As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Dem Primary: There Are Too Many Candidates Nowadays, Please Eliminate Twenty

18889919394100

Posts

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.

    I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.

    You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.

    And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.

    Yes. Multiple states have or have had price controls.

    Price controls on what?

    Oil, energy, etc. Price controls on what don't really matter to the point of authority. If a state can place price controls it can place price controls.

    I'm not sure these things are entirely analogous in terms of regulatory framework.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.

    I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.

    You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.

    And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.

    Yes. Multiple states have or have had price controls.

    Price controls on what?

    Oil, energy, etc. Price controls on what don't really matter to the point of authority. If a state can place price controls it can place price controls.

    I'm not sure these things are entirely analogous in terms of regulatory framework.

    Obviously the regulations look and work differently, but that's neither here nor there to the point of authority.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    Fencingsax
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    shryke wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.

    I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.

    You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.

    And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.

    Random thought: Landlording partially works because you can write off expenses on your federal taxes right? So if you go out of the rent control scheme you can no longer do that. I'd think that'd be enough in most places but probably not in the NYC like places.

    Not a huge fan of the general idea though. Rent Control has a huge amount of issues in implementation, though I understand the motivation.

    Rent control is just flawed as an idea. The problem is supply.

    And the more general issue with housing is local control. My understanding is that dealing with that ends up as a state issue at the end of the day, since municipalities are mostly devolved powers afaik. Assuming you wanna light yourself on fire taking that power back anyway.

    shryke on
    HamHamJTryCatcherspool32
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.

    I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.

    You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.

    And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.

    Random thought: Landlording partially works because you can write off expenses on your federal taxes right? So if you go out of the rent control scheme you can no longer do that. I'd think that'd be enough in most places but probably not in the NYC like places.

    Not a huge fan of the general idea though. Rent Control has a huge amount of issues in implementation, though I understand the motivation.

    Rent control is just flawed as an idea. The problem is supply.

    Sanders wants to couple rent controls with 70 billion in new spending on public housing.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.

    I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.

    You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.

    And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.

    Yes. Multiple states have or have had price controls.

    Price controls on what?

    Oil, energy, etc. Price controls on what don't really matter to the point of authority. If a state can place price controls it can place price controls.

    I'm not sure these things are entirely analogous in terms of regulatory framework.

    Obviously the regulations look and work differently, but that's neither here nor there to the point of authority.

    I'm not sure it really works that way. There's lots of things where the feds either can't deal with the issue via interstate commerce loopholes or end up having to basically strongarm the states via holding funding hostage.

    jmcdonaldHarry Dresden
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.

    I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.

    You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.

    And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.

    Random thought: Landlording partially works because you can write off expenses on your federal taxes right? So if you go out of the rent control scheme you can no longer do that. I'd think that'd be enough in most places but probably not in the NYC like places.

    Not a huge fan of the general idea though. Rent Control has a huge amount of issues in implementation, though I understand the motivation.

    Rent control is just flawed as an idea. The problem is supply.

    Sanders wants to couple rent controls with 70 billion in new spending on public housing.

    So one bad idea and one good idea even out to meh.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    jmcdonald
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.

    I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.

    You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.

    And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.

    Random thought: Landlording partially works because you can write off expenses on your federal taxes right? So if you go out of the rent control scheme you can no longer do that. I'd think that'd be enough in most places but probably not in the NYC like places.

    Not a huge fan of the general idea though. Rent Control has a huge amount of issues in implementation, though I understand the motivation.

    Rent control is just flawed as an idea. The problem is supply.

    Sanders wants to couple rent controls with 70 billion in new spending on public housing.

    So one bad idea and one good idea even out to meh.

    I suppose it really does matter what class you are.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    LadaiMagellJuliusJaysonFourBloodsheedjdarksunYamiB.Man in the MistspainfulPleasance
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    National rent controls move us closer to decommodifying housing which is Extremely A Good Thing.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    LadaiCantidoDee KaeCaedwyrJuliusJaysonFourBloodsheedjdarksunYamiB.FANTOMASMan in the MistspainfulPleasance
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    National rent controls move us closer to decommodifying housing which is Extremely A Good Thing.

    How nice would it be for a home to be a goddman tool for living in instead of a bubble-vulnerable nest egg.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
    Styrofoam SammichMagellDee KaeCaedwyrCimmeriiDarkPrimusJuliusCommander Zoomoverride367AbsoluteZeroJaysonFourToxBloodsheedColanutMr RayMr FuzzbuttjdarksunA Kobold's KoboldCantideYamiB.BandableViktor WaltersMan in the MistsNiryapainfulPleasance
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    Where is that home matters. Like, seen examples where building takes 4 months of going through zoning regulations or something silly like that. Is a fight over supply, the existing NIMBY owners wanting to keep the property prices high with regulation blockades and everybody else trying to build. And I don't believe on price controls since what happens is people getting forced to pay the rest of the money under the table, where is invisible and non taxable. What, you think that landlords won't do it?

    TryCatcher on
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Where is that home matters. Like, seen examples where building takes 4 months of going through zoning regulations or something silly like that. Is a fight over supply, the existing NIMBY owners wanting to keep the property prices high with regulation blockades and everybody else trying to build. And I don't believe on price controls since what happens is people getting forced to pay the rest of the money under the table, where is invisible and non taxable. What, you think that landlords won't do it?

    Honestly it would be worth it to have 50 year development plans for all of our cities that include things like utility maintenance/modernization, future transit solutions and planned zoning for higher density.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
    CantidoDee KaeVeagleKraintshrykeRchanenKamarJaysonFourjdarksunTofystedethMan in the MistsKristmas KthulhupainfulPleasance
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Honestly, while there are candidates that aren't viable, the pundit class is showing how arrogant, biased and ignorant they are by declaring front runners as unable to win against Trump. Non-viable candidates usually don't get the spot light as long as Bernie, Warren, Biden, Harris and a few others have, while still maintaining good favorability ratings. Usually a non-viable candidate either can't get out of the low single digits or they self-destruct after getting the spot light. Sure a ton of people aren't paying attention, but if any of the top candidates weren't viable, they've have dropped to the single digits like a month ago.

    The pundit class is also assuming a ton of shit is static and that Trump somehow has magical abilities to be unlike any other candidate. Again he is greatly disliked and non-longer gets to play the trick of being an unknown, that can claim the naysayers have him pegged wrong. Those are two factors that are going to make things harder for him going into 2020. There are several other moving parts that could easily ensure that he gets buried and a big one is that the economy could tank before the election.

    On the housing crisis. Rent control can help, but if someone is serious about dealing with it, they'll have to address several issues. One big area is that some of this reflects the shitty wealth inequality, stagnant wages make it harder for people to save up to buy a house and it also means wealthy asshole entities can sit there and buyup all the good housing (be that for vanity or to rent it out for unreasonable prices). Then you have zoning bullshit, which I'm not entirely clear on how much the federal government can regulate. Finally, there is the issue of a ton of developer deciding that it's more profitable, with some arguing that it's the only way, to build "luxury" housing. The fucked up thing with the housing crisis, is that it primarily ends up hitting people that conventional wisdom would expect to not get hit by it, the middle class. The middle class is well enough off that they can't get assistance with housing, but they are far from a point where they can just throw money at most issues and get what they want. It's nice that Bernie is looking at the housing crisis, but if his only solution is rent control, well that will be far from adequate. Yes, I'm aware he talks about the inequality issue as well, but again rent control and wealth inequality solution do not tackle the entirety that is the housing crisis.

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    National rent controls move us closer to decommodifying housing which is Extremely A Good Thing.

    No, they create perverse incentives, discourage new construction, and at best benefit current residents at the cost of everyone else.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    TryCatcherjmcdonaldspool32shrykeFencingsaxenc0reMrMisterAegisMrMonroe
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    National rent controls move us closer to decommodifying housing which is Extremely A Good Thing.

    No, they create perverse incentives, discourage new construction, and at best benefit current residents at the cost of everyone else.

    You couple it with significant increases to public housing.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    JuliusjdarksunpainfulPleasance
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    RedTide wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Where is that home matters. Like, seen examples where building takes 4 months of going through zoning regulations or something silly like that. Is a fight over supply, the existing NIMBY owners wanting to keep the property prices high with regulation blockades and everybody else trying to build. And I don't believe on price controls since what happens is people getting forced to pay the rest of the money under the table, where is invisible and non taxable. What, you think that landlords won't do it?

    Honestly it would be worth it to have 50 year development plans for all of our cities that include things like utility maintenance/modernization, future transit solutions and planned zoning for higher density.

    The local authorities will just put those plans on a shelf and ignore them since their voters and their biggest donors want high property values. Like, rent controls will also just make a lot of buildings getting repurposed to luxury housing as a dodge. Without attacking zoning laws, a lot of this is just pissing at the wind.

    jmcdonaldshryke
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    More bullet points from Sanders on housing

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    Metzger MeisterJuliusMagelljdarksunCantideFANTOMASMan in the Mists
  • OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    Rent control protects people already living in a rent-controlled home at the expense of everyone else. My biggest problem with it is that it's another way of rewarding the people who got there first as opposed to the people who need it the most. I also don't see it as addressing the core problem, which is a nearly-nationwide deficit of affordable housing in urban areas.

    The main priority needs to be building a ton of dense housing in cities. And the first step to that is to eliminate exclusionary zoning practices such as single-family zoning, excessive parking minimums, minimum lot sizes/setbacks, and so on. The second step is to stop subsidizing expensive low-density single family housing through tax incentives, lending practices, etc, and instead offer incentives for the development of smaller, denser types of housing. Lastly, we need to start funding a lot more subsidized housing mixed in with new market-rate development, so everybody can share in the benefits of living in desirable neighborhoods with good schools and economic opportunities.

    TryCatchermrondeaujmcdonaldVeagleshrykeFencingsaxMrMisterAegisA Kobold's KoboldSpoitKristmas Kthulhu
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.

    I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.

    You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.

    And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.

    Random thought: Landlording partially works because you can write off expenses on your federal taxes right? So if you go out of the rent control scheme you can no longer do that. I'd think that'd be enough in most places but probably not in the NYC like places.

    Not a huge fan of the general idea though. Rent Control has a huge amount of issues in implementation, though I understand the motivation.

    Rent control is just flawed as an idea. The problem is supply.

    And the more general issue with housing is local control. My understanding is that dealing with that ends up as a state issue at the end of the day, since municipalities are mostly devolved powers afaik. Assuming you wanna light yourself on fire taking that power back anyway.

    Is the problem really supply when there's about 1.5 million vacant homes across the country?

    https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nearly-1-5-million-vacant-us-homes-in-q3-2018-represent-1-52-percent-of-all-single-family-homes-and-condos-300739953.html
    IRVINE, Calif., Oct. 30, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- ATTOM Data Solutions, curator of the nation's premier property database, today released its 2018 Vacant Property and Zombie Foreclosure Report, which shows that nearly 1.5 million (1,447,906) U.S. single family homes and condos were vacant at the end of Q3 2018, representing 1.52 percent of all homes nationwide — down from 1.58 percent in 2017.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Dee KaeCantidoZonugalSorceMagellLadaiBloodsheedjdarksunMan in the Mists
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    kime wrote: »
    Im skeptical that this time automation will mean long term mass unemployment.

    I... am quite worried about automation, to be honest. I think there's a good chance that if we don't destroy the world in another way, automation will have a pretty big negative impact on jobs and the economy.

    Automation isn't a force of nature. You're not going to automate if it's not actually a benefit.

    This presumes firms make good decisions based on sound logic

    They don't

    Also if a machine can do the job as well as the human, the machine is always, always, always cheaper over a long enough timescale, so there's very little incentive not to shift as much of your labor budget over to capital investment as possible
    Automation won't destroy the economy.

    Automation will completely decimate the logistics industry within a couple decades, which is really just a whole shitload of people

    I don't put a whole lot of faith in mainstream economics, hell I think a lot of it is nearly pseudoscience, but it makes a fairly solid case for automation not resulting in the suggested scenario.

    For one, (generally) firms that make bad decisions are forced out of the market by the firms that make "good" decisions. In the most broad and general sense of macro economics, actors will tend towards automation only if it is profitable or in other words not destroying the economy. At some theoretical point automation is not actually cheaper than hiring workers for a timescale relevant to humans. The workers are the buyers of the goods you are producing, making production cheaper doesn't matter if your buyers can't afford it. Industries may automate away people but the entire economy ultimately can't.


    Of course, that's all not even really relevant because the economy isn't a closed system free from intentional action, it's part of human society. Society doesn't have a problem with managing increased economic efficiency, as evidenced by the history of dealing with automation that we already have. We, society, aren't doomed by 1 person now doing the job of 10, because we can just make up jobs! That's our whole thing! There isn't some finite amount of labour in the world that we are carefully dividing among the populace. If society determines that people need to work to survive then people will exchange their labour for money in whatever way gets accepted. Who knows, maybe people will get paid to walk people's dogs or deliver them food for almost nothing because they're too lazy to walk.

    AngelHedgie
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Where are those homes? If they aren't on a place with jobs like cities, then is irrelevant since people go where the jobs are.

    jmcdonaldJragghenStabbity StyleKetarshrykeRchanenFencingsaxLoisLaneoverride367AngelHedgieMan in the MistsKristmas Kthulhu
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    Julius wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    kime wrote: »
    Im skeptical that this time automation will mean long term mass unemployment.

    I... am quite worried about automation, to be honest. I think there's a good chance that if we don't destroy the world in another way, automation will have a pretty big negative impact on jobs and the economy.

    Automation isn't a force of nature. You're not going to automate if it's not actually a benefit.

    This presumes firms make good decisions based on sound logic

    They don't

    Also if a machine can do the job as well as the human, the machine is always, always, always cheaper over a long enough timescale, so there's very little incentive not to shift as much of your labor budget over to capital investment as possible
    Automation won't destroy the economy.

    Automation will completely decimate the logistics industry within a couple decades, which is really just a whole shitload of people

    I don't put a whole lot of faith in mainstream economics, hell I think a lot of it is nearly pseudoscience, but it makes a fairly solid case for automation not resulting in the suggested scenario.

    Don't even really need economics, history is fairly illuminating on the topic. There are shocks, and they can be quite severe, but quality of life improves over the long run and the labor is rerouted to other uses.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    JuliuspainfulPleasance
  • OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    There is a massive housing supply deficit in large cities with economic opportunity. That's what's going on in places like San Francisco.

    Most of those vacant homes are vacant for a reason. Rural areas, economically depressed cities, sprawling McMansions too big for most people too afford, etc.

    TryCatcherjmcdonaldmrondeauElJeffeKetarshrykeFencingsaxLoisLaneoverride367iTunesIsEvilMazzyxEinzelCantideLabelTofystedethMan in the MistsKristmas Kthulhu
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Simpsonia wrote: »
    Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.

    I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.

    You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.

    And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.

    Random thought: Landlording partially works because you can write off expenses on your federal taxes right? So if you go out of the rent control scheme you can no longer do that. I'd think that'd be enough in most places but probably not in the NYC like places.

    Not a huge fan of the general idea though. Rent Control has a huge amount of issues in implementation, though I understand the motivation.

    Rent control is just flawed as an idea. The problem is supply.

    And the more general issue with housing is local control. My understanding is that dealing with that ends up as a state issue at the end of the day, since municipalities are mostly devolved powers afaik. Assuming you wanna light yourself on fire taking that power back anyway.

    Is the problem really supply when there's about 1.5 million vacant homes across the country?

    https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nearly-1-5-million-vacant-us-homes-in-q3-2018-represent-1-52-percent-of-all-single-family-homes-and-condos-300739953.html
    IRVINE, Calif., Oct. 30, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- ATTOM Data Solutions, curator of the nation's premier property database, today released its 2018 Vacant Property and Zombie Foreclosure Report, which shows that nearly 1.5 million (1,447,906) U.S. single family homes and condos were vacant at the end of Q3 2018, representing 1.52 percent of all homes nationwide — down from 1.58 percent in 2017.

    Yes. Because houses are in certain places and generally cannot be moved to some other place where people actually want to live.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    jmcdonaldTryCatchershrykeLoisLaneTofystedethMan in the MistsKristmas Kthulhu
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    My main problem with this, UBI and Yang is the framing of automation as a danger while accepting the current ideas about how things should work. We should be celebrating the reduction in total labour and, as Keynes suggested, work less. If one person can now do the work of 4, why not have each person work 10 hours instead of having one person work 40? The value produced is the same, why allow compensation to be cut by 3/4ths? Why can we only resort to an UBI to help people who are fired for efficiency and not just prevent people getting fired?

    It's getting dangerously close to socialism, but otoh the 40 hour work week isn't some god given fact about the world either. People fought to work less, and forced employers to hire more people if they wanted more hours of labour.

    FencingsaxColanutflamebroiledchickenKaputaMan in the Mists
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    Housing Vacancies vs. Homeless Population for hypothetical places folks want to live instead of middle of nowhere: San Francisco:

    Homeless Numbers: approximately 8,000 individuals: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-homeless-population-swells-by-17-in-latest-13851897.php?psid=mZwQK

    Housing Vacancies in San Francisco averages approximately 100,000 homes: https://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/An-estimated-100-000-homes-are-sitting-empty-in-13692007.php


    Guys I'm still not convinced this is a "supply problem" and not a "housing is a toxic bubble where we've commodified a human necessity as a massive source of revenue for people who have the wealth to control property access" problem



    This feels like one of those common wisdom sort of things that doesn't actually have any basis in actual reality and instead just, you know, reinforces an unjust status quo on behalf of modern landed gentry.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Styrofoam SammichMetzger MeisterCantidoCaedwyrJuliusMagellNobodyPhillishereBloodsheedjdarksunYamiB.Man in the MistspainfulPleasance
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    I'd have to look at the specific numbers, but rent control and public housing will do little to solve the current housing problem. Sure they help people that either don't want to buy a house or low income people in areas that didn't have enough housing. If you're middle class and struggling to find affordable housing, well you're shit out of luck. Any solution to the housing crisis is going to have to tackle the bullshit zone that NIMBY types put up, while also addressing the issue of developers finding it more profitable to build another luxury McMansion development instead houses that middle class households can afford, after they finish builidng their token low income housing on the cheap.

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    My main problem with this, UBI and Yang is the framing of automation as a danger while accepting the current ideas about how things should work. We should be celebrating the reduction in total labour and, as Keynes suggested, work less. If one person can now do the work of 4, why not have each person work 10 hours instead of having one person work 40? The value produced is the same, why allow compensation to be cut by 3/4ths? Why can we only resort to an UBI to help people who are fired for efficiency and not just prevent people getting fired?

    It's getting dangerously close to socialism, but otoh the 40 hour work week isn't some god given fact about the world either. People fought to work less, and forced employers to hire more people if they wanted more hours of labour.

    I don't think anyone even vaguely socialist disagrees with this.


    The problem is that we still live in an economy controlled by oligarchical capitalists whose stringent belief is, at best, that meritocracy exists and if you're a worthy enough person you'll totally find a job.



    Instead, the trend looks like it's going to be those oligarchical capitalists are just going to automate everything they can, pushing people out of their jobs because it's cheaper in the long run to spend revenue on maintaining the machinery than paying someone, and they're going to be left to find work that pays below a living wage because, again, oligarchical capitalist hellscape, and by the time the effects reverberate enough for them to be affected they still won't address the problem because they're blinded by an ideology of a non-existent meritocracy and a strong aversion to spending money that could be recouped as profit.

    I also don't entirely trust the fact that somehow we'll just generate new jobs out of nowhere because they don't really come out of nowhere, they come out of resource access that we no longer really have unless you're already of stable wealth, and without those resources we don't have the means of developing new fields of labor to create demand to support those jobs.

    That said, Yang's plan is still, near as I can tell, barely even rubbing spit on a wound level addressing the problem.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    JuliusBloodsheedjdarksunCantideMan in the MistsKristmas Kthulhu
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/homelessness-finland-housing-first_n_5c503844e4b0f43e410ad8b6

    We should do what Finland is doing and just give people homes.
    Salmi is a beneficiary of Finland’s much-lauded “housing first” approach, which has been in place for more than a decade.

    The idea is simple. To solve homelessness you start by giving someone a home, a permanent one with no strings attached. If they want to drink, they can; if they want to take drugs, that’s fine too. Support services are made available to treat addiction, mental health and other problems, and to help people get back on their feet, from assisting with welfare paperwork to securing a job.

    The housing in Finland is a mix of designated standard apartments sprinkled through the community, and supported housing: apartment blocks with on-site services, built or renovated specifically for chronically homeless people. A Salvation Army building in Helsinki, for example, was converted from a 250-bed emergency shelter to an 81 apartment supported housing unit.

    Formerly homeless residents have a rental contract just like anyone else. They pay rent from their own pockets or through the benefits afforded by Finland’s relatively generous welfare state.

    The approach is working. As homelessness rises across Europe, Finland’s numbers are falling. In 1987, there were around 18,000 homeless people. In 2017, there were 7,112 homeless people, of which only 415 were living on the streets or in emergency shelters. The vast majority (84 percent) were staying temporarily with friends or relatives. Between 2008 and 2015, the number of people experiencing long-term homelessness dropped by 35 percent.

    The reason? Finland approaches homelessness “as a housing problem and a violation of fundamental rights, both solvable, and not as an inevitable social problem resulting from personal issues,” said an analysis from Feantsa, a European network that focuses on homelessness.

    ...


    Finland’s approach ultimately comes down to values, said Juha Kaakinen, an architect of the housing first approach and CEO of the nonprofit Y-Foundation. “The Finnish attitude is that we have to help people who are in the most difficult position, whatever the reason they have become homeless,” he said. “We understand very well that the main reasons behind homelessness are structural reasons.”

    In Espoo, a city 2 miles west of the Finnish capital, a housing unit sits overlooking a lake. This is Väinölä, a small development built in 2014, which is home to 35 formerly homeless people in 33 apartments.

    Eight nurses work on shifts to ensure someone is available 24 hours a day, and a work activity coach and coordinator organize work for those who can and want to do it. This could be anything from cooking meals to packing reflectors and it earns residents €2 ($2.30) a day.

    Teams of residents also collect trash locally. “The neighborhood loves it because they think this area is now cleaner than ever,” said Jarkko Jyräsalo, who runs Väinölä. “Sometimes housing units like this have problems with their neighbors, but we don’t.”

    Despite the different, sometimes severe, needs of residents, Väinölä is mostly peaceful. Jyräsalo credits weekly community meetings between residents and staff. “They are people who are used to solving their problems with fists or fighting. But now we have learnt to discuss things.”


    EDIT: This feels particularly relevant during Primary season, on the importance of leading the way on issues and, essentially, serving as a role model for the values we pursue as a country:
    Finland’s success at cutting homelessness has attracted a huge amount of international attention, and the Y-Foundation’s Kaakinen is often asked to explain how the country mobilized such strong political will. For him, it boils down to this: “There has to be some individual politician who has the social consciousness.”

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    IncenjucarNobeardKayne Red RobeArdolnever dieBloodsheedjdarksunA Kobold's KoboldLabelBandableMan in the MistsKristmas KthulhuMorganVpainfulPleasance
  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister Registered User regular
    Also, what value is an empty home or apartment complex? Surely they're better used economically and ethically if they're being used at all. Meanwhile, if you allow people to occupy these empty units, suddenly they have a fixed address to get mail, they have a shower and a toilet and a fridge and an oven and all these things that make modern life work, and they can participate in the community instead of scratching out some meager subsistence on the fringes of society. These people are already members of our communities, if we treat them like they are and really give them the chance to BE a member of the community with dignity and a safe place to sleep every night, they'll "contribute to society" or whatever, but more than that, we'll have enriched our entire collective society immeasurably in the long-term, in so many ways.

    The fact that like... Some landlord's bank account and investment portfolio is more important than people sleeping inside is so insane to me. I know nobody here is saying that, but it seems to me that as a society we've kinda determined that to be so. People have been sleeping inside SOMETHING since before we were fuckin humans! How have we not just settled this!?

    ColanutKristmas Kthulhu
  • OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    Lanz wrote: »
    Housing Vacancies vs. Homeless Population for hypothetical places folks want to live instead of middle of nowhere: San Francisco:

    Homeless Numbers: approximately 8,000 individuals: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-homeless-population-swells-by-17-in-latest-13851897.php?psid=mZwQK

    Housing Vacancies in San Francisco averages approximately 100,000 homes: https://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/An-estimated-100-000-homes-are-sitting-empty-in-13692007.php


    Guys I'm still not convinced this is a "supply problem" and not a "housing is a toxic bubble where we've commodified a human necessity as a massive source of revenue for people who have the wealth to control property access" problem



    This feels like one of those common wisdom sort of things that doesn't actually have any basis in actual reality and instead just, you know, reinforces an unjust status quo on behalf of modern landed gentry.

    San Francisco's vacancy rate is quite low--one of the lowest in the entire country. They compare it with other cities in the same article which have approximately 3x the vacancy rate. That's not to say there are no property owners sitting on vacant homes trying to maximize their profits. But I strongly suspect that most of the homes sitting vacant are in very expensive price categories which are hard to find renters for. Large houses, luxury apartments. In that context it's important to understand how difficult we've made it by law to say, split a large house into a duplex or fourplex, or to build profitable apartments that aren't high-margin luxury units (due to parking minimums, extremely limited zoning, etc).

    My point being, if you took a slice of the housing market and just looked at, say, 1-bedroom units of 600 square feet or less, class B or lower, I bet you the vacancy rate is much much lower. The problem is we don't have enough of those units!

    OremLK on
    FencingsaxjmcdonaldKristmas Kthulhu
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Also, what value is an empty home or apartment complex? Surely they're better used economically and ethically if they're being used at all. Meanwhile, if you allow people to occupy these empty units, suddenly they have a fixed address to get mail, they have a shower and a toilet and a fridge and an oven and all these things that make modern life work, and they can participate in the community instead of scratching out some meager subsistence on the fringes of society. These people are already members of our communities, if we treat them like they are and really give them the chance to BE a member of the community with dignity and a safe place to sleep every night, they'll "contribute to society" or whatever, but more than that, we'll have enriched our entire collective society immeasurably in the long-term, in so many ways.

    The fact that like... Some landlord's bank account and investment portfolio is more important than people sleeping inside is so insane to me. I know nobody here is saying that, but it seems to me that as a society we've kinda determined that to be so. People have been sleeping inside SOMETHING since before we were fuckin humans! How have we not just settled this!?

    Because we're a settler nation founded on the exploitation of land at all cost founded as a money and resource generating venture by rich ass european arisocrats and the companies they set up for the specific purposes of that exploitation and are barely cognizant of that fact and have generally as a gestalt popular consciousness taken it as a given fact of life.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    painfulPleasance
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    OremLK wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Housing Vacancies vs. Homeless Population for hypothetical places folks want to live instead of middle of nowhere: San Francisco:

    Homeless Numbers: approximately 8,000 individuals: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-homeless-population-swells-by-17-in-latest-13851897.php?psid=mZwQK

    Housing Vacancies in San Francisco averages approximately 100,000 homes: https://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/An-estimated-100-000-homes-are-sitting-empty-in-13692007.php


    Guys I'm still not convinced this is a "supply problem" and not a "housing is a toxic bubble where we've commodified a human necessity as a massive source of revenue for people who have the wealth to control property access" problem



    This feels like one of those common wisdom sort of things that doesn't actually have any basis in actual reality and instead just, you know, reinforces an unjust status quo on behalf of modern landed gentry.

    San Francisco's vacancy rate is quite low--one of the lowest in the entire country. They compare it with other cities in the same article which have approximately 3x the vacancy rate. That's not to say there are no property owners sitting on vacant homes trying to maximize their profits. But I strongly suspect that most of the homes sitting vacant are in very expensive price categories which are hard to find renters for. Large houses, luxury apartments. In that context it's important to understand how difficult we've made it by law to say, split a large house into a duplex or fourplex, or to build profitable apartments that aren't high-margin luxury units (due to parking minimums, extremely limited zoning, etc).

    My point being, if you took a slice of the housing market and just looked at, say, 1-bedroom units of 600 square feet or less, class B or lower, I bet you the vacancy rate is much much lower. The problem is we don't have enough of those units!

    What if

    and I know this is craaaaazy talk


    we took the homes and gave them to the folks who need homes, and to hell with the "expensive prices"?


    Sanders plan includes rehabilitating existing, presumably non-affordable, housing into affordable housing? Then let's do it. If these luxury homes and units can fit people, then goddamn it rehab them as needed and actually let them go to people who need them instead of sitting empty because a landlord isn't getting the revenue they want out of it. If finland can go and convert a Salvation Army shelter into actual housing, why can't we repurpose luxury development into affordable housing?

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Styrofoam SammichBloodsheedjdarksunYamiB.Man in the MistsKristmas KthulhupainfulPleasance
  • Crimson KingCrimson King Registered User regular
    use vacancy tax to eliminate the concept of investment property

    IncenjucarMillStabbity StyleStyrofoam SammichCantidoZonugalCaedwyrshrykeTryCatcherNobeardKayne Red RobeSorceDarkPrimusFencingsaxLoisLaneMagelloverride367jkylefultonAbsoluteZeroLadaiJaysonFournever dieGnizmoToxBloodsheedMagus`AegisDoctorArchEmperorSethkimeMr RayjdarksunA Kobold's Koboldboogedybooqwer12SmrtnikLabelYamiB.TofystedethKoopahTroopahMild ConfusionBandableTubularLuggageNiryaMan in the MistsKristmas KthulhuMorganVpainfulPleasance
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    What if some houses are just too good to be given to the homeless?

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    Julius
  • reVersereVerse Attack and Dethrone God Registered User regular
    What if some houses are just too good to be given to the homeless?

    Well, those homes can then be given to low income families who do have homes, and the homeless can move into their now vacated homes.

  • Stabbity StyleStabbity Style He/Him | Warning: Mothership Reporting Kennewick, WARegistered User regular
    From my understanding with SF at least, there's NIMBY laws preventing people from increasing density, so a lot of it gets spread out to outlying communities and people commute in, which is a pretty terrible solution.

    SijLqhH.png
    Steam: stabbitystyle | uPlay: stabbitystyle | b.net: Stabbity#1528 | XBL: Stabbity Style | PSN: Stabbity_Style | Twitch: stabbitystyle
    Fencingsaxjmcdonald
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Remember also that housing is vacant while changing owners or between renters and while being renovated.

    If the vacancy rate was zero, no-one could move!

    Smrtnik
  • OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Housing Vacancies vs. Homeless Population for hypothetical places folks want to live instead of middle of nowhere: San Francisco:

    Homeless Numbers: approximately 8,000 individuals: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-homeless-population-swells-by-17-in-latest-13851897.php?psid=mZwQK

    Housing Vacancies in San Francisco averages approximately 100,000 homes: https://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/An-estimated-100-000-homes-are-sitting-empty-in-13692007.php


    Guys I'm still not convinced this is a "supply problem" and not a "housing is a toxic bubble where we've commodified a human necessity as a massive source of revenue for people who have the wealth to control property access" problem



    This feels like one of those common wisdom sort of things that doesn't actually have any basis in actual reality and instead just, you know, reinforces an unjust status quo on behalf of modern landed gentry.

    San Francisco's vacancy rate is quite low--one of the lowest in the entire country. They compare it with other cities in the same article which have approximately 3x the vacancy rate. That's not to say there are no property owners sitting on vacant homes trying to maximize their profits. But I strongly suspect that most of the homes sitting vacant are in very expensive price categories which are hard to find renters for. Large houses, luxury apartments. In that context it's important to understand how difficult we've made it by law to say, split a large house into a duplex or fourplex, or to build profitable apartments that aren't high-margin luxury units (due to parking minimums, extremely limited zoning, etc).

    My point being, if you took a slice of the housing market and just looked at, say, 1-bedroom units of 600 square feet or less, class B or lower, I bet you the vacancy rate is much much lower. The problem is we don't have enough of those units!

    What if

    and I know this is craaaaazy talk


    we took the homes and gave them to the folks who need homes, and to hell with the "expensive prices"?

    So, if we're going to do a deep dive into mainly social housing (i.e. Vienna, Singapore where most housing is public) versus mainly free market housing (i.e. Tokyo, where housing is also relatively affordable) that should probably be a separate thread I'm guessing.

    For me though my point is that I'd like to see the Democratic primary candidates talk about making meaningful reforms to exclusionary zoning and toward funding more subsidized affordable housing in mixed developments because I think those are things that could be accomplished in the near term. I'm less interested in rent control because I'm not sold that it's going to improve the situation for most of the people who need it the most.

    MrMonroeKristmas Kthulhu
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Remember also that housing is vacant while changing owners or between renters and while being renovated.

    If the vacancy rate was zero, no-one could move!

    When the vacancy:homeless ratio is drastic as it is, I don't think we're in the realm of "Vacancy as flexibility" any longer.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Styrofoam SammichNobeardBloodsheedjdarksunYamiB.Man in the Mists
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    OremLK wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Housing Vacancies vs. Homeless Population for hypothetical places folks want to live instead of middle of nowhere: San Francisco:

    Homeless Numbers: approximately 8,000 individuals: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-homeless-population-swells-by-17-in-latest-13851897.php?psid=mZwQK

    Housing Vacancies in San Francisco averages approximately 100,000 homes: https://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/An-estimated-100-000-homes-are-sitting-empty-in-13692007.php


    Guys I'm still not convinced this is a "supply problem" and not a "housing is a toxic bubble where we've commodified a human necessity as a massive source of revenue for people who have the wealth to control property access" problem



    This feels like one of those common wisdom sort of things that doesn't actually have any basis in actual reality and instead just, you know, reinforces an unjust status quo on behalf of modern landed gentry.

    San Francisco's vacancy rate is quite low--one of the lowest in the entire country. They compare it with other cities in the same article which have approximately 3x the vacancy rate. That's not to say there are no property owners sitting on vacant homes trying to maximize their profits. But I strongly suspect that most of the homes sitting vacant are in very expensive price categories which are hard to find renters for. Large houses, luxury apartments. In that context it's important to understand how difficult we've made it by law to say, split a large house into a duplex or fourplex, or to build profitable apartments that aren't high-margin luxury units (due to parking minimums, extremely limited zoning, etc).

    My point being, if you took a slice of the housing market and just looked at, say, 1-bedroom units of 600 square feet or less, class B or lower, I bet you the vacancy rate is much much lower. The problem is we don't have enough of those units!

    What if

    and I know this is craaaaazy talk


    we took the homes and gave them to the folks who need homes, and to hell with the "expensive prices"?

    So, if we're going to do a deep dive into mainly social housing (i.e. Vienna, Singapore where most housing is public) versus mainly free market housing (i.e. Tokyo, where housing is also relatively affordable) that should probably be a separate thread I'm guessing.

    For me though my point is that I'd like to see the Democratic primary candidates talk about making meaningful reforms to exclusionary zoning and toward funding more subsidized affordable housing in mixed developments because I think those are things that could be accomplished in the near term. I'm less interested in rent control because I'm not sold that it's going to improve the situation for most of the people who need it the most.

    It's definitely hitting Separate Thread level by now, yeah.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Cantido
This discussion has been closed.