4 ms·

I apologize for not directly addressing the issue of affordable housing. The reason I did not directly address it is that I see it as one piece of the puzzle, t

• Mz 10y ago
  I appreciate you taking the time to reply, but perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote instead of skimming it. TLDR: New construction is about twice the size now as it was in the 1950s, with more amenities, while housing fewer people. This goes a long way towards accounting for the higher housing prices alongside rising homelessness. You don't need fancy economic explanations. Houses that are nearly 2500 sq. ft. instead of 1200 and loaded up with vastly more amenities straight up cost more. Period. And as long as new housing averages nearly 2500 sq. ft., no amount of basic income stabilizes the bottom third of the population because the housing they need simply does not exist. Period. No amount of money gets you well if the cure you need simply does not exist. Ask anyone with an incurable medical condition.
  • smaddox 10y ago
    I went back and read your post beginning to end. I have no nitpicks---only disagreements. Fist, I must say that upon reading your data points on average new housing size, my default mental response was "averages can be misleading". However, after looking up the data myself, it appears that the median house size has similarly nearly doubled in so much time. That is quite a remarkable figure, and I certainly agree that it has almost certinaly greatly raised the cost of living for those who wish to have their own space. That being said, I strongly disagree that government-backed mortgages are the answer (not that you explicitly called for government-backed mortgages, but I think they are the consequence of your train of thought). Quite to the contrary, I would argue that the government-backed G.I. Bill mortgages, and similar programs in more recent years, are the root cause of the rising housing costs. As I described in my previous post, rising mortgage debt significantly increases housing prices by inflating housing asset prices. I think that, while not the be-all-end-all solution, basic income would be far more effective at countering homelessness than government-backed mortgages would be. On a separate note, based on your descriptions of how basic income would affect the class dynamic, I think we have a different understanding of what a basic income would mean. Perhaps I should be more explicit in my wording. When I say basic income, I mean universal basic income, i.e. every citizen (and perhaps even non-citizens) would receive the same monthly dividend (or weekly, or biweekly). I fail to see how universal basic income would create a rift between the rich and the poor, since everyone would receive the same income. It is true that the poor would receive more utility from that income, but in my mind that disparity in utility is the main merit of the concept. That disparity in utility is what could transform our country from a land of Haves and Have Nots to a land of Haves and Have Mores. On the topic of financial education, I complete agree with you. Universal basic income will not solve the problem of people with adequate income living month to month (or week to week). I don't think that's an argument against universal basic income, though. It's an argument for education reform. And by reform, I mean true reform, not charter school vouchers, and book purchase programs. We need to move from an education system designed to train factory workers to an education system designed to train service providers. The most important skills, skills that are, if anything, discouraged in our existing education system, are interpersonal communication and critical thinking. And financial education is right up there with those two.
    • 10y ago