I enjoyed reading it, even if it leaves a bitter taste by knowing that it is describing a very real feeling. Also I like how the author also relates the NIMBY problem to sabotaging public transportation initiatives.
This is not helpful, funny, or intelligent. It’s a child’s rant about the world.
At the end of the day, the reason more housing isn’t built is that the incentives are greater to not build it. You can build a high rise with shoebox apartments that have to be aggressively managed and make a profit. Or you can build a high rise with half the units, higher reoccurring revenue and less hassle and make 2x the immediate profit.
At the end of the day as long as there is demand for more expensive housing that’s what’s going to get built.
I really want to see a whole town built in US out of commie block style high rises or Chinese dystopian ant nests, and how quickly it will devolve into a ghetto, because there’s no authoritarian arm to keep it in check.
The typical counterpoint to this NIMBYism isn't, communism, but rather most of Texas (where there's loosening zoning law) or West Virginia (where there's abundant poverty and social problems but also abundant housing).
The incentives you're talking about -- they're missing because of NIMBYist overregulation. The whole point of NIMBYism is to use regulation to hamstring the positive incentives in the market. "There's demand for twenty units here but the place is zoned for a single unit." or "There's demand for twenty units but the city demands that if we build a multitenant unit, we have to do a twenty-year environmental survey first".
Do you live in a place with a homeless crisis. Guess what: You're a citizen and you have some agency. Democracy can be a backstop to "pure" (or mis-regulated) market forces. I, for one, enjoy clean drinking water (and also: a good deal from a healthy competitive market).
This isn't everywhere. I live in Nashville and we have SO MUCH housing being built. Just apartment building after apartment building after apartment building.
When more people are being priced out of a market than new housing units are added, then yeah they do need to be cheaper to make housing more available. The net result is more stratification, not less.
Ask anyone how to make cheap housing though. No one has a convincing answer. I'm convinced that it's the right question.
A U.S. default would spike interest rates, crash bond markets, trigger a credit freeze, and destroy consumer confidence. Mortgages would become unaffordable. Mass foreclosures and job losses would crush demand. Asset fire sales would follow. Housing prices would collapse.
This would also reshuffle assets, so speculators and highly leveraged people would be punished instead of being rewarded.
It will also cleanup the situation for future generations so kids won't have to be under extreme debt to pay back in some way to government, because the older people lived above their means.
The dilemma is you can’t make new housing cheap because if the price falls too much it becomes unprofitable to build and you don’t get new supply.
My city is currently facing this where the interest rate hikes, build tax hikes and falling prices have created a perfect storm of vastly reduced housing starts.
There’s not a lot of confusion about how to build cheaper.
Build less and worse per unit. Share foundations, roofs, walls, and common areas. Build less square footage per unit. Build less fancy per square foot (cheaper kitchens and baths). Use all standard materials and finishes. Install low-end appliances and HVAC. Everything cookie-cutter; no per-unit changes. Use less land per unit (and maybe less expensive land overall). Have no private outdoor space (or just a tiny balcony).
That’s not well aligned to how to maximize profits from a given unit though (fairly obviously and by intentional design).
just subsidize it. raise taxes on people making for than, say, $3 million a year, and give that money to construction companies to build homes. (subject to strict oversight that the money actually be used to build affordable homes)
Parts of this do align well with how to maximize profits. Shared walls, progressively smaller units over time and removing balconies have been the story of condo buildings over the last generation. The area that doesn’t line up is the low end apartment fixtures. It turns out people will pay $15k for $10k better of appliances and countertops.
There are 1.5 times as many people in the US competing for the same amount of land and buying houses using mortgages that are around 40% cheaper and many mortgages accept down payments that are 1/6th the size versus 1975, with underwriting that judges debt-to-income of 36% as “ideal” and some programs allowing 50% versus a limit of 25% in 1975, meaning the same amount of 1975 Americans plus the 50% extra Americans can all bid way, way more for that house you want, forcing you to pay up if you want it more than they do. In that time period, dual income households went from a minority to a majority, further heating up the competition.
Houses are also around 1.5 times the size with more bathrooms per bedroom in 2025 vs 1975, so “build less square footage and less fancy per square foot” isn’t at all “giving up so much that was standard 50 years ago”, but rather returning toward the standard of 50 years ago.
Sounds like you found a niche that market hasn't exploited then. Can I build a small house for fraction of the cost or most of my cost is going to be land?
Land cost depends on the location. You can find an acre of rural land for $1K. Or an 1/8th acre for $1M or more in a city.
For a cheap parcel of land in an unincorporated area with no building permit process, but with existing grid power, you can buy and build quite reasonably. (There are several YouTube channels covering builds like this.) In these areas, I wouldn’t overlook existing properties as well.
Housing becomes cheaper when supply outstrips demand. That is really all there is to it. If there is induced demand due to new housing being built, you just need... more housing.
This does appear to be an application of Goodhart’s Law (when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure). Affordable housing is neat but it implicitly encourages infinite housing be built and does nothing to address employment and crazy down payment requirements (especially for those who could otherwise pay the mortgage!).
Depends if you find the following prices affordable, for TN salaries. Here's one blog I found [0]; seems Nashville has a slight glut at the high-end:
> Nashville home prices went up in May 2025, but not by much compared to last year.
> Average sale price $853.8K; median price stayed flat at $613K.
> But here's what's interesting: sellers had to drop their asking prices more than before. The average list price was $1.012 million, but homes actually sold for about $158K less than that...
> More Homes Available for Buyers: Active inventory jumped +29% compared to last year.
> Total inventory (including homes under contract) increased +16%
It is a big problem in Democratic states like California, where the leftists (Dean Preston and other leftist NIMBYs) have allied themselves with homeowner liberals to make it impossible to build housing.
Republican states like Texas do a significantly better job, as you can see by looking at annual per capita new housing, and lower rental inflation.
There's a growing liberal movement to change this status quo but they're still not that influential beyond rhetorical support from some Dems.
Those are words that are low in epistemic legibility.
I look at metrics to arrive at my opinions. Things like the difference between the number of new housing per capita in various cities in California compared to Austin, Texas. Things like the R^2 when you do a linear regression of the amount of new housing per capita against changes in rental inflation.
I can't really follow your comment but new housing costs a lot because we now have high standards for what can be legally rented for buildings with more than 5 units.
The housing I was describing as plentiful is a mixture of existing housing as either standalone or fewer than 5 units.
To be fair, Minnesota is getting it right and Washington is reluctantly stumbling in the right direction. However, I’m forced to agree on the general sentiment.
California is a bit embarrassing. We’ll see how the Builder’s Remedy and laws like SB 1123 play out, I suppose.
His instagram bio reads "Housing advocate, democratic socialist", so if self-descriptions are taken as truth, it kinda undermines the whole point of the argument.
Hi there! I live in the US. I am a leftist. I am in favor of prison abolition, universal basic income, massively increased taxation of the rich, and voting reform.
Care to explain why I either don't count or don't really exist?
Because of the two party system, you have to either vote Democrat or Republican for your vote to count, so your actually leftist ideals, which are to the left of the centrist Democrat party, do not meaningfully exist as a voting block.
So the only political movements that you think are allowed to be said to exist in a country are those explicitly and broadly represented by a major party?
I mean, I guess that's a position you could take, but it seems like a pretty extreme one.
Can we stop calling reform abolishment? I know it's more fun to call it abolishment because it triggers the people you disagree with, but it's entirely counter-productive.
I'm just getting so tired of these constant motte and bailey fallacies in US political discourse.
Oh I take it seriously and I also agree that in the US there's a large population that's sent to prison for no good reason, with almost no attention paid to rehabilitation and treatment.
However I have doubts that, when people who hold that position come to power, El Chapo will be walking free with no restrictions the next morning.
Some form of restriction of movement will be required for frequent violent offenders. You may abolish the old system since you believe it's rotten to the core and you may call whatever replaces it something other than prison, but it will still be prison.
> However I have doubts that, when people who hold that position come to power, El Chapo will be walking free with no restrictions the next morning.
"Prison" (carceral punishment) does not encompass all possible restrictions on personal freedom and movement. Even in systems with carceral punishment, other restrictions on freedom and movement are used for some situations, that do not involve incarceration.
And this is exactly why calling for "prison abolishment" is so counter-productive, because when most people hear that the assumption is that everyone who's in prison right now is free to go.
It does not help your cause to adopt a motto that espouses a more extreme position than you actually hold and both your supporters and detractors will feel betrayed when they learn your position is actually more moderate.
>And this is exactly why calling for "prison abolishment" is so counter-productive, because when most people hear that the assumption is that everyone who's in prison right now is free to go.
So what? You say "DEI" or "woke" and people assume you mean racism against white people. You say "toxic masculinity" or "feminism" and people assume you hate all men. "Pro choice" means you choose to murder babies. Transgender people are pedophiles and fetishists. Immigration is invasion. Atheists are incapable of morality. Opposition to Israeli Zionism is antisemitism. Any economic system besides free market capitalism is socialism, all socialism is communism and all communism leads to the death camps. Democracy is the worst system except for all of the others. By the way did you the Nazis were socialist, and BLM was a violent Marxist army that burned entire cities to the ground?
Most people (especially Americans) have been indoctrinated by society to be unable to interpret any radical or leftist concept in any but the most extreme bad faith way possible, so they don't have to take it seriously. Their minds are protected by a cloud of thought-terminating cliches. Despite this, one doesn't let the opposition control one's language or police one's tone, because that just leads to one's own argument being co-opted and undermined.
The position being described here begins with "abolish the prisons," it just doesn't end with that. But that isn't reform, and if one called it "reform" just to be civil, no one would even bother to listen. Even getting people to consider the nature of the systems they live within and benefit from enough to say "abolish the prisons? That's crazy talk" is getting them to examine their biases more deeply than they probably have in their entire lives.
Shaw deserves better than to be so misread. Progress so called depends far more on the "reasonable" than otherwise, because we so far outnumber all others. We are whom you must convince and yet you show open contempt for the task, which is why only in days when everyone is half mad with terror do you ever get even half a hearing - which is twice what your risible excuse for a coherent ethos actually deserves.
> Most people (especially Americans) have been indoctrinated by society to be unable to interpret any radical or leftist concept in any but the most extreme bad faith way possible.
That is true, there is a concerted effort to control the narrative and define terms that are left vague with the most unfavorable or extreme interpretation. This is possible is because these terms are left so open to interpretation, however the vagueness is not an accident rather it is fully intentional.
The real reason that slogans like "defund the police" and "abolish prisons" are so vaguely defined is because America's two-party system demands "big tent" politics. Both parties need slogans that will unite both extremists and moderates on their side of the political spectrum. The fact that "prison abolishment" can be interpreted as both "fundamental reform" and "all prisoners go free" is a feature, not a bug.
Most politicians will actively avoid giving a solid definition to these slogans, because they know that when they do they will a lose voters. So be aware that adopting vague slogans is to your own detriment too, because the people you think support your position may not actually share your interpretation.
People talking about "prison abolition" aren't talking about reform when they do.
Some people talking about prison abolition (but far from all, or even the majority) might also be willing to accept reform as an intermediate step or compromise, and might engage in discussion about the shape of reform that might be acceptable in that role, but that's secondary too, and not the focus of, their advocacy for abolition.
Of course, one does have to be careful with one's definitions when talking about "capitalism", because I've seen people mean everything from "the current, specific, late-stage capitalist system and nothing else" to "the basic concept of exchanging currency for goods and services" and everything in between. Personally, I'm in favor of abolishing the former and some of the stuff in the middle, but I'm skeptical that even in a fully post-scarcity society we would abandon the need for the latter.
As for US hegemony...I think that the current situation demonstrates very well why it's a serious problem. We're a single point of failure, and the polarization here has been rising for decades, leaving something like this all but inevitable. Indeed, even if someone like Trump had not come along and normalized hatred and fascism, we would still have likely been in a situation where every 4-8 years the US's policies on a wide range of things flipped violently back and forth.
No; while I fear that the transition will be very rocky, the world will be better off if a broader coalition of nations can collectively take up the role of attempting to enforce the notion of universal human rights across the globe. While they're at it, maybe they'll finally be able to get the US to agree to things like the UN Convention on Rights of the Child, and the authority of the International Criminal Court.
Is "blue state" / "red state" the right distinction, or "rich area" / "poor area"? Rich people anywhere will do all they can to keep their property values from going down.
There is a proposal to build an apartment complex in my neighborhood in Northern Virginia. The houses that had Trump lawn signs up last year, now have lawn signs arguing to block the new housing (or "preserve the neighborhood's character").
NIMBYism is an economic issue, not a culture issue. It has far more to do with how much impact the new housing is expected to have on the value of people's property. Or more saliently, the equity they have in the property. If people expect that nearby housing will cut their $500k equity in half, they're likely to petition against it, regardless of whether their governor is a Republican or a Democrat.
NIMBY isn't red or blue, it's just fear and greed.
It’s part fear and greed, but also part rational and practical.
Increased housing nearby brings increased traffic, parking pressure, crowding, and noise, none of which are positives for current residents. Fear and greed don’t motivate renters to be NIMBY, yet we have NIMBY renters because of other factors.
> I’m the kind of person who contributes to society by starting companies that leverage technology to build smart tea kettles that brew themselves while you sleep at night. I’m a fucking innovator.
Is there a reason that the press is always making scapegoats out of tech nerds? The vast majority of people are not employed in tech, and are part of the same society and have very similar self interests.
Truly tired of everything being a criticism of Silicon Valley, as if everyone else are saints.
I don't think it's making scapegoats per se. But Sillicon Valley has been very influential in the public discourse in the previous 1-2 decades, and huge SV (or tech in general) entrepreneurs have used their success and money to gain an outsized political influence on many of these issues. Bill Gates and Elon Musk and Peter Thiel are some of the most obvious figures that have driven public policy discourse (and Elon Musk at least even had a direct hand in the implementation of said policies), but there are many others.
What you're seeing is a backlash to this influence, and the fairly disastrous consequences it has usually had.
The tech industry has played an out-sized role in the economic distortions to society the article is satirising. Maybe you should take a look inside yourself just to check that you're not taking this satirical article as a personal attack.
I'm a SaaS founder and I have the exact same criticism of tech. America is where some of the most brilliant minds and advanced technology and trillions in VC funds go towards building ad-tech and scrolling algorithms and B2B SaaS spreadsheet replacement apps while essentials like food and housing and healthcare get worse and more expensive.
All these replies missed my point. I’m not saying tech is blameless, rather that the press constantly criticizes tech for both doing too much and doing nothing and not fixing society. I would argue that this is toxic and ignores the agency of literally all other professions/people.
Further, to ignore the housing/etc lobbying by basically everyone else outside of tech and make it seem like SV giants control the housing crisis is just boring. Do note that most of the developed world is facing this, not just specifically SV/USA.
If I have to be a self-hater to be able to read an article that's critical of me and the industry I'm in, and not be offended by it, then I guess that makes me a self-hater.
>online performative self-hate and classic elite-liberal virtue signaling
The "all opinions I don't like are not held honestly, it's a trick" meme is very tiring. In respect to your original point, no this isn't some unique critique that singles out SV. The SV disruptor is just a shorthand for the rich and landed that will always be opposed to new housing. This could be drop-in replaced with a mid-career NYC finance bro, or successful Texan oil & gas professional, just exchange some things for prayer and bootstraps.
They are the same because in all those cases their wealth (real o perceived potential) depends in housing value go only up.
If you have to claim everyone missed your point, consider that you failed to express it well. You’re arguing something different now, which is fine but trying to say that other people failed to read your mind is a bit insulting when we can read both comments. You’re taking an aside in a satirical piece much too personally, and really shouldn’t identify so personally with a huge industry with many people, including some who sound a lot like that.
The issue is skewed supply and demand. If it’s profitable to buy housing as an investment, lower to middle class folk can’t compete with the upper class and businesses in the purchasing power, no matter how much housing gets build. I’m not sure whether there’s a good solution to this problem.
If I build a 40-unit apartment building (provides housing for 36 families on average), am I taxed as if that’s 40 residential properties? Do we want to use tax policy to punish this construction?
If I build a 40 unit building and sell it to my wife (or my neighbor) or sell it to BlackRock, there’s no difference in how many units exist nor how many families can live there. My tax treatment should be the same as theirs.
If you restrict or punish the purchase of housing via tax policy, you simultaneously restrict the sale of it by original constructors, which serves as an impediment to that original construction.
Here in Norway they've tried to curb this somewhat by eliminating the wealth tax value discount you get on secondary homes. Your primary gets a 75% discount up to $1mill, then 30% on anything above $1mill, while secondaries count in full. So it's much less favorable to own multiple homes now as an investment.
Of course, most of those who did own extra homes as an investment rented them out as well, so rental prices here has gone through the roof as landlords and common folk with an extra apartment or two has sold the homes.
I need to dig out the link, but there is a Study from Finland that shows this is incorrect:
As housing stock quality improves, everyone upgrades. Which leaves room at the bottom level to get on the ladder into lower quality cheaper housing.
Also supply and demand: if prices are increasing it is mostly because supply is not keeping up with demand.
Lastly, like all other products in a market, we should see a general improvement in quality, this isn't a bad thing (think how cars how 10x more reliable, comfortable and fuel efficient than they used to be).
> From what I have seen there isn't a housing shortage as much as an "affordable housing" shortage.
It's generally much more illegal to build cheap housing, both in the direct sense that building codes require all new housing to be built to extremely high standards, and the indirect sense that in places without by-right development (which is most desirable cities sadly) your neighbours are going to fight a lot more against cheap houses getting built than they'll fight against expensive houses getting built.
> Housing subsidies will be next. Another attempt to prop up the rampant capitalism by means of socialism.
Where I live the majority of affordable housing has been bought up and turned into investment rentals or vacation rentals. They will leave the houses empty instead of lowering rent.
Current average rental cost is 3x what the average renter makes. More apartments are being built (very cheap, inefficient designs) but the cost is still above what the average renter makes.
Prices only keep going up as long as there's an expectation of future profits. Everyone loves to hate investors (especially foreign ones), but cornering the market only works if it's impossible for other people to build new houses.
Various studies have found that even building expensive housing reduces rents for the entire market as it pushes people with more money into the new housing and reduces upward price pressure on older housing. Yes, it'd be good to build housing of all types. But even just building luxury apartments or whatever has an effect.
I share your frustration with only overpriced, luxury housing being built. However, I think you are misattributing the blame here.
The reason why only expensive luxury housing gets built in so many areas is almost always because the local government only allows developers to build luxury apartments. If housing construction was deregulated, then actual rampant capitalism would see profit in building affordable housing and then build affordable housing. Take a look at things like ibuprofen. Ibuprofen is a pretty awesome medicine, but it isn't only for rich people now. It is very cheap and affordable. Same with cell phones.
Not talking about luxury. It is about raising prices on what was affordable 5 years ago. Companies/Corporations purchasing the rentals in the area and doubling the rent because a website told them they should.
Also kind of the simplicity of the problem: You have homeless -> give them homes = no more homeless. Just build a shit ton of public housing. It really doesn't help the liberals argument that in the last 40 years, China raised 800 million people out of poverty. [1]
It's not just about homelessness though, sure the article is, but the crisis is not. It's about standard of living and making sure we are building a future where people have better lives than the previous generations. We need housing to approach the cost of production for people to build wealth. Otherwise, we will always have rent-seeking by existing homeowners.
Whether we do that by gigantic public housing projects, non-profit coop developments, or markets building housing for profit is almost irrelevant to the point that it's currently effectively illegal to build housing in the vast majority of cities.
We should be looking to Vienna, which has had the most success at keeping urban housing affordable and available. They did so by always building more housing all the time. They're doing basically the opposite of what we do in CA where we fight about which type of housing we should build one or two buildings of. We need to just legalize and fast track housing of all kinds.
Homelesness exists in the US because it's comfortable to be homeless in a rich society. It is not always a result of choice, but so is living in a home.
Still, I sincerely believe more people would choose to be homeless if they tried it, because there is nothing inherently bad in living in a tent if the climate allows it. It's just like tourism but with more amenities available due to urban infra + the stigma (that people mostly learned to ignore due to cultural conditioning of the 70s-today period).
This is a ridiculously silly take. Homelessness greatly reduces your life span, it makes you many times more likely to be a victim of both crime and of police violence, and it makes many simple parts of regular society inaccessible to you.
I live in Zurich - the tightest rental market in the world (.7% availability) but don't really have a homeless problem for some reason. I have met a lot of people that have had to move to neighboring cities though.
How is public transport to nearby commuter towns? If it's affordable/convenient/reasonably quick that can help a lot, I suspect. (But am quite ignorant so appreciate correction!)
Very good, generally. It's affordable by Swiss standards, which is to say expensive for tourists but remarkably good value if you're a resident on a median salary. The cost of the whole-country annual rail pass costs less than a point to point season ticket in the UK, and there is no peak travel. So you should never pay more than 3-4k a year. Most people just get a half price card (often employer subsidised) and/or a local pass which is generally better value unless you're commuting between cities.
Switzerland has the best rail system in the world (IMHO). One app can manage ticketing across all public transit in the entire country, and it is extremely fast and reliable. Lots of people who work in Zürich, for example, commute in from Zug (due to lower taxes in the neighboring canton).
It's generally called "as fast as necessary", more focused on total journey lenght with the clock-face schedule across the whole country. Other countries certainly have faster trains.
I guess "fast" is what I mean when I think "on time, efficient" (compared to, say, the struggles Deutsche Bahn has had in recent years). There are no bullet trains laterally crossing Switzerland in under an hour, I suppose.
it's nit-picky, but I think the swiss approach of "as fast as necessary, not as fast as possible" is worth separation from "train go fast", especially since it's mostly the later that shows up in comparisions/statistics because it's much easier to calculate.
With most housing things, people like to blame everything else except for supply restrictions, you can also see this in the other replies to the comment you replied to. It's way easier to blame ghosts than it is for any politician to piss off the homeowner constituency.
It's (unfortunately) rational for politicians to respond to home owners, as they stay in one place for longer, and therefore are more likely to vote for you in the future.
But it's also significant infrastructural deficits (water and power) that are downstream of incredible debt taken on by the government as a result of the 2007 crash (as well as a planning system where dogs have the right to object to planning applications).
Ireland doesn't give free immigrant housing. They have processing centers where you can stay while your application is being processed. They are very bare bones accommodations and you only stay there for up to 14 days.
Where do they live after the 14 days? Who pays their rent? I know in the UK private landlords are offered very favourable terms via SERCO, which would beat those they would get if they rented to individuals.
Please don't kid around, we know exactly how the government facilitates the migrations. If it weren't a biggie, why are there protests happening on the streets of Dublin?
... because after Ireland agreed to implement the OECD minimum corporate tax rate (15%) same as everyone else, Ireland just didn't do as agreed, came up with some excuse (I would tell you which excuse, but they keep retroactively changing it), the prime minister explained in at least 5 extensive speeches how fabulous, fantastic and great he was for implementing it, and kept it at 12.5%. Then the minister of finance signed up to another minimum tax initiative in 2023 (the "EU Minimum Tax Directive"), in trade for EU money. In this they agreed to retroactively impose EU taxes up to 15% on all companies (oh and no deductions allowed to get it below 15%), and pay most of that money to the EU instead.
... which Ireland proceeded not to do. Then the new prime minister went onto TV declaring what a great success all this was for Ireland (... while ignoring that this is literally stealing money from other EU countries), and how they intend to continue this and were putting some of the money into a new "Irish" sovereign wealth fund (isif.ie) that has since used the money to hire the zero-experience-and-suspiciously-young-for-such-positions-but-totally-awesome investement team [2] composed of members of his own party that have been tasked with investing in Irish x business (please replace x with "the taoseach's new business" when making investment decisions and leave it out when publishing in the paper)
For unknown reasons, there is nothing on the isif.ie site about what they effectively do: steal money from EU hospitals, schools, pensions ... to personally enrich large US companies, and of course themselves. This is also missing from the government speeches on how fantastic they are.
But do not worry. Meanwhile in Brussels and Strasbourg, the requisition for a meeting about the approval of the color of the bikeshed (so called because when you call the place where you park your armoured Audi A9 motorcade a bikeshed chances of reelection go up dramatically. It IS, of course, a garage that was built where a park with a playground used to be) where then the request for the beginning of the process to requisition a meeting room to discuss who will make the agenda for discussing a meeting room for the actual issue is making great progress!
> ... because after Ireland agreed to implement the OECD minimum corporate tax rate (15%) same as everyone else, Ireland just didn't do as agreed, came up with some excuse (I would tell you which excuse, but they keep retroactively changing it), the prime minister explained in at least 5 extensive speeches how fabulous, fantastic and great he was for implementing it, and kept it at 12.5%. Then the minister of finance signed up to another minimum tax initiative in 2023 (the "EU Minimum Tax Directive"), in trade for EU money. In this they agreed to retroactively impose EU taxes up to 15% on all companies (oh and no deductions allowed to get it below 15%), and pay most of that money to the EU instead.
Can you provide a source for this assertion? AFAIK, we've implemented the 15% rate (but the profit shifting part died in the US senate, which Ireland is not responsible for).
> the zero-experience-and-suspiciously-young-for-such-positions-but-totally-awesome investement team [2]
They all look to be 40+ from the linked page (except for one lady who looks to be late 20's/early 30s).
> omposed of members of his own party that have been tasked with investing in Irish x business (please replace x with "the taoseach's new business" when making investment decisions and leave it out when publishing in the paper)
I really hate Fianna Fail (the Taoiseach's party) but Micheal Martin has never been corrupt. He is literally the most boring person in the world, but he's not corrupt.
> For unknown reasons, there is nothing on the isif.ie site about what they effectively do: steal money from EU hospitals, schools, pensions ... to personally enrich large US companies, and of course themselves. This is also missing from the government speeches on how fantastic they are.
Look, I get that this is tax avoidance in some sense, but it's worth noting that most US tech companies are booking all non-US revenue in Ireland (taxed at 15%) rather than Bermuda (taxed at 0%) for about a decade now.
Do you think that Ireland should have had to bail out banks with a debt exceeding the country's GDP? Was this moral? And then basically be put into controls on the part of the EU (who are the people preventing them from burning the bondholders).
Ireland is basically the most indebted country per head in the world at this point (the GDP looks better because of the tax dodging multinationals).
And lets be honest, the same multinationals would have found a different country to launder money through if Ireland wasn't there.
To answer the question above about properties in Dublin, this has a number of reasons:
1. post 2007 (the crash) housebuilding stopped for about a decade
2. Over the past decade, Ireland has seen significant immigration, particularly in the cities which has driven up prices
3. A zoning/planning system which is very similar to California and a culture where people object to the opening of an envelope
4. Lots and lots of investment in rental properties which pushes up house prices, which pushes up rents, which pushes up house prices.
Basically a lot of the above are problems of success, which Ireland is bad at dealing with because we've basically never had any success before.
Not really. 30, some even less. Average age is probably 40. So indeed, suspiciously young the positions they hold. How many leaders of a large investment fund are under 60 at least?
> Look, I get that this is tax avoidance in some sense, but
(it is)
> Do you think that Ireland should have had to bail out banks with a debt exceeding the country's GDP?
(yes, that is, after all, the promise a country or anyone makes when they borrow money. Alternatively you could NOT bail them out)
> And lets be honest, the same multinationals would have found a different country to launder money through if Ireland wasn't there ...
I couldn't make my point any better than you did here. This is stealing, simply because it is not Irish tax revenue.
> Basically a lot of the above are problems of success, ...
Enabling tax avoidance, especially after signing international treaties that you would do the opposite is not success.
> The new global minimum effective tax rate of 15% means that many large multinational corporations operating in Ireland will face a top-up tax.
From the second line of the AI overview. I mean, seriously?
So the 12.5% rate remains for irish headquartered companies, NOT multinationals. And personally I'm OK with that (cries as he pays 52% marginal).
> Not really. 30, some even less. Average age is probably 40. So indeed, suspiciously young the positions they hold. How many leaders of a large investment fund are under 60 at least?
You and I clearly have different ideas of what older people look like. They mostly look like the kind of middle-aged people I work with. And I think you're missing that most of those roles are pretty low-level, the investment fund is very very small by investment fund standards.
> (yes, that is, after all, the promise a country or anyone makes when they borrow money. Alternatively you could NOT bail them out)
So, the Irish government tried (repeatedly) to renegotiate those deals. The bondholders were (mostly) fine with it (as they'd bought the bonds later). The ECB and the IMF refused to allow this to happen, for fear of contagian. This lead to basically all capital projects (housing/water etc) being cut, and basically the entire public service taking massive pay cuts. And remember, at this point the multinationals were paying approximately zero tax, so people like me (higher rate taxpayers) funded all of this.
And as a result, we have huge infrastructural deficits and a housing crisis (where this thread got started).
> This is stealing, simply because it is not Irish tax revenue.
This is a ridiculous argument, who does the tax revenue "belong" to? If the US charges Shell taxes on their US activity is that stealing? If the Feds charge Shell tax revenue on their Texas activities is that stealing? If Shell pay all their corporate tax in Delaware is that stealing?
I'm making the assumption that you are Dutch (based on previous comments). Was the Dutch East India company stealing from India? Is that also against your moral code? Do you plan to make reparations to the Indians about this?
> Enabling tax avoidance, especially after signing international treaties that you would do the opposite is not success.
Again, on the assumption that you are Dutch, do you realise that most of the schemes avoiding all of the tax (the double irish with a dutch sandwich) involved your country? Was that OK? How come you haven't changed your tax laws?
Note: i think there's a really interesting question here around where revenue "should" be taxed so even if you're annoyed at the rest of the comment, I'd appreciate your thoughts on that.
First, you're right that Ireland is the currently worst offender (in tax law). It is not at all the only country violating EU treaties when it suits them.
> So the 12.5% rate remains for irish headquartered companies, NOT multinationals. And personally I'm OK with that (cries as he pays 52% marginal).
And what IS a "multinational"? It is a collection of country-limited companies owned by a single global entity. So in other words, these days almost EVERY multinational IS an "Irish headquartered company". Meta (Facebook) Ireland is the European headquarters. Amazon Ireland is ...
And if you look at the stats, the 12.5% is exactly what Ireland charges multinationals, because of the above reason. If you look at who pays this, it's American pharma companies, US internet companies, ... it's multinationals.
> You and I clearly have different ideas of what older people look like
Yes we do seem to. When it comes to leadership of large funds, the people usually look like mummies.
> The ECB and the IMF refused to allow this to happen, for fear of contagian ...
Actually true, kind of. Ireland demanded the whole EU lowers it's corporate tax rate, together with Ireland and the whole EU said "fuck off". Then Ireland just ignored it's obligations, made a lot of money off that, and called it a success.
As a result, the future seems to be that all payments will be taxed when they happen. Any kind of payment, across any border. You want to send 5$ to another EU country? You have to declare what for and it will be fully taxed during the money transmission, in 20 different ways at least. Right now that happens for VAT, but it will happen for VAT, various taxes, company tax, profit tax, "top up" tax, ... That's what they're negotiating, that's what's coming. It will be a total disaster, but if Ireland (and others, true) keep just violating treaties everyone will violate treaties (not just tax treaties) and there is simply no other choice.
> And as a result, we have huge infrastructural deficits and a housing crisis ...
Which Ireland is solving by causing an even bigger problem everywhere else in the EU.
> who does the tax revenue "belong" to?
The consensus of everyone, including the Irish state is that income should be taxed where it is earned. Which is the same reason most financial analysts call Ireland's revenue "artificial": it has nothing to do with Ireland. It comes from the large EU economies, and the UK. France, UK, Germany, Italy. THAT is where Irish GDP is produced, and it is taxed in Ireland, which goes against international treaties Ireland signed. That's the point.
So Ireland's government has signed (more than once) that this is illegal ... and does it anyway.
> Was the Dutch East India company stealing from India?
In my opinion, yes. EVEN by the standards of the time they were. Also from the Dutch citizens btw: they paid no tax, because they were owned by the royal family. But it happened a long time ago ...
They crashed and burned, by the way, the Dutch East India company, by the way, crashed and burned when foreign states started "enforcing tax" (well ... really just outright preventing the system the Dutch East India company operated under through outright military force, which resulted in Wars, that of course were NOT paid for by the company, or the royal family for that matter. We paid for them. Not even just the Dutch)
> Dutch tax law ...
Dutch tax law still follows the treaties the Netherlands signed. Corporate tax in the Netherlands is pretty high (26%, and because dividends are taxed, the effective tax rate is closer to 40%)
It makes for a compelling argument for these companies to build campusses / cities, offering housing as another perk for working for them. Of course, it would have to be regulated to avoid the mining town exploitation.
I wouldn't mind working in e.g. Ireland if a furnished apartment was part of the offer.
Really, you wanna police speech on HN? What priggishness. smh
As long as the gypsies in Slovakia call themselves thus, you have no moral leg to stand on.
> As long as the gypsies in Slovakia call themselves thus
As is the case with the n-word.
I'm not policing anything (obviously, since I'm not in any position of authority) - I am however pointing it out since I've come across people that truly didn't know.
I call my wife “baby” but that doesn’t mean it is ok for random men to call her that. You are free to use ethnic slurs if you want, and people are free to point out that they are in fact slurs.
It's socially constructed, what's a slur. Something below a fact.
What, you downvoted to disagree? Look:
"We asked many members of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities how they preferred to describe themselves. While some find the term “Gypsy” to be offensive, many stakeholders and witnesses were proud to associate themselves with this term and so we have decided that it is right and proper to use it, where appropriate, throughout the report." Women and Equalities Committee, UK Parliament. 2019.
Of course that was six years ago, maybe it's a slur now. Or maybe it's a slur to you, but not to them. Or it won't be slur tomorrow, or it's a slur everywhere but not on Tuesdays and except in Scotland. Socially constructed, see? Not factual.
I find it fascinating that Europeans will look down on Americans for their race problems, but mention the Roma/travelers and they respond in a way that would make Archie Bunker say calm down.
> I find it fascinating that Europeans will look down on Americans for their race problems
I don't know why Americans keep saying we look down on you for your "race problems," but we do not. Generally speaking, we look down on you for manufacturing race problems for politics as a team sport. We have our own race problems.
> Generally speaking, we look down on you for manufacturing race problems for politics as a team sport.
Which we don’t do.
What you need to understand is that race problems in the US are very complex because of our history and diversity. We have people from all over the world here, truly. And it’s not small percentages.
In comparison, most European nations are much more homogeneous. And, no offense, but y’all are not handling it as well as you should be given your position. The amount of extreme racism I hear from Europeans especially in regards to immigration is repugnant. Immigration which is comparatively quite low.
I think that's not necessarily the most important question. A more important one is "are more homes (dwellings) the easiest way to reduce homelessness?", and "do more dwellings reduce the number of rough sleepers?", to which the answer is "yes". During Covid lockdowns, the UK housed all street-homeless people at four days notice (other countries did this too). This was possible because of the sudden availability of hundreds of thousands of vacant hotel rooms.
For at least a little while, a massive influx of supply of dwellings entirely eliminated rough sleeping in the UK, mitigating the harshest impacts of homelessness for thousands.
Was it mandatory to be out of the streets, police enforced? Were the hotels free for the homeless population? Trying to figure out whether it was the increase of availability only, or combined of forced housing/low price point.
When you examine an island of critical business development with desperate need for workforce yes, otherwise you will mostly find rent and prices that compromise life conditions. Basic needs aren't a market you can easily disrupt (unless you plan to let a class of slaves or poors be created).
Sure, if you don't mind living out in the sticks :P
France has a big concentration of people around the big cities with a big empty diagonal in the middle of the country, form south-west to north-east (literally called 'la diagonale du vide'). Not only are you far from anything resembling a city, but infra for public & private transport are lacking. So if you can wfh and find a place with good 4g/5g coverage, and you won't miss social interactions, it can be great value. But as soon as you get closer to e.g. Paris or Lyon, things look very different.
There are lots of websites where you can search for rural housing in france, but it's quite fragmented so there is no real one-stop-shop where you can find everything. You can start here though:
https://www.proprietes-rurales.com/
(I am not affiliated in any way with the website, was just the first one i found)
You won't "live for free" as France has quite a high tax rate. But if you have any valuable skill and are open to the culture you can certainly live a good life there.
I happen to live in a rural area. Rural France is not the third world. Small towns are very much alive. Healthcare is organized around "pôles de santé". Now about jobs... that's an interesting point and probably the most important. The society as whole should favor decentralizing work. There is no point in concentrating jobs around big cities.
The vast majority of jobs are not decentralized and will not be for the foreseeable future. You cannot be a steelworker or waiter or actor from a home office or location that doesn't have high in-person demand for those things. There are countless reasons jobs are (and should be) concentrated around big cities. You are lucky and speaking from a position of privilege if this is not something you worry about.
This is not about me and so-called privileges. You forget the large amount of jobs in farming, handiwork, healthcare, and so on. There are certainly ways to decentralize through policies.
I didn't forget about any jobs. Sure, some jobs can be less centralized. But you said "There is no point in concentrating jobs around big cities". This is wrong and I corrected you.
1. They never had a home before so they kept living like that
2. They had a home before but then they couldn't afford it (or whatever other reason)
I doubt we have a lot of case 1 (born without a home). For case 2, I doubt building more homes work, because if you are homeless, that not only means that you can't afford buying a home, but you cannot afford renting one as well, and you are most likely jobless. I doubt building more homes are going to solve the issues. For case 2 you need more social housing and other support.
There's probably almost 100 million Americans existing under rental stress. This prevents them from being able to save and invest. That means they have no insurance policy if they lose their job. If rent was lower, which it is in places that build more, then this is less likely to happen.
This is a fair point. And better protection regulations too so owners cannot hike rents as they so wish. We have it in Canada so not sure about the US, but I guess at least some states have some sort of protection.
> For case 2, I doubt building more homes work, because if you are homeless, that not only means that you can't afford buying a home, but you cannot afford renting one as well, and you are most likely jobless.
It's not always all or nothing - sometimes you might be able to afford rent if rent were cheaper.
> For case 2 you need more social housing and other support.
"Build more homes" includes social aka public aka "affordable housing".
Luckily, your personal thoughts from first principles with zero review of the available data is not all we have to go on!
There is research[0] about causes of homelessness and about the effect[1] of house building on homelessness.
This is a well-studied issue, that, as the linked article likes to point out, people are just opposed to the solution for reasons of personal interest and (to me, bizzare) bias. Building houses reduces homelessness, increases supply for everyone, and lowers housing costs for everyone. It has no economic downsides, and significant personal upsides for everyone (cheaper housing and more options for you, dear reader).
The point of that second link above is that any amount of housing, at any price point, lowers cost of housing for everyone, especially lower-income participants in the market.
Housing is in such brutally short supply (goes for major cities in North America as well as Europe) that not only can we not afford to be picky, but in terms of actual effect it doesn't matter: social housing is as effective as luxury housing. Sometimes it is _less_ effective at achieving social goals, if rich people are also trying to get their hands on the same housing stock, because there is not enough to meet demand at the top end of the market.
I think people misunderstand the state of the housing market: it is brutally expensive because of chronic, decades long undersupply, not building enough to meet _new_ demand each year, thus the "debt" in supply has compounded massively. This has strong and weird market effects, such that building lots of cheap housing at huge scale is only a partial solution (and the scale actually needed to alleviate the problem is much larger than anyone is actually willing to contemplate right now).
> The point of that second link above is that any amount of housing, at any price point, lowers cost of housing for everyone, especially lower-income participants in the market.
Not unless you force developers to build even when it's unprofitable (or not profitable enough)
A lot of people become homeless even while they have jobs. They can almost make rent but then some incident happens and they get evicted. Once you've been evicted it becomes remarkably difficult to rent anywhere. Boom, now you are living in your car for the foreseeable future.
Sry lack of new houses doesn't seem like a cause for homelessness.
Of you can't afford a house in the big city, you move to a smaller one.
The problem is lack of a working welfare infrastructure. People become homeless because they're unlucky and once they're down, it's almost impossible to get back up.. it's a failure of state at so many levels. Real estate development is the least of them
Speaking from a London perspective, though I'm sure a NY one is worse, not better.
> Sry lack of new houses seems doesn't seem like a cause for homelessness. If you can't afford a house in the big city, you move to a smaller one.
This would only make sense if the smaller houses were reasonably priced as opposed to the bigger ones. This is not the case.
And creating more housing would absolutely be a step in the right direction in terms of reducing extreme housing prices. Unless you don't believe in demand and supply economics, that is.
> Once they're down, it's almost impossible to get back up
Yes but that's partly because they can't afford to rent even basic lodging, let alone afford to buy one, and a basic roof over one's head is a pivotal basic need for most things one needs to do in life.
This kind of problem rarely has a single cause but housing costs put pressure on many of them. High housing costs mean people save less and are more vulnerable to other events cascading into homelessness. They also increase stress levels because people live further away from their jobs and spend more time and money commuting while being less able to care for their families, which can have generational impacts when older kids aren’t studying because they’re taking care of younger siblings while their parents work and commute. It also inflated prices for almost everything else because businesses are paying more for their space and have to pay their workers more, too.
That doesn’t mean that we don’t also need things like better support and easily-accessible government healthcare, but we have to recognize that these things are all connected. Salt Lake City somewhat famously found immediately housing people helps with mental/substance abuse issues simply because all of the other problems in life are more approachable when you’re not sleeping on the street, missing appointments, and having your essentials stolen.
Being homeless makes peoples mental health issues massively worst then whatever there was before. So yes, housing actually helps people with mental health issues.
And yes, as housing becomes less available, people with mental health issues are among the worst affected.
This is a scapegoat at best in areas with high homelessness. The mentally ill and drug abusers are the most visible part of the homeless population not all the homeless population. There are also complex relations to cause vs effect where mental illness may be at manageable levels until a crisis like homelessness exacerbates it or drug use may be a result of being homeless instead of a cause.
The mentally ill and drug abusers are also the ones who need to be dealt with in a way totally separate from those who are struggling but trying to get back on their feet and need a place to shower and sleep safely.
They cause disproportionate damage to cities and the cause of aiding homeless itself. It's asinine to conflate the two issues and waffle back and forth between "more houses" and nimby name-calling. Neither will help.
We should have 21st century asylums and more houses. I won't accept a false choice, we can do both. (I'd argue we also need subsidized job relocation programs so people don't get stuck in high CoL areas looking for minimum wage jobs. There are very affordable areas to live in USA that want workers, let's make this market more efficient).
I don't think it's fair to equate this problem with just "the poor", and it's certainly not fair to equate "the poor" with homeless, mentally ill, drug abusers, or serial offenders. Those are the folks I'm referring to, not "the poor" as a general economic class. That should be obvious.
It's most certainly not fair to equate the homeless with "serial offenders". Most homeless people are simply poor. Most of the middle class are "drug abusers".
But whatever you gotta tell yourself to excuse the mistreatment.
I believe you have never been to or around the situation I'm talking about. That's ok, but let me assure you it's a very very small minority of drug users and homeless. Nobody is proposing anything for those two large groups. Just a few very bad locations that get overlooked because of these kinds of misunderstandings which absolutely do need something different.
You're stuck in a false dichotomy. There's nothing wrong with adopting all the housing reform you want. But we also (additionally not instead of) need something immediate to treat the acute, highly localized problem of mentally ill and drug abuse in encampments. If in fact you have not been to one (e.g. Venice Beach a few years ago) and seen the enormous encampments and destruction they inflict on nearby property, it's hard to understand. Maybe you have?
This isn't about American exceptionalism, because either A) other countries don't have this problem (great!) or B) they do and all the "do it like they do" was just proven wrong as a solution to both the problems or C) they did have this problem and it was solved by these policies - great! The immediate intervention of getting the worst offenders off the street is a temporary solution and housing policy wins long term.
But no matter what there's no reason to push back on two heterogenous solutions because it includes more than just your favorite one.
You think mentally ill do not need a place to shower and sleep safely? And what do you think the lack of place to shower and sleep safely does with already mentally ill person?
Like common, this does not passes the smell test. When housing is cheap, mentally ill can pay housing and have easier time getting support to get that housing. Their mental health issue do not escalate so quickly due to lack of sleep and constant danger.
> You think mentally ill do not need a place to shower and sleep safely?
Giving a locking door to an addict is a death sentence. As countless experiments have proven, unsupervised shelters all over California have been literally destroyed by addicts and the mentally unwell. I'm talking faeces on the walls, blood and urine everywhere, horrific attacks in the units, and eventually the place just gets burnt down. So these people need supervised shelter. In a facility. Where they're prevented from harming others and themselves. De-institutionalisation was a huge mistake. There were abuses and they needed reform, but throwing schizophrenics and addicts into the street was not kind or humane, and leaving them there is just as immoral.
There is such a gulf between the idealized treatment for an ideal downtrodden patient and the reality of a severely mentally ill person (especially with drugs involved).
Asylums, historically, were just a way to jail more "undesirables" in a way that isn't legally a jail. Some definitely started with good intentions, but they all tend to morph into jails.
We need something in the middle. The ability to be a functional adult is forced into being a binary thing. You either succeed, or you crash and burn down into being homeless, institutionalized, etc.
There really aren't many ways to meet halfway - to have living spaces where you can live up to your abilities and have safety nets for the areas where you struggle. We have "halfway houses" to help people re-enter society after crashing, but not much to catch people before they fall.
(We do have some programs that try to help, but they are swamped, or inefficient, either expensive or under-funded, or some combination of those things. )
West Virginia is literally the demonstration that this sentiment is completely wrong. They have a higher drug abuse rate than California, but effectively do not have homelessness at any rate that we do… because you can get a place to live for very, very little money.
It is very obvious that the housing availability is a major factor.
For some people, a kind of assisted living is available - independent apartments, but with a social worker visiting once a week or a few times a week if necessary.
Of course, who will pay for it? There's plenty of money but it's all in corporations and shareholders.
You don't understand. I'm a real person who's had real experiences. I am now disinclined to invest in housing for the homeless because you won't take my real problems seriously. If you actually don't understand the connection you should refrain from commenting.
I doubt you could describe the target of this piece but it is not people like myself. That is not to say that the piece should taken seriously. She would have been wiser to simply tweet the title rather than lift the veil on her various unearned grudges. At any rate, you can continue try to insult me but it will not persuade me. You might not think that matters but here we are.
>San Rafael law prohibits smoking in all apartment and condo complexes (if your home shares a wall with another home – you can’t smoke there). A housing complex is only allowed to create outdoor smoking areas if they meet certain criteria. Landlords and property managers are required to enforce this law through lease agreements. For more information about this, check out this handbook:
My property doesn't smell like cigarette smoke. I've had various mechanisms of enforcement to prevent it. Also marijuana usage is not in the mainstream in my community. In order to prevent it I will not make the investments advocated for here.
I can go weeks without smelling cigarettes or seeing someone smoking a cigarette.
But every fucking day marijuana. Every public park; marijuana. Sports events; marijuana. Just sitting in traffic; marijuana. Waiting in fucking line at my kids' after-school pickup, marijuana.
It's a little ridiculous at this point.
I am a huge proponent of legalized marijuana, but for real. The people that do this are ruining it for the rest of us. Luckily it makes SO MUCH MONEY that I don't think we'll ever see it outlawed again, but. This is exactly what the pearl-clutching anti-pot people said would happen.
The commenters here have simply assured me that allowing these people to live near me will expose my young children to marijuana smoke, and that I will not and should not have any recourse. Many of them are marijuana smokers themselves. They have no answers, to the extent they could even see this as a problem at all or understand my very common point of view.
This seems like a no-brainer, and I will continue to vote and advocate against these policies, to the extent that I need to because most of the people I live near agree with me. Thanks all.
It's gone up among many demographic slices, including the two we're discussing. At this point I don't have to experience it. The commenters here --including yourself-- think that I do and some think that I should, and I'm wondering how I would continue to prevent it. They've provided no clear answers, only insults and condescension. And that's fine! I just leave here unconvinced and will not follow their prescriptions.
> sorry for the bad news
Sorry you didn't realize that supporting legal pot would make you smell more pot.
>Sorry you didn't realize that supporting legal pot would make you smell more pot.
I guess I thought better of my fellow citizens. You don't really see people drinking a beer in line at school, or sitting in traffic. I assumed it would be the same with pot, and I'm genuinely confused on what is different in peoples' minds.
The original point I responded to was that if you have homeless people around you, you'll have the smell of pot. The point I'm trying to get across is that it isn't homeless folks or poor folks. It's everyone.
> The commenters here have simply assured me that allowing these people to live near me will expose my young children to marijuana smoke, and that I will not and should not have any recourse.
At least in the state I live in, the only legal place to smoke is on your own property.
So, if you dont want to smell it, you are basically arguing for it to become fully illegal again so you can call the cops on your neighbors. Thats a legitimate position to have but definitely not everyone agree with you.
(personally I am far more bothered by nasty exhaust fumes from vehicles and gardeners and I'm pretty sure they are worse for health too)
I don't want people smoking on their balcony while I have my windows open on a nice day. I don't want a child's room to smell like pot smoke and I want the free enjoyment of my property. I will not support this policy proposal as it further whittles my rights away.
They are, however, falling afoul of the generalized version of Poe's Law [0]. If you want to satirize positions like this on the internet, you really need to leave some indication that that's what you're doing. If you just remain committed to the bit, you will look exactly like the very real assholes who believe these things unironically.
Hard disagree. Satire is never labeled as such. By identifying sarcasm or sardonicism, you would basically be saying that the comment is not inherently absurd enough to be immediately recognizable as laughably wrong. The whole point of sarcasm is to highlight absurdity.
There will always be people who misinterpret this kind of writing. That doesn't make it bad writing; some people are just a little dumb. The writing isn't for them.
What mechanism of enforcement do I have when this person continues to use substances in their subsidized housing? How do I prevent my young children from smelling this person's marijuana? How do I prevent my young children from interacting with these people when they play outside?
I really do believe this. And I hope it makes it clear to others why wanting to keep housing prices high to prevent your kids from smelling pot is an outrageous opinion.
And the data is wider than your experience I suppose.
Yes, there are homeless people with pre-existing substance abuse problems. But so many people have this idea that somebody has their life together and then they try meth and then they end up homeless and that's how most homelessness works. This makes the "well, they deserve it and there is nothing to be done" position stick.
> And the data is wider than your experience I suppose.
Not that I care much. Me and my children will live as far from addicts and the homeless as I can manage, thank you very much.
> But so many people have this idea that somebody has their life together and then they try meth and then they end up homeless and that's how most homelessness works
Usually people who are on drugs have their life fall apart, which ultimately ends in homelessness.
… or crazy. I know a lot of people who’ve struggled with homelessness and they (1) have serious mental health problems and (2) usually have no insight into them.
Yes, I know the talking point that the median homeless person is not mentally ill, but for the sane homelessness is usually a temporary condition, for the insane it is chronic.
Homeless people are people. Society has an obligation to everybody, not just me. Unless your plan is "just imprison homeless people forever" then people are going to need be around homeless people while homelessness exists.
Society has an obligation to nobody. Governments are only obligated to serve the taxpayers that fund them.
Imprisoning homeless people is not an acceptable solution, because imprisonment costs taxpayer money.
A better solution is to let the market work. If you can't afford the rent for a city, you shouldn't be allowed to be in that city at all, even in a prison cell. People who can't afford to live in an inhabited area should be permitted to camp in the wilderness.
Honestly, my European perspective is that a homeless person is someone who burnt through their entire support network - family, friends, state help. If they're mentally fit, then their choices landed them on the street, not my problem, be a fucking adult. If they're not mentally fit, then they should be sent to a mental institution, because they won't function in the society no matter what you do.
Also, of course nobody wants to live with poor people. I don't buy this romantic image of poor people being fair citizens failed by the rest of the society. I moved into a poor neighborhood and immediately had my bike stolen, literally living the meme. Real estate prices are lower here exactly because it's a black immigrant neighborhood full of poor people.
Until WFH is common, areas are condemned to affordable housing shortages or commuting nightmares. Yeah, some areas pony up for dedicated path public transit but that’s rare. There’s lots of land over there but the jobs are over here. And people don’t want houses like the 50’s and don’t seem to like high density housing with kids.
And nobody wants to see their real estate property decline in value…
451 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 261 ms ] threadAt the end of the day, the reason more housing isn’t built is that the incentives are greater to not build it. You can build a high rise with shoebox apartments that have to be aggressively managed and make a profit. Or you can build a high rise with half the units, higher reoccurring revenue and less hassle and make 2x the immediate profit.
At the end of the day as long as there is demand for more expensive housing that’s what’s going to get built.
The incentives you're talking about -- they're missing because of NIMBYist overregulation. The whole point of NIMBYism is to use regulation to hamstring the positive incentives in the market. "There's demand for twenty units here but the place is zoned for a single unit." or "There's demand for twenty units but the city demands that if we build a multitenant unit, we have to do a twenty-year environmental survey first".
Do you live in a place with a homeless crisis. Guess what: You're a citizen and you have some agency. Democracy can be a backstop to "pure" (or mis-regulated) market forces. I, for one, enjoy clean drinking water (and also: a good deal from a healthy competitive market).
Median income goes towards old housing.
Ask anyone how to make cheap housing though. No one has a convincing answer. I'm convinced that it's the right question.
A U.S. default would spike interest rates, crash bond markets, trigger a credit freeze, and destroy consumer confidence. Mortgages would become unaffordable. Mass foreclosures and job losses would crush demand. Asset fire sales would follow. Housing prices would collapse.
This would also reshuffle assets, so speculators and highly leveraged people would be punished instead of being rewarded.
It will also cleanup the situation for future generations so kids won't have to be under extreme debt to pay back in some way to government, because the older people lived above their means.
My city is currently facing this where the interest rate hikes, build tax hikes and falling prices have created a perfect storm of vastly reduced housing starts.
This is saying "building is expensive because building is expensive". Why is it expensive and how do we address it to make it cheaper?
Build less and worse per unit. Share foundations, roofs, walls, and common areas. Build less square footage per unit. Build less fancy per square foot (cheaper kitchens and baths). Use all standard materials and finishes. Install low-end appliances and HVAC. Everything cookie-cutter; no per-unit changes. Use less land per unit (and maybe less expensive land overall). Have no private outdoor space (or just a tiny balcony).
That’s not well aligned to how to maximize profits from a given unit though (fairly obviously and by intentional design).
Houses are also around 1.5 times the size with more bathrooms per bedroom in 2025 vs 1975, so “build less square footage and less fancy per square foot” isn’t at all “giving up so much that was standard 50 years ago”, but rather returning toward the standard of 50 years ago.
Land cost depends on the location. You can find an acre of rural land for $1K. Or an 1/8th acre for $1M or more in a city.
For a cheap parcel of land in an unincorporated area with no building permit process, but with existing grid power, you can buy and build quite reasonably. (There are several YouTube channels covering builds like this.) In these areas, I wouldn’t overlook existing properties as well.
> Nashville home prices went up in May 2025, but not by much compared to last year.
> Average sale price $853.8K; median price stayed flat at $613K.
> But here's what's interesting: sellers had to drop their asking prices more than before. The average list price was $1.012 million, but homes actually sold for about $158K less than that...
> More Homes Available for Buyers: Active inventory jumped +29% compared to last year.
> Total inventory (including homes under contract) increased +16%
> Sales Activity Slowing Down -18%
[0]: https://www.nashvillesmls.com/blog/nashville-housing-market-...
[0]: https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1314...
Republican states like Texas do a significantly better job, as you can see by looking at annual per capita new housing, and lower rental inflation.
There's a growing liberal movement to change this status quo but they're still not that influential beyond rhetorical support from some Dems.
I look at metrics to arrive at my opinions. Things like the difference between the number of new housing per capita in various cities in California compared to Austin, Texas. Things like the R^2 when you do a linear regression of the amount of new housing per capita against changes in rental inflation.
The housing I was describing as plentiful is a mixture of existing housing as either standalone or fewer than 5 units.
California is a bit embarrassing. We’ll see how the Builder’s Remedy and laws like SB 1123 play out, I suppose.
Care to explain why I either don't count or don't really exist?
I mean, I guess that's a position you could take, but it seems like a pretty extreme one.
Can we stop calling reform abolishment? I know it's more fun to call it abolishment because it triggers the people you disagree with, but it's entirely counter-productive.
I'm just getting so tired of these constant motte and bailey fallacies in US political discourse.
You may not respect it enough to take it seriously, but it is a position that some socialists hold.
However I have doubts that, when people who hold that position come to power, El Chapo will be walking free with no restrictions the next morning.
Some form of restriction of movement will be required for frequent violent offenders. You may abolish the old system since you believe it's rotten to the core and you may call whatever replaces it something other than prison, but it will still be prison.
"Prison" (carceral punishment) does not encompass all possible restrictions on personal freedom and movement. Even in systems with carceral punishment, other restrictions on freedom and movement are used for some situations, that do not involve incarceration.
It does not help your cause to adopt a motto that espouses a more extreme position than you actually hold and both your supporters and detractors will feel betrayed when they learn your position is actually more moderate.
So what? You say "DEI" or "woke" and people assume you mean racism against white people. You say "toxic masculinity" or "feminism" and people assume you hate all men. "Pro choice" means you choose to murder babies. Transgender people are pedophiles and fetishists. Immigration is invasion. Atheists are incapable of morality. Opposition to Israeli Zionism is antisemitism. Any economic system besides free market capitalism is socialism, all socialism is communism and all communism leads to the death camps. Democracy is the worst system except for all of the others. By the way did you the Nazis were socialist, and BLM was a violent Marxist army that burned entire cities to the ground?
Most people (especially Americans) have been indoctrinated by society to be unable to interpret any radical or leftist concept in any but the most extreme bad faith way possible, so they don't have to take it seriously. Their minds are protected by a cloud of thought-terminating cliches. Despite this, one doesn't let the opposition control one's language or police one's tone, because that just leads to one's own argument being co-opted and undermined.
The position being described here begins with "abolish the prisons," it just doesn't end with that. But that isn't reform, and if one called it "reform" just to be civil, no one would even bother to listen. Even getting people to consider the nature of the systems they live within and benefit from enough to say "abolish the prisons? That's crazy talk" is getting them to examine their biases more deeply than they probably have in their entire lives.
That is true, there is a concerted effort to control the narrative and define terms that are left vague with the most unfavorable or extreme interpretation. This is possible is because these terms are left so open to interpretation, however the vagueness is not an accident rather it is fully intentional.
The real reason that slogans like "defund the police" and "abolish prisons" are so vaguely defined is because America's two-party system demands "big tent" politics. Both parties need slogans that will unite both extremists and moderates on their side of the political spectrum. The fact that "prison abolishment" can be interpreted as both "fundamental reform" and "all prisoners go free" is a feature, not a bug.
Most politicians will actively avoid giving a solid definition to these slogans, because they know that when they do they will a lose voters. So be aware that adopting vague slogans is to your own detriment too, because the people you think support your position may not actually share your interpretation.
People talking about "prison abolition" aren't talking about reform when they do.
Some people talking about prison abolition (but far from all, or even the majority) might also be willing to accept reform as an intermediate step or compromise, and might engage in discussion about the shape of reform that might be acceptable in that role, but that's secondary too, and not the focus of, their advocacy for abolition.
Of course, one does have to be careful with one's definitions when talking about "capitalism", because I've seen people mean everything from "the current, specific, late-stage capitalist system and nothing else" to "the basic concept of exchanging currency for goods and services" and everything in between. Personally, I'm in favor of abolishing the former and some of the stuff in the middle, but I'm skeptical that even in a fully post-scarcity society we would abandon the need for the latter.
As for US hegemony...I think that the current situation demonstrates very well why it's a serious problem. We're a single point of failure, and the polarization here has been rising for decades, leaving something like this all but inevitable. Indeed, even if someone like Trump had not come along and normalized hatred and fascism, we would still have likely been in a situation where every 4-8 years the US's policies on a wide range of things flipped violently back and forth.
No; while I fear that the transition will be very rocky, the world will be better off if a broader coalition of nations can collectively take up the role of attempting to enforce the notion of universal human rights across the globe. While they're at it, maybe they'll finally be able to get the US to agree to things like the UN Convention on Rights of the Child, and the authority of the International Criminal Court.
NIMBYism is an economic issue, not a culture issue. It has far more to do with how much impact the new housing is expected to have on the value of people's property. Or more saliently, the equity they have in the property. If people expect that nearby housing will cut their $500k equity in half, they're likely to petition against it, regardless of whether their governor is a Republican or a Democrat.
NIMBY isn't red or blue, it's just fear and greed.
Increased housing nearby brings increased traffic, parking pressure, crowding, and noise, none of which are positives for current residents. Fear and greed don’t motivate renters to be NIMBY, yet we have NIMBY renters because of other factors.
Lmao
Is there a reason that the press is always making scapegoats out of tech nerds? The vast majority of people are not employed in tech, and are part of the same society and have very similar self interests.
Truly tired of everything being a criticism of Silicon Valley, as if everyone else are saints.
What you're seeing is a backlash to this influence, and the fairly disastrous consequences it has usually had.
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/minutes-from-the-latest-...
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/welcome-to-westillwork-t...
All these replies missed my point. I’m not saying tech is blameless, rather that the press constantly criticizes tech for both doing too much and doing nothing and not fixing society. I would argue that this is toxic and ignores the agency of literally all other professions/people.
Further, to ignore the housing/etc lobbying by basically everyone else outside of tech and make it seem like SV giants control the housing crisis is just boring. Do note that most of the developed world is facing this, not just specifically SV/USA.
Clearly we're consuming different types of media, because on my estimation tech gets let off fairly light relative to the damage we cause.
As practitioners, we're not entitled to get angry about being criticised for the damage we cause at least until we've stopped it.
The "all opinions I don't like are not held honestly, it's a trick" meme is very tiring. In respect to your original point, no this isn't some unique critique that singles out SV. The SV disruptor is just a shorthand for the rich and landed that will always be opposed to new housing. This could be drop-in replaced with a mid-career NYC finance bro, or successful Texan oil & gas professional, just exchange some things for prayer and bootstraps.
They are the same because in all those cases their wealth (real o perceived potential) depends in housing value go only up.
Just my observation. Tons of overpriced apartments being built at 2x the price of the average renter.
Housing subsidies will be next. Another attempt to prop up the rampant capitalism by means of socialism.
Tax the purchase not the construction.
If you restrict or punish the purchase of housing via tax policy, you simultaneously restrict the sale of it by original constructors, which serves as an impediment to that original construction.
Of course, most of those who did own extra homes as an investment rented them out as well, so rental prices here has gone through the roof as landlords and common folk with an extra apartment or two has sold the homes.
As housing stock quality improves, everyone upgrades. Which leaves room at the bottom level to get on the ladder into lower quality cheaper housing.
Also supply and demand: if prices are increasing it is mostly because supply is not keeping up with demand.
Lastly, like all other products in a market, we should see a general improvement in quality, this isn't a bad thing (think how cars how 10x more reliable, comfortable and fuel efficient than they used to be).
https://youtu.be/uuCuTThT_Tw
It's generally much more illegal to build cheap housing, both in the direct sense that building codes require all new housing to be built to extremely high standards, and the indirect sense that in places without by-right development (which is most desirable cities sadly) your neighbours are going to fight a lot more against cheap houses getting built than they'll fight against expensive houses getting built.
> Housing subsidies will be next. Another attempt to prop up the rampant capitalism by means of socialism.
Already been happening for years.
Where I live the majority of affordable housing has been bought up and turned into investment rentals or vacation rentals. They will leave the houses empty instead of lowering rent.
Current average rental cost is 3x what the average renter makes. More apartments are being built (very cheap, inefficient designs) but the cost is still above what the average renter makes.
Collusion is a bigger issue than new builds.
Just my observations from my area.
[1] according to the communists at the world bank: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/l...
Whether we do that by gigantic public housing projects, non-profit coop developments, or markets building housing for profit is almost irrelevant to the point that it's currently effectively illegal to build housing in the vast majority of cities.
We should be looking to Vienna, which has had the most success at keeping urban housing affordable and available. They did so by always building more housing all the time. They're doing basically the opposite of what we do in CA where we fight about which type of housing we should build one or two buildings of. We need to just legalize and fast track housing of all kinds.
Still, I sincerely believe more people would choose to be homeless if they tried it, because there is nothing inherently bad in living in a tent if the climate allows it. It's just like tourism but with more amenities available due to urban infra + the stigma (that people mostly learned to ignore due to cultural conditioning of the 70s-today period).
Do you know this first hand? Have you tried it?
It's generally called "as fast as necessary", more focused on total journey lenght with the clock-face schedule across the whole country. Other countries certainly have faster trains.
EDIT: It's fascinating that I'm downvoted for this. I wonder if the voters also live in Dublin?
But it's also significant infrastructural deficits (water and power) that are downstream of incredible debt taken on by the government as a result of the 2007 crash (as well as a planning system where dogs have the right to object to planning applications).
Please don't kid around, we know exactly how the government facilitates the migrations. If it weren't a biggie, why are there protests happening on the streets of Dublin?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_anti-immigration_prote...
... which Ireland proceeded not to do. Then the new prime minister went onto TV declaring what a great success all this was for Ireland (... while ignoring that this is literally stealing money from other EU countries), and how they intend to continue this and were putting some of the money into a new "Irish" sovereign wealth fund (isif.ie) that has since used the money to hire the zero-experience-and-suspiciously-young-for-such-positions-but-totally-awesome investement team [2] composed of members of his own party that have been tasked with investing in Irish x business (please replace x with "the taoseach's new business" when making investment decisions and leave it out when publishing in the paper)
For unknown reasons, there is nothing on the isif.ie site about what they effectively do: steal money from EU hospitals, schools, pensions ... to personally enrich large US companies, and of course themselves. This is also missing from the government speeches on how fantastic they are.
But do not worry. Meanwhile in Brussels and Strasbourg, the requisition for a meeting about the approval of the color of the bikeshed (so called because when you call the place where you park your armoured Audi A9 motorcade a bikeshed chances of reelection go up dramatically. It IS, of course, a garage that was built where a park with a playground used to be) where then the request for the beginning of the process to requisition a meeting room to discuss who will make the agenda for discussing a meeting room for the actual issue is making great progress!
[1] https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-finance/press-releases/m...
[2] https://isif.ie/about/meet-the-team
Can you provide a source for this assertion? AFAIK, we've implemented the 15% rate (but the profit shifting part died in the US senate, which Ireland is not responsible for).
> the zero-experience-and-suspiciously-young-for-such-positions-but-totally-awesome investement team [2]
They all look to be 40+ from the linked page (except for one lady who looks to be late 20's/early 30s).
> omposed of members of his own party that have been tasked with investing in Irish x business (please replace x with "the taoseach's new business" when making investment decisions and leave it out when publishing in the paper)
I really hate Fianna Fail (the Taoiseach's party) but Micheal Martin has never been corrupt. He is literally the most boring person in the world, but he's not corrupt.
> For unknown reasons, there is nothing on the isif.ie site about what they effectively do: steal money from EU hospitals, schools, pensions ... to personally enrich large US companies, and of course themselves. This is also missing from the government speeches on how fantastic they are.
Look, I get that this is tax avoidance in some sense, but it's worth noting that most US tech companies are booking all non-US revenue in Ireland (taxed at 15%) rather than Bermuda (taxed at 0%) for about a decade now.
Do you think that Ireland should have had to bail out banks with a debt exceeding the country's GDP? Was this moral? And then basically be put into controls on the part of the EU (who are the people preventing them from burning the bondholders).
Ireland is basically the most indebted country per head in the world at this point (the GDP looks better because of the tax dodging multinationals).
And lets be honest, the same multinationals would have found a different country to launder money through if Ireland wasn't there.
To answer the question above about properties in Dublin, this has a number of reasons:
1. post 2007 (the crash) housebuilding stopped for about a decade 2. Over the past decade, Ireland has seen significant immigration, particularly in the cities which has driven up prices 3. A zoning/planning system which is very similar to California and a culture where people object to the opening of an envelope 4. Lots and lots of investment in rental properties which pushes up house prices, which pushes up rents, which pushes up house prices.
Basically a lot of the above are problems of success, which Ireland is bad at dealing with because we've basically never had any success before.
https://www.google.com/search?q=current+tax+rate+for+multina...
> They all look to be 40+ from the linked page
Not really. 30, some even less. Average age is probably 40. So indeed, suspiciously young the positions they hold. How many leaders of a large investment fund are under 60 at least?
> Look, I get that this is tax avoidance in some sense, but
(it is)
> Do you think that Ireland should have had to bail out banks with a debt exceeding the country's GDP?
(yes, that is, after all, the promise a country or anyone makes when they borrow money. Alternatively you could NOT bail them out)
> And lets be honest, the same multinationals would have found a different country to launder money through if Ireland wasn't there ...
I couldn't make my point any better than you did here. This is stealing, simply because it is not Irish tax revenue.
> Basically a lot of the above are problems of success, ...
Enabling tax avoidance, especially after signing international treaties that you would do the opposite is not success.
From the second line of the AI overview. I mean, seriously?
So the 12.5% rate remains for irish headquartered companies, NOT multinationals. And personally I'm OK with that (cries as he pays 52% marginal).
> Not really. 30, some even less. Average age is probably 40. So indeed, suspiciously young the positions they hold. How many leaders of a large investment fund are under 60 at least?
You and I clearly have different ideas of what older people look like. They mostly look like the kind of middle-aged people I work with. And I think you're missing that most of those roles are pretty low-level, the investment fund is very very small by investment fund standards.
> (yes, that is, after all, the promise a country or anyone makes when they borrow money. Alternatively you could NOT bail them out)
So, the Irish government tried (repeatedly) to renegotiate those deals. The bondholders were (mostly) fine with it (as they'd bought the bonds later). The ECB and the IMF refused to allow this to happen, for fear of contagian. This lead to basically all capital projects (housing/water etc) being cut, and basically the entire public service taking massive pay cuts. And remember, at this point the multinationals were paying approximately zero tax, so people like me (higher rate taxpayers) funded all of this.
And as a result, we have huge infrastructural deficits and a housing crisis (where this thread got started).
> This is stealing, simply because it is not Irish tax revenue.
This is a ridiculous argument, who does the tax revenue "belong" to? If the US charges Shell taxes on their US activity is that stealing? If the Feds charge Shell tax revenue on their Texas activities is that stealing? If Shell pay all their corporate tax in Delaware is that stealing?
I'm making the assumption that you are Dutch (based on previous comments). Was the Dutch East India company stealing from India? Is that also against your moral code? Do you plan to make reparations to the Indians about this?
> Enabling tax avoidance, especially after signing international treaties that you would do the opposite is not success.
Again, on the assumption that you are Dutch, do you realise that most of the schemes avoiding all of the tax (the double irish with a dutch sandwich) involved your country? Was that OK? How come you haven't changed your tax laws?
Note: i think there's a really interesting question here around where revenue "should" be taxed so even if you're annoyed at the rest of the comment, I'd appreciate your thoughts on that.
> So the 12.5% rate remains for irish headquartered companies, NOT multinationals. And personally I'm OK with that (cries as he pays 52% marginal).
And what IS a "multinational"? It is a collection of country-limited companies owned by a single global entity. So in other words, these days almost EVERY multinational IS an "Irish headquartered company". Meta (Facebook) Ireland is the European headquarters. Amazon Ireland is ...
And if you look at the stats, the 12.5% is exactly what Ireland charges multinationals, because of the above reason. If you look at who pays this, it's American pharma companies, US internet companies, ... it's multinationals.
> You and I clearly have different ideas of what older people look like
Yes we do seem to. When it comes to leadership of large funds, the people usually look like mummies.
> The ECB and the IMF refused to allow this to happen, for fear of contagian ...
Actually true, kind of. Ireland demanded the whole EU lowers it's corporate tax rate, together with Ireland and the whole EU said "fuck off". Then Ireland just ignored it's obligations, made a lot of money off that, and called it a success.
As a result, the future seems to be that all payments will be taxed when they happen. Any kind of payment, across any border. You want to send 5$ to another EU country? You have to declare what for and it will be fully taxed during the money transmission, in 20 different ways at least. Right now that happens for VAT, but it will happen for VAT, various taxes, company tax, profit tax, "top up" tax, ... That's what they're negotiating, that's what's coming. It will be a total disaster, but if Ireland (and others, true) keep just violating treaties everyone will violate treaties (not just tax treaties) and there is simply no other choice.
> And as a result, we have huge infrastructural deficits and a housing crisis ...
Which Ireland is solving by causing an even bigger problem everywhere else in the EU.
> who does the tax revenue "belong" to?
The consensus of everyone, including the Irish state is that income should be taxed where it is earned. Which is the same reason most financial analysts call Ireland's revenue "artificial": it has nothing to do with Ireland. It comes from the large EU economies, and the UK. France, UK, Germany, Italy. THAT is where Irish GDP is produced, and it is taxed in Ireland, which goes against international treaties Ireland signed. That's the point.
So Ireland's government has signed (more than once) that this is illegal ... and does it anyway.
> Was the Dutch East India company stealing from India?
In my opinion, yes. EVEN by the standards of the time they were. Also from the Dutch citizens btw: they paid no tax, because they were owned by the royal family. But it happened a long time ago ...
They crashed and burned, by the way, the Dutch East India company, by the way, crashed and burned when foreign states started "enforcing tax" (well ... really just outright preventing the system the Dutch East India company operated under through outright military force, which resulted in Wars, that of course were NOT paid for by the company, or the royal family for that matter. We paid for them. Not even just the Dutch)
> Dutch tax law ...
Dutch tax law still follows the treaties the Netherlands signed. Corporate tax in the Netherlands is pretty high (26%, and because dividends are taxed, the effective tax rate is closer to 40%)
I wouldn't mind working in e.g. Ireland if a furnished apartment was part of the offer.
https://www.joe.co.uk/news/swiss-city-offers-beggars-one-way...
As is the case with the n-word.
I'm not policing anything (obviously, since I'm not in any position of authority) - I am however pointing it out since I've come across people that truly didn't know.
What, you downvoted to disagree? Look:
"We asked many members of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities how they preferred to describe themselves. While some find the term “Gypsy” to be offensive, many stakeholders and witnesses were proud to associate themselves with this term and so we have decided that it is right and proper to use it, where appropriate, throughout the report." Women and Equalities Committee, UK Parliament. 2019.
Of course that was six years ago, maybe it's a slur now. Or maybe it's a slur to you, but not to them. Or it won't be slur tomorrow, or it's a slur everywhere but not on Tuesdays and except in Scotland. Socially constructed, see? Not factual.
I don't know why Americans keep saying we look down on you for your "race problems," but we do not. Generally speaking, we look down on you for manufacturing race problems for politics as a team sport. We have our own race problems.
Which we don’t do.
What you need to understand is that race problems in the US are very complex because of our history and diversity. We have people from all over the world here, truly. And it’s not small percentages.
In comparison, most European nations are much more homogeneous. And, no offense, but y’all are not handling it as well as you should be given your position. The amount of extreme racism I hear from Europeans especially in regards to immigration is repugnant. Immigration which is comparatively quite low.
You border security and permit system kicks out anyone with even a remote chance to become homeless, you're welcome.
For at least a little while, a massive influx of supply of dwellings entirely eliminated rough sleeping in the UK, mitigating the harshest impacts of homelessness for thousands.
Do you remember that teacher in school who would sometimes lash out at a poorly performing student?
This made me feel like I was watching a frustrated lash out from someone who cares.
Captures the author's feelings; but fails as a piece of persuasion.
It is still an argument.
https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/7727384
So yes if you are willing to live in areas :
- without jobs, - without healthcare - in ghost towns
1. They never had a home before so they kept living like that
2. They had a home before but then they couldn't afford it (or whatever other reason)
I doubt we have a lot of case 1 (born without a home). For case 2, I doubt building more homes work, because if you are homeless, that not only means that you can't afford buying a home, but you cannot afford renting one as well, and you are most likely jobless. I doubt building more homes are going to solve the issues. For case 2 you need more social housing and other support.
It's not always all or nothing - sometimes you might be able to afford rent if rent were cheaper.
> For case 2 you need more social housing and other support.
"Build more homes" includes social aka public aka "affordable housing".
There is research[0] about causes of homelessness and about the effect[1] of house building on homelessness.
This is a well-studied issue, that, as the linked article likes to point out, people are just opposed to the solution for reasons of personal interest and (to me, bizzare) bias. Building houses reduces homelessness, increases supply for everyone, and lowers housing costs for everyone. It has no economic downsides, and significant personal upsides for everyone (cheaper housing and more options for you, dear reader).
[0]: https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/ (taken from elsewhere in this thread) [1]: https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1314...
Housing is in such brutally short supply (goes for major cities in North America as well as Europe) that not only can we not afford to be picky, but in terms of actual effect it doesn't matter: social housing is as effective as luxury housing. Sometimes it is _less_ effective at achieving social goals, if rich people are also trying to get their hands on the same housing stock, because there is not enough to meet demand at the top end of the market.
I think people misunderstand the state of the housing market: it is brutally expensive because of chronic, decades long undersupply, not building enough to meet _new_ demand each year, thus the "debt" in supply has compounded massively. This has strong and weird market effects, such that building lots of cheap housing at huge scale is only a partial solution (and the scale actually needed to alleviate the problem is much larger than anyone is actually willing to contemplate right now).
Not unless you force developers to build even when it's unprofitable (or not profitable enough)
Cheaper housing helps prevent this.
Of you can't afford a house in the big city, you move to a smaller one.
The problem is lack of a working welfare infrastructure. People become homeless because they're unlucky and once they're down, it's almost impossible to get back up.. it's a failure of state at so many levels. Real estate development is the least of them
> Sry lack of new houses seems doesn't seem like a cause for homelessness. If you can't afford a house in the big city, you move to a smaller one.
This would only make sense if the smaller houses were reasonably priced as opposed to the bigger ones. This is not the case.
And creating more housing would absolutely be a step in the right direction in terms of reducing extreme housing prices. Unless you don't believe in demand and supply economics, that is.
> Once they're down, it's almost impossible to get back up
Yes but that's partly because they can't afford to rent even basic lodging, let alone afford to buy one, and a basic roof over one's head is a pivotal basic need for most things one needs to do in life.
That doesn’t mean that we don’t also need things like better support and easily-accessible government healthcare, but we have to recognize that these things are all connected. Salt Lake City somewhat famously found immediately housing people helps with mental/substance abuse issues simply because all of the other problems in life are more approachable when you’re not sleeping on the street, missing appointments, and having your essentials stolen.
Honestly I think sometimes building (compassionate, 21st century) mental health "asylums" and treatment centres would do more to end homelessness.
And yes, as housing becomes less available, people with mental health issues are among the worst affected.
They cause disproportionate damage to cities and the cause of aiding homeless itself. It's asinine to conflate the two issues and waffle back and forth between "more houses" and nimby name-calling. Neither will help.
We should have 21st century asylums and more houses. I won't accept a false choice, we can do both. (I'd argue we also need subsidized job relocation programs so people don't get stuck in high CoL areas looking for minimum wage jobs. There are very affordable areas to live in USA that want workers, let's make this market more efficient).
But whatever you gotta tell yourself to excuse the mistreatment.
This isn't about American exceptionalism, because either A) other countries don't have this problem (great!) or B) they do and all the "do it like they do" was just proven wrong as a solution to both the problems or C) they did have this problem and it was solved by these policies - great! The immediate intervention of getting the worst offenders off the street is a temporary solution and housing policy wins long term.
But no matter what there's no reason to push back on two heterogenous solutions because it includes more than just your favorite one.
Like common, this does not passes the smell test. When housing is cheap, mentally ill can pay housing and have easier time getting support to get that housing. Their mental health issue do not escalate so quickly due to lack of sleep and constant danger.
Giving a locking door to an addict is a death sentence. As countless experiments have proven, unsupervised shelters all over California have been literally destroyed by addicts and the mentally unwell. I'm talking faeces on the walls, blood and urine everywhere, horrific attacks in the units, and eventually the place just gets burnt down. So these people need supervised shelter. In a facility. Where they're prevented from harming others and themselves. De-institutionalisation was a huge mistake. There were abuses and they needed reform, but throwing schizophrenics and addicts into the street was not kind or humane, and leaving them there is just as immoral.
Weird.
Rounding all the homeless up into an asylum is just sweeping the problem under the carpet.
There really aren't many ways to meet halfway - to have living spaces where you can live up to your abilities and have safety nets for the areas where you struggle. We have "halfway houses" to help people re-enter society after crashing, but not much to catch people before they fall.
(We do have some programs that try to help, but they are swamped, or inefficient, either expensive or under-funded, or some combination of those things. )
It is very obvious that the housing availability is a major factor.
Of course, who will pay for it? There's plenty of money but it's all in corporations and shareholders.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
And who the hell wants a poor person as a neighbour.
>San Rafael law prohibits smoking in all apartment and condo complexes (if your home shares a wall with another home – you can’t smoke there). A housing complex is only allowed to create outdoor smoking areas if they meet certain criteria. Landlords and property managers are required to enforce this law through lease agreements. For more information about this, check out this handbook:
>https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/documents/san-rafael-smoke-f...
But every fucking day marijuana. Every public park; marijuana. Sports events; marijuana. Just sitting in traffic; marijuana. Waiting in fucking line at my kids' after-school pickup, marijuana.
It's a little ridiculous at this point.
I am a huge proponent of legalized marijuana, but for real. The people that do this are ruining it for the rest of us. Luckily it makes SO MUCH MONEY that I don't think we'll ever see it outlawed again, but. This is exactly what the pearl-clutching anti-pot people said would happen.
This seems like a no-brainer, and I will continue to vote and advocate against these policies, to the extent that I need to because most of the people I live near agree with me. Thanks all.
It's not poor people that are smoking more pot, sorry for the bad news.
> sorry for the bad news
Sorry you didn't realize that supporting legal pot would make you smell more pot.
I guess I thought better of my fellow citizens. You don't really see people drinking a beer in line at school, or sitting in traffic. I assumed it would be the same with pot, and I'm genuinely confused on what is different in peoples' minds.
The original point I responded to was that if you have homeless people around you, you'll have the smell of pot. The point I'm trying to get across is that it isn't homeless folks or poor folks. It's everyone.
At least in the state I live in, the only legal place to smoke is on your own property.
So, if you dont want to smell it, you are basically arguing for it to become fully illegal again so you can call the cops on your neighbors. Thats a legitimate position to have but definitely not everyone agree with you.
(personally I am far more bothered by nasty exhaust fumes from vehicles and gardeners and I'm pretty sure they are worse for health too)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
There will always be people who misinterpret this kind of writing. That doesn't make it bad writing; some people are just a little dumb. The writing isn't for them.
But how do you achieve this when there are a significant number of real people willing to write even more absurd things with no irony whatsoever?
Reducing the price of rent can prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place.
Is your plan simply to imprison all poor people?
Mundane actually. I want my children to play outdoors without interacting with drug users. Your perspective is skewed.
> Is your plan simply to imprison all poor people?
No, and this doesn't follow.
Well, maybe you should just give them judgmental glares until they realize that being poor is a bad choice and stop it!
Or maybe you should move, since you apparently have such stringent standards for what's "allowed" to be around you and your children.
My experience is the opposite, I have family who do streetworking.
Yes, there are homeless people with pre-existing substance abuse problems. But so many people have this idea that somebody has their life together and then they try meth and then they end up homeless and that's how most homelessness works. This makes the "well, they deserve it and there is nothing to be done" position stick.
Not that I care much. Me and my children will live as far from addicts and the homeless as I can manage, thank you very much.
> But so many people have this idea that somebody has their life together and then they try meth and then they end up homeless and that's how most homelessness works
Usually people who are on drugs have their life fall apart, which ultimately ends in homelessness.
Yes, I know the talking point that the median homeless person is not mentally ill, but for the sane homelessness is usually a temporary condition, for the insane it is chronic.
Imprisoning homeless people is not an acceptable solution, because imprisonment costs taxpayer money.
A better solution is to let the market work. If you can't afford the rent for a city, you shouldn't be allowed to be in that city at all, even in a prison cell. People who can't afford to live in an inhabited area should be permitted to camp in the wilderness.
Also, of course nobody wants to live with poor people. I don't buy this romantic image of poor people being fair citizens failed by the rest of the society. I moved into a poor neighborhood and immediately had my bike stolen, literally living the meme. Real estate prices are lower here exactly because it's a black immigrant neighborhood full of poor people.
And nobody wants to see their real estate property decline in value…