5 ms·

Having worked a lot in a rental market with a very active housing subsidy program, I agree that the administration of such programs is an actual nightmare, but

Having worked a lot in a rental market with a very active housing subsidy program, I agree that the administration of such programs is an actual nightmare, but you really are missing the point I think. Start with the assumption that people need to be able to afford a place to live, and that a full time job should be able to achieve that. Do you agree? Now, if we both agree that a housing subsidy program is an administrative nightmare, what's left? Simple: Regulating prices on the housing market. A subsidy is a nightmare to administer; is subject to corruption, mis-targeting, abuse, and extreme wait lists; and drains public resources. So why do we do it? Simple: Because the real estate industry has lobbied the government to pursue this as a means to address housing inequality. Rather than being told that the earnings of their investment properties will be capped by regulation, the government is writing a check to make up the difference. So now, after years of waiting, a single mother of two might get a 3/4 of her rent paid by a subsidy. The apartment needs to pass ridiculous inspections which are conducted historically by specialized contractors who benefit from failing due to re-inspection fees, and they will fail an inspection because a screw is missing from a light switch cover, blowing up a lease deal and elongating the timeline for a subsidized move-in by months. It sucks for the residents, and it sucks for the landlord from a administrative/management perspective (mainly dealt with by hired management), but at the end of the day, they have a government-guaranteed rent payment for a greatly inflated rent market. Coronavirus cut your tenant's hours?! No problem! At least 3/4 the rent will be paid, and the margins are still profitable. And we wonder why wealth inequality is growing in the US! This literally inflates the rental market by creating more demand for overpriced housing than exists, by creating a class of people who can afford it only through a majority subsidy. It also encourages investment property purchases by doing so, in turn creating more competition in the buyers market and causing price inflation there as well. This also has the effect of keeping more people renting instead of being able to buy. In conclusion, PEOPLE NEED HOUSING! Real estate industry doesn't need subsidies. Yes,that includes private landlords with investment properties. Someone else's housing or health care shouldn't be an unregulated investment opportunity if we care about the well being of the people.

prepend 6y ago
> Start with the assumption that people need to be able to afford a place to live, and that a full time job should be able to achieve that. Do you agree? For me, it’s the definition of a minimum place to live. When I was young, I had roommates. I don’t think every working person should be able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment. There are multi family dwellings, studios, boarding rooms, etc. If I’m by myself and making minimum wage then I think it’s ok to not be able to get my own one to two bedroom in the city of my choosing. I’m ok with having to live in the burbs and train or drive in. It sucks, but there’s no reason why minimum wage is a permanent condition.
- bonestormii_ 6y ago
  > When I was young, I had roommates. I don’t think every working person should be able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment. Not everyone working minimum wage is doing it "when they were young." Do you really think it's a good objective for a 55 year old cook for a non-profit organization to be living with room mates? Would you want that? The solution is there if you are willing to reduce the wealth generated by investment properties for an already much wealthier investment class. How do you justify your priorities ethically?
  - pb7 6y ago
    > Do you really think it's a good objective for a 55 year old cook for a non-profit organization to be living with room mates? Would you want that? This, like many others, does not sound like a job that warrants minimum wage so no.
    - bonestormii_ 6y ago
      It's not an example chosen at random. It's a real example.
      - prepend 6y ago
        It may be real, I believe you, but cool for non/profit isn’t a mandatory job.

prepend 6y ago

> Start with the assumption that people need to be able to afford a place to live, and that a full time job should be able to achieve that. Do you agree? For me, it’s the definition of a minimum place to live. When I was young, I had roommates. I don’t think every working person should be able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment. There are multi family dwellings, studios, boarding rooms, etc. If I’m by myself and making minimum wage then I think it’s ok to not be able to get my own one to two bedroom in the city of my choosing. I’m ok with having to live in the burbs and train or drive in. It sucks, but there’s no reason why minimum wage is a permanent condition.

bonestormii_ 6y ago
> When I was young, I had roommates. I don’t think every working person should be able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment. Not everyone working minimum wage is doing it "when they were young." Do you really think it's a good objective for a 55 year old cook for a non-profit organization to be living with room mates? Would you want that? The solution is there if you are willing to reduce the wealth generated by investment properties for an already much wealthier investment class. How do you justify your priorities ethically?
- pb7 6y ago
  > Do you really think it's a good objective for a 55 year old cook for a non-profit organization to be living with room mates? Would you want that? This, like many others, does not sound like a job that warrants minimum wage so no.
  - bonestormii_ 6y ago
    It's not an example chosen at random. It's a real example.
    - prepend 6y ago
      It may be real, I believe you, but cool for non/profit isn’t a mandatory job.