4 ms·

It's an absolute crisis. The government should response just as it would in the event of war time profiteering.

• CyberDildonics 11y ago
  Or people could move, but sure it's just like war time profiteering.
  • PhasmaFelis 11y ago
    If you're living paycheck-to-paycheck, or even close to it, no, you can't move. Edit: I'm curious what people are disagreeing with here. Do you think that moving to a new city doesn't require expenditures?
    • raldi 11y ago
      Many landlords would love to be able to evict their tenants and replace them with new market-rate renters, in exchange for paying the old tenants' moving costs. Or even the moving costs plus a year's rent in the new location.
      • staunch 11y ago
        Not true in 99% of cases and no one said anything about paying below market rate rent except you...
    • CyberDildonics 11y ago
      If you were living paycheck to paycheck but it was because your rent was too expensive, wouldn't it seem that you couldn't afford not to move?
  • staunch 11y ago
    > Or poor people could move, but sure it's just like war time profiteering. ftfy
• raldi 11y ago
  Somehow, I get the feeling you believe that during a wartime shortage, the government says, "Okay, everyone who's already been using the thing in question gets to keep using it forever." But that's not how it works. In actual wartime, the item in question gets rationed. To the extent that the metaphor could even apply to housing, it would work like this: "There's a shortage of San Francisco housing. First, the military gets what it needs. If there's anything left, you have to share with everyone else. No hoarding. Each citizen will get a book of 5 ration tickets per year. Each ticket entitles you to spend one week in San Francisco housing. Some tickets will only be valid in even-numbered months; some, odd-numbered."
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • staunch 11y ago
    Somehow, I get the feeling that you think you're more confused than I am.