4 ms·

It's a bit like saying that math is wrong though - logically speaking, low-income housing has costs associated with it in more ways than one, not just housing b

It's a bit like saying that math is wrong though - logically speaking, low-income housing has costs associated with it in more ways than one, not just housing but for law enforcement, education, etc, all of which will clearly have demand go up and income won't go up as much as if someone who had more money were to live in that city instead. Depressing, perhaps, but factual. If that basic piece of math is wrong, it needs to be proven - how do low income households contribute more than their fair share of city revenue for example? Does homelessness cause law enforcement issues to increase to a greater amount than low-income housing? Do low-income households produce more future earners that add up better for the city? We need some data here to show that the basic economics of this don't actually add up if that's the claim being made, because from a basic economics perspective the argument logically and mathematically follows.

myrion 8y ago
That's not at all obvious. I think first you'd have to prove that all those extra costs "logically follow"...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
akiselev 8y ago
That entire argument is dependent on the assumption that low income housing attracts people instead of responding to the needs of the local community. Logically, areas that require low income housing are very likely to have a relatively high cost of living to begin with and economic mobility has not changed enough in the last few decades to account for the increase in the homeless population in concentrated metropolitan areas. Despite the great recession, homelessness rates have fallen by almost 20% since 2000 but anyone who has lived in LA, SF, NYC, Portland, or Seattle can tell you that on the ground, bare facts dont tell the whole story. No doubt locating the actual sweet spot is impossibly complicated and it depends on the region but naive logic will not solve this problem, only experience and data will.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > That entire argument is dependent on the assumption that low income housing attracts people instead of responding to the needs of the local community. Not necessarily. It could cause/allow people to stay who would otherwise have left, to much the same effect. You also have the opposite problem, because the same land could have been used for market rate housing, so you've prevented entry by new middle income people who could have brought more resources into the community.
  - dashundchen 8y ago
    Forester's model of public housing here is looking only in terms of cost, and not what it can provide. A very large assumption lies here: >Housing programs aimed at improving the condition of the underemployed, Forrester warned, “increased unemployment and reduced upward economic mobility” and would condemn the underemployed to lifelong poverty. and completely ignores the benefits that public housing in a city can provide. That is, housing can provide security and meet a basic need for those who may be struggling with many basic needs (food, employment, education, health). Having this need met allows recipients to focus energy and money normally spent on housing on other issues, potentially reducing other costs and allowing them to progress out of poverty. I think we can see the evidence there are benefits in examples at the furthest end of poverty - homelessness. Many cities found that it is cheaper to house the homeless and provide them social services, than to ignore them and treat the effects of homelessness issues (police and jail time for crimes, from desperation or untreated mental illness, emergency medical services for treating overdoses etc). This is not even getting to the question of the purpose of government - it is not a business trying to achieve maximum profit, so why should it be seeking to drive out low-income residents? https://thinkprogress.org/leaving-homeless-person-on-the-streets-31-065-giving-them-housing-10-051-3107834a8632/ https://thinkprogress.org/leaving-homeless-person-on-the-str...
    - shittyadmin 8y ago
      > This is not even getting to the question of the purpose of government - it is not a business trying to achieve maximum profit, so why should it be seeking to drive out low-income residents? Can I move somewhere that is run like a business trying to maximize profit? I think I'd far prefer it to my wasteful city...
Emma_Goldman 8y ago
"from a basic economics perspective the argument logically and mathematically follows." I'm sorry but that's arrant nonsense. Nothing follows from anything else independent of complex empirical assumptions about what people are doing and why they are doing it, and how to conceptualise the economy and social relations in the first place. It is not given by the ether of pure logic.
- shittyadmin 8y ago
  This is basic price curves - make more affordable housing for the underemployed, people come to you for it or stay for it. Just like most anyone I know prefers buying the cheapest tolerable toilet paper or dropping the price on a fast food meal attracts more customers or buying certain meats and veggies at the grocery store because they're cheaper that week. I don't see why this wouldn't also apply to low-income housing demand in this case - it's a fairly well proven economic model and if you want to say it's false in this case, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect at least a semblance of evidence. Given that this model demonstrates the issue as well as the lower tax contributions based on property taxes and higher demand for social services in low income areas, well, it seems like a reasonable model.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    On the tax front it is empirically wrong. See eg California and New York, which have growing economies despite high taxes to Kansas and Nevada, which have low or no taxes.
    - shittyadmin 8y ago
      See - that seems like it has some validity - that's exactly the kind of data I'm talking about - why couldn't the author have brought this kind of thing up in the original post? Instead they seemed to critique it with no data...
  - Emma_Goldman 8y ago
    You seem to have forgotten what the original statement to which you responded was. Let me remind you. "To Forrester, low-income housing was an especially egregious example of a “counterproductive” urban program. According to the model, these programs increased the local tax burden, attracted underemployed people into the city, and occupied land which might otherwise have been put to more economically healthy uses. Housing programs aimed at improving the condition of the underemployed, Forrester warned, “increased unemployment and reduced upward economic mobility” and would condemn the underemployed to lifelong poverty." This involves six claims. The creation of affordable housing would, per the quote: 1. Increase the local tax burden 2. Attract underemployed people 3. Foreclose a more profitable use of the land 4. Increase unemployment 5. Reduce social mobility 6. Condemn the underemployed to lifelong poverty. You seem to be focused on only one of them, the least contentious and consequential - (2). That would do nothing to support the claims you made in your last post, about the entire model following - "logically and mathematically" - from basic economics.

myrion 8y ago

That's not at all obvious. I think first you'd have to prove that all those extra costs "logically follow"...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

akiselev 8y ago

That entire argument is dependent on the assumption that low income housing attracts people instead of responding to the needs of the local community. Logically, areas that require low income housing are very likely to have a relatively high cost of living to begin with and economic mobility has not changed enough in the last few decades to account for the increase in the homeless population in concentrated metropolitan areas. Despite the great recession, homelessness rates have fallen by almost 20% since 2000 but anyone who has lived in LA, SF, NYC, Portland, or Seattle can tell you that on the ground, bare facts dont tell the whole story. No doubt locating the actual sweet spot is impossibly complicated and it depends on the region but naive logic will not solve this problem, only experience and data will.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> That entire argument is dependent on the assumption that low income housing attracts people instead of responding to the needs of the local community. Not necessarily. It could cause/allow people to stay who would otherwise have left, to much the same effect. You also have the opposite problem, because the same land could have been used for market rate housing, so you've prevented entry by new middle income people who could have brought more resources into the community.
- dashundchen 8y ago
  Forester's model of public housing here is looking only in terms of cost, and not what it can provide. A very large assumption lies here: >Housing programs aimed at improving the condition of the underemployed, Forrester warned, “increased unemployment and reduced upward economic mobility” and would condemn the underemployed to lifelong poverty. and completely ignores the benefits that public housing in a city can provide. That is, housing can provide security and meet a basic need for those who may be struggling with many basic needs (food, employment, education, health). Having this need met allows recipients to focus energy and money normally spent on housing on other issues, potentially reducing other costs and allowing them to progress out of poverty. I think we can see the evidence there are benefits in examples at the furthest end of poverty - homelessness. Many cities found that it is cheaper to house the homeless and provide them social services, than to ignore them and treat the effects of homelessness issues (police and jail time for crimes, from desperation or untreated mental illness, emergency medical services for treating overdoses etc). This is not even getting to the question of the purpose of government - it is not a business trying to achieve maximum profit, so why should it be seeking to drive out low-income residents? https://thinkprogress.org/leaving-homeless-person-on-the-streets-31-065-giving-them-housing-10-051-3107834a8632/ https://thinkprogress.org/leaving-homeless-person-on-the-str...
  - shittyadmin 8y ago
    > This is not even getting to the question of the purpose of government - it is not a business trying to achieve maximum profit, so why should it be seeking to drive out low-income residents? Can I move somewhere that is run like a business trying to maximize profit? I think I'd far prefer it to my wasteful city...

Emma_Goldman 8y ago

"from a basic economics perspective the argument logically and mathematically follows." I'm sorry but that's arrant nonsense. Nothing follows from anything else independent of complex empirical assumptions about what people are doing and why they are doing it, and how to conceptualise the economy and social relations in the first place. It is not given by the ether of pure logic.

shittyadmin 8y ago
This is basic price curves - make more affordable housing for the underemployed, people come to you for it or stay for it. Just like most anyone I know prefers buying the cheapest tolerable toilet paper or dropping the price on a fast food meal attracts more customers or buying certain meats and veggies at the grocery store because they're cheaper that week. I don't see why this wouldn't also apply to low-income housing demand in this case - it's a fairly well proven economic model and if you want to say it's false in this case, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect at least a semblance of evidence. Given that this model demonstrates the issue as well as the lower tax contributions based on property taxes and higher demand for social services in low income areas, well, it seems like a reasonable model.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  On the tax front it is empirically wrong. See eg California and New York, which have growing economies despite high taxes to Kansas and Nevada, which have low or no taxes.
  - shittyadmin 8y ago
    See - that seems like it has some validity - that's exactly the kind of data I'm talking about - why couldn't the author have brought this kind of thing up in the original post? Instead they seemed to critique it with no data...
- Emma_Goldman 8y ago
  You seem to have forgotten what the original statement to which you responded was. Let me remind you. "To Forrester, low-income housing was an especially egregious example of a “counterproductive” urban program. According to the model, these programs increased the local tax burden, attracted underemployed people into the city, and occupied land which might otherwise have been put to more economically healthy uses. Housing programs aimed at improving the condition of the underemployed, Forrester warned, “increased unemployment and reduced upward economic mobility” and would condemn the underemployed to lifelong poverty." This involves six claims. The creation of affordable housing would, per the quote: 1. Increase the local tax burden 2. Attract underemployed people 3. Foreclose a more profitable use of the land 4. Increase unemployment 5. Reduce social mobility 6. Condemn the underemployed to lifelong poverty. You seem to be focused on only one of them, the least contentious and consequential - (2). That would do nothing to support the claims you made in your last post, about the entire model following - "logically and mathematically" - from basic economics.