4 ms·
This seems like an odd way to think about the problem to me. Housing is, to a first order approximation, the only thing I spend money on. Savings are framed i
by stegosaurus 11y ago
This seems like an odd way to think about the problem to me.
Housing is, to a first order approximation, the only thing I spend money on.
Savings are framed in terms of 'how long could I afford the rent', or 'how long before I could pay off a mortgage'.
Everything else is.. well, fluff. I would be happy to read books for a lifetime, I don't need 'fancy' food, but a stable home is pretty important to me.
A 1 bedroom apartment with a reasonable commute to my job costs £10000pa as a lower bound. Add on the UK's equivalent of property tax and you're at 11000.
Food? 1-2K. Gas, electricity, water, internet, cell phone? 1K, maybe 1.5K. So a combined upper bound of 3500.
The only place in which those costs would get to 100% of housing would be in a depressed economic area. One in which most would struggle to find a job that paid much more than minimum wage.
So the argument should be flipped, I think. Income inequality only actually matters at all because people have to buy housing. If everyone had a stable home then it would matter far less that other people could afford more toys. It's an issue because having a stable base is such a useful thing - without that problem, I don't think it matters that some are rich and some are poor, not really anyway.
- michaelbuddy 11y agowhen a bunch of people have a "stable home" provided by somebody else, it results in the extra time on the hands of surprising few to absolutely destroy the place for everyone. Because value to people. See housing projects across the United States for more on that. Oh yeah the added bonus, when the place does get destroyed the inhabitants find ways to put the blame on the providers to usurp more while taking less responsibility or ownership over the situation.
- rmxt 11y agoThe story of public housing in the United States is quite a bit more nuanced then occupants "biting the hand that feeds," so to speak. There's a history of disinvestment and bias in the system that has had lasting repercussions through the present day, up to and including decaying conditions. Some reading: http://archive.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/Vol141/seit.htm http://archive.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/Vol141/seit.htm https://books.google.com/books?id=jjX2N9HgmWQC&lpg=PA1&ots=02SnDvlpjF&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=jjX2N9HgmWQC&lpg=PA1&ots=0...
- sanderjd 11y agoAlso, check out Show Me a Hero[0] or the HBO miniseries based on it, which is excellent and informative while doing a better job than any book I've read at evoking empathy with people trying to find a better place to live. Although, I'm not sure if it's unfair to the existing homeowners, or if they deserve their portrayal. [0]: http://www.amazon.com/Show-Me-Hero-Lisa-Belkin/dp/0316088641 http://www.amazon.com/Show-Me-Hero-Lisa-Belkin/dp/0316088641
- malandrew 11y agoI'm curious if there are any solid solutions for solving this problem. i.e. how can you provide free housing that people take pride in and care for?
- nilkn 11y agoThis strikes me as an equivalent formulation of the argument rather than a flipped version.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- cubano 11y ago> I don't need 'fancy' food, but a stable home is pretty important to me. Health and dental care probably rank up there too...dentistry can be quite expensive when you finally need it, and is definitely not "fluff"