|
OwlFancier posted:drat if only there were some kind of... control... that the state could enforce over rents. rent control has serious downsides re housing availability it's not a panacea
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
boner confessor posted:nah, in most of the us the problem with housing is cost not supply. the shortage is affordable housing, not housing in general. boner confessor posted:outside of a few urban enclaves which are heavily represented in this forum, there's plenty of housing. just not housing that is located anywhere anyone wants to live, which is why it is affordable. vacancy rates nationally typically remain pretty level And yeah at first I thought you were focusing on the booming metros where housing costs have gone up so much, because I agree that there's lots of parts of the country where housing is still affordable because there aren't many good jobs. Malcolm XML posted:rent control has serious downsides re housing availability
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:rent control has serious downsides re housing availability I mean I'm perfectly willing to drive private landlords out of business and have the state take over instead 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:rent control has serious downsides re housing availability
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
twodot posted:Huh, how? If the direct reason the rent is going up is due to universal income people have more money to compete over rent, how does rent control to prevent landlords from colluding to capture that extra money have any impact on availability? 2. By making renters immune to market rate increases, you remove an incentive for them to vote for looser zoning regulations that would increase housing supply. If you're in a rent-controlled apartment in SF, what do you care if limited supply is making prices shoot through the roof? This is similar to the impact of property tax increase restrictions like Prop 13 in California.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Cicero posted:1. It limits how lucrative being a landlord can potentially be (which is the whole point) which naturally means reduced incentive to build more housing. quote:2. By making renters immune to market rate increases, you remove an incentive for them to vote for looser zoning regulations that would increase housing supply. If you're in a rent-controlled apartment in SF, what do you care if limited supply is making prices shoot through the roof? This is similar to the impact of property tax increase restrictions like Prop 13 in California. edit: Like I get why "rent control as a mechanism to create affordable housing" has problems, but that's not what was being proposed. twodot fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I'm confused because first you said there's a shortage of affordable housing but now you're saying outside "a few urban enclaves" the housing is actually affordable. Which one is it? i'm saying that where there is a shortage, it's due to unaffordability and not lack of units. you originally said housing is more constrained than food which isn't untrue but doesn't discount my comparison because it's extremely rare to find an area with 0% vacancy rates compared to one where housing goes vacant because landlords are holding out for wealthier tenants. and in much of the us there's plenty of housing, which often drives down cost Cicero posted:2. By making renters immune to market rate increases, you remove an incentive for them to vote for looser zoning regulations that would increase housing supply. I nobody votes for this, you show up at board meetings or charettes and use public comment to advocate your views. renters hardly ever do this because they often don't care as much about specific local regulations compared to homeowners in my experience the only people who show up are older homeowners, chronic gadflies, and unmedicated persons worried about agenda 21. not a single person will ever respond to financial incentive to show up a the bimonthly planning board meeting or whatever boner confessor fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Again what if the state could, like, do things without waiting for the free market to stop failing to do it because it's not profitable to the right people? Like either it is not possible to produce enough stuff that everyone in the country can live somewhere, or there is a problem with the system you're using to distribute that productivity. I'm inclined to suggest it might be the latter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Again what if the state could, like, do things without waiting for the free market to stop failing to do it because it's not profitable to the right people? you'd have to rewrite federalism pretty much because housing policy and land use controls are at the absolute tippy top of poo poo that is firmly in the "federal government not allowed to do anything about this" side of the 10th amendment
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:you'd have to rewrite federalism pretty much because housing policy and land use controls are at the absolute tippy top of poo poo that is firmly in the "federal government not allowed to do anything about this" side of the 10th amendment Sorry about your broken country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Sorry about your broken country. Give us time, we have to exhaustively try all the shitiest options first.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
If you want an example of what happens when you throw money into a relatively fixed supply, just look at higher education costs in the US. Easy loans didn't make college more affordable: it just made it more expensive, and permitted a trade of education for decades of debt. UBI is a really interesting concept that needs research, but if you assume that money goes towards rent, then it will increase the cost of shelter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
Is it... ethical to treat people humanely?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:If you want an example of what happens when you throw money into a relatively fixed supply, just look at higher education costs in the US. Easy loans didn't make college more affordable: it just made it more expensive, and permitted a trade of education for decades of debt. That's not what happens when you throw money into a relatively fixed supply, that's what happens when you give anyone who wants it money but mandate that it can only be used to buy one particular thing. Not only did the price of that thing go up, but the colleges poured money into expensive projects designed to attract more students and their guaranteed money, which drove prices up further as they paid for those expansions and additions. It's not particularly a supply issue - while colleges do have finite capacity, they also like to reject a lot of applicants to make their selectivity statistics look good (and therefore seem higher-quality and more exclusive to potential
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:If you want an example of what happens when you throw money into a relatively fixed supply, just look at higher education costs in the US. Easy loans didn't make college more affordable: it just made it more expensive, and permitted a trade of education for decades of debt. College education also has the benefit of never being able to discharge such debt, which is a lot more the reason for their inflated cost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
I am worried about a large proportion of the population being made entirely dependent on the State without extremely firm rights being enshrined in the constitution or similar. What's to stop the gutting of the UBI?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:I am worried about a large proportion of the population being made entirely dependent on the State without extremely firm rights being enshrined in the constitution or similar. What's to stop the gutting of the UBI? The fact that no one wants to be the deciding vote to kick off Civil War II?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
All I want to know is what the hell you're supposed to do when all the good jobs are in the city yet getting a place with less than a 45~60m commute costs buttloads of money. You get to choose between decent paying jobs or affordable housing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
Build more housing? Both private and public. The latter funded through progressive means. Build more high-quality transit and bike paths so in addition to lower housing costs you also have lower transportation costs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:I am worried about a large proportion of the population being made entirely dependent on the State without extremely firm rights being enshrined in the constitution or similar. What's to stop the gutting of the UBI? Why are you more scared of citizens being dependent on the state than you are of citizens being dependent on employers? Governments, at least in theory, have an obligation to their citizens. The vast majority of the population is completely dependent on larger, wealthier entities no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
It's much easier to find a new employer than to up and find a new government. The power welded by governments is also significantly different than private employers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's much easier to find a new employer than to up and find a new government. The power welded by governments is also significantly different than private employers. We're talking about pure monetary dependence here, though. Receiving a check from the government doesn't meaningfully give the government more power over you than an employer. The government arguably has far less influence over your life if it's a non-conditional benefit like a UBI. Edit for a little more clarity on where I'm coming from- The problem I have with this line of discussion is that no one who isn't extremely wealthy is really independent in any way that matters. When most people talk about dependence on the government, what they're really saying is that they're afraid those dirty welfare moochers won't build skills for the "real world." And that's kind of a nonsense argument too, because employers in mid/high salary industries aren't going to care if you were working at McDonalds or collecting a welfare check since both are equally irrelevant. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Jul 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
The issue would be that people with UBIs probably couldn't afford coastal cities where the housing stock is already bought up and someone making a working class salary already can't really afford to live there. While in midwest/rustbelt there is usually enough housing stock, and increases in rent would be relatively marginal. The solution if anything would be what the Soviets (and other countries) did after the war and simply build giant dormitory districts connected by rail/public transportation so people in coastal cities have a UBI. The problem with a UBI, isn't redistribution, but the idea you just need to throw cash at the problem and the free market can handle it. If anything I would like to see more state investment in housing/transportation/education than a check. Sometimes it makes more sense to have a targetted investment in something with social value than just let the market handle it. That said, I would prefer a UBI on top of that than something like price controls which just don't work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 10:25
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:We're talking about pure monetary dependence here, though. Receiving a check from the government doesn't meaningfully give the government more power over you than an employer. The government arguably has far less influence over your life if it's a non-conditional benefit like a UBI. That doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue it regardless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Don't get me wrong, I think UBI is good and I'm not worried about whether or not people "deserve" their social benefits. But I am worried about people with no alternative to a UBI being ground to dust by tomorrow's Freedom Caucus because we didn't have the foresight to write the entitlements in stone. Look at how much people are freaking out over the ACA being potentially repealed. Now imagine that but 10x harder because instead of a nebulous thing like "healthcare" it's money in your pocket. It would become the new third rail of politics, no one would ever be able to gently caress with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Or look at the NHS in britain, the tories have spent decades trying to dismantle it and all they've managed is to shift some of it off to profit making companies while keeping it free at the point of use, and also scuppering their election chances when faced with someone who says "actually spending money on it is good". Things that people come to depend on have serious sticking power, you might as well suggest that women shouldn't have the vote because what happens if the government tried to take it off them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Don't get me wrong, I think UBI is good and I'm not worried about whether or not people "deserve" their social benefits. But I am worried about people with no alternative to a UBI being ground to dust by tomorrow's Freedom Caucus because we didn't have the foresight to write the entitlements in stone. Fair enough. I usually assume the worst when I see someone worrying about people becoming dependent on the government, so my bad for thinking that you were saying something worse than you actually were. Still, a big part of the argument for the universality of a UBI is that it's much harder to take away something that everyone is receiving. The ACA is incredibly hard for the Republicans to deal with because almost everyone who isn't super rich is getting something out of it, even if they aren't on the individual market or Medicaid. Republicans would have the same problem eliminating something like a UBI or a more robust EITC (or even something like the Canada Child Benefit) because any non-partisan analysis would immediately reveal that a repeal would leave people worse off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's much easier to find a new employer than to up and find a new government. The subtext here being you're ok with employees running a gauntlet, bouncing from job to job until they find the one that pays well and treats the employee well. When most of those jobs are bad and all the actually good ones are taken, having a basic income and risking the political gauntlet seems like a better deal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Look at how much people are freaking out over the ACA being potentially repealed. Now imagine that but 10x harder because instead of a nebulous thing like "healthcare" it's money in your pocket. my concern is less that it would be repealed, and more that it would never be adjusted. minimum wage used to be a lot higher (adjusted for inflation) especially since lolbertarians will seize on ubi as an excuse to get rid of the minimum wage i worry about and end state where you can either live in borderline poverty with a bunch of roomates or work 80 hours a week for slightly better, while mark zuckerberg owns an entire dakota.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
As opposed to now, which is very different from that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:my concern is less that it would be repealed, and more that it would never be adjusted. If UBI is high enough, why would you need a minimum wage? If it's not high enough, then has society truly grown wealthy enough to afford it? Not asking rhetorically.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:If UBI is high enough, why would you need a minimum wage? If it's not high enough, then has society truly grown wealthy enough to afford it? Not asking rhetorically. The problem is inflation. We can set a "high enough " value now. Will it be high enough decades later?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
Ideally you would peg it to inflation or cost of living.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Ideally you would peg it to inflation or cost of living. Which immediately results in sneaky gaming of cost of living stats so cost of living goes down constantly while it gets more and more expensive to live.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
Chain cpi my rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:If UBI is high enough, why would you need a minimum wage? If it's not high enough, then has society truly grown wealthy enough to afford it? Not asking rhetorically. So do you think the EITC is useless and that we should get rid of it because we aren't a wealthy enough society to afford it? Something like a UBI can be used to address poverty without necessarily needing it to be $20k/year or whatever arbitrary number we decide is high enough to ditch the minimum wage. It would still provide a solid floor of financial stability, especially at the low end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
If the UBI is insufficient or politicians try to cut it back, then the same political forces and conditions that got it passed in the first place will quickly reassert themselves. It's a self-solving problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean I'm perfectly willing to drive private landlords out of business and have the state take over instead mao wasn't wrong
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If the UBI is insufficient or politicians try to cut it back, then the same political forces and conditions that got it passed in the first place will quickly reassert themselves. It's a self-solving problem. So you're saying  the market will sort it out
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
Society and politics are not markets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 06:13
|
|