6 ms·

What problem are you hoping to solve through this? We did it in Hong Kong. Over 30% of the population lives in virtually free housing rented from the governmen

by hkai 6y ago

What problem are you hoping to solve through this? We did it in Hong Kong. Over 30% of the population lives in virtually free housing rented from the government. They don't have an incentive to work. They get to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world for free, without contributing. Meanwhile, those who have a job slightly better than McDonald's are not eligible for this generous giveaway, and are punished by being forced to live in tiny private apartments that they are unlikely to ever afford to buy. Is this what you consider justice? Punish the working class?

Pfhreak 6y ago
Roughly half of Hong Kong received subsidized housing in 2019. I strongly doubt they all choose not to work. The idea that because one receives a benefit like housing or socialized medicine they'll just decide not to work is absurd. The people collecting these benefits aren't living like kings, there's plenty of incentive to seek a higher quality of life through work if one is able.
ajmadesc 6y ago
1. You're saying that anyone who can't afford housing is a leech without any alternative explanation. 2.You straw man. He didn't say we need to give people who don't work houses that are above the private standard.
ragebol 6y ago
I would consider it justice either to put people on the streets because the job that supports them falls away from underneath them, of no fault of their own. Having a roof over your head, having shelter is a human right. Granted, that does not have to be in an expensive city, but transporting people to a cheap, rural place is not great either. In a big city, at least there should be a large opportunity to find a job. But overall, the issue you seems to be having with this is that a person's worth is tied to their (having a) job.
cloogshicer 6y ago
In the major European city I live in, 62% of people live in social housing. Most people still seem to want to work here. Even if there were a few 'leeches' here and there I'd gladly subsidize them for the benefit of a social safety net. Personally, I also wouldn't consider those people leeches at all. Your assumption seems to be that everyone who works is automatically contributing to society - with all the bullshit jobs around, I find this questionable at the least.
- teetertater 6y ago
  I just moved there, and it's a fantastic place to live/work
viraptor 6y ago
Assuming what you describe is true (I don't know), you're saying the design is wrong because one implementation is wrong. It doesn't have to be free-vs-unaffordable. There are many approaches to linear and nonlinear funding and taxing.

by hkai 6y ago

Pfhreak 6y ago

Roughly half of Hong Kong received subsidized housing in 2019. I strongly doubt they all choose not to work. The idea that because one receives a benefit like housing or socialized medicine they'll just decide not to work is absurd. The people collecting these benefits aren't living like kings, there's plenty of incentive to seek a higher quality of life through work if one is able.

ajmadesc 6y ago

1. You're saying that anyone who can't afford housing is a leech without any alternative explanation. 2.You straw man. He didn't say we need to give people who don't work houses that are above the private standard.

ragebol 6y ago

I would consider it justice either to put people on the streets because the job that supports them falls away from underneath them, of no fault of their own. Having a roof over your head, having shelter is a human right. Granted, that does not have to be in an expensive city, but transporting people to a cheap, rural place is not great either. In a big city, at least there should be a large opportunity to find a job. But overall, the issue you seems to be having with this is that a person's worth is tied to their (having a) job.

cloogshicer 6y ago

In the major European city I live in, 62% of people live in social housing. Most people still seem to want to work here. Even if there were a few 'leeches' here and there I'd gladly subsidize them for the benefit of a social safety net. Personally, I also wouldn't consider those people leeches at all. Your assumption seems to be that everyone who works is automatically contributing to society - with all the bullshit jobs around, I find this questionable at the least.

teetertater 6y ago
I just moved there, and it's a fantastic place to live/work

viraptor 6y ago

Assuming what you describe is true (I don't know), you're saying the design is wrong because one implementation is wrong. It doesn't have to be free-vs-unaffordable. There are many approaches to linear and nonlinear funding and taxing.