5 ms·

This is why I advocate removing the market and doing a substantial fraction of housing as public housing. Other countries like Sweden (iirc) do this.

hash872 5y ago
The total value of all US real estate is $50 trillion. There's not a lot of situations in life where you can say, even the United States government doesn't have enough money to make a dent here- but....
- tehjoker 5y ago
  That's only if they buy it. In the civil war, we took the slaves and land of the confederacy without making the owners whole. Landlords may not be slaveholders, but they are parasites and exploiters, even Adam Smith said so of the big landlords (in fact he was against the modern incarnation of our economy which is highly concentrated way beyond imagining in his time). Rentiers make money by simple ownership and exclusion, not by their labor. It is not socially beneficial. The word "lord" is part of their name and most Americans, at least the common people in 1776, understood the American project as the destruction of the nobility and aristocratic privileges. While the formal titles are gone, the plots of land that were the source of the nobility's power remain. https://www.quora.com/Was-Adam-Smith-against-landlords?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Was-Adam-Smith-against-landlords?share...
  - hash872 5y ago
    Can I ask how old you are?
    - splitstud 5y ago
      Seeing as how he has demonstrated the ability to read, it's obvious he's old enough to know better.
    - tehjoker 5y ago
      When I was in my teens, I was a conservative. As I get older, I become more leftist as I read more history books. Entire countries have been formed on the basis of similar ideas. It's childish to think they can be dismissed flippantly.
      - int_19h 5y ago
        Not flippantly, no. But USSR and its authoritarian ilk can be dismissed on the basis that they ended up worsening the conditions of their residents relative to similar countries that didn't try such experiments. OTOH there's still the libertarian left. But Soviets and other leftist authoriarians were always as hostile to it as they are to anyone right of them.
      - imtringued 5y ago
        I like to pretend that I don't pick sides. I might be left leaning because the existing system clearly isn't efficient enough to be left alone.
    - NoahTheDuke 5y ago
      This is a cheap shot. If you have a point to make, you should make it directly.
  - medvezhenok 5y ago
    Eh, I would be very careful about incentives and side effects. Confiscation of property never quite goes the way you expect, and is usually semi-impossible without a preceding war (see: 1917 Russia). The Soviet Union didn't have landlords to deal with, but the housing situation was not any better - just instead of apartments being unaffordable, you'd get in a queue for public housing that was like 20 years long...
    - tehjoker 5y ago
      Our situation seems quite bad and deteriorating, so I am open to reopening the book on the Soviet idea. I think a careful analysis of why their housing was not ideal is needed. At the beginning of their project, many people lived in huts so the step up to small stark apartments was a huge step up for millions. After a few decades though, they appear to have failed to improve their housing infrastructure at a fast enough rate. I don't know exactly why. Some sources I've read say that once Krushev (and his base of support) were in power, they redirected resources into consumer goods to try to match western lifestyles too early. The previous plan was to constantly reinvest in heavy industry which creates exponential growth by providing the material basis for more heavy industry. This shifting of resources away reduced the rate of growth as the population continued to grow and resulted in a stagnating standard of living. This makes intuitive sense to me so far, but I have not done enough research to say this is conclusive. I would point out that in the US, we have the perception of being able to move wherever you want given enough money. However, in reality we are restricted (queued) by the affordability of housing and moving. The people at the top do have real freedom, but the bottom sections (most of them not present in this highly paid programmer forum) have very little.
      - int_19h 5y ago
        Soviet economy was tilted very heavily towards heavy industry until the very end. For very simple reasons: that's what makes tanks and bombs. That aside, you can't look at economics of USSR in isolation from its politics. For example, under Stalin, most peasants were effectively tied to their land in kolkhozes and sovkhozes - they couldn't freely move to the cities where the better-paying jobs were, and thus couldn't compete for housing there.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    If you want to have a fair society just make the holders of capital pay for the privilege of owning it. This is commonly known as a wealth tax but there are two taxes whose introduction leads to no economic dead weight losses. Taxes on money and land holdings. If you spend your money you do not "win" because you pay transaction taxes (VAT etc) or you increase your exposure to risk in the financial markets. If you don't spend your money you lose because you pay the wealth tax for nothing. The reason why a land value tax works is that land already exists. It's supply is inelastic. The owner of the land did nothing to create it. So taxing the owner for holding onto land will not discourage him from working (building a house and renting it out). The tax revenue can be used to pay for public infrastructure like transportation then the value of the land goes up which will directly fund the infrastructure. A holding fee on land discourages speculation because the expected value of holding onto land without utilizing it is negative. The reason why land speculation is so profitable is that location is a monopoly. As the community around the land develops the speculator benefits off the work other people while doing no work himself. It's especially bad when income taxes are used to fund infrastructure. As the government does more infrastructure projects and charges higher income taxes your rent will go up as the value of the land goes up. Just a thought experiment: A single tax implementation of land value taxes implies that you've paid your taxes by paying rent. Rent would still be expensive but products and services would be cheap and your income would be higher.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
AYBABTME 5y ago
My personal opinion is that governments should provide a backstop guarantee for tenants, to bear the risk instead of forcing landlords into making cruel choices. I think it'd make sense. It's beneficial to govt. to keep people productive and ultimately off the street. Hence (in a capitalist system) they want to encourage the market to provide housing to people who would otherwise not get it. If the government came involved into transactions as a guarantor for people in need, and provided incentives and reassurances to landlords that they would not be disadvantaged if they provide housing to those in needs, I believe there would be less homeless people in the street, and more generosity from landlords. E.g.: (1) if I have no upside and a high risk exposure in providing housing to a recovering addict, will I do it if I'm then unable to evict that person when they fall back down into addiction? No, I wouldn't, even if in my heart of heart I wish I could help them. (2) if on another hand, the government came and said "we'll guarantee this market rate, and will facilitate eviction proceedings and pay for repairs if things don't work out", would I be willing to risk it and rent to that person? Probably yes, there would be enough structural support to encourage me to do some goodwill help. The problem is that the stick presented in (1) is what's going on right now, and there's no carrot (2). It's basically the policy makers telling landlords: all you, don't you dare taking in tenants who are a higher risk! Because if you do, we'll be watching! * * * In coordination with this, I think a smart policy would be to combine this idea with something else: instead of trying to build affordable housing projects, try to spread these initiatives around. Avoid the creation of ghettos. If a govt. agency was to support someone's tenancy, the agency should try to spread these people uniformly around town, mixing them with all strata of society, instead of putting all these people in the same geographical area. This would encourage reintegration in a constructive environment. People living in their walled gardens would be annoyed, but ultimately, the people in need of help would be allowed a chance to heal in a safer environment.
- inkywatcher 5y ago
  First, density is obviously cheaper, and many people already begrudge homeless people sleeping outside even though that doesn't cost anything. Second, even if a person is addicted to drugs, they still need a place to live. So evicting them doesn't actually solve anything except your business risk. Third, NIMBYism is almost omnipotent as a political force in most parts of the US worth living in. You aren't going to convince people to let poor people or people with problems live near them. They will fight like hell to stop it, and many will be wealthy or influential.

hash872 5y ago

The total value of all US real estate is $50 trillion. There's not a lot of situations in life where you can say, even the United States government doesn't have enough money to make a dent here- but....

tehjoker 5y ago
That's only if they buy it. In the civil war, we took the slaves and land of the confederacy without making the owners whole. Landlords may not be slaveholders, but they are parasites and exploiters, even Adam Smith said so of the big landlords (in fact he was against the modern incarnation of our economy which is highly concentrated way beyond imagining in his time). Rentiers make money by simple ownership and exclusion, not by their labor. It is not socially beneficial. The word "lord" is part of their name and most Americans, at least the common people in 1776, understood the American project as the destruction of the nobility and aristocratic privileges. While the formal titles are gone, the plots of land that were the source of the nobility's power remain. https://www.quora.com/Was-Adam-Smith-against-landlords?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Was-Adam-Smith-against-landlords?share...
- hash872 5y ago
  Can I ask how old you are?
  - splitstud 5y ago
    Seeing as how he has demonstrated the ability to read, it's obvious he's old enough to know better.
  - tehjoker 5y ago
    When I was in my teens, I was a conservative. As I get older, I become more leftist as I read more history books. Entire countries have been formed on the basis of similar ideas. It's childish to think they can be dismissed flippantly.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      Not flippantly, no. But USSR and its authoritarian ilk can be dismissed on the basis that they ended up worsening the conditions of their residents relative to similar countries that didn't try such experiments. OTOH there's still the libertarian left. But Soviets and other leftist authoriarians were always as hostile to it as they are to anyone right of them.
    - imtringued 5y ago
      I like to pretend that I don't pick sides. I might be left leaning because the existing system clearly isn't efficient enough to be left alone.
  - NoahTheDuke 5y ago
    This is a cheap shot. If you have a point to make, you should make it directly.
- medvezhenok 5y ago
  Eh, I would be very careful about incentives and side effects. Confiscation of property never quite goes the way you expect, and is usually semi-impossible without a preceding war (see: 1917 Russia). The Soviet Union didn't have landlords to deal with, but the housing situation was not any better - just instead of apartments being unaffordable, you'd get in a queue for public housing that was like 20 years long...
  - tehjoker 5y ago
    Our situation seems quite bad and deteriorating, so I am open to reopening the book on the Soviet idea. I think a careful analysis of why their housing was not ideal is needed. At the beginning of their project, many people lived in huts so the step up to small stark apartments was a huge step up for millions. After a few decades though, they appear to have failed to improve their housing infrastructure at a fast enough rate. I don't know exactly why. Some sources I've read say that once Krushev (and his base of support) were in power, they redirected resources into consumer goods to try to match western lifestyles too early. The previous plan was to constantly reinvest in heavy industry which creates exponential growth by providing the material basis for more heavy industry. This shifting of resources away reduced the rate of growth as the population continued to grow and resulted in a stagnating standard of living. This makes intuitive sense to me so far, but I have not done enough research to say this is conclusive. I would point out that in the US, we have the perception of being able to move wherever you want given enough money. However, in reality we are restricted (queued) by the affordability of housing and moving. The people at the top do have real freedom, but the bottom sections (most of them not present in this highly paid programmer forum) have very little.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      Soviet economy was tilted very heavily towards heavy industry until the very end. For very simple reasons: that's what makes tanks and bombs. That aside, you can't look at economics of USSR in isolation from its politics. For example, under Stalin, most peasants were effectively tied to their land in kolkhozes and sovkhozes - they couldn't freely move to the cities where the better-paying jobs were, and thus couldn't compete for housing there.
- imtringued 5y ago
  If you want to have a fair society just make the holders of capital pay for the privilege of owning it. This is commonly known as a wealth tax but there are two taxes whose introduction leads to no economic dead weight losses. Taxes on money and land holdings. If you spend your money you do not "win" because you pay transaction taxes (VAT etc) or you increase your exposure to risk in the financial markets. If you don't spend your money you lose because you pay the wealth tax for nothing. The reason why a land value tax works is that land already exists. It's supply is inelastic. The owner of the land did nothing to create it. So taxing the owner for holding onto land will not discourage him from working (building a house and renting it out). The tax revenue can be used to pay for public infrastructure like transportation then the value of the land goes up which will directly fund the infrastructure. A holding fee on land discourages speculation because the expected value of holding onto land without utilizing it is negative. The reason why land speculation is so profitable is that location is a monopoly. As the community around the land develops the speculator benefits off the work other people while doing no work himself. It's especially bad when income taxes are used to fund infrastructure. As the government does more infrastructure projects and charges higher income taxes your rent will go up as the value of the land goes up. Just a thought experiment: A single tax implementation of land value taxes implies that you've paid your taxes by paying rent. Rent would still be expensive but products and services would be cheap and your income would be higher.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

AYBABTME 5y ago

My personal opinion is that governments should provide a backstop guarantee for tenants, to bear the risk instead of forcing landlords into making cruel choices. I think it'd make sense. It's beneficial to govt. to keep people productive and ultimately off the street. Hence (in a capitalist system) they want to encourage the market to provide housing to people who would otherwise not get it. If the government came involved into transactions as a guarantor for people in need, and provided incentives and reassurances to landlords that they would not be disadvantaged if they provide housing to those in needs, I believe there would be less homeless people in the street, and more generosity from landlords. E.g.: (1) if I have no upside and a high risk exposure in providing housing to a recovering addict, will I do it if I'm then unable to evict that person when they fall back down into addiction? No, I wouldn't, even if in my heart of heart I wish I could help them. (2) if on another hand, the government came and said "we'll guarantee this market rate, and will facilitate eviction proceedings and pay for repairs if things don't work out", would I be willing to risk it and rent to that person? Probably yes, there would be enough structural support to encourage me to do some goodwill help. The problem is that the stick presented in (1) is what's going on right now, and there's no carrot (2). It's basically the policy makers telling landlords: all you, don't you dare taking in tenants who are a higher risk! Because if you do, we'll be watching! * * * In coordination with this, I think a smart policy would be to combine this idea with something else: instead of trying to build affordable housing projects, try to spread these initiatives around. Avoid the creation of ghettos. If a govt. agency was to support someone's tenancy, the agency should try to spread these people uniformly around town, mixing them with all strata of society, instead of putting all these people in the same geographical area. This would encourage reintegration in a constructive environment. People living in their walled gardens would be annoyed, but ultimately, the people in need of help would be allowed a chance to heal in a safer environment.

inkywatcher 5y ago
First, density is obviously cheaper, and many people already begrudge homeless people sleeping outside even though that doesn't cost anything. Second, even if a person is addicted to drugs, they still need a place to live. So evicting them doesn't actually solve anything except your business risk. Third, NIMBYism is almost omnipotent as a political force in most parts of the US worth living in. You aren't going to convince people to let poor people or people with problems live near them. They will fight like hell to stop it, and many will be wealthy or influential.