5 ms·

So if there are 35000 adults in a city making minimum wage and 200 total 2br apartments they can afford, does that somehow lead us to a different conclusion? Of

by ahoy 5y ago

So if there are 35000 adults in a city making minimum wage and 200 total 2br apartments they can afford, does that somehow lead us to a different conclusion? Of course it doesn't.

gruez 5y ago
Maybe those 35,000 adults should move somewhere where pay is better and/or rent is cheaper. This isn't a hard concept. If there are 35,000 hunter-gatherers in a forest that can only support 400, are we supposed to sympathize with the stubborn ones that don't want to move out?
- ahoy 5y ago
  Your analogy is nonsense. There are another 3000 hunter-gatherers who have hoarded 90% of the resources. If we split up the resources more equally we could support everyone easily.
  - gruez 5y ago
    The 3000 billionaires are hoarding 90% of housing supply in major cities? I doubt that. The lack of housing in such places has less to do with wealth concentration to billionaires and more with local grassroots opposition for new housing developments.
- lovich 5y ago
  Is moving free/cheap for you? I’m fairly well off and the actual financial moving costs were enough to keep me from seeking a better deal on only every 3+ years when I would have been willing to spend the time (1 weekend) to move every year
  - gruez 5y ago
    Well we could subsidize people to move to a place that's affordable, but I suspect that has similar optics to "giving homeless people bus tickets to another town"
    - lovich 5y ago
      I don’t think that type of plan is bad because of “optics” but also because it doesn’t solve the problem. Subsidizing people’s moves doesn’t make sure they have access to housing. It just shuffles them to another area where it’s someone else’s long term problem, even if you secured them temporary housing as you moved them. We have more empty houses than homeless in the US. We should be able to guarantee food, water, and shelter to every citizen, even if we don’t necessarily guarantee it’s in a place someone desires. We aren’t productive enough as a society to be able to give everyone pleasure constantly but we are certainly productive enough to guarantee basic physical needs for survival
      - Kalium 5y ago
        > We have more empty houses than homeless in the US. We should be able to guarantee food, water, and shelter to every citizen, even if we don’t necessarily guarantee it’s in a place someone desires. How many people experiencing houselessness are you willing to ship off to rural Nebraska where they know nobody, have no support system, no supportive services, and probably are grossly unfamiliar with the local culture? Is your answer "all of them"? Perhaps with some qualifier about how they'll receive food, water, and free transportation to this location? You're absolutely right. Our society is unquestionably wealthy enough to provide for the basic needs of all. You are experiencing a beautiful blossoming of genuine human compassion. It's just perhaps possible that this might be a chance to think more precisely about how to translate that into policy.
      - gruez 5y ago
        >Subsidizing people’s moves doesn’t make sure they have access to housing. It just shuffles them to another area where it’s someone else’s long term problem, even if you secured them temporary housing as you moved them. We're not shuffling people around for the sake of getting them out of the area. we're shuffling people around so they can move to an area that has a better job market relative to local rents. This is supposed to address the "they can't move to find a better job because they can't afford the cost of moving" objection a few comments up. >We have more empty houses than homeless in the US. A sibling comment has addressed this so I won't go into this further. >We aren’t productive enough as a society to be able to give everyone pleasure constantly but we are certainly productive enough to guarantee basic physical needs for survival Because it's a political problem (ie. NIMBY), not a economic one.
- xkcd-sucks 5y ago
  Maybe these "hunter-gatherers" will choose to eat you or I, who are fat and complacent
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  And if the problem exists throughout the country?
- shkkmo 5y ago
  The jobs people are being paid minimum wage to do don't suddenly go away if the people doing them move away. The solution clearly involves building sufficient housing and/or raising the minimum wage.

by ahoy 5y ago

So if there are 35000 adults in a city making minimum wage and 200 total 2br apartments they can afford, does that somehow lead us to a different conclusion? Of course it doesn't.

gruez 5y ago

Maybe those 35,000 adults should move somewhere where pay is better and/or rent is cheaper. This isn't a hard concept. If there are 35,000 hunter-gatherers in a forest that can only support 400, are we supposed to sympathize with the stubborn ones that don't want to move out?

ahoy 5y ago
Your analogy is nonsense. There are another 3000 hunter-gatherers who have hoarded 90% of the resources. If we split up the resources more equally we could support everyone easily.
- gruez 5y ago
  The 3000 billionaires are hoarding 90% of housing supply in major cities? I doubt that. The lack of housing in such places has less to do with wealth concentration to billionaires and more with local grassroots opposition for new housing developments.
lovich 5y ago
Is moving free/cheap for you? I’m fairly well off and the actual financial moving costs were enough to keep me from seeking a better deal on only every 3+ years when I would have been willing to spend the time (1 weekend) to move every year
- gruez 5y ago
  Well we could subsidize people to move to a place that's affordable, but I suspect that has similar optics to "giving homeless people bus tickets to another town"
  - lovich 5y ago
    I don’t think that type of plan is bad because of “optics” but also because it doesn’t solve the problem. Subsidizing people’s moves doesn’t make sure they have access to housing. It just shuffles them to another area where it’s someone else’s long term problem, even if you secured them temporary housing as you moved them. We have more empty houses than homeless in the US. We should be able to guarantee food, water, and shelter to every citizen, even if we don’t necessarily guarantee it’s in a place someone desires. We aren’t productive enough as a society to be able to give everyone pleasure constantly but we are certainly productive enough to guarantee basic physical needs for survival
    - Kalium 5y ago
      > We have more empty houses than homeless in the US. We should be able to guarantee food, water, and shelter to every citizen, even if we don’t necessarily guarantee it’s in a place someone desires. How many people experiencing houselessness are you willing to ship off to rural Nebraska where they know nobody, have no support system, no supportive services, and probably are grossly unfamiliar with the local culture? Is your answer "all of them"? Perhaps with some qualifier about how they'll receive food, water, and free transportation to this location? You're absolutely right. Our society is unquestionably wealthy enough to provide for the basic needs of all. You are experiencing a beautiful blossoming of genuine human compassion. It's just perhaps possible that this might be a chance to think more precisely about how to translate that into policy.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >Subsidizing people’s moves doesn’t make sure they have access to housing. It just shuffles them to another area where it’s someone else’s long term problem, even if you secured them temporary housing as you moved them. We're not shuffling people around for the sake of getting them out of the area. we're shuffling people around so they can move to an area that has a better job market relative to local rents. This is supposed to address the "they can't move to find a better job because they can't afford the cost of moving" objection a few comments up. >We have more empty houses than homeless in the US. A sibling comment has addressed this so I won't go into this further. >We aren’t productive enough as a society to be able to give everyone pleasure constantly but we are certainly productive enough to guarantee basic physical needs for survival Because it's a political problem (ie. NIMBY), not a economic one.
xkcd-sucks 5y ago
Maybe these "hunter-gatherers" will choose to eat you or I, who are fat and complacent
pseudalopex 5y ago
And if the problem exists throughout the country?
shkkmo 5y ago
The jobs people are being paid minimum wage to do don't suddenly go away if the people doing them move away. The solution clearly involves building sufficient housing and/or raising the minimum wage.