6 ms·

Labor shortage is a wage shortage is a housing shortage is an urban land shortage. When housing is so expensive, why would low wagies bother if they can't affo

Labor shortage is a wage shortage is a housing shortage is an urban land shortage. When housing is so expensive, why would low wagies bother if they can't afford a rent. They end up on the street regardless of working. Housing shortage in just a land shortage in urban areas. There are not that many places to rent compared to the size of the city. Most buildings are out of the market, not suitable for renting out and the owner is cash strapped to get it into a livable condition. Since housing keeps appreciating at such rates lately the owners suck it up with property taxes and depreciation and just keep sitting idle on properties. The houses are out of market because the owner is asset rich, but cash poor, but nobody forces him to sell back to the market. It's a liquidity problem, not in money, but in houses. When unused housing from asset rich but cash poor owners, who got properties through inheritance, sits idle and never returns to the market, there is no supply and demand dynamic in the market anymore. The market doesn't clear and brings the economy to the halt. (One solution is LVT to force market clearing).

logicalmonster 4y ago
> Housing shortage in just a land shortage in urban areas. You're talking about supply when you mention housing shortages, but let's look at the other part of the equation in a shortage: demand. Another perspective for a housing shortage might be to call it a people surplus. I don't blame anybody for seeking a better life, but I'd think at some point, an excess amount of illegal migration would have a noticeable impact in some areas. > housing sits idle Just curious on if there's a good estimate of how many houses sit idle and unused and if this has increased or decreased over time? I'm sure that some housing sits unused, but if it's a few thousand homes in an area where there's say a few hundred thousand families looking to buy, I'm not sure if that really makes a huge dent.
- frankbreetz 4y ago
  There are over 16 million vacant homes in the US[0]. There is also only over 500k homeless people in the US[1] meaning we could house each homeless person around 32 times over. I think it could make quite a large dent [0]https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/report-how-many-homes-are-sitting-empty-in-your-state/ https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/report-how-many-homes-... [1]https://policyadvice.net/insurance/insights/homelessness-statistics/ https://policyadvice.net/insurance/insights/homelessness-sta...
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    > There are over 16 million vacant homes in the US[0]. This sounds like a very large number, but large compared to what? The key thing to look at is how does it compare to the past? If there's no substantial difference today in this rate versus the past, then maybe idle homes might not be the biggest factor. I don't know the answer to this or where to lookup this stat. > There is also only over 500k homeless people in the US[1] meaning we could house each homeless person around 32 times over. I think it could make quite a large dent Homelessness is sort of a separate and off-topic issue largely involving mental health and drug abuse and cannot be viewed as being solvable simply by using idle homes. You could give each homeless person a mansion, and many of them would be ruined beyond repair in a short amount of time due to all kinds of unfathomable reasons like very ill people using a hammer to search for demons hiding in the walls.
    - frankbreetz 4y ago
      There is undoubtedly significant percentage of homeless people that would greatly benefit by being put in a home. Stating otherwise is delusional and morally reprehensible.
      - logicalmonster 4y ago
        > There is undoubtedly significant percentage of homeless people that would greatly benefit by being put in a home. Of course many people would benefit from a plan to solve homelessness by being gifted a free house: among them the homeless person themselves, probably the already well-off or rich corporations like BlackRock selling it to the government for 250% market value, and the Federal employees overseeing such a fiefdom. But simply counting empty houses and the number of homeless and observing that the number of empty houses is greater than the number of homeless isn't the framework for a solution. I'm sure I'm not the only person here who has worked with the homeless and experienced why they're homeless first-hand. The number of normal people who are simply down-on-their-luck through unfortunate life events is relatively small. Many people who have been homeless longer than a very short time are not even close to being well. Many of them would destroy their free home, and I do quite literally mean that they would take it apart looking for scrap to pawn for drugs, or to destroy demons they think are hiding in the walls. Even beyond the homeless issue, have you considered all of the costs to such a plan? I don't even mean who is going to pay money for the homes and set this up, I'm talking about the actual outcome to society. Just adding one mentally ill guy in a normal neighborhood who isn't watched 24/7 by professional help is going to utterly terrorize his neighbors. Throwing hundreds of thousands of homeless into average neighborhoods in idle homes would ruin quality of life in this country. Would you prefer living next door to the guy who collects bags of poop, the guy who likes to expose himself to strangers for fun, or the guy who who's walking around all day looking for stuff to steal and who's willing to rough you up if you look at him the wrong way? Which one of these do you want around watching your kids play?
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > You're talking about supply when you mention housing shortages, but let's look at the other part of the equation in a shortage: demand. Another perspective for a housing shortage might be to call it a people surplus. I don't blame anybody for seeking a better life, but I'd think at some point, an excess amount of illegal migration would have a noticeable impact in some areas. The demand in urban housing comes from rural areas going decrepit: schools close, no higher education at all, no fast and reliable Internet and 4G/5G mobile connectivity, no public transport, rotting roads and bridges, no banks, no medical services, no shopping, no employment, no entertainment other than drinking and shooting tin cans. If you want to live a modern life, there is no alternative to moving to urban areas.
  - maxerickson 4y ago
    I live in a rural region and we do actually have fast internet and cell phones. Not FTTH, but good coax. Lots of banks too. (Not supporting the other posters argument, just wondering where you get your information about rural areas)
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    > The demand in urban housing comes from rural areas going decrepit: schools close, no higher education at all, no fast and reliable Internet and 4G/5G mobile connectivity, no public transport, rotting roads and bridges, no banks, no medical services, no shopping, no employment, no entertainment other than drinking and shooting tin cans. If you want to live a modern life, there is no alternative to moving to urban areas. I'm a city dweller, and I think this is an ugly, misinformed, elitist comment.
  - codingdave 4y ago
    > schools close, no higher education at all, no fast and reliable Internet and 4G/5G mobile connectivity, no public transport, rotting roads and bridges, no banks, no medical services, no shopping, no employment, no entertainment other than drinking and shooting tin cans. I live in a rural area. Schools are open. Higher education not only exists, but the local community colleges partner with the state schools to give full access to us rural folk without having to commute in to the school. We have fiber to the home in many areas, high speed access in almost all the rest of the areas, and projects underway to fill in the gaps. We have 4G all over, 5G on a few towers. I can see 3 towers from my home, so we are not exactly disconnected. Our roads are doing fine - the local taxes pay for road maintenance quite well. Yes, we have banks. Farmers probably need more banking than you would expect. We are well covered there. We have medical service in every town and they partner with the state teaching university for specialist care, so we're doing OK there, too. Our unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in decades. Shopping exists here, too. Rural areas are shrinking because people prefer cities. But we are not decrepit and you absolutely can live an enjoyable modern life here.
- scythe 4y ago
  >You're talking about supply when you mention housing shortages Because supply has been depressed since the Great Recession: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST Meanwhile, population growth over the last two decades has been the lowest since the Great Depression: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States#Historical_Census_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_Uni... >I'd think at some point, an excess amount of illegal migration would have a noticeable impact in some areas. The problem is that housing isn't where the jobs are. That this is reflected in labor prices should be evidence enough. The prevalence of right-to-work and union-busting means that workers want to live in a place with multiple job options, which means that there is demand for cities. Working for the only paper mill in Covington, Virginia isn't such an attractive proposition when you can be fired at will and have to move to a new town.
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    > Because supply has been depressed since the Great Recession: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST These are very interesting and useful stats, but I'm not sure how it follows that newly created units going up and down at various points in time proves that the supply has been depressed. Can you explain how the supply is being artificially reduced? In some areas like San Francisco I suppose, there's a hesitance by many to want to build denser high-rises and building is a challenge to push through, but I'm not sure what else you might be referring to here. > Meanwhile, population growth over the last two decades has been the lowest since the Great Depression: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_Uni https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_Uni... The growth rate might be lower, but because there's a finite amount of land near cities, the problem might be that this is one area where absolute numbers matter more than rates because it's just physically tougher to build more units in a time period even if more laborers are available. (and this is even assuming that the census figures are anywhere close to accurate, which I'm not so sure about) > there is demand for cities. Of course many people want to live in cities for jobs and other perfectly valid reasons, but I'm not sure how this argues the point that illegal immigration doesn't have some sort of effect on the overall housing market. All other things being equal, a larger supply of people would have some sort of effect on the price, right?
- noahtallen 4y ago
  > I don't blame anybody for seeking a better life, but I'd think at some point, an excess amount of illegal migration would have a noticeable impact in some areas. I don’t find this to be a useful line of thought most times because it’s extraordinarily nationalistic. What logic justifies saying that migrants are driving out current inhabitants? Only one where the current inhabitants are somehow superior. This doesn’t _just_ apply to international immigration, but also local. In HCOL places, people constantly don’t want people moving in from other cities. What justifies that? Somehow the locals in the city are superior to everyone else in the _entire world_? Thankfully you cannot restrict moving across state borders. So what justifies restricting moving across national borders? I really can’t think of a rational justification. The reality is that the world had a shortage of nice places with high quality of living. Restricting immigration (or local migration) to reduce demand means that those people must stay in their lower quality of life area because of some artificial rule. That’s not fair. What makes a local any different from an immigrant? Both are people. If the immigrant wants to pay a lot of money to purchase a home from a local, why is that a bad thing?
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    I appreciate your response, and wanted to make a few quick points to your uncharacteristically (for HN) reasonable rebuttal. I just want to give a little nutshell version of my thoughts here because this is a very long and nuanced discussion that might not work best on HN. > I don’t find this to be a useful line of thought most times because it’s extraordinarily nationalistic. Ultimately as a philosophy, I'm not super in favor of the concept of nations either. However, so long as we exist in a world with governments, somebody is making your area's rules. If it's not your group, it's outsiders who vote with their feet and who are going to decide it for you, to their own economic and cultural advantage and not necessarily yours. Completely unfettered mass migration would not be as objectionable if we were living in a more libertarian system: no welfare state, no subsidized transportation, no rules preventing the right of free association, etc. Then everybody is just their own person who poses no potential of financial burden on you with their presence and who you're not forced to associate with if you don't want to. The problem is that you can't have both a massive welfare state and unfettered immigration without posing many significant problems for the native population. > What logic justifies saying that migrants are driving out current inhabitants? Please note that I didn't explicitly make the argument that migrants are driving out current inhabitants. I simply made an economics point about housing prices. All other things being equal, the demand for housing increasing would tend to increase the price, right?
zacharytelschow 4y ago
> Labor shortage is a wage shortage is a housing shortage is an urban land shortage. Or it's all a money printing inflation problem.
droopyEyelids 4y ago
An economist Michael Hudson talks about this a lot as "industrial policy" and includes what we think of Socialist welfare benefits in the calculation. Housing shortage is one part of the equation that drives up worker's demands for wages, but so is having to pay for healthcare, fund their own retirement, the burdens of childrearing, and education. His point is that by socializing those costs, companies can pay their workers less, which leads to a cheaper cost of goods sold, and more competitive exports. Fascinating take that would probably never have occurred to me.
- bo1024 4y ago
  Another benefit of all those things is reduced friction from switching jobs, which increases competition in the labor market and makes it more efficient. It makes it easier to found a startup, easier to quit a toxic job and look elsewhere, etc.
- brk 4y ago
  How does socializing those costs really work? The US Government rarely, if ever, seems to be more efficient than the private market. Somehow those socialized things need to be paid for, where do the taxes come from in a way that does not affect the final cost of the product? And how is that implemented in a manner that is compatible with the overall US capitalistic economy?
  - bobkazamakis 4y ago
    > The US Government rarely, if ever, seems to be more efficient than the private market. The governments purpose isn't to make money. The military, police, IRS, USPS, all serve different purposes, some of them make money, some don't. > Somehow those socialized things need to be paid for We already pay more for healthcare than any other nation; does it matter whether that goes thru the middleman of insurance or not? >where do the taxes come from in a way that does not affect the final cost of the product Prevention beats a cure - do you want healthy workers that are able to get preventative treatment and save money in the long run? Dental health is routinely neglected but a large indicator of economic status. Not only do healthy workers extract less from the healthcare system, they generate more in revenue. ...and you can also take money from other sources? I'm not sure why healthcare means some explosive bomb dropped out of nowhere. We're already paying for this, and it ISN'T efficient because of the necessary fiduciary incentives. >how is that implemented in a manner that is compatible with the overall US capitalistic economy? How is it such a special and weird case that isn't already covered with other socialized services that already exist within the US economy?
spixy 4y ago
housing shortage is a political will shortage (at least in USA with zoning laws)

logicalmonster 4y ago

> Housing shortage in just a land shortage in urban areas. You're talking about supply when you mention housing shortages, but let's look at the other part of the equation in a shortage: demand. Another perspective for a housing shortage might be to call it a people surplus. I don't blame anybody for seeking a better life, but I'd think at some point, an excess amount of illegal migration would have a noticeable impact in some areas. > housing sits idle Just curious on if there's a good estimate of how many houses sit idle and unused and if this has increased or decreased over time? I'm sure that some housing sits unused, but if it's a few thousand homes in an area where there's say a few hundred thousand families looking to buy, I'm not sure if that really makes a huge dent.

frankbreetz 4y ago
There are over 16 million vacant homes in the US[0]. There is also only over 500k homeless people in the US[1] meaning we could house each homeless person around 32 times over. I think it could make quite a large dent [0]https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/report-how-many-homes-are-sitting-empty-in-your-state/ https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/report-how-many-homes-... [1]https://policyadvice.net/insurance/insights/homelessness-statistics/ https://policyadvice.net/insurance/insights/homelessness-sta...
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  > There are over 16 million vacant homes in the US[0]. This sounds like a very large number, but large compared to what? The key thing to look at is how does it compare to the past? If there's no substantial difference today in this rate versus the past, then maybe idle homes might not be the biggest factor. I don't know the answer to this or where to lookup this stat. > There is also only over 500k homeless people in the US[1] meaning we could house each homeless person around 32 times over. I think it could make quite a large dent Homelessness is sort of a separate and off-topic issue largely involving mental health and drug abuse and cannot be viewed as being solvable simply by using idle homes. You could give each homeless person a mansion, and many of them would be ruined beyond repair in a short amount of time due to all kinds of unfathomable reasons like very ill people using a hammer to search for demons hiding in the walls.
  - frankbreetz 4y ago
    There is undoubtedly significant percentage of homeless people that would greatly benefit by being put in a home. Stating otherwise is delusional and morally reprehensible.
    - logicalmonster 4y ago
      > There is undoubtedly significant percentage of homeless people that would greatly benefit by being put in a home. Of course many people would benefit from a plan to solve homelessness by being gifted a free house: among them the homeless person themselves, probably the already well-off or rich corporations like BlackRock selling it to the government for 250% market value, and the Federal employees overseeing such a fiefdom. But simply counting empty houses and the number of homeless and observing that the number of empty houses is greater than the number of homeless isn't the framework for a solution. I'm sure I'm not the only person here who has worked with the homeless and experienced why they're homeless first-hand. The number of normal people who are simply down-on-their-luck through unfortunate life events is relatively small. Many people who have been homeless longer than a very short time are not even close to being well. Many of them would destroy their free home, and I do quite literally mean that they would take it apart looking for scrap to pawn for drugs, or to destroy demons they think are hiding in the walls. Even beyond the homeless issue, have you considered all of the costs to such a plan? I don't even mean who is going to pay money for the homes and set this up, I'm talking about the actual outcome to society. Just adding one mentally ill guy in a normal neighborhood who isn't watched 24/7 by professional help is going to utterly terrorize his neighbors. Throwing hundreds of thousands of homeless into average neighborhoods in idle homes would ruin quality of life in this country. Would you prefer living next door to the guy who collects bags of poop, the guy who likes to expose himself to strangers for fun, or the guy who who's walking around all day looking for stuff to steal and who's willing to rough you up if you look at him the wrong way? Which one of these do you want around watching your kids play?
mschuster91 4y ago
> You're talking about supply when you mention housing shortages, but let's look at the other part of the equation in a shortage: demand. Another perspective for a housing shortage might be to call it a people surplus. I don't blame anybody for seeking a better life, but I'd think at some point, an excess amount of illegal migration would have a noticeable impact in some areas. The demand in urban housing comes from rural areas going decrepit: schools close, no higher education at all, no fast and reliable Internet and 4G/5G mobile connectivity, no public transport, rotting roads and bridges, no banks, no medical services, no shopping, no employment, no entertainment other than drinking and shooting tin cans. If you want to live a modern life, there is no alternative to moving to urban areas.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  I live in a rural region and we do actually have fast internet and cell phones. Not FTTH, but good coax. Lots of banks too. (Not supporting the other posters argument, just wondering where you get your information about rural areas)
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  > The demand in urban housing comes from rural areas going decrepit: schools close, no higher education at all, no fast and reliable Internet and 4G/5G mobile connectivity, no public transport, rotting roads and bridges, no banks, no medical services, no shopping, no employment, no entertainment other than drinking and shooting tin cans. If you want to live a modern life, there is no alternative to moving to urban areas. I'm a city dweller, and I think this is an ugly, misinformed, elitist comment.
- codingdave 4y ago
  > schools close, no higher education at all, no fast and reliable Internet and 4G/5G mobile connectivity, no public transport, rotting roads and bridges, no banks, no medical services, no shopping, no employment, no entertainment other than drinking and shooting tin cans. I live in a rural area. Schools are open. Higher education not only exists, but the local community colleges partner with the state schools to give full access to us rural folk without having to commute in to the school. We have fiber to the home in many areas, high speed access in almost all the rest of the areas, and projects underway to fill in the gaps. We have 4G all over, 5G on a few towers. I can see 3 towers from my home, so we are not exactly disconnected. Our roads are doing fine - the local taxes pay for road maintenance quite well. Yes, we have banks. Farmers probably need more banking than you would expect. We are well covered there. We have medical service in every town and they partner with the state teaching university for specialist care, so we're doing OK there, too. Our unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in decades. Shopping exists here, too. Rural areas are shrinking because people prefer cities. But we are not decrepit and you absolutely can live an enjoyable modern life here.
scythe 4y ago
>You're talking about supply when you mention housing shortages Because supply has been depressed since the Great Recession: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST Meanwhile, population growth over the last two decades has been the lowest since the Great Depression: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States#Historical_Census_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_Uni... >I'd think at some point, an excess amount of illegal migration would have a noticeable impact in some areas. The problem is that housing isn't where the jobs are. That this is reflected in labor prices should be evidence enough. The prevalence of right-to-work and union-busting means that workers want to live in a place with multiple job options, which means that there is demand for cities. Working for the only paper mill in Covington, Virginia isn't such an attractive proposition when you can be fired at will and have to move to a new town.
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  > Because supply has been depressed since the Great Recession: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST These are very interesting and useful stats, but I'm not sure how it follows that newly created units going up and down at various points in time proves that the supply has been depressed. Can you explain how the supply is being artificially reduced? In some areas like San Francisco I suppose, there's a hesitance by many to want to build denser high-rises and building is a challenge to push through, but I'm not sure what else you might be referring to here. > Meanwhile, population growth over the last two decades has been the lowest since the Great Depression: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_Uni https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_Uni... The growth rate might be lower, but because there's a finite amount of land near cities, the problem might be that this is one area where absolute numbers matter more than rates because it's just physically tougher to build more units in a time period even if more laborers are available. (and this is even assuming that the census figures are anywhere close to accurate, which I'm not so sure about) > there is demand for cities. Of course many people want to live in cities for jobs and other perfectly valid reasons, but I'm not sure how this argues the point that illegal immigration doesn't have some sort of effect on the overall housing market. All other things being equal, a larger supply of people would have some sort of effect on the price, right?
noahtallen 4y ago
> I don't blame anybody for seeking a better life, but I'd think at some point, an excess amount of illegal migration would have a noticeable impact in some areas. I don’t find this to be a useful line of thought most times because it’s extraordinarily nationalistic. What logic justifies saying that migrants are driving out current inhabitants? Only one where the current inhabitants are somehow superior. This doesn’t _just_ apply to international immigration, but also local. In HCOL places, people constantly don’t want people moving in from other cities. What justifies that? Somehow the locals in the city are superior to everyone else in the _entire world_? Thankfully you cannot restrict moving across state borders. So what justifies restricting moving across national borders? I really can’t think of a rational justification. The reality is that the world had a shortage of nice places with high quality of living. Restricting immigration (or local migration) to reduce demand means that those people must stay in their lower quality of life area because of some artificial rule. That’s not fair. What makes a local any different from an immigrant? Both are people. If the immigrant wants to pay a lot of money to purchase a home from a local, why is that a bad thing?
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  I appreciate your response, and wanted to make a few quick points to your uncharacteristically (for HN) reasonable rebuttal. I just want to give a little nutshell version of my thoughts here because this is a very long and nuanced discussion that might not work best on HN. > I don’t find this to be a useful line of thought most times because it’s extraordinarily nationalistic. Ultimately as a philosophy, I'm not super in favor of the concept of nations either. However, so long as we exist in a world with governments, somebody is making your area's rules. If it's not your group, it's outsiders who vote with their feet and who are going to decide it for you, to their own economic and cultural advantage and not necessarily yours. Completely unfettered mass migration would not be as objectionable if we were living in a more libertarian system: no welfare state, no subsidized transportation, no rules preventing the right of free association, etc. Then everybody is just their own person who poses no potential of financial burden on you with their presence and who you're not forced to associate with if you don't want to. The problem is that you can't have both a massive welfare state and unfettered immigration without posing many significant problems for the native population. > What logic justifies saying that migrants are driving out current inhabitants? Please note that I didn't explicitly make the argument that migrants are driving out current inhabitants. I simply made an economics point about housing prices. All other things being equal, the demand for housing increasing would tend to increase the price, right?

zacharytelschow 4y ago

> Labor shortage is a wage shortage is a housing shortage is an urban land shortage. Or it's all a money printing inflation problem.

droopyEyelids 4y ago

An economist Michael Hudson talks about this a lot as "industrial policy" and includes what we think of Socialist welfare benefits in the calculation. Housing shortage is one part of the equation that drives up worker's demands for wages, but so is having to pay for healthcare, fund their own retirement, the burdens of childrearing, and education. His point is that by socializing those costs, companies can pay their workers less, which leads to a cheaper cost of goods sold, and more competitive exports. Fascinating take that would probably never have occurred to me.

bo1024 4y ago
Another benefit of all those things is reduced friction from switching jobs, which increases competition in the labor market and makes it more efficient. It makes it easier to found a startup, easier to quit a toxic job and look elsewhere, etc.
brk 4y ago
How does socializing those costs really work? The US Government rarely, if ever, seems to be more efficient than the private market. Somehow those socialized things need to be paid for, where do the taxes come from in a way that does not affect the final cost of the product? And how is that implemented in a manner that is compatible with the overall US capitalistic economy?
- bobkazamakis 4y ago
  > The US Government rarely, if ever, seems to be more efficient than the private market. The governments purpose isn't to make money. The military, police, IRS, USPS, all serve different purposes, some of them make money, some don't. > Somehow those socialized things need to be paid for We already pay more for healthcare than any other nation; does it matter whether that goes thru the middleman of insurance or not? >where do the taxes come from in a way that does not affect the final cost of the product Prevention beats a cure - do you want healthy workers that are able to get preventative treatment and save money in the long run? Dental health is routinely neglected but a large indicator of economic status. Not only do healthy workers extract less from the healthcare system, they generate more in revenue. ...and you can also take money from other sources? I'm not sure why healthcare means some explosive bomb dropped out of nowhere. We're already paying for this, and it ISN'T efficient because of the necessary fiduciary incentives. >how is that implemented in a manner that is compatible with the overall US capitalistic economy? How is it such a special and weird case that isn't already covered with other socialized services that already exist within the US economy?

spixy 4y ago

housing shortage is a political will shortage (at least in USA with zoning laws)