4 ms·

And they want to screw everyone else again. "We have the means to end homelessness in older adults. By increasing affordable housing for older adults, engaging

by m000 3y ago

And they want to screw everyone else again. "We have the means to end homelessness in older adults. By increasing affordable housing for older adults, engaging in targeted prevention efforts, and building off the success of permanent supportive housing, we can make homelessness for older adults rare and brief." Why are homeless baby boomers any more of a problem than entire generations that have been condemned to perpetual renting? Generations that never had access to affordable housing (like boomers had) are much more likely to end up homeless as they grow old. Yet, here we are discussing how to save those poor boomers instead of addressing the systemic inefficiencies their generation created.

epistasis 3y ago
It's difficult to lump together home-owning yet anti-home-building wealthy boomers with the working boomers who are now becoming homeless. Generational abstractions are unbelievably leaky.
- Kretinsky 3y ago
  Given that there aren't infinite ressources, shouldn't we prioritize housing families, that prepare the future, rather than the elderly?
  - epistasis 3y ago
    With housing, the problem isn't so much that we can't afford to build it easily, the problem is that we have made it illegal to provide housing. We have a shortage not because it is expensive, but because we regulated a shortage into existence. We do need some subsidy programs to help those with the lowest incomes or no incomes. But those will become easier to provide once we allow enough housing to be built and lessen the rentier extraction that comes from having an unnecessary shortage.
    - Kretinsky 3y ago
      Housing is expensive, especially in the american, low density suburbian way. You need to build a large infrastructure around housing for it to be viable, and if the housed can't pay taxes, everyone will end up paying for it. Also, I don't understand: why not move to a place without zoning? Not all homeless have to live in SF right?
      - epistasis 3y ago
        There's more than adequate infrastructure in cities to support a huge increase in population. And it's super cheap to do that. Suburban sprawl is massively expensive because of that inefficient use of infrastructure, it's unbelievably wasteful and ends up getting paid for by people who live in dense areas, which are the seas that actually generate surplus tax revenue that can cover the freeloaders in the suburbs who drive everywhere. > why not move to a place without zoning Because I don't want to live i n isolation, I want a city, and cities and density have been banned. Nobody bans sprawl, they ban density and its efficient use of infrastructure. I want the people. I want the culture. I want the transit, and being able to experience more amenities than anywhere else without having to drive to every goddamned place. I want to be able to walk to do interesting things and meet interesting people. What does your comment about homeless in SF have to do anything else you or I have written so far?
nemo44x 3y ago
GenZ own homes at a greater rate than any previous generation for their age. Millennials are a bit behind GenX and Boomers but are starting to catch up. This myth that young people can’t get into the housing market is simply that - a myth.
fuzzfactor 3y ago
>Generations that never had access to affordable housing (like boomers had) Today's tsunami of older homeless are the part of their generation that never had access to affordable housing, and are the tip of the iceberg. Part of the reason is not the actual cost of housing which was already exorbitant by the 1970's, but more devastating was the dramatic reduction in the value of the currency that people had to work for over their lifetime since then. 60-year old "boomers" were not even near working age in 1970 so it was already too late for them to ever earn enough to build any long-term assets before the currency was destroyed. 50-year olds, sheesh. Millions could never make the transition to a credit/debt environment where a lifetime of wages (in actual dollars more than the previous generation) was unable to build very significant lifetime assets at all compared to the appreciation on real estate by those who had the early opportunity for home ownership. Those who did well with property ownership over the decades are much better off, but like I said the cost to get in back then was already exorbitant, and (naturally with well-structured debt) it cost a working person more than they actually earned over most of their working lifetime just to participate. So the only thing they had to show for a lifetime of work was their home, rather than money in the bank. They were screwed too, just not as bad, and as a result some of them are becoming homeless now anyway. It's not some new thing where young people can see that now there may never be a chance to own a home no matter how hard or long they work for a living. By the mid-1970's it was plain to see this was already the case, and what we see today would be the future result if the 20th century ever got here. The baby boomers were not yet in power back then, many of those who were in the positions of financial manipulation at the time were actually born back in the 19th century. Post-Civil-War baby boomers I guess you would call the generation that set all this up. Today's older survivors have always suffered for decades from the extraction that inflation leverages, very much like what young people who can do the math are seeing now that inflation is being imposed again. The only real remedy ever is for prices to return to pre-inflation levels, but experience has shown that's never going to happen, which would be a lot to ask. If not a full return to "normalcy" then at least some reduction in prices, that hasn't happened either but it's the only hope so many have had for so many decades. It's too late now but it always has been.

by m000 3y ago

epistasis 3y ago

It's difficult to lump together home-owning yet anti-home-building wealthy boomers with the working boomers who are now becoming homeless. Generational abstractions are unbelievably leaky.

Kretinsky 3y ago
Given that there aren't infinite ressources, shouldn't we prioritize housing families, that prepare the future, rather than the elderly?
- epistasis 3y ago
  With housing, the problem isn't so much that we can't afford to build it easily, the problem is that we have made it illegal to provide housing. We have a shortage not because it is expensive, but because we regulated a shortage into existence. We do need some subsidy programs to help those with the lowest incomes or no incomes. But those will become easier to provide once we allow enough housing to be built and lessen the rentier extraction that comes from having an unnecessary shortage.
  - Kretinsky 3y ago
    Housing is expensive, especially in the american, low density suburbian way. You need to build a large infrastructure around housing for it to be viable, and if the housed can't pay taxes, everyone will end up paying for it. Also, I don't understand: why not move to a place without zoning? Not all homeless have to live in SF right?
    - epistasis 3y ago
      There's more than adequate infrastructure in cities to support a huge increase in population. And it's super cheap to do that. Suburban sprawl is massively expensive because of that inefficient use of infrastructure, it's unbelievably wasteful and ends up getting paid for by people who live in dense areas, which are the seas that actually generate surplus tax revenue that can cover the freeloaders in the suburbs who drive everywhere. > why not move to a place without zoning Because I don't want to live i n isolation, I want a city, and cities and density have been banned. Nobody bans sprawl, they ban density and its efficient use of infrastructure. I want the people. I want the culture. I want the transit, and being able to experience more amenities than anywhere else without having to drive to every goddamned place. I want to be able to walk to do interesting things and meet interesting people. What does your comment about homeless in SF have to do anything else you or I have written so far?

nemo44x 3y ago

GenZ own homes at a greater rate than any previous generation for their age. Millennials are a bit behind GenX and Boomers but are starting to catch up. This myth that young people can’t get into the housing market is simply that - a myth.

fuzzfactor 3y ago

>Generations that never had access to affordable housing (like boomers had) Today's tsunami of older homeless are the part of their generation that never had access to affordable housing, and are the tip of the iceberg. Part of the reason is not the actual cost of housing which was already exorbitant by the 1970's, but more devastating was the dramatic reduction in the value of the currency that people had to work for over their lifetime since then. 60-year old "boomers" were not even near working age in 1970 so it was already too late for them to ever earn enough to build any long-term assets before the currency was destroyed. 50-year olds, sheesh. Millions could never make the transition to a credit/debt environment where a lifetime of wages (in actual dollars more than the previous generation) was unable to build very significant lifetime assets at all compared to the appreciation on real estate by those who had the early opportunity for home ownership. Those who did well with property ownership over the decades are much better off, but like I said the cost to get in back then was already exorbitant, and (naturally with well-structured debt) it cost a working person more than they actually earned over most of their working lifetime just to participate. So the only thing they had to show for a lifetime of work was their home, rather than money in the bank. They were screwed too, just not as bad, and as a result some of them are becoming homeless now anyway. It's not some new thing where young people can see that now there may never be a chance to own a home no matter how hard or long they work for a living. By the mid-1970's it was plain to see this was already the case, and what we see today would be the future result if the 20th century ever got here. The baby boomers were not yet in power back then, many of those who were in the positions of financial manipulation at the time were actually born back in the 19th century. Post-Civil-War baby boomers I guess you would call the generation that set all this up. Today's older survivors have always suffered for decades from the extraction that inflation leverages, very much like what young people who can do the math are seeing now that inflation is being imposed again. The only real remedy ever is for prices to return to pre-inflation levels, but experience has shown that's never going to happen, which would be a lot to ask. If not a full return to "normalcy" then at least some reduction in prices, that hasn't happened either but it's the only hope so many have had for so many decades. It's too late now but it always has been.