4 ms·

That sounds reasonable, but even this little bit causes wealth transfer by setting home ownership just a little bit more off limits to the majority by increasin

That sounds reasonable, but even this little bit causes wealth transfer by setting home ownership just a little bit more off limits to the majority by increasing the supply of slightly too cheap rooms. Thus creating an incentive to the wider more moneyed classes to increase demand on the stock of housing. So while the language used is evokative, the reality is, at scale, all those mom's and pops end up being a very large and powerful group with aligned interests, whose actions also enable even bigger players.

christiansakai 6y ago
I’m not sure I understand. If I were in their situation I won’t want that to be applied to me. What about you?
- Arbalest 6y ago
  Of course people want money, everyone else does. But it doesn't matter what they feel, and it doesn't matter what I would feel, nor how you would feel. What matters is how those who are most vulnerable are treated. It's not fair to say, well those mom's and pops would be worse off, when the people who were already poor would be even worse off otherwise. When rent becomes involved, the system becomes pretty close to zero sum.
  - christiansakai 6y ago
    This is stale discussion already, but going by that logic, why would you sacrifice the majority mom and pop (average person who also lives paycheck to paycheck) for the minority poor? For example right now in NYC, most people find it really hard to buy their first home (not everyone is SWE in FAANG). It isn't like they have spare money to buy bigger toys. Once they worked hard for that why take that away? I'm not saying not help the poor. We should treat our most vulnerable people, but economically I think it doesn't work out. The poor will always be there, the sick will always be there, the unemployed will always be there no matter what. Even if you help them, they will always be there.
    - Arbalest 6y ago
      Well, the poor need the most government handouts, and if you make the people who need the most government handouts have to give away most of their income in this manner, you've essentially just taken government debt and given it to the landlords. That doesn't make economic sense either. As for discussion being stale, I have children, my ability to monitor threads is impaired. It might not be much of a discussion easily visible to outsiders, but we are both continuing to engage. Or will up to a point.

christiansakai 6y ago

I’m not sure I understand. If I were in their situation I won’t want that to be applied to me. What about you?

Arbalest 6y ago
Of course people want money, everyone else does. But it doesn't matter what they feel, and it doesn't matter what I would feel, nor how you would feel. What matters is how those who are most vulnerable are treated. It's not fair to say, well those mom's and pops would be worse off, when the people who were already poor would be even worse off otherwise. When rent becomes involved, the system becomes pretty close to zero sum.
- christiansakai 6y ago
  This is stale discussion already, but going by that logic, why would you sacrifice the majority mom and pop (average person who also lives paycheck to paycheck) for the minority poor? For example right now in NYC, most people find it really hard to buy their first home (not everyone is SWE in FAANG). It isn't like they have spare money to buy bigger toys. Once they worked hard for that why take that away? I'm not saying not help the poor. We should treat our most vulnerable people, but economically I think it doesn't work out. The poor will always be there, the sick will always be there, the unemployed will always be there no matter what. Even if you help them, they will always be there.
  - Arbalest 6y ago
    Well, the poor need the most government handouts, and if you make the people who need the most government handouts have to give away most of their income in this manner, you've essentially just taken government debt and given it to the landlords. That doesn't make economic sense either. As for discussion being stale, I have children, my ability to monitor threads is impaired. It might not be much of a discussion easily visible to outsiders, but we are both continuing to engage. Or will up to a point.