5 ms·

More inequality -> more shit like this.

by llukas 10y ago

Mz 10y ago
This is a good argument for more actually affordable housing, which has largely disappeared from the world.
- ams6110 10y ago
  Only in some places. There are plenty of places in the US where two people can share a (very decent, safe, etc) two-bedroom apartment for $200-$300/month each.
  - Mz 10y ago
    I fundamentally disagree with the idea that a single person should expect to share a two bedroom apartment in order to make housing affordable. Your idea of genuinely affordable and mine are not on the same page here.
    - mikekchar 10y ago
      Has there ever been a time when you could get something similar to a modern one bedroom apartment with amenities for the equivalent of $2-300? Certainly not in my lifetime. That would be something like $30-40 in 1970, $80-100 in 1980 and $100-150 in 1990.
      - Mz 10y ago
        No, but things like SROs and boarding houses and just renting a room used to be far more common. In the 60s and 70s, something like 80% of SROs were torn down (in the US -- I realize the article is about the UK). In the US, SROs are now mostly slum housing for chronically homeless with addictions and mental health issues. This was not always true. They used to be a common way for a young person starting out to have a space of their own that they could afford. Our expectations for housing these days is very much rooted in norms that grew out of the Baby Boom generation. That generation was a huge anomaly and the way it has shaped policy and assumptions is hugely problematic.
      - LyndsySimon 10y ago
        These are some of the nicest apartments where I grew up - they're $400 / month for a one bedroom: http://www.lindseymanagement.com/cgi-bin/detail.cgi?type=apt&id=64#fp_499 http://www.lindseymanagement.com/cgi-bin/detail.cgi?type=apt... In terms of amenities... that price includes access to the golf course that they overlook.
Jabanga 10y ago
If the landlords were just as poor as those desperate for a home, then everyone would be worse off, even though society would be more equal. The solution is to make society richer, so fewer people are desperate. The solution is not to remove one of the options that the desperate resort to. That only deals with the symptom of the problem. The problem is the desperation caused by low-income, and can only be reduced by increasing income.
- chillwaves 10y ago
  Less inequality does not mean the landlords will be poor. And wealth has been increasing at an accelerating pace, yet inequality continues to rise. The very poorest of the world may be lifted by capitalism, but not far and now those who were solidly middle class in the more successful economies are falling behind. Increasing income does nothing if it is funneled into the hands of the few while the many are forced into prostitution.
  - Jabanga 10y ago
    My point is that it's the low income of those who can't afford housing that is the problem, not the fact that others have higher income than them (not the fact that there's income inequality). If a causal relationship could be shown between reducing income inequality by way of redistribution by the government, and the lower income subset of the population seeing their income grow faster than it otherwise would, then such programs would be a viable solution to the problems the young people are facing, but only because of the effect it has on their income. I would argue that the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that all that things being held equal, the institution of socialist programs to redistribute income slows wage growth for all segments of society.
    - Mz 10y ago
      In all seriousness, a much, much bigger problem is the lack of actual affordable housing. In the 60s and 70s, something like 80% of SROs in the US were torn down. This is probably a side effect of the Baby Boom generation growing up awash in relative wealth. There is a global shortage of genuinely affordable, basic housing. With housing prices so insane, even a full time job can be inadequate to support a person. If we do not solve this, no amount of additional income will ever be enough. You can always just build bigger, more insane McMansions etc. until only billionaires can afford housing. The rest of us will be precariously housed at best unless and until we can reverse that trend.

More inequality -> more shit like this.

by llukas 10y ago

More inequality -> more shit like this.

Mz 10y ago

This is a good argument for more actually affordable housing, which has largely disappeared from the world.

ams6110 10y ago
Only in some places. There are plenty of places in the US where two people can share a (very decent, safe, etc) two-bedroom apartment for $200-$300/month each.
- Mz 10y ago
  I fundamentally disagree with the idea that a single person should expect to share a two bedroom apartment in order to make housing affordable. Your idea of genuinely affordable and mine are not on the same page here.
  - mikekchar 10y ago
    Has there ever been a time when you could get something similar to a modern one bedroom apartment with amenities for the equivalent of $2-300? Certainly not in my lifetime. That would be something like $30-40 in 1970, $80-100 in 1980 and $100-150 in 1990.
    - Mz 10y ago
      No, but things like SROs and boarding houses and just renting a room used to be far more common. In the 60s and 70s, something like 80% of SROs were torn down (in the US -- I realize the article is about the UK). In the US, SROs are now mostly slum housing for chronically homeless with addictions and mental health issues. This was not always true. They used to be a common way for a young person starting out to have a space of their own that they could afford. Our expectations for housing these days is very much rooted in norms that grew out of the Baby Boom generation. That generation was a huge anomaly and the way it has shaped policy and assumptions is hugely problematic.
    - LyndsySimon 10y ago
      These are some of the nicest apartments where I grew up - they're $400 / month for a one bedroom: http://www.lindseymanagement.com/cgi-bin/detail.cgi?type=apt&id=64#fp_499 http://www.lindseymanagement.com/cgi-bin/detail.cgi?type=apt... In terms of amenities... that price includes access to the golf course that they overlook.

Jabanga 10y ago

If the landlords were just as poor as those desperate for a home, then everyone would be worse off, even though society would be more equal. The solution is to make society richer, so fewer people are desperate. The solution is not to remove one of the options that the desperate resort to. That only deals with the symptom of the problem. The problem is the desperation caused by low-income, and can only be reduced by increasing income.

chillwaves 10y ago
Less inequality does not mean the landlords will be poor. And wealth has been increasing at an accelerating pace, yet inequality continues to rise. The very poorest of the world may be lifted by capitalism, but not far and now those who were solidly middle class in the more successful economies are falling behind. Increasing income does nothing if it is funneled into the hands of the few while the many are forced into prostitution.
- Jabanga 10y ago
  My point is that it's the low income of those who can't afford housing that is the problem, not the fact that others have higher income than them (not the fact that there's income inequality). If a causal relationship could be shown between reducing income inequality by way of redistribution by the government, and the lower income subset of the population seeing their income grow faster than it otherwise would, then such programs would be a viable solution to the problems the young people are facing, but only because of the effect it has on their income. I would argue that the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that all that things being held equal, the institution of socialist programs to redistribute income slows wage growth for all segments of society.
  - Mz 10y ago
    In all seriousness, a much, much bigger problem is the lack of actual affordable housing. In the 60s and 70s, something like 80% of SROs in the US were torn down. This is probably a side effect of the Baby Boom generation growing up awash in relative wealth. There is a global shortage of genuinely affordable, basic housing. With housing prices so insane, even a full time job can be inadequate to support a person. If we do not solve this, no amount of additional income will ever be enough. You can always just build bigger, more insane McMansions etc. until only billionaires can afford housing. The rest of us will be precariously housed at best unless and until we can reverse that trend.