4 ms·

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

by 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.
    - Jabanga 10y ago
      The way I see it, lack of affordable housing is part of that 'low income problem' I alluded to. It's one component of, for lack of a better term, material poverty. I agree, Western economies have done a poor job on housing affordability these last few decades. From what I've read, most of the blame can be laid at the feet of 1. zoning restrictions and 2. ironically, rent control, both of which constrain supply.
      - Mz 10y ago
        I have likely read more than you on this and I don't agree. I think this is a distinct issue, separate from low income. I am homeless. I have a low income. If housing prices were not so insane, I would find it easier to get off the street. "Low income" really does not adequately encapsulate the issue of crazy housing prices. It is more complicated than zoning restrictions and rent control, which no doubt contribute. We have also eliminated a lot of housing that historically worked well for single individuals with entry level jobs. We essentially expect such people these days to rent a two or three bedroom apartment designed for a nuclear family and get a roommate. This was not the historical norm for expectations and is not the norm in all parts of the world. It is a really broken model and it needs to go die somewhere.
        Jabanga 10y ago
        Income statistics adjust for inflation, so if housing costs go up, that will be reflected as lower real income. Your point, that "low income" doesn't do an effective job at describing the specific problem of rising rents, has validity. I guess the point I was trying to make is that if incomes had increased more, people would be able to afford to allocate a higher share of their income to housing costs, since the remainder of their larger income would be enough to cover their other expenses. In other words, higher costs are easier to bear with higher incomes. I'm not familiar with the demise of smaller/1-BR units. Any sources on that?
        Mz 10y ago
        I have only just begun trying to research that specific piece in earnest (http://projectsro.blogspot.com http://projectsro.blogspot.com), but have already come across this (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy): The United States saw a decrease in single room occupancy housing during the period of 1960s and 1970s urban decay. For example, in Chicago 81% of the SRO housing stock disappeared between 1960 and 1980. More generally, average housing size in the 1950s (US) was about 1200 sq ft. It is currently more than double that, while holding fewer people (iirc, about 2.5 vs 3.5 in the 50s). This is due in part to tax incentives. In real terms, housing costs have gone up because housing size and amenities have both gone up. It is nearly impossible to find basic, decent housing for a reasonable sum of money. The availability of affordable housing has fallen far short of need for decades and the problem has only gotten worse. At the same time, homelessness is on the rise. These facts are strongly linked. One of the best ways to reduce incidence of homelessness is to make more genuinely affordable housing available as part of the normal housing market, not some charity, government program or relief program. Just build basic housing and rent it or sell it. It might help to tax the hell out of people on second+ homes. I have read things that suggest that the rich owning vacation homes is a real problem for people of more ordinary means. The ultra rich have multiple residences. The poor can't get a home at all. This is a systemic problem, not just a few "losers" who aren't trying hard enough or something.
  - sjy 10y ago
    What evidence did you have in mind? A casual glance at the predicament faced by lower income people in the United States, compared to more redistributionist OECD nations, suggests that redistribution (particularly universal healthcare funded by higher income taxes) can significantly improve living standards for those worse off. The first result I found when searching for 'income inequality vs growth', a summary of 2011 and 2014 IMF studies in the Economist [1], suggests that while redistribution may impede growth, inequality itself is associated with lower growth per person and therefore redistribution which actually reduces inequality is beneficial. It's hard to say that there is 'overwhelming' evidence that increased redistribution slows wage growth for those with the lowest income. [1] http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21597931-up-point-redistributing-income-fight-inequality-can-lift-growth-inequality http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21597931...
    - Jabanga 10y ago
      I don't have time at the moment to compile all of the sources I've seen indicating that income redistribution harms growth, so I can't provide much substance to support my claim. I'll just say that the decline in wage growth, and the evidence I've seen suggesting redistributionist policies are the culprit, is a Western-wide phenomenon, extending to Canada and Western Europe as well.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
losteric 10y ago
In practice, the suggestion would be to use taxes on better off to fund programs to help homeless get back on their feet, fund mental health hospitals, support education programs. However, cultural change and general public education also has to be part of the big-picture solution... otherwise legislation will be repealed next time around.

by Jabanga 10y ago

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.
  - Jabanga 10y ago
    The way I see it, lack of affordable housing is part of that 'low income problem' I alluded to. It's one component of, for lack of a better term, material poverty. I agree, Western economies have done a poor job on housing affordability these last few decades. From what I've read, most of the blame can be laid at the feet of 1. zoning restrictions and 2. ironically, rent control, both of which constrain supply.
    - Mz 10y ago
      I have likely read more than you on this and I don't agree. I think this is a distinct issue, separate from low income. I am homeless. I have a low income. If housing prices were not so insane, I would find it easier to get off the street. "Low income" really does not adequately encapsulate the issue of crazy housing prices. It is more complicated than zoning restrictions and rent control, which no doubt contribute. We have also eliminated a lot of housing that historically worked well for single individuals with entry level jobs. We essentially expect such people these days to rent a two or three bedroom apartment designed for a nuclear family and get a roommate. This was not the historical norm for expectations and is not the norm in all parts of the world. It is a really broken model and it needs to go die somewhere.
      - Jabanga 10y ago
        Income statistics adjust for inflation, so if housing costs go up, that will be reflected as lower real income. Your point, that "low income" doesn't do an effective job at describing the specific problem of rising rents, has validity. I guess the point I was trying to make is that if incomes had increased more, people would be able to afford to allocate a higher share of their income to housing costs, since the remainder of their larger income would be enough to cover their other expenses. In other words, higher costs are easier to bear with higher incomes. I'm not familiar with the demise of smaller/1-BR units. Any sources on that?
        Mz 10y ago
        I have only just begun trying to research that specific piece in earnest (http://projectsro.blogspot.com http://projectsro.blogspot.com), but have already come across this (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy): The United States saw a decrease in single room occupancy housing during the period of 1960s and 1970s urban decay. For example, in Chicago 81% of the SRO housing stock disappeared between 1960 and 1980. More generally, average housing size in the 1950s (US) was about 1200 sq ft. It is currently more than double that, while holding fewer people (iirc, about 2.5 vs 3.5 in the 50s). This is due in part to tax incentives. In real terms, housing costs have gone up because housing size and amenities have both gone up. It is nearly impossible to find basic, decent housing for a reasonable sum of money. The availability of affordable housing has fallen far short of need for decades and the problem has only gotten worse. At the same time, homelessness is on the rise. These facts are strongly linked. One of the best ways to reduce incidence of homelessness is to make more genuinely affordable housing available as part of the normal housing market, not some charity, government program or relief program. Just build basic housing and rent it or sell it. It might help to tax the hell out of people on second+ homes. I have read things that suggest that the rich owning vacation homes is a real problem for people of more ordinary means. The ultra rich have multiple residences. The poor can't get a home at all. This is a systemic problem, not just a few "losers" who aren't trying hard enough or something.
- sjy 10y ago
  What evidence did you have in mind? A casual glance at the predicament faced by lower income people in the United States, compared to more redistributionist OECD nations, suggests that redistribution (particularly universal healthcare funded by higher income taxes) can significantly improve living standards for those worse off. The first result I found when searching for 'income inequality vs growth', a summary of 2011 and 2014 IMF studies in the Economist [1], suggests that while redistribution may impede growth, inequality itself is associated with lower growth per person and therefore redistribution which actually reduces inequality is beneficial. It's hard to say that there is 'overwhelming' evidence that increased redistribution slows wage growth for those with the lowest income. [1] http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21597931-up-point-redistributing-income-fight-inequality-can-lift-growth-inequality http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21597931...
  - Jabanga 10y ago
    I don't have time at the moment to compile all of the sources I've seen indicating that income redistribution harms growth, so I can't provide much substance to support my claim. I'll just say that the decline in wage growth, and the evidence I've seen suggesting redistributionist policies are the culprit, is a Western-wide phenomenon, extending to Canada and Western Europe as well.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

losteric 10y ago

In practice, the suggestion would be to use taxes on better off to fund programs to help homeless get back on their feet, fund mental health hospitals, support education programs. However, cultural change and general public education also has to be part of the big-picture solution... otherwise legislation will be repealed next time around.