5 ms·
And your point is ?
by simlan 5y ago
And your point is ?
- arvindamirtaa 5y agoThings cost money. Things that don't cost to buy at least as much as they cost to make, are not sustainable by definition and will be riddled with systemic problems like shortage, rationing, etc.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- chongli 5y agoI think their point is that this isn't really social housing, it's a perk for a very exclusive group of people. Not all that different from a waiting list for membership to an exclusive golf course.
- true_religion 5y agoExclusive being the community of poeple who paid taxes (i.e. the church tithe) for at least 2 years before they fell on hard times? It's hardly charity or a perk. It's basically a local government service.
- csomar 5y agoIt doesn't work even though the article is trying to portray this as a functional model and a solution to the housing crisis. > Money for maintaining the village comes from investments in forestry, real estate and entrance fees. It is just a charity with religious requirements.
- SiempreViernes 5y agoIf shortage means it "doesn't work", it's not clear to me how exclusion based on income is any better, or indeed if these are actually substantially more than just two names for the same fundamental shortage problem.
- nanis 5y ago> exclusion based on income Exclusion based on price.
- SiempreViernes 5y agoNo, when there is any housing shortage it is a matter of empirical fact that landlords select on the income prospective renters can prove.
- gruez 5y ago>If shortage means it "doesn't work", it's not clear to me how exclusion based on income is any better because it provides some sort of objective measure for how badly you want it, and incentivizes/finances more housing developments.
- cool_dude85 5y agoAh, my shortages are good, your shortages are bad. Makes sense.
- gruez 5y agoI have a feeling you're being sarcastic, but that's exactly what I'm arguing for. If your city only has enough housing for 100,000 people, but there are 150,000 people who want to live there, there's going 50,000 who can't get a house. In other words, a shortage. That's bad, but that number is going to be the same regardless of how you're redistributing it. The question then becomes, can we make the best out of a bad situation? Distributing by price has benefits that I mentioned. What benefits does giving giving it for below-market prices to people whoever's first on a waiting list provide?
- dbingham 5y agoExcept, if you'd ever paid any attention to housing markets in any major city they don't work this way. There are too many other factors and incentives at play. Not least of which is that the profit motive drives developers and landlords to keep costs as high as they possibly can, and they all share that motivation, so you end up with convergent price fixing - where they all just naturally compete on things other than price with out actually colluding to do that. Markets rarely actually work as advertised.
- actually_a_dog 5y agoThe article made no such claims of being able to solve any housing crisis, merely that 160 people can live in a way they otherwise wouldn't be able to.