33 ms·

Wouldn't it also work to just make everything cheaper for everyone? Housing has increased so much in cost that I wouldn't be surprised that just having housing

by marvin 4y ago

Wouldn't it also work to just make everything cheaper for everyone? Housing has increased so much in cost that I wouldn't be surprised that just having housing back to 1980s price levels would give most families enough breathing room with just unpaid leave.

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
Of course that would work, but that requires the economy to not adapt itself to the new prices, which requires politicians to step in and prevent the richer people from buying up things which makes would-be families feel too uneasy about starting a family. It'd be far more desirable to return to situations where most of the budget is spent on luxury and only a little is spent on any kind of milestone, but that's a campaign most politicians aren't winning votes with.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  >> which requires politicians to step in Ironically politicians "stepping in" is the biggest reason cost of living is going up. Regulations preventing new housing, limiting new housing, etc. Monetary policies and massive debt fueled spending spree's causing massive inflation, draconian lock downs disrupting supply chains, irresponsible "climate" policies preventing farmers from growing food affordably, the 100's of other ways "politicians stepping in " to "solve" a problem in the process making everyone worse off
  - hhmc 4y ago
    You’re presenting an incredibly contentious opinion as fact..
  - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
    Bad regulations by a slow, bureaucratic government do that, yes. Meanwhile, the free market people always claim will solve everything? That same free market "solved" mobility by pushing car usage through the roof, resulting in extremely inefficient space usage now that population demands are changing. Neither bad regulations nor the free market are going to solve a lack of foresight. Worse, those regulations are largely devised by politicians in power voted by a majority of homeowners and a few ultra rich lobbyists. You might as well make a "always has been" meme out of it. Same goes for every other of your points. If free market capitalism would solve it, it already would have.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      The problem here is what you identify as problems the market (thus people) do not agree are problems For example you decry the " inefficient space usage " of modern housing, and suburbs, however many people clearly prefer to have single family structures on plots of land over living in densely populated area's I am one of those people, I would never choose to voluntary live in a dense city like NYC or even LA I can think of nothing more nightmarish then living in a multistory apartment building. I lived in a 3 story building once, and got out of there as fast as I possibly could. Today I live in a typical suburban neighborhood, with homes on 1/2 to 3/4 acre lots and about 40-100 foot separation between home even that is far too tightly packed for me, and would prefer even greater separation. Governments attempt to control sprawl and force more density is in part what is driving the massive increase in cost for Single Family homes. So it is not a correct statement to proclaim the free market is not solving problems, it is that people that guide the market reject your proposed problems and the solutions you desire for the problems, in that rejection the only way to do it is to impose government regulations by force.
      - Firmwarrior 4y ago
        What government is trying to force more density? Please let me know so I can move there. The closest I can think of is Tokyo, where the zoning laws are basically set by the national government. In the USA, the local landed gentry can easily block any new development/increase in density, which is a big part of the reason we have so much sprawl*. In Japan, all you can do is shake your fist and write an angry letter to your congressman while developers throw up a 4 story apartment complex next door. The result is that you can get a job as a janitor in the heart of downtown, and comfortably afford an apartment nearby. A tiny apartment within 10 minutes, or a larger and more spacious one 20-30 minutes away, or a house if you're willing to put up with a 90 minute commute. * Yes, I know that a lot of the sprawl comes from people wanting houses, but a lot of people just want a place to live close to their job, where they can change out their sink or repaint their walls without asking some rich prick for permission
        em-bee 4y ago
hallway_monitor 4y ago
Better yet, shouldn't we just make everything free for everyone? Housing costs are outrageous. It would be great if houses were free. And food too. And cars and clothing. I guess the only problem is then everyone's wage would have to be $0 as well.
- em-bee 4y ago
  i don't see why zero wages would be a problem in that case. it would be a money-less society like in star trek. whether that's realistic is another discussion. but how about universal basic income instead?
  - Firmwarrior 4y ago
    I've been thinking about this, and I don't know if a UBI like people envision will ever really be viable. BUT as society gets more and more wealthy, I'll bet that living on the fringes of it will be more and more viable We're already at a point where you can work minimum wage for an hour (take home ~$7) and buy a few days' worth of subsistence-quality food if you have access to a kitchen. You can pare down your other living expenses too, and suddenly you have a reasonably comfortable lifestyle that only costs a few hundred bucks a month. Right now we stigmatize "van dwellers" and couch surfers, but maybe that'll change in the future
- mjan22640 4y ago
  The automation is going to bring that relatively soon.
  - jacooper 4y ago
    Yup Automation is going to push humans out of Capitalism to the point it where Capitalism ends it self.
  - astrange 4y ago
    Automation doesn't change anything fundamental in the economy, and could only make things free if it was a perpetual motion machine.

by marvin 4y ago

BlargMcLarg 4y ago

Of course that would work, but that requires the economy to not adapt itself to the new prices, which requires politicians to step in and prevent the richer people from buying up things which makes would-be families feel too uneasy about starting a family. It'd be far more desirable to return to situations where most of the budget is spent on luxury and only a little is spent on any kind of milestone, but that's a campaign most politicians aren't winning votes with.

phpisthebest 4y ago
>> which requires politicians to step in Ironically politicians "stepping in" is the biggest reason cost of living is going up. Regulations preventing new housing, limiting new housing, etc. Monetary policies and massive debt fueled spending spree's causing massive inflation, draconian lock downs disrupting supply chains, irresponsible "climate" policies preventing farmers from growing food affordably, the 100's of other ways "politicians stepping in " to "solve" a problem in the process making everyone worse off
- hhmc 4y ago
  You’re presenting an incredibly contentious opinion as fact..
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  Bad regulations by a slow, bureaucratic government do that, yes. Meanwhile, the free market people always claim will solve everything? That same free market "solved" mobility by pushing car usage through the roof, resulting in extremely inefficient space usage now that population demands are changing. Neither bad regulations nor the free market are going to solve a lack of foresight. Worse, those regulations are largely devised by politicians in power voted by a majority of homeowners and a few ultra rich lobbyists. You might as well make a "always has been" meme out of it. Same goes for every other of your points. If free market capitalism would solve it, it already would have.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    The problem here is what you identify as problems the market (thus people) do not agree are problems For example you decry the " inefficient space usage " of modern housing, and suburbs, however many people clearly prefer to have single family structures on plots of land over living in densely populated area's I am one of those people, I would never choose to voluntary live in a dense city like NYC or even LA I can think of nothing more nightmarish then living in a multistory apartment building. I lived in a 3 story building once, and got out of there as fast as I possibly could. Today I live in a typical suburban neighborhood, with homes on 1/2 to 3/4 acre lots and about 40-100 foot separation between home even that is far too tightly packed for me, and would prefer even greater separation. Governments attempt to control sprawl and force more density is in part what is driving the massive increase in cost for Single Family homes. So it is not a correct statement to proclaim the free market is not solving problems, it is that people that guide the market reject your proposed problems and the solutions you desire for the problems, in that rejection the only way to do it is to impose government regulations by force.
    - Firmwarrior 4y ago
      What government is trying to force more density? Please let me know so I can move there. The closest I can think of is Tokyo, where the zoning laws are basically set by the national government. In the USA, the local landed gentry can easily block any new development/increase in density, which is a big part of the reason we have so much sprawl*. In Japan, all you can do is shake your fist and write an angry letter to your congressman while developers throw up a 4 story apartment complex next door. The result is that you can get a job as a janitor in the heart of downtown, and comfortably afford an apartment nearby. A tiny apartment within 10 minutes, or a larger and more spacious one 20-30 minutes away, or a house if you're willing to put up with a 90 minute commute. * Yes, I know that a lot of the sprawl comes from people wanting houses, but a lot of people just want a place to live close to their job, where they can change out their sink or repaint their walls without asking some rich prick for permission
      - em-bee 4y ago

hallway_monitor 4y ago

Better yet, shouldn't we just make everything free for everyone? Housing costs are outrageous. It would be great if houses were free. And food too. And cars and clothing. I guess the only problem is then everyone's wage would have to be $0 as well.

em-bee 4y ago
i don't see why zero wages would be a problem in that case. it would be a money-less society like in star trek. whether that's realistic is another discussion. but how about universal basic income instead?
- Firmwarrior 4y ago
  I've been thinking about this, and I don't know if a UBI like people envision will ever really be viable. BUT as society gets more and more wealthy, I'll bet that living on the fringes of it will be more and more viable We're already at a point where you can work minimum wage for an hour (take home ~$7) and buy a few days' worth of subsistence-quality food if you have access to a kitchen. You can pare down your other living expenses too, and suddenly you have a reasonably comfortable lifestyle that only costs a few hundred bucks a month. Right now we stigmatize "van dwellers" and couch surfers, but maybe that'll change in the future
mjan22640 4y ago
The automation is going to bring that relatively soon.
- jacooper 4y ago
  Yup Automation is going to push humans out of Capitalism to the point it where Capitalism ends it self.
- astrange 4y ago
  Automation doesn't change anything fundamental in the economy, and could only make things free if it was a perpetual motion machine.