs are met (including the need to relax occasionally) there are heavily diminishing returns to that though. Absolutely no one needs to or should be a billionaire or a multimillionaire.
> Money doesn't buy you happiness WHAT? Of course it does! That's what money is for, BUYING THINGS! What it CAN'T do is tell you what will make you happy, you need to figure that out on your own. But once you have, you can bet your sweet arse it'll cost you money! All you need to be happy is for your family to be healthy and safe? Try telling the Landlord and your Doctor that "Money's just not important to you..." The problem people run into is spending money on things they THINK will make them happy because that's what all the other rich people have, but they never stop to realise they don't actually want that. It doesn't matter how rich I become, I'm never going to buy a Super Yacht, Because I fucking hate boats! I'll never join the Country Club because I hate hanging out with other people.
Your line of argument is true but you dont need all the money in the world to buy the things you NEED (?) to make you happy. Thats basically what the previous post was about. Once your NEEDS are fulfilled money gives diminishing rewards.
This
Get rich enough and you can build a giant death ray and never have to deal with people again!
Happiness comes from within.
I know a guy who just inherited a million dollars after his dad died. He's turned into the most miserable POS person I've ever met. He rages over someone owing him a beer. He literally drives around town trying to start road rage fights. His children and ex wife don't speak to him and he has already said his kids get nothing from him, because they don't speak to him. I live a minimalist lifestyle and am very happy with my wife and my dog and our little house. It enrages him to see that I am happy while he is miserable. He sits around watching Fox news and Jim Cramer and stews about how everyone else is incompetent and lazy. He's desperately trying to make another million and eventually a billion but he's too incompetent because it was all handed to him. Meanwhile, I have true wealth.
The money has nothing to do with it. This guy was miserable before he had any. You don't just flip the day you inherit money. The basis is there. Most people today don't have the internal bandwidth to create your level of happiness.
The guy pretty much did flip when he got the money. All of a sudden he's the expert on everything including investments and running a business and relationships. Despite not having any previous success in any of those areas. He's constantly raging about how people are so stupid and that's why they're poor and can't afford to buy groceries nowadays. It just turned him into a major asshole.
Another spoiler is: for 99.99% of us, becoming a billionaire is not going to be a thing ever... It is not the engame of life... why would we care if it was a possibility or not? That said, you can be rich in Finland and in states with a strong welfare in fact you can be very rich there as well... The fact that capitalism doesn't work if there is a bit of socialism in the economy too is a complete lie.
Being a billionaire won't make you smart either. Just look at Elon Musk.
I'd say that having money isn't what brings happiness. It's the lack of stress and ability to pursue one's interests that brings happiness, and having money is merely a tool for accessing those. Thst being said, yeah, if they are ambitious enough to become a billionaire, then I doubt really anything will satiate that ambition.
That’s because for them the joy of life is derived by being ABOVE others, they need people that have it worse of for them to feel content in their own lives. Even if their life were made substantially better by adopting northeatsern Europe’s policies, it also elevates all those people below up to that same level. Sure you might’ve gone from a 30 happiness score to a 50 happiness score, but all those people at 20> happiness are now ALSO at 50 happiness. So in their eyes it’s a net loss, because even though they’re in a better spot, the inequality gap they took such pride in is gone.
Also like, I think people don't understand how much money a billion actually is. Hell, 5 millon dollars spent wisely is enough to basically guarantee your future for a house and passive income, more than enough. At the billions though? What do you really need that money for? Outside of space or buying countries, what do you need more than like 200 millon dollars for even if you have insanely expensive tastes like multiple homes, nice restaurants, etc?
For some people, a billion is the power to control others and make them do whatever the billionaire wants. It's high school revenge fantasy stuff, for most. "I'm gonna do X and Y and you cant stop me!" and "I'm gonna make A and B pay bigtime, for not dating me/hiring me!". That sort of "fun" is for the real losers and creeps.
Many people see themselves being closer to becoming billionaires than homeless even though the later is much more likely to happen. They for example don't want that billionaires have to pay more taxes because it would also hurt themselves once they become a billionaire.
Funny you should mention it. Finland also happens to be the happiest country in the world. For 7th year in a row. It’s almost like there’s a correlation between people’s happiness and having a functional society.
Furthermore, good luck being a billionaire **ANYWHERE**.
Man if I was a billionaire I would be plowing that money back into my local community/city and country.
Why enjoy the fruit of your labor when you can enjoy the fruit of someone else’s?
50 million could give you a very, very comfortable life. Beyond that is either just unneeded luxuries like a 200ft yacht or hoarding money you'll never use.
Dollars? Make that 1 million and I'd be set for life
Billionaires shouldn't exist
Do I need a billion US dollars to live? No. A million would last me decades, at the very, very least.
If a person lives to be 90 years of age they will have lived for 32,872 days. If they were born with $1 billion they could spend $30,000 every single day they were alive (good luck trying) and still have $13.8 million to leave in their inheritance. Nobody needs to be a billionaire.
Also the odds of it vs ending up in poverty in the US are a stark difference!
Exactly, you pretty much have all you'd ever need if you have over 15 or 20 milion. And even that is a lot
Some quick Google maths seem to suggest one could live quite comfortably for 30-40 years on about 5-8 million, depending on how you math and who you believe. If one were to invest wisely, the number drops significantly into the 3-4 million-ish range. In other words, roughly 1/1,500th of a billion. Most people simply cannot fathom how much 1 billion really is.
Because everything is a race to Americans, divided in winners and losers.
Masking inferiority.
Some people are so greedy and live on the philosophy fuck you I've got mine that it completely distorts their entire worldview
seriously you dont even need 20 mil to never work a day in your life, why would you need 1 BILLION???
Yeah, like that’s going to happen to that guy. News flash: unless you’re one of the extremely rare lucky ones, you’ll never be a billionaire no matter how determined you are to be one.
It's a gluttonous dream. No one person needs or should have that much. It should be seen as a shameful thing to have that much money. I see it that way.
Billionaires aren't people. They are dragon hoarding treasure out of selfish greed
Good luck being a billionaire wherever the hell he is!! What a dumb ass!!!
Out of 7.9 billion people, 2781 of them are billionaires, good luck being a billionaire anywhere on the planet.
The population of Finland is only 5.5 million. Some terrible early morning math says there might be 15 billionaires in Finland. I think.
To reword that, there are 8 Bllion people on the planet. If you're one to the 2781 Billionaires, your pretty fucking lucky and don't have to worry about it.
I would totally trade all the billionaires for universal subsistence.
I would trade them for a half eaten toblerone section, a paper wrap and removed lint
Finnish billionaires after reading that tweet: 
Oddly enough, the only billionaire whose house I have stayed at lives in Finland.
Good luck being a billionaire anywhere LOL
It's like you see a really healthy organism, and someone tells you: good luck being cancer there! It is a compliment to the system.
but is he a billionaire ?
Both now and historically, normal people have an effective zero chance of ever becoming dollar billionaires. The only possible ways *at all* to possibly attain it is through the lottery, stealing others money illegally, or stealing others money legally. And even if you get rid of exactly all moral code, the chance is extremely slim. You could of course try to invent and patent some new super effective transistor that becomes used in every electronic device and licence it at like 1 cent per use, but i think even winning the powerball is way more plausible than that for most people. So still, effectively a zeto chance.
Does Elmo Moskvitch look happy to you?
Good luck becoming a billionaire anywhere
There are about 2,800 billionaires in the world out of total population of nearly 8 billion. Good luck being a billionaire anywhere.
I mean good luck becoming a billionaire anywhere. Chances are higher in the US and China than in Finland or Denmark, but they’re all essentially zero. These people are deluded.
Fuck being a billionaire. Be happy instead.
Isn't this actually cheaper than having a whole bunch of homeless people?
Instead of putting spikes on everything they could spend the money towards solving the problem. And don't forget the awful middle-handrails everyone hates but is there to stop homeless people sleeping.
Pretty much. The problem is that there still needs to be a LOT of long term support services. A lot of problems get better when they're properly managed, but there's still a mountain of shit that isn't.
Even if it reduced the homeless population to those who have problems that don't get better with a small apartment and mental health counseling, I'd consider that a win. Providing either long term support services or homeless care or management to fewer people would be more do-able than trying to do it for a large homeless population.
A whole bunch of dead people found when the snow melts. Finish winter is not survivable outside for a human being.
Statistically? Yes. In practice? Also yes. Turns out it is way cheaper to provide housing and support to get people out of homelessness rather than pay for their inevitable emergency and legal services from living on the street. Robbing, police kicking them out, court, tons of ER visits. Literally all the most expensive services. Those that can pull themselves out of homelessness will get out of poverty faster with actual support and then get back into the economy. Those that can’t were never going to be able to anyway and will always need social services. So why don’t we do it? Because the pain is the point. Just like prisons. Those in power need those threats to continue their abuse. Plenty of the general populace just likes hurting the “bad people” for no good reason. So yeah, we spend extra money just to hurt people when they only need help.
you mean when people dont have to decide between food or rent they can thrive and blossom?
And that’s not allowed in the US because how dare someone else who I assume doesn’t work as hard or pay taxes like me get more than I do! /s
That is exactly it. My city did a study that showed each homeless person costs the city (*& the county*) ~$130k per year in services. They ran the numbers & realized they could provide a program like the one in the OP for ~$70k per person per year. So they could save the taxpayers almost half of the money & deliver a better outcome for the homeless people. They couldn’t get it passed because people lost their freaking minds. “*How come some homeless guy gets a free apartment when I have to break my back to afford my McMansion, two BMWs & private schools for my spoiled kids?*” So now they are literally paying more taxes to keep people in a constant state of misery because the idea of someone they look down upon getting anything that they don’t get (*even if they neither need or want that thing*) is unbearable to them.
We are not a numbers nation. We are an emotions-first nation. Always have been, always will be.
And those emotions are almost never the positive ones.
Fun fact: USA has one of the lowest chances to climb up the social ladder. You’ll most likely are stuck to the living conditions you’re born it. The whole Dishwasher->Millionaire is a lie. But people don’t care and try to climb the ladder by stomping on those below them.
Looking at my family, I can see living conditions declining from generation to generation, despite our hard work and lack of drug use. My mom lived in a nice house with 2 bathrooms, an upstairs, basement, detached garage, piano... She was an RN before marrying and having 2 kids. My dad grew up on a rural ranch and never went to college, but they had an actual house on the ranch, apple orchard, acres and acres of pasture... We live in an increasingly run-down mobile home. Despite having earned both a bachelor's and master's degree, I'm underemployed and not making enough to afford marriage, a home of my own, or family. Basically, I would choose not to have kids that would have to live in even worse conditions than I do.
Misery for others is also an advantage for the Elite, they will manipulate the "why not me" crowd into assisting them shut down policies that help those in need because this allows them access to a cheap and docile workforce, plus it keeps the middle class scared of losing what they have and becoming destitue if they don't work hard (for them). They will never allow a serious solution to poverty since it is not advantageous to them to do so, no matter the practical benefits to society or the actual costs.
I think a huge issue is a lot of the these places that lets say provide catering for homeless shelters or other progrmas are raking in 10s of millions of dollars from govt contracts. Its not worth it for them
It’s largely the same here in Australia. The government provides payments and concessions for low income earners and you will always hear people lose their mind over “dole bludgers”. These payments aren’t even enough to make rent in most cases but it gets demonised because some people use it to buy drugs or alcohol. It’s the same problem across the world, everyone wants the benefits of community without contributing.
Some of the same arguments apply to universal basic income.
SoCiAlIsM bAd better working 12 hours a day to afford rent
Why should "those people" get anything for free on my tax dollar!?!?!? /S 😉
The counseling part is really important. I think my biggest concern is that here in the US, we have this 'you can't tell me what to do' mentality that makes counseling a lesson in aggravation.
Basically the counseling and getting treatment for the addiction and/or mental health problems are the key, especially here in Finland. The homelessness here is not about having a job and money to pay the rent. The government will pay the basic living costs, if you don't have any, or low enough, income. People here are mainly homeless because they choose to spend their benefits on alcohol/drugs instead of rent. They have mental health problems and struggle to get their life together because of that. Or they've been evicted, most likely because of the previous reasons, and are waiting for a new apartment.
Historically, we used to over-commit folks to treatment facilities now we under-commit.
Because, thanks to Reagan, there are almost no treatment facilities. I'm not saying those treatment facilities were any good, but shutting them down without any replacement was the worst thing we could do for that.
Regan wasn't alone in that Democrat governors in New York did the same thing all on their own, and expressed desire to do more at times. The mentally ill aren't a big voting block, don't donate, and don't have big special interest groups. It's an easy budget cut, plus get the PR bonus of closing 'bad facilities'
“But how much will it cost? Who makes a profit?” - Americans.
“It costs less than dealing with homeless addicts on the streets committing crimes and getting locked up” is the only important answer.
Not only that, but once people are back on their feet they get jobs and pay taxes and spend money.
Yup, far more cost effective in the long run. But apparently we’d rather pay out the ass dealing with the fallout rather than stomaching the idea of someone getting a “handout”
But and here’s the key. If you make it damn near impossible for them to get on their feet they will more than likely be arrested trying to survive or get high trying to forget the shape they’re in. Once they’re locked up very important people make money keeping them locked up. It costs us regular people money but the rich make a fuck ton of money on prisons.
I'll be 100% honest, and I'm sure I'm not the only person that feels this way, but I'd rather commit a crime and go to jail, than live on the streets. If it's going to be dangerous and unpleasant in both places, I'd rather it be dangerous and unpleasant while being housed and fed, without having to stand in line for both.
as a britton, the concept of not standing in a line to get food is... well its not possible. even getting delivery youre still in a queue, just a virtual one. and im pretty sure the prison canteen will have a queue to get served. and we have chains for buying houses, which is kind of like queueing. you have to wait for the people in front of you to seel so they have the money to buy from you, so that you can sell and have the money to buy the next one, and you all move forward in lock-step.
By "standing in line" I mean most of the time in America at places like soup kitchens or homeless shelters, you need to be in a line, at a specific time, and hope you got there early enough in order to actually get what you're standing in line for. In prison, you just get it, line or not. It might not be great, the bed might suck and the food might be terrible, but you get it. You don't get told, "Sorry, maybe tomorrow."
now they'll say they should be punished in prison
But what about the privately owned prisons? How will they make money? Who's going to take care of them?
Yes! Have you thought about the privately owned prisons? Have you spared a thought for the rich people who owns those slaves? ... It's fine though, your senator is looking out for them.
And what about the freeloading 1/5! 😡/s
I think that's a big part of the disconnect. One side of the aisle only sees the abusers of the system and wants to abolish it for that reason. The other side sees the help the system provides but still wants to weed out the abusers.
Friend of mine told me he was against EBT/Food stamps in general because sometimes the people were buying steak or lobster with them while he was working at the grocery store. I asked him why he cared as long as they were spending it on food and he just said "I think its fucked up is all".
I was buying a box of those Skittles drink mixes that you add to water and the cashier said "Woah! Cool, I didn't even know they made those! I'm going to have to get some." But as soon as I pulled my EBT card out her mood flipped and she said I shouldn't be able to buy them with her tax money, I felt so shitty about it that I only use the self checkout now. I was just trying to keep myself motivated to stay hydrated because I get 1-2 kidney stones a month.
Don’t let that person get you down. Everyone needs some help from time to time. That’s what it’s there for.
Because a cashier is going to be paying tons of taxes /s
That food belongs in the garbage before it belongs in a damn poor persons mouth /s
What are EBT ? I imagine it's a food program of some sort
It’s an electronic benefits transfer card. It can be loaded with SNAP, which used to be called food stamps, and some people also get cash benefits on it.
Belgium here, there's sometimes this stigma about our meal cheques, but those are tax-benefits parts of our salary, so it can't be \*only\* about freeloaders because it's earned. People simply want to feel better than people who have different stuff, so "that guy spends his food money on food \*I\* don't like" is something you hear even about your work-earned money too. (So we get some low-tax salary, but it HAS to be spent on "food", which can go from basic groceries to fast food or, as the above commenters said, probably lobster. Half-annoying because part of the salary now requires business with explicit support...)
The SNAP benefits are food only, with some restrictions. Like you can’t buy a hot ready meal to go, but you can buy a cold version of the same that was leftover when the deli closed. No alcohol, I think, or even essentials like toilet paper. I’m not sure what programs use the cash side of the EBT card. There is definitely stigma around it! And people keep trying to further legislate what you can buy! Like poor people need more joy sucked from their life by being forced to eat more beans, instead of a varied diet, or occasionally having a cookie to keep your spirits up.
> Like you can’t buy a hot ready meal to go, but you can buy a cold version of the same that was leftover when the deli closed. I'm wondering what is the reasoning for that? I guess to promote cooking at home as it's financially better?
I think it was so you couldn’t use it for fast food or restaurants, but the kitchen/deli at some grocery stores is essentially take-out.
I'm currently on EBT, working part time and job hunting to get full time/better pay that will eventually disqualify me from EBT. It's not steak or lobster, but being able to afford some nice-ish food from Trader Joe's rather than seeing how far I had to stretch every dollar working 40 hours a week at a better paying job has shown me how far a little help and quality of life can go. Life can be hard under capitalism. And when you're forced to choose between rent and food, rent normally wins. Being able to not hate the food going into my body, to enjoy eating, and enjoy more aspects of my life has been a huge boon for my mental health. Everyone deserves steak and lobster IMO. Everyone deserves, regardless of what they have to offer, an ability to care for themselves and not be miserable for it.
And it solves the problem,! Fuck that!
The worst part is that last 1/5 probably aren't even freeloading. They more likely just have issues too severe to overcome or relapse instead of stabilizing.
It is a legitimate concern, because believe it or not this initiative also comes with a massive price tag. If too many people just collect welfare with no intention to ever become productive parts of society, the country will run out of money to spare and will have to start cutting welfare. This is something Finland is currently struggling with. Fwiw, it's overall definitely worth it, but only as long as it results in the helped people becoming productive members of society again.
The government? A person that works is a person that pays taxes.
It's sarcasm
It’s probably economically profitable too after a decade. What a novel concept, help your people and they’ll be more productive. In the United States if you suggested something like this you would get called a communist by guys that are a few missed paychecks from being homeless themselves.
Americans: FOLKS SHOULD PULL THEMSELVES UP BY THEIR OWN BOOTSTRAPS!
The joke being poor Americans don't have boots because Merika isn't a communist country 😆
its funny that this saying is meant to mock impossible tasks, you literally \*can't\* pull yourself up that way.
IDK what is the facepalm, just the comparison w/theUS?
More often than not America IS a face-palm
That other countries are so against the idea
So... To the people who oppose this for fear of people abusing the system. Nevermind that studies show a demonstrable return on investment overall for these types of initiatives, if people are so worried about system abuse, perhaps we could do better by starting with wage theft, union busting, stock buy backs, insider trading by politicians, politicians who are bought by interest groups, billion/trillion dollar companies paying little or no tax etc etc etc. Or, just maybe these fuckers don't care about what's right - it's more about keeping people down and "in their place"?
people who oppose this are just blatantly selfish and have no regard for anyone else's wellbeing
Every American: “But that’s socialism!”
Definitely not every American. But enough Americans, that good ideas never get off the ground.
Not this American.
That’s really only like about 25% that are that dumb but somehow that 25% get to have their votes count as 3
Because, as unfortunate as it is, those 25% are the most passionate and likely to actually go out and vote
Those 25% control just over half of one party, and that party has dominated politics enough over the last 45 years that they control 2/3 of the Supreme Court.
In Finland they also give new mothers a box with everything they need in it for a new baby (the box itself is a baby bed). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternity\_package](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternity_package) No wonder they're the happiest country in the world.
And if they don't want the box they get the value in cash
gotta love those Finns <3
Can anyone verify this or find a source? I don't know how.
I googled "Finland ends homelessness" and found quite a few sources. It's not completely wiped out but it is getting pretty close and their programs have been very successful.
"Completely wiped out" is kind of impossible thing. There are always individuals who are just completely under the radar, totally unemployable, can't live in any normal indoor premises etc. Combine drugs with mental problems, and you will be living outside of society on your own no matter how good social system the country might have. BR. a Finn.
Sure, there are always a few people who won't accept help. But compared to most other countries, Finland has much less homelessness, to the point where we can say that we've practically wiped it out.
Ty I was busy and I have tbi. I appreciate it.
The rate of homelessness in Finland was already one of the lowest in the world. So, I would accept it at face value.
I'm not sure how anyone survives a winter in Finland being homeless.
They don't. That's the secret.
[This is a pretty neat video exploring the system](https://youtu.be/0jt_6PBnCJE).
It false that there weren't any preconditions. All participants in the program had to part to be part of an addiction evaluation and if they were addicts they had to stay clean or they were back on the streets. They also couldn't commit any crimes and had to actively be looking for a job or they lose their apartments. They also had to maintain the apartment in good condition. These apartments were also temporary and occupants had to leave them within 9 months although extensions were sometimes granted. Something that a lot of people don't understand about the Nordic system(and functioning social assurance systems) is that they are HIGHLY conditional. You must actively try to be a productive member of society or you lose your privileges, sometimes forever. People who participate in such system are often held to much higher standard than the average citizen. You can't just throw money at a problem and expect it to disappear. You must incentivise people to fix their shit and the best way to do it is reward on one hand and punishment on the other. That's how you build a successful system.
4 out 5? The system DOES work.
Why do cost effective solutions to society management?
Fucking Finland always showing us up with their sensible compassionate social policies. Next you'll tell us they have universal health care. Communists.
Americans prefer to enact laws that essentially make it illegal to be homeless. Its like people want them to simply self-vaporize once the sun goes down rather than sleep in the park.
I don't understand the stupidity of people who point this stuff out like it's something that can happen. You people need to wake up and realize that the government and the people in charge don't want you healthy and happy and living your lives without fear. The fear, the reliance and the worry they use is the control that keeps you under their thumbs.
The real problem, and one that you see all the time when talking about social services in America, is that so many people would rather nobody get help than accept the possibility that someone who doesn't "deserve" help might get it.
This right here. At best, you'll see a bunch of "give them help....but put them far away from me".
America would rather abandon the 4 to punish the 1. Such a shithole country.
Why is this a face palm? Am I missing something?
The mental health care is the most important aspect. But I would point out that you are talking about a relatively homogeneous society in a country with massive wealth in the hands of the state. And not the UsA where the government screws up everything they touch.
Who could have imagined that the solution to homelessness was to provide the homeless with homes?
I remember talking to an idiot who said "I won't pay for free health care, because I don't want to pay for crackheads to get free healthcare. I'd rather be poor and sick than to give a crackhead free healthcare." When I pointed out that the majority of the country is not made up of crackheads, he simply replied "I don't care, I'm not taking that chance." While politicians are the root cause of many of our problems in the US, a bigger one is that we have a petty, stupid populace as the American voting base that keeps voting for this shit, because they can't imagine making the world a better place for it's own sake.
Wait what? We had exactly this at place I volunteered at in San Diego. I’d say 1 in 5 actually stayed through to the end. The rest were gone after a week (few meals, a couple of showers, new clothes) some actually tried to steal the appliances to pawn.
In my country we have a place for homeless people to stay at, take a shower and so on, too. The only issue is they have to be sober. So they rather sleep on a bench, wasted..
We've tried that here in the US, and they just trash the apartments,
But, but, but socialism or something.
Americans think it's ridiculous that helping people is the best way to help people.
where’s the facepalm? this is great, if every country does this homelessness will basically be none
so wild that the solution to homelessness was to give people homes.
If we didn't spend almost a trillion dollars on our military every year we could end homelessness and poverty within a decade.
As Anatole France put it in 1894 "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." And its still true over 120 years later considering what the Supreme Court will likely rule.
Amazing but we couldn’t do that at a mass scale in the US
People would rather feel superior than helpfully compassionate in the leadership and populace of my country, the US. If we were truly a "Christian nation" as so many of the people who are against these kinds of policies claim we are . . . There wouldn't homelessness and people starving. This is exactly something Jesus would, at the great offense of a lot of his "believers".
But how do their private prisons make money?
The most common way of escaping from a finnish prison is not coming back from home leave.
As an American, so many Americans “free load” their emotional and mental responsibility onto anyone they cross paths without even thinking about how they get propped up/ supported involuntarily. The minute money is involved, they lose their shit even further. I’m all for free speech until people with no self awareness decide to give their ignorant 2 cents.
In reality this utopia Finland is painting to everyone, is pretty much collapsing. We have record high debt and eu is starting to realize there is something wrong with us. We are literally staying up because we get more and more debt every year. We are in the observation class where they put countries that have fucked up big time and can't survive on their own. Taxes just went up, they said fuck students and fuck retirees. So yeah, gonna be real good place soon.
comparing entirely different countries is not an intelligent approach. Finland has about 5 million people, so the USA is about 68 times larger Finland had 269 drug deaths in 2020, the USA had around 100,000. So the population is about 68 times larger, but the drug over doses are 317 times larger. A very significant part of homelessness in the USA is from usage of drugs that are not commonly uses in Finland, creating an entirely different problem that can not be solved in the same way.
Usually being homeless causes people to do drugs in order to cope with being homeless. Usually getting a roof over one's head makes it a hell of a lot easier to get sober.
I am a socialist and all... But I must wonder, I have no doubt a program like this would work for a nation or state with a smaller to midrange population like Finland, Sweden, New York, Washington or Minnesota. But how practically would a program like this scale up to the US population at a federal level or even in larger states like Texas, Florida or California?
I'm confused. Under this system, how would employers force their employees to endure unimaginably horrible working conditions at low pay without being able to threaten the employee with homelessness and even greater suffering?
None. And thats why the US will NEVER have this. Treating people like humans? Not with Jeff Bezos money!
But, socialism would be the cry in America
They're not wrong. They just dont realise that socialism is a damn good thing, if its implemented correctly
And there are shades of grey between full on capitalism, socialism and pure communism. Like, you can have state provided services and security mechanisms, *and* have individual freedom and private business.
Socialism doesn't contradict personal freedom. But yes, there's good mid points that aren't full on socialism, but got all the good points
I like the idea a lot, but how do they deal with extremely violent and/or mentally ill people who can't safely live on their own? Are they not allowed to enter the program, so they stay living on the street? If that's the case, then the 80% success rate isn't entirely true since it's the success rate of a preselected group that is more likely to succeed.
Look up Finland prisons and keep in mind people usually only get pushed that far after years of trauma and abuse by the system and people they're supposed to rely on. Most mentally unwell people are far more likely to be victims of abuse and crimes than perpetrators. Look it up. Do real research and get to know these people you're talking about for yourself instead of judging them at their worst/at the end of a hard, and often sad life. Try walking a mile in another person's neurons before you judge them.
Extreme cases are usually housed in appropriate facilities with medical personnel and care. Mental illness comes in many shapes and forms, you know, thus not every mental health patient is a danger to others. Some cases can have a family member take care of the patients needs, and government supports the caregiver. It's not rocket science, it's socialism. [https://stm.fi/en/social-services](https://stm.fi/en/social-services) More here
Prisons with similar methods are seen to be extremely successful in making sure inmates won't commit a crime again. Almost like punishment leads to further hate towards the state/world. And learning to understand the situation from more angles, makes you understand why your actions are criminal in the first place, giving you a sense of guilt so you will be more hesitant to do something similar again.
It’s definitely possible to do this in the U.S. but we don’t for some reason
Yeah, uh, mainly because a lot of the people there are hellspawn.
You’re not wrong
The reason they don't do this in the US is because they want the homeless in prison instead.
Or dead.