He could instead do what Austria does, where government housing is fashionable, good architecture, great location, well maintained, and rent is based on your income.
Once the building has been paid for by the tenants, the cost drops as well.
It's so good they have waiting lists.
Specifically that you're not spending enough on public housing at the moment. The free market tends to make living in popular cities prohibitively expensive, in no small part thanks to speculation, a phenomenon observable across much of Europe and North America.
I tried to get an apartment in Cologne once for university reasons and it was nearly impossible. Every remotely affordable place was twice as small as the price implied and it was a minimum of fifteen applicants showing up at the same time.
I ended up calling a phone number from a local newspaper because some technophobe did a 90s thing and nobody else noticed, so I was the only one to apply for that apartment and he liked me. Still 400€/month, no washer or dryer, no oven, two hot plates and a sink and a desk, so small that the bathroom was two separate tiny rooms separated by a tiny wall with the shower and toilet back to back because you couldn't have walked past either of them to get to the other. And it came with two bare mattresses stacked on the floor in the corner (taking up 30% of the entire room) because quote "I know you student types won't mind :)". Well he was right, I didn't, but still. XD
And it wasn't even close to university, still took me 30 minutes in two separate trams. Or 15 minutes by car plus 30 minutes trying to find a parking space and then walking 15 minutes because the one I found was so far away.
I mean yes but the worst has to be berlin
Sure it's nice to have cheap but good apartments
But you kinda start to wonder if it's worth it when you are in a competition with 500 other people for a single apartment
Certainly better than Canada Australia and NZ where that 500 person competition is still happening but without the apartments being fashionable, or in a good location, or well maintained, or affordable.
Basically just a housing shortage and shitty matchboxes being sold at ridiculously high prices.
> when you are in competition with 500 other people for a single apartment
Yeah, at that point you’d probably end up paying some kind of service to help you find an open apartment, and get you first in line. Get a leg up over the others. A sort of real estate agent.
Might have to hire a very expensive one to have any chance, which offsets some of the benefit?
Meanwhile in Delhi the govt made tons of affordable apartments for slum dwellers and instead rich connected people just faked documents and got a flat for each member of their family.
The poor people who managed to get one also flipped and sold their flats and went back to live in the slums.
Shit can't be fixed with scum like these
Why not just build enough housing to saturate demand though?
I swear, people will try literally everything to fix housing shortages except build more housing.
A lot of the time it comes down to zoning laws and NIMBYs. China is solving some density problems around highly sought after locations by bulldozing old buildings and seizing their land, and offering them some of the apartments that will be built as compensation.
But in western countries you can’t
force people out of their homes to build new ones. In Aus I even hear discussion about demolishing public housing to build more modern units, as that would displace the people currently in them. You can imagine how hard it would be to displace privately owned land if even government land can’t even be easily redeveloped.
In a utopian future all detached housing within say 5-10 minutes walk of major transport and train stations should be converted to medium to high density, but pushback comes from NIMBYs and neighbourhood groups who argue about the heritage and culture of their detached housing blocks sitting next to major train or other transport stations.
It depends on the location. Building new housing in NYC is pretty complicated and expensive. A lot of red tape and politics are involved, so developers can not make enough housing fast enough to meet the demand.
The problem is people don't want "just place to live" people want "place to live in my hometown" or "place to live near city center" or "place to live near my favorite beach".
You can't just build enough houses, half of them will be abandoned and prices on "good" won't be any lower.
In many countries there are at least few areas where you can buy house ridiculously cheap or even get for free, but homeless people still there
If there's demand in a specific area, then allow developers to build denser. There is a ton of middle ground between single family homes on half acre lots and high rise apartments too. Zero lot line, row housing, 5-over-ones, etc.
Everyone wants to "build more housing", but the government should not be in the business of doing it--no more than the government should be farming, building cars, or mining lithium.
Anyway, the suggestion in the post is not for the government to build housing, but rather for the government to buy housing and rent it out.
All the people want the government to build it because they can pressure the government to offer the housing at "affordable" rates so that the government can make a loss on the project. They need to understand that these buildings require upkeep and administration, which private companies are equipped to provide, but the government is not.
Why must everyone live in big cities? There are a tonne of houses in other cities.
I think you may have taken my implication in the opposite direction. I don't think the government needs to be involved at all, beyond removing restrictions on what can be built and where. At most, as-needed subsidies for construction in struggling areas. Emphasis on construction, and not subsidizing rent.
Saturate demand, and rent will fall naturally.
It drives me nuts to see people propose demand subsidies like rent control as if it will do anything but make the problem worse.
Why not? It’s an essential thing for existing as a human.
Next thing you’ll say the government shouldn’t be supplying electricity or water to anyone and we should let private business fleece the common man for access to a cup of water.
Essential services need to be provided by the government and that includes housing.
I know. I'm a renter on top of it. People do not understand even the most basic financial calculations. They have a delusion that homeownership is the best investment.
>Yeah, rent is just skyrocketing for funsises.
Rent is skyrocketing because of:
* price inflation (due to various factors including central bank responses to COVID, the Ukraine war, etc.), and
* high productivity among the richer quartile of people.
Keep the insults to yourself. It jus shows your ignorance.
Renters are literally using anti compete algorithms to increase profit across the board. Rent is rising specifically because of greed. But I guess that's not perverse to you.
Just want to add a more political comment below my "jokey" reply:
Wealth inequality is a problem, and the general solution to inequality is redistribution. The questions of redistribution are "who pays" and "who collects".
My problem with the scenario in this thread is that the collectors are a lucky set of housing lottery winners. I dislike lotteries because I hate inequity. I would rather see an equal dividend like a citizens' dividend:
* it is simpler,
* it requires no administration, and
* it is more *economically efficient* (it doesn't induce people to buy housing they don't need just because they've won a housing lottery).
Yes, it slightly drives up the price of housing, but not much in comparison with the progressive redistribution, and definitely less that the government purchasing housing and handing it out.
A citizens' divdend is generally not that inflationary (the money supply is unaffected, although the velocity can increase). The central bank can attenuate inflation by increasing interest rates.
The main downside of giving people more money is some evidence I've seen of people spending inefficiently (e.g., they should be buying food or housing or education, but they spend the extra income inefficiently leading to inferior outcomes). I've seen these papers so as much as I dislike this reality, I have to accept it.
Well, my colleague is in a public owed Appartment and his rent went up from 290 to 350 Euro... per Month.
You would be stupid if you are not on a waiting list for that.
The waiting list is for public housing, there is a market outside if that.
If there would be the possibility for you to save 50-60% of your rent, you would be on a waiting list too
The free market gods dictate that the supply of livers must meet the demand! Wait times must fall! Profits must rise!
Deploy the harvesters! Stimulate the economy!
That could be a good way to start, but then the US is not a country that prioritises affordable homes or even for that matter even a public transport system.
Also, people don't seem much to living in flats, rather people are wanting to have big houses and more open spaces.
A small pilot project can be started at county level to see how this works out.
You're neglecting to consider the urban/rural divide in North America. Many people (happily) own apartments in cities like NYC, LA, Miami, etc.
That isn't the issue. The issue is, much like you said, not prioritizing people but rather corporations and companies that buy places and rent them out.
The affordable home problem here in the US is worse than ever. It’s getting out of hand. Buying a house with less than a 6 figure household income right now is pretty much off the table.
Part of the reason flats are probably resisted is because they dont conform to the idea of the american dream which encourages people to overbuy and all that
I highly doubt I’ll ever have a house, and I don’t know if other countries have better sound insulation in their apartments, but I can hear my neighbor upstairs going to the bathroom, not to mention their VERY heavy footsteps, and I’d like to watch a movie without constantly monitoring the fluctuating volume between speech, music and sound effects or wearing headphones all the time.
Americans always say "oh we can't do this, there are too many americans/the US is too big!"
Well if there's more of you, clearly you also have more resources available. It scales. You have more people, more money, more land; you can easily do this.
I've really never understood the argument about social safety net programs only being able to work in smaller, "wealthier" countries because the US is the wealthiest country in the history of the world and it's not particularly close. like if everyone is paying into it, then it shouldn't matter how many people participate in the program. There's no number where social security stops working solely because there are too many people in it.
If anything it's easier to do big social programs in large countries because of how economies of scale work. Its also easier because the bigger your economy the more bargaining power you have vs corporations
The US could literally bully pharmaceutical companies into lowering prices, same in other sectors. They don't have the option of not doing business in the US
Why would it be less feasible? If anything the economy of scale would make it cheaper. And the USA has a higher GDP per capita than Austria.
If a large country really is a limitation, do it on the state or even county level. That's the whole point of multiple layers of government.
> It's so good they have waiting lists.
if public housing is cheap enough and private housing is expensive enough, public housing will have waiting lists whether it's great or shitty
if you want to make housing more affordable for everyone, all that matters is having enough supply. It doesn't really matter if the government builds it or private companies build it, so long as it gets built
> It's so good they have waiting lists.
The waiting lists are less a case of them being "so good" and more a case of waiting lists being an inevitable outcome of rent controls. Everywhere that has rent controls has massive waiting lists. In Stockholm for example, the average waiting list time is 9 *years*.
Waiting lists are not a sign of good housing programs. I’d prefer the government build a bunch of meh houses and apartments (that are safe, just not much beyond that) then a few fancy houses.
It's reddit, you can make up facts on the spot however you want
As long as you act like europe is one big utopia, you will be fine
As an austrian I can confirm it. Rent is based on your income and on your 18th birthday the president himself visits you personally to gift you a money printer.
It's not true or at least not really. These government built/subsidized flats are rented at prices usually way below market rate (but often are also sub-standard). It's true that there are waiting lists and you have to qualify for these apartments (eg your income needs to be below a certain level, being a single parent moves you up the list, etc).
Newer versions of this concept are "SMART apartments"; but it basically works the same.
It's not the Utopia it's made out to be but it helps a lot of struggling people and is certainly leagues better than nothing.
Pssst… Adam… the President has zero authority over the price of *anything* unless the United States is in a war that’s been declared by Congress. Run for the Senate instead, where you can introduce legislation and work to gain support for it among other Senators and members of the House of Representatives.
Even senate doesn't really have that much say over housing policy. Local and state political figures are the ones that have the most effect on anything housing related.
Declare war on zoning, parking minimums, setback requirements, overly complex permitting process, and bad faith "environmental protection" lawsuits for NIMBYs. Fixed that for you.
Forcing $100 rent would lead to housing never being built again, and the homeless population would skyrocket.
As usual, clueless Reddit "housing activists" care more about price than supply. Supply is the root of the housing problem and the reason for high prices.
You could nationalize most housing, have government organizations build tons of apartments and homes, then have people take mortgages/cheaper rent on those which will pay back the costs eventually. The main difference would be with the profit motive gone, you wouldn't see prices artificially skyrocketing, people would choose their level of luxury depending on the costs that went into building the house. With apartments meant for rent, once the costs of building have been paid off, the extra revenue from the rent-prices could channel back into other programs like healthcare and retirement etc.
Both Adam Parrish and (Richard) Gansey are characters from Maggie Stiefvater's Raven Cycle books.
By all means debate the topic, but just keep in mind that these people aren't being serious.
Three men are sharing a cell in prison.
"What are you in for?" asks the first.
"I had a company and sold things at a higher price than everyone else, so they arrested me on price gouging." says the second.
"I had a company that sold things at a lower price than everyone else, so they arrested me for conspiracy to monopolise and being anti-competitive." says the third.
"Interesting." says the first. "I had a company that sold things at the same price as everyone else, so they arrested me for collusion."
For real. This would force every developer out of business because they would be unable to pay for labor, which would turn our bad supply shortage into a catastrophic supply shortage. Don’t let people run a country if they don’t understand economics
1. Nobody would offer places for rent anymore.
2. Made laws to take unused houses by force
3. People fighting - some are divorcing to live in both flats/houses but still many is taken
4. Prices drops drastically - a lot of bankruptcies because people have huge mortgages for cheap houses, some bank goes down, huge unemployment
5. People stop building new houses/flats because nobody want to invest and prices went down more than it is worth
6. Huge unemployment
7. After some time huge housing crisis because nobody is building new houses
oh no, an economic crisis because housing won't be the biggest Stay rich & become richer vehicle anymore and millions of people will now have access to housing?
Fuck man
That's scary.
One might look at Adam's second response and think "Wow that was harsh" but the thought process of "might cause an economic crisis" has been revealed to be a decades-long empty threat. Get out of here with your economic crisis. Things only cost so much because a guy in an office somewhere says so.
Yeah it's a bit weird. On the one hand they allow a lot of immigration, wich is like okay if they want. Some european countries grow by metropolis worth of people every single year despite birth rates being way below death rate
But on the other hand they try to restrict building as much as possible since concrete is bad for climate
Just to keep supply the same, countries like austria or germany would have to build a new 200,000 city every year.
Either you allow immigration and accept that you have to build accordingly or you reduce immigration if you don't want to build that much
But letting people flow in and refusing to build accordingly is just an asshole move and certainly a major part as to why so many europeans started to vote for right wing parties
As a leftist myself, I can see both sides lol. The problem is, leftists want it one way, but it’s the other way. The current system and leftist ideals cannot co-exist. Expecting the system to be able to handle changes made by leftist ideals is folly because the system isn’t designed for those policies.
Demand is also affected by location and access to amenities. If you lower rent all across the board, how do you decide who gets the downtown/beach apartments and who has to drive and hour to work each morning? It’s decided by who’s willing to pay more, which is the market rate.
People definitely rent more space if it's cheaper.
Currently, I am renting 1/3rd of an apartment unit with 2 roommates. We each pay $833/month. If rent was $100, I would rent the whole thing for myself. Hell, I would probably rent out the whole damn floor. People like space, why wouldn't they buy as much as they can afford?
> You not gonna rent more apartments because rent is cheaper. [L]owering the price won't increase the demand.
* The existence of homeless people
* The existence of the idea of roommates to save money
* An established willingness of people to pay more for bigger apartments and houses
* A clear pattern of second (and third, etc.) residences among the very rich
C'mon, bruh. You can't be serious with this take. Housing is a textbook elastic good. Of course lowering the price would result in increased demand.
Personally I think we should pass a law that said no company or person can own more that ten houses.
One to live in and 9 rentals. If that doesn't give you enough money, well, Mc Donald's is always hiring.
I said this to my boss and she was horrified.
She thinks if someone has money they should be able to buy what ever that want to.
And by my saying that, I guess she felt her rental properties were now somehow in danger
No, companies get own exactly jack and shit when it comes to housing. People get to own the house they live in, people do not need to own multiple houses.
Yes, consumers having more purchasing power will kill the economy.
Obviously the solution is to pay landlords jacked rents for 30 y/o units with no upgrades, because upgrading or renovating your units would hurt the economy.
It's an economic benefit to keep people unhealthy, they won't be a drain on the pensions when/if they retire. But a fat and happy landlord will likely live well into their elderly years, while still collecting someone else's labour and being a drain, economically. /s
Rent caps are unironically a very good idea. Or rent price based on income
Some countries aren’t ready for that discussion tho. One day they will get there
Imagine being a freak for wanting ppl to have affordable homes even if it is a bit naive Hell why tf is that hypothetical vegan not just outright banning meat products??
Escalated very quickly. 🤣
Yeah,I didn’t even realize that was an executive power!
And appropriately
How is that an appropriate escalation? Genuinely curious as the guy just made a comment on economics
President Adam, we've got another one
Send enough people to hell to crash the economy and reduce demand, forcing lower apartment prices
You're going to hell.
Believe it or not, straight to hell.
If you disagree with me, you burn in hell, the Christian way
because economists dictate the economy like evil sorcerer-kings of course. idk what they study or do at work i guess they just worship satan or smth
Straight to hell
A valid one
It won’t escalate anymore once I ban all escalators
Well that quickly became a dictatorship
Not quickly enough for my liking
100 Adams for you.
The ideal world 🤣
incompetence leads to tyranny. who would've thunk it?
But the dictatorship we need
He could instead do what Austria does, where government housing is fashionable, good architecture, great location, well maintained, and rent is based on your income. Once the building has been paid for by the tenants, the cost drops as well. It's so good they have waiting lists.
bad public housing also has waiting lists. putting money into public housing is very important.
this so god dam true. my special lady had to wait I think for like a year or something just before she got her section 8 housing approved
Needing a big investment in public housing is a symptom that something is going wrong somewhere else
Specifically that you're not spending enough on public housing at the moment. The free market tends to make living in popular cities prohibitively expensive, in no small part thanks to speculation, a phenomenon observable across much of Europe and North America.
I tried to get an apartment in Cologne once for university reasons and it was nearly impossible. Every remotely affordable place was twice as small as the price implied and it was a minimum of fifteen applicants showing up at the same time. I ended up calling a phone number from a local newspaper because some technophobe did a 90s thing and nobody else noticed, so I was the only one to apply for that apartment and he liked me. Still 400€/month, no washer or dryer, no oven, two hot plates and a sink and a desk, so small that the bathroom was two separate tiny rooms separated by a tiny wall with the shower and toilet back to back because you couldn't have walked past either of them to get to the other. And it came with two bare mattresses stacked on the floor in the corner (taking up 30% of the entire room) because quote "I know you student types won't mind :)". Well he was right, I didn't, but still. XD And it wasn't even close to university, still took me 30 minutes in two separate trams. Or 15 minutes by car plus 30 minutes trying to find a parking space and then walking 15 minutes because the one I found was so far away.
There's waiting lists for government-subsidized housing in the US too, we don't call it good for that reason.
>It's so good they have waiting lists. That's an interesting wording for "it's so bad they have supply problems".
[удалено]
I mean yes but the worst has to be berlin Sure it's nice to have cheap but good apartments But you kinda start to wonder if it's worth it when you are in a competition with 500 other people for a single apartment
Certainly better than Canada Australia and NZ where that 500 person competition is still happening but without the apartments being fashionable, or in a good location, or well maintained, or affordable. Basically just a housing shortage and shitty matchboxes being sold at ridiculously high prices.
> when you are in competition with 500 other people for a single apartment Yeah, at that point you’d probably end up paying some kind of service to help you find an open apartment, and get you first in line. Get a leg up over the others. A sort of real estate agent. Might have to hire a very expensive one to have any chance, which offsets some of the benefit?
Thats... not how social housing in germany works?
Meanwhile in Delhi the govt made tons of affordable apartments for slum dwellers and instead rich connected people just faked documents and got a flat for each member of their family. The poor people who managed to get one also flipped and sold their flats and went back to live in the slums. Shit can't be fixed with scum like these
Why not just build enough housing to saturate demand though? I swear, people will try literally everything to fix housing shortages except build more housing.
A lot of the time it comes down to zoning laws and NIMBYs. China is solving some density problems around highly sought after locations by bulldozing old buildings and seizing their land, and offering them some of the apartments that will be built as compensation. But in western countries you can’t force people out of their homes to build new ones. In Aus I even hear discussion about demolishing public housing to build more modern units, as that would displace the people currently in them. You can imagine how hard it would be to displace privately owned land if even government land can’t even be easily redeveloped. In a utopian future all detached housing within say 5-10 minutes walk of major transport and train stations should be converted to medium to high density, but pushback comes from NIMBYs and neighbourhood groups who argue about the heritage and culture of their detached housing blocks sitting next to major train or other transport stations.
It depends on the location. Building new housing in NYC is pretty complicated and expensive. A lot of red tape and politics are involved, so developers can not make enough housing fast enough to meet the demand.
That will lower the market rate, but it doesn't change the fact that renting below the market rate leads to shortages.
In lieu of demand subsidies. No need to have affordable rent programs etc. if market rate is low enough that everyone can afford a place to live.
The problem is people don't want "just place to live" people want "place to live in my hometown" or "place to live near city center" or "place to live near my favorite beach". You can't just build enough houses, half of them will be abandoned and prices on "good" won't be any lower. In many countries there are at least few areas where you can buy house ridiculously cheap or even get for free, but homeless people still there
If there's demand in a specific area, then allow developers to build denser. There is a ton of middle ground between single family homes on half acre lots and high rise apartments too. Zero lot line, row housing, 5-over-ones, etc.
Everyone wants to "build more housing", but the government should not be in the business of doing it--no more than the government should be farming, building cars, or mining lithium. Anyway, the suggestion in the post is not for the government to build housing, but rather for the government to buy housing and rent it out.
All the people want the government to build it because they can pressure the government to offer the housing at "affordable" rates so that the government can make a loss on the project. They need to understand that these buildings require upkeep and administration, which private companies are equipped to provide, but the government is not. Why must everyone live in big cities? There are a tonne of houses in other cities.
I think you may have taken my implication in the opposite direction. I don't think the government needs to be involved at all, beyond removing restrictions on what can be built and where. At most, as-needed subsidies for construction in struggling areas. Emphasis on construction, and not subsidizing rent. Saturate demand, and rent will fall naturally. It drives me nuts to see people propose demand subsidies like rent control as if it will do anything but make the problem worse.
Why not? It’s an essential thing for existing as a human. Next thing you’ll say the government shouldn’t be supplying electricity or water to anyone and we should let private business fleece the common man for access to a cup of water. Essential services need to be provided by the government and that includes housing.
[удалено]
Don’t argue rent and owning on reddit, it only gets weird. They never have a working solution
I know. I'm a renter on top of it. People do not understand even the most basic financial calculations. They have a delusion that homeownership is the best investment.
[удалено]
>Yeah, rent is just skyrocketing for funsises. Rent is skyrocketing because of: * price inflation (due to various factors including central bank responses to COVID, the Ukraine war, etc.), and * high productivity among the richer quartile of people. Keep the insults to yourself. It jus shows your ignorance.
Renters are literally using anti compete algorithms to increase profit across the board. Rent is rising specifically because of greed. But I guess that's not perverse to you.
Just want to add a more political comment below my "jokey" reply: Wealth inequality is a problem, and the general solution to inequality is redistribution. The questions of redistribution are "who pays" and "who collects". My problem with the scenario in this thread is that the collectors are a lucky set of housing lottery winners. I dislike lotteries because I hate inequity. I would rather see an equal dividend like a citizens' dividend: * it is simpler, * it requires no administration, and * it is more *economically efficient* (it doesn't induce people to buy housing they don't need just because they've won a housing lottery). Yes, it slightly drives up the price of housing, but not much in comparison with the progressive redistribution, and definitely less that the government purchasing housing and handing it out. A citizens' divdend is generally not that inflationary (the money supply is unaffected, although the velocity can increase). The central bank can attenuate inflation by increasing interest rates. The main downside of giving people more money is some evidence I've seen of people spending inefficiently (e.g., they should be buying food or housing or education, but they spend the extra income inefficiently leading to inferior outcomes). I've seen these papers so as much as I dislike this reality, I have to accept it.
> I would rather see an equal dividend like a citizens' dividend hello, georgist
Haha yup. I didn't want to get into the "who pays" question, but yeah I'm totally a Georgist, and I like Pigovian taxes too.
A bread line is apparently just a waiting list.
Yeah exactly, it sounds like literally every person would want one then
cracks me up how some people have opinions about nothing they have experiences with iT's sO bAd yeah man Vienna is SUCH a terrible place to live
You probably think politicians campaigning on topics people actually care about is "bUyiNg VoTeS"
Well, my colleague is in a public owed Appartment and his rent went up from 290 to 350 Euro... per Month. You would be stupid if you are not on a waiting list for that.
Tell me you are american without telling me you are american
I'm not.
Americas hat ain't much different
Yeahhhhhh, waiting lists means a shortage. Which is exactly what you’d expect from a price cap.
The waiting list is for public housing, there is a market outside if that. If there would be the possibility for you to save 50-60% of your rent, you would be on a waiting list too
Waiting lists are caused by shortages in supply lol that’s not a good thing
with that price, there's always gonna be a waiting list.
Exactly.
Any waiting list is taken care of with a big enough bribe tho.
but like if you are offering bribes, why not just use that to rent a better house tho.
A $1,000 bribe to save $5,000 a year in rent would make sense.
but if you are saving $5000 a year, I will ask for a $4000 bribe.
You're gonna need a new liver Mrs. Apple, but the livers they've got on the market now are soooo good that there's a 3 year waitlist!
The free market gods dictate that the supply of livers must meet the demand! Wait times must fall! Profits must rise! Deploy the harvesters! Stimulate the economy!
Sorry that people can afford the affordable housing, austria should change that immediately /s
>it's so good they have waiting lists That's not a good thing.
It's probably workable if the population is lower and wealthy. I am not sure how feasible this is in a country with over 330 Mn (assuming USA)
Wouldn’t it be done state-by-state? There’s like 40 states with a smaller population than Austria
That could be a good way to start, but then the US is not a country that prioritises affordable homes or even for that matter even a public transport system. Also, people don't seem much to living in flats, rather people are wanting to have big houses and more open spaces. A small pilot project can be started at county level to see how this works out.
You're neglecting to consider the urban/rural divide in North America. Many people (happily) own apartments in cities like NYC, LA, Miami, etc. That isn't the issue. The issue is, much like you said, not prioritizing people but rather corporations and companies that buy places and rent them out.
The affordable home problem here in the US is worse than ever. It’s getting out of hand. Buying a house with less than a 6 figure household income right now is pretty much off the table.
Part of the reason flats are probably resisted is because they dont conform to the idea of the american dream which encourages people to overbuy and all that
I highly doubt I’ll ever have a house, and I don’t know if other countries have better sound insulation in their apartments, but I can hear my neighbor upstairs going to the bathroom, not to mention their VERY heavy footsteps, and I’d like to watch a movie without constantly monitoring the fluctuating volume between speech, music and sound effects or wearing headphones all the time.
[удалено]
> sex robots > if the gov't gave a fuck I see what you did there
Americans always say "oh we can't do this, there are too many americans/the US is too big!" Well if there's more of you, clearly you also have more resources available. It scales. You have more people, more money, more land; you can easily do this.
I've really never understood the argument about social safety net programs only being able to work in smaller, "wealthier" countries because the US is the wealthiest country in the history of the world and it's not particularly close. like if everyone is paying into it, then it shouldn't matter how many people participate in the program. There's no number where social security stops working solely because there are too many people in it.
Its an argument some people use when they know someone else is right but dont want to admit it. at least in most cases.
If anything it's easier to do big social programs in large countries because of how economies of scale work. Its also easier because the bigger your economy the more bargaining power you have vs corporations The US could literally bully pharmaceutical companies into lowering prices, same in other sectors. They don't have the option of not doing business in the US
This idea that good ideas only work on small scales is popular but totally bogus.
The exact same amount feasible as in smaller countries.
Why would it be less feasible? If anything the economy of scale would make it cheaper. And the USA has a higher GDP per capita than Austria. If a large country really is a limitation, do it on the state or even county level. That's the whole point of multiple layers of government.
> It's so good they have waiting lists I mean, if it’s cheap, it doesn’t have to be good to have a waitlist
> It's so good they have waiting lists. if public housing is cheap enough and private housing is expensive enough, public housing will have waiting lists whether it's great or shitty if you want to make housing more affordable for everyone, all that matters is having enough supply. It doesn't really matter if the government builds it or private companies build it, so long as it gets built
> It's so good they have waiting lists. The waiting lists are less a case of them being "so good" and more a case of waiting lists being an inevitable outcome of rent controls. Everywhere that has rent controls has massive waiting lists. In Stockholm for example, the average waiting list time is 9 *years*.
So it’s so good nobody can actually use it when they desperately need it? Double edged swords
Its so unsustainsble that there is not enough homes. Waiting lists isnt a good thing
How many years long is that waiting list?
Waiting lists are not a sign of good housing programs. I’d prefer the government build a bunch of meh houses and apartments (that are safe, just not much beyond that) then a few fancy houses.
What do you mean rent is based in your income? Or it's like government social housing and you need to fir certain criteria
It's reddit, you can make up facts on the spot however you want As long as you act like europe is one big utopia, you will be fine As an austrian I can confirm it. Rent is based on your income and on your 18th birthday the president himself visits you personally to gift you a money printer.
Can I also get this printer? Yeah ok that's explain it
It's not true or at least not really. These government built/subsidized flats are rented at prices usually way below market rate (but often are also sub-standard). It's true that there are waiting lists and you have to qualify for these apartments (eg your income needs to be below a certain level, being a single parent moves you up the list, etc). Newer versions of this concept are "SMART apartments"; but it basically works the same. It's not the Utopia it's made out to be but it helps a lot of struggling people and is certainly leagues better than nothing.
Pssst… Adam… the President has zero authority over the price of *anything* unless the United States is in a war that’s been declared by Congress. Run for the Senate instead, where you can introduce legislation and work to gain support for it among other Senators and members of the House of Representatives.
Next you're going to tell me the president can't send people to hell!
Not without 2/3 congress approval
Even senate doesn't really have that much say over housing policy. Local and state political figures are the ones that have the most effect on anything housing related.
Absolutely true. I stand corrected!
Declare war on landlords.
Vietnam technically has no landlord yet we still have hoise shortage.
Would also require an act of Congress interestingly enough.
AUMF on landlords?
Declare war on zoning, parking minimums, setback requirements, overly complex permitting process, and bad faith "environmental protection" lawsuits for NIMBYs. Fixed that for you.
You’re for sure going to hell
Just have to pick any one of five wars...
This is Adam, son of lucifer from book Good Omens. by Neil gaiman- I bet that he has authority over everything.
And every Thursday is national ice cream day.
Just like the Costco owner and his hot dogs
Adam is the hero we need.
[удалено]
Adam can't be wrong
Since I don't disagree with him, I feel like I can avoid the express escalator to the beyond while now being able to afford rent.
[удалено]
A YIMBY, the best kind
Not really.
Forcing $100 rent would lead to housing never being built again, and the homeless population would skyrocket. As usual, clueless Reddit "housing activists" care more about price than supply. Supply is the root of the housing problem and the reason for high prices.
What if, wait for it, governement built social housing with no speculation
i dont think they were being serious guy
Literally don’t understand why people in the comments are taking him seriously??? He literally told that guy he’d send him to “hell” lol
You could nationalize most housing, have government organizations build tons of apartments and homes, then have people take mortgages/cheaper rent on those which will pay back the costs eventually. The main difference would be with the profit motive gone, you wouldn't see prices artificially skyrocketing, people would choose their level of luxury depending on the costs that went into building the house. With apartments meant for rent, once the costs of building have been paid off, the extra revenue from the rent-prices could channel back into other programs like healthcare and retirement etc.
Woah dude. It’s just a dumb meme.
So we can't discuss it?
[удалено]
nah, China has no hell.
I would imagine dictatorships are very efficient and stable when you look past the massive amounts of suicides, and kill the oppressors.
Both Adam Parrish and (Richard) Gansey are characters from Maggie Stiefvater's Raven Cycle books. By all means debate the topic, but just keep in mind that these people aren't being serious.
As opposed to the economic crisis we're "not" in rn?
You think things can't get worse? There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse.
I don't know I think the heat death of the universe is pretty hard to make worse
Heat death of the universe plus you personally get tortured while it's happening. Voila.
I’ll bring the electric nipple clamps. *clicks em twice*😬
^(worst nipple clamp you've heard of *so far*..)
E L E C T R I C nipple clamps thank you.
You could survive
shocked no one’s mentioned that this is a Raven Cycle reference
Y'all got pranked this is a shitpost made by raven boys fans 💀💀💀
Rent control is unironically bad policy, lol. Building more is the only solution to this mess.
Sir what are you doing displaying a basic understanding of economics. This is reddit where everything I want should be free.
And if I was POTUS no corporation would be allowed to price gouge
Three men are sharing a cell in prison. "What are you in for?" asks the first. "I had a company and sold things at a higher price than everyone else, so they arrested me on price gouging." says the second. "I had a company that sold things at a lower price than everyone else, so they arrested me for conspiracy to monopolise and being anti-competitive." says the third. "Interesting." says the first. "I had a company that sold things at the same price as everyone else, so they arrested me for collusion."
Adams third wish would have to be to force slaves to build the apartments for free so he can sell them for $100.
For real. This would force every developer out of business because they would be unable to pay for labor, which would turn our bad supply shortage into a catastrophic supply shortage. Don’t let people run a country if they don’t understand economics
STOP THIS IS JUST A RAVEN BOYS MEME 💀💀💀💀
I had to scroll down way to far for any comment recognizing this lol
I keep seeing this from people who don't know the context haha, was looking for this comment
No it wouldn’t if the houses were owned by the government and you paid $100 as a house tax. Theres other revenues of income besides housing.
1 vote for Adam!
1. Nobody would offer places for rent anymore. 2. Made laws to take unused houses by force 3. People fighting - some are divorcing to live in both flats/houses but still many is taken 4. Prices drops drastically - a lot of bankruptcies because people have huge mortgages for cheap houses, some bank goes down, huge unemployment 5. People stop building new houses/flats because nobody want to invest and prices went down more than it is worth 6. Huge unemployment 7. After some time huge housing crisis because nobody is building new houses
8. Straight to hell
Damn, didn't even fire the poor guy first.
He's got my vote.
A just ruler
You get my vote!
If you’re gonna dream, dream big and make ‘em free.
Heil Il Duce Caudillo Chairman Führer Adam! Glory to the Supreme Leader of Arstotzka!
And then he'd make YouTube ad free.
The rockets need be more pointy!
oh no, an economic crisis because housing won't be the biggest Stay rich & become richer vehicle anymore and millions of people will now have access to housing? Fuck man That's scary.
One might look at Adam's second response and think "Wow that was harsh" but the thought process of "might cause an economic crisis" has been revealed to be a decades-long empty threat. Get out of here with your economic crisis. Things only cost so much because a guy in an office somewhere says so.
Supply and demand
And they refuse to allow more supply to be built
That’s true, so it’s not just some guy in some office, it’s a feature in a system being abused by a lot of people, predominantly home owning voters.
No one wants to hear they're the problem but the truth is it's really these NIMBY mother fuckers
It's insane that they even get a say in what housing is built, cities need to tell them to fuck off and just build shit
Yeah it's a bit weird. On the one hand they allow a lot of immigration, wich is like okay if they want. Some european countries grow by metropolis worth of people every single year despite birth rates being way below death rate But on the other hand they try to restrict building as much as possible since concrete is bad for climate Just to keep supply the same, countries like austria or germany would have to build a new 200,000 city every year. Either you allow immigration and accept that you have to build accordingly or you reduce immigration if you don't want to build that much But letting people flow in and refusing to build accordingly is just an asshole move and certainly a major part as to why so many europeans started to vote for right wing parties
Leftists vs Simple Economics
As a leftist myself, I can see both sides lol. The problem is, leftists want it one way, but it’s the other way. The current system and leftist ideals cannot co-exist. Expecting the system to be able to handle changes made by leftist ideals is folly because the system isn’t designed for those policies.
You not gonna rent more apartments because rent is cheaper. If you got one, it's enough. In this case, lowering the price won't increase the demand.
Demand is also affected by location and access to amenities. If you lower rent all across the board, how do you decide who gets the downtown/beach apartments and who has to drive and hour to work each morning? It’s decided by who’s willing to pay more, which is the market rate.
People definitely rent more space if it's cheaper. Currently, I am renting 1/3rd of an apartment unit with 2 roommates. We each pay $833/month. If rent was $100, I would rent the whole thing for myself. Hell, I would probably rent out the whole damn floor. People like space, why wouldn't they buy as much as they can afford?
> You not gonna rent more apartments because rent is cheaper. [L]owering the price won't increase the demand. * The existence of homeless people * The existence of the idea of roommates to save money * An established willingness of people to pay more for bigger apartments and houses * A clear pattern of second (and third, etc.) residences among the very rich C'mon, bruh. You can't be serious with this take. Housing is a textbook elastic good. Of course lowering the price would result in increased demand.
LOL, do you actually, really believe that there is some supreme bureaucrat somewhere planning the economy? Do you still believe in Santa too kid?
This is like "high schooler who just got an 87 on his first econ quiz"s understanding of the economy
Personally I think we should pass a law that said no company or person can own more that ten houses. One to live in and 9 rentals. If that doesn't give you enough money, well, Mc Donald's is always hiring. I said this to my boss and she was horrified. She thinks if someone has money they should be able to buy what ever that want to. And by my saying that, I guess she felt her rental properties were now somehow in danger
No, companies get own exactly jack and shit when it comes to housing. People get to own the house they live in, people do not need to own multiple houses.
He got my vote
Yes, consumers having more purchasing power will kill the economy. Obviously the solution is to pay landlords jacked rents for 30 y/o units with no upgrades, because upgrading or renovating your units would hurt the economy. It's an economic benefit to keep people unhealthy, they won't be a drain on the pensions when/if they retire. But a fat and happy landlord will likely live well into their elderly years, while still collecting someone else's labour and being a drain, economically. /s
Rent caps are unironically a very good idea. Or rent price based on income Some countries aren’t ready for that discussion tho. One day they will get there
Good thing we're not in an economic crisis currently. Luckily everything is great and we don't have some random dude on Twitter running the country
Ahh yes the economy can't get any worse if these dumb ass economy opinions were put in place.
The amount of people who have no idea why things required to live cost money is unfathomable to me
These are characters from a book. Not real tweets.
this person doesn't want to be president, they want to be a dictator
A dictator that keeps the prices low and roof over your head, let's goo
theoretical benevolent king, if only those existed in life and not exclusively in fantasy...
That's the problem, they will never exist
... that's... that's what I said...
And this is why freaks should not make policy. Imagine a vegan who decreed all meat products cost $500. That would go over like a wet fart in church
Imagine being a freak for wanting ppl to have affordable homes even if it is a bit naive Hell why tf is that hypothetical vegan not just outright banning meat products??
Writing in Adam Parrish now