4 ms·

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 ho

by 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.

Mz 10y ago
I appreciate you taking the time to treat my writing with real respect. It has been a long time since I had such a high quality discussion on HN. So, thank you. But, I don't believe true universal income will ever happen. I think that if it gets implemented, it will basically be the new welfare. Second, no, I have no desire to get government backed mortgages as the "solution" for affordable housing. I want an actual solution. I want more housing that is under 1200 square feet but not a trailer and not a Tumbleweed house on wheels. In Japan, few homes have ovens. When I lived in Germany in my twenties, family homes all had refrigerators the size of what Americans put in dorms. These are first world countries with high standards of living, but they do not shackle their people with crazy "minimum" standards that cause the kinds of problems we have here in the US. Tumbleweed houses -- one of the earliest companies in the tiny house movement -- were put on wheels as an end run around housing requirements that are supposed to prevent slums but just end up pushing people into trailers or out in the street. Our default expectation is a home so large as to fit a nuclear family, along with a giant fridge, a four burner stove and an oven. When I got divorced and went from a family of four to a family of three, we began storing sodas in the fridge so the milk would not spoil. I assure you, a single person not only does not need a twenty cubic foot fridge, it is actively a burden for them. Why are we more okay with the rising levels of homelessness than we are with small spaces with (say) a dorm sized fridge, hot plate and microwave? Your typical single person living alone has zero need of a four burner stove. Even with cooking for a family of four, I rarely used the fourth burner. I typically used two or three burners at one time. The result: The fourth burner became covered in grease and would smoke when I turned it on. Why should I be saddled with a fourth burner I do not need and which will become a potential fire hazard if I do not clean it regularly, in spite of not using the damn thing? How does this prevent my home from being a slum? For me, a fourth burner is nothing but a headache. And I cooked from scratch so much that the cashiers at the grocery store would say "I need you to talk to my wife. She never cooks. She's a microwave queen." I was a full-time wife and mom at a time when that was out of fashion and I and my sons and husband all had special dietary needs. I cooked constantly. But I still only rarely used the fourth burner. The housing standards we have are simply crazy. They are a burden for Americans, not something that protects us from abusive slum Lords. And they are increasingly pushing people out into the street. I don't want a financial solution to this problem. I want a real solution that involves building more actual small spaces with basics instead of more and more McMansions while homelessness continues to rise. And I think what this exchange tells me is that if I want to see real change here, I have my work cut out for me. Because even someone who will take the time to read my writing and treat me with genuine respect cannot immediately grasp that I am not talking about a fiscal solution. I am saying: We need to build millions of smaller homes with fewer amenities that ordinary people can afford without working three jobs and/or having roommates they don't really know. Because currently, the solution for unmarried individuals is rent a three bedroom place and get two roommates. And it simply should not be that way. Thank you for engaging me in discussion. Take care.

by smaddox 10y ago

Mz 10y ago

I appreciate you taking the time to treat my writing with real respect. It has been a long time since I had such a high quality discussion on HN. So, thank you. But, I don't believe true universal income will ever happen. I think that if it gets implemented, it will basically be the new welfare. Second, no, I have no desire to get government backed mortgages as the "solution" for affordable housing. I want an actual solution. I want more housing that is under 1200 square feet but not a trailer and not a Tumbleweed house on wheels. In Japan, few homes have ovens. When I lived in Germany in my twenties, family homes all had refrigerators the size of what Americans put in dorms. These are first world countries with high standards of living, but they do not shackle their people with crazy "minimum" standards that cause the kinds of problems we have here in the US. Tumbleweed houses -- one of the earliest companies in the tiny house movement -- were put on wheels as an end run around housing requirements that are supposed to prevent slums but just end up pushing people into trailers or out in the street. Our default expectation is a home so large as to fit a nuclear family, along with a giant fridge, a four burner stove and an oven. When I got divorced and went from a family of four to a family of three, we began storing sodas in the fridge so the milk would not spoil. I assure you, a single person not only does not need a twenty cubic foot fridge, it is actively a burden for them. Why are we more okay with the rising levels of homelessness than we are with small spaces with (say) a dorm sized fridge, hot plate and microwave? Your typical single person living alone has zero need of a four burner stove. Even with cooking for a family of four, I rarely used the fourth burner. I typically used two or three burners at one time. The result: The fourth burner became covered in grease and would smoke when I turned it on. Why should I be saddled with a fourth burner I do not need and which will become a potential fire hazard if I do not clean it regularly, in spite of not using the damn thing? How does this prevent my home from being a slum? For me, a fourth burner is nothing but a headache. And I cooked from scratch so much that the cashiers at the grocery store would say "I need you to talk to my wife. She never cooks. She's a microwave queen." I was a full-time wife and mom at a time when that was out of fashion and I and my sons and husband all had special dietary needs. I cooked constantly. But I still only rarely used the fourth burner. The housing standards we have are simply crazy. They are a burden for Americans, not something that protects us from abusive slum Lords. And they are increasingly pushing people out into the street. I don't want a financial solution to this problem. I want a real solution that involves building more actual small spaces with basics instead of more and more McMansions while homelessness continues to rise. And I think what this exchange tells me is that if I want to see real change here, I have my work cut out for me. Because even someone who will take the time to read my writing and treat me with genuine respect cannot immediately grasp that I am not talking about a fiscal solution. I am saying: We need to build millions of smaller homes with fewer amenities that ordinary people can afford without working three jobs and/or having roommates they don't really know. Because currently, the solution for unmarried individuals is rent a three bedroom place and get two roommates. And it simply should not be that way. Thank you for engaging me in discussion. Take care.