10 ms·

The issue is not supply and demand for houses - there are plenty enough to go around (though often in the wrong place). The issue is that a sizeable underclass

The issue is not supply and demand for houses - there are plenty enough to go around (though often in the wrong place). The issue is that a sizeable underclass is being created that have no wealth, not least because what wealth they did have has been funnelled to the very wealthy. For example, medical bills. For example student loans. For example zero interest rates with zero wage inflation meaning accommodation costs don't fall as a proportion of income. The solution is to address wealth inequality. This means taking wealth away from those who have amassed too much, and returning it to those who had it stolen from them.

colonelpopcorn 3y ago
Pretty sure the under class is by design. Anyone who's ever used the phrase "real job" believes in the necessary existence of an under class.
- dantheman 3y ago
  Not at all, there a jobs that are good for students and other low skill/low experience workers... you can walk in and generate value, the phrase real job as I've heard it means career where with experience the amount of value increases.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    What do you call a low experience worker, who only has access to jobs that pay insufficient to the cost of living? Underclass works fine for me. It seems like you do agree, you just either don't see that you do, or aren't honest enough to admit what the agreement means for the people who work these jobs. Their status as students or "other low skill" is irrelevant to their need to pay for food, housing, transport, healthcare etc.
    - BytesAndGears 3y ago
      It’s totally relevant because someone in their 20s might be able to live with their parents, or has multiple roommates etc. The amount of money that they need is much less than that of someone more established. It is a really interesting contrast though, that in Amsterdam where I now live (and many other parts of Europe), this divide doesn’t exist as strongly. We have a perfectly happy and healthy ~40 year old woman come to the office to tend to the plants, and she’s paid a totally fair livable wage. The guy who works at the cafeteria for the office complex supports his family in that job (and I’ve talked to him about it). Same with many other “low skill” workers that I talk to. Baristas at a cafe seem to still be mostly 20 year olds, but maybe a bit less so than in the US
      - ohyes 3y ago
        And then people wonder why none of us are having families. You’re too poor in your 20s, then you aren’t able to biologically by the time you’re in your 40s. But by then everyone in their 40s has the “I’ve got mine” mentality so nothing changes. We live in the stupidest timeline.
        shrimp_emoji 3y ago
        I don't wonder why people aren't having families because the reason is obviously that they don't want to. It's not because things are worse now than ever in human history; that's pure rationalization/delusion/cope.
        bombcar 3y ago
        People always do things "because they want to" - even if forced to do it at gunpoint (they could choose to die, of course). Things on many metrics are likely better now than any point in human history, but people's perceptions of that are way off. But it doesn't change that there are people who would like to start a family and feel they can't. Obviously they can, as the mechanics of it all hasn't changed in the last million years, but they choose not to.
        SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
- buttercraft 3y ago
  Maybe, but someone once told me that I don't have a "real job" because I sit at a desk all day. And their perception didn't change when I told them I have a standing desk.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Every job that I feel is "beneath me" is a fake job. Of course the job I do is by definition a "real job", as is any job I'd like to do. Any job that is icky and I don't want to do is also a real job, of course. Even if paid less than fake ones. (heh above is pretty accurate for most people, though they won't admit it).
api 3y ago
The issue is absolutely supply and demand for houses, otherwise housing would be affordable for more people. Housing markets are local. Their supply and demand dynamics are local. Affordable housing in Kentucky does not help people in San Francisco or Seattle unless everyone can telework. Unaffordable housing is a major contributor to inability to build wealth. In most cases it’s no high paying jobs or unaffordable housing, pick one.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  It’s not needed for everyone to be able to work remotely. A large subset of people being able to do so should make affordable housing in one location be helpful in other areas. It takes time and confidence that the remote work is widespread and durable, but it doesn’t have to be across every field.
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    even 5-10% going permanent remote could shift the housing market dramatically. doesn't have to be "moving to rural Montana" just a couple hours out of a city, and that would open up the market.
- peoplefromibiza 3y ago
  > In most cases it’s no high paying jobs or unaffordable housing, pick one isn't this another effect of inequality of wealth distribution? Suppose you live where high paying jobs are, but people getting high pays contribute proportionally and schools, medical bills, etc. are affordable, there would be a lot more families that could funnel the money saved to housing, instead of having to chose.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  Housing is unaffordable for labourers everywhere. The main reason people move into the expensive cities chasing the high paying jobs is because they cannot afford to live in the rural communities or small town they grew up in, since wages there have stayed low while cost of real estate has exploded.
throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
Most Metro areas do not have enough affordable housing. It's well established that local governments cannot build enough new affordable housing, partly because any contractor that bids goes way over the value of a private housing venture. The idea that there's enough housing but "in the wrong place" is like saying there's plenty of jobs, they're just in third world countries and Scandinavia. The idea that the solution is "play Robin Hood with the global economy" is literally a fairy tale.
- jmclnx 3y ago
  >Most Metro areas do not have enough affordable housing. Not only that, the definition of "affordable housing" is skewed. In the big metro area near me, "affordable housing" means 1500 to 2000 USD per month. That is not affordable to any normal person. To me, affordable rent should be below 1000 USD. You think this homeless crises is bad, wait 30 years and then you will see Cities with large slums like many "third" world countries have. And yes, it is the Gov. job to fix this, but the politicians wants to continue receiving their "bribes" from companies, some of which are buying up rental properties as fast as they become available. Ever see "cash for your house" ? Those properties are probably being bought up for use with AirBNB or being turned into rentals for around 3000 USD.
  - no_wizard 3y ago
    ProPublica did a whole series on one of the larger "Cash for your house" type businesses. It seems they're really trying to extract cheap homes from distressed sellers with pressure tactics[0][1][2][3] [0]: https://www.propublica.org/article/ugly-truth-behind-we-buy-ugly-houses https://www.propublica.org/article/ugly-truth-behind-we-buy-... [1]: https://www.propublica.org/article/behind-the-scenes-of-we-buy-ugly-houses-deal https://www.propublica.org/article/behind-the-scenes-of-we-b... [2]: https://www.propublica.org/article/state-federal-laws-do-little-protect-homeowners-we-buy-ugly-houses-deals https://www.propublica.org/article/state-federal-laws-do-lit... [3]: https://www.propublica.org/article/want-to-sell-home-for-cash-read-this-first https://www.propublica.org/article/want-to-sell-home-for-cas...
robertlagrant 3y ago
> The issue is not supply and demand for houses - there are plenty enough to go around (though often in the wrong place). This drives prices up, though. Not just price of homes, but, similarly to fuel, prices of almost everything. Not many people are in the correct stage of life to evenly distribute themselves across the US's geography. > For example, medical bills. For example student loans. I doubt the baby boomers have student loan debt. They existed in a time long before the current university bureaucratic infrastructure was put in place and drove up costs (and thus prices), and they were far less likely to get a degree with no job prospects. Medical bills, sure, but they have always been around. > The solution is to address wealth inequality. This means taking wealth away from those who have amassed too much, and returning it to those who had it stolen from them. You have to be aware of all the massive, country-breaking problems this approach all but guarantees. We need a system that works, not a system that doesn't work with a heavy-handed thumb on the scale. The actual obvious candidate is not punishing people who create so much value they have a load of money, because that value is worth that money, and without it we might be stuffed. The big reasons are: fuel prices, which are actually driving inflation, the post-Covid economic impact, and investing giant sums in defending Ukraine's border. You could say land and medical legislation give the worst of both worlds in those sectors, probably less efficient than public running or private markets. You might say all of those things are worth it. But it's silly to just assume we can raid piggy banks on an ongoing basis, even if you had no moral issue with it.
- esarbe 3y ago
  You're making quite a number of faulty assumptions. > Medical bills, sure, but they have always been around. Prices for medical care have increased disproportionately in the last few decades[0]. > Investing giant sums in defending Ukraine's border. It's barely 1% of your budget. It's 3% or so of your military budget. That doesn't move the needle. I mean sure; you're spending too much on the military, no doubt about that. But that doesn't have anything to do with Ukraine. > We need a system that works, not a system that doesn't work with a heavy-handed thumb on the scale. You already have that. Currently it is heavily biased in favor or the upper 10% of the population. > The actual obvious candidate is not punishing people who create so much value they have a load of money, That's assuming that people that "have a load of money" necessarily created that value. Given the current socio-economic conditions, I doubt that is usually the case. [1] [0] https://www.in2013dollars.com/Medical-care/price-inflation https://www.in2013dollars.com/Medical-care/price-inflation [1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/social-mobility-upwards-decline-usa-us-america-economics/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/social-mobility-upwar...
carlosjobim 3y ago
> The issue is that a sizeable underclass is being created that have no wealth, not least because what wealth they did have has been funneled to the very wealthy. This has happened in all of the industrialized world, and it's happening very quickly right now. The reasons you mention are very US-specific, but the funneling happens everywhere, usually by more traditional means such as rents and taxes. Yes, taxes are greatly beneficial for the rich, just scrutinize any European government budget and you'll see it is in large part a scheme to pay out money to wealthy people that are in favour with the political class. The reason for this massive wealth distribution is the inflationary monetary system, that's the common denominator in all countries experiencing it, and it's not hard to see how. In the past, serfdom was at least more honest. You knew your tax payments went to the lord for his own benefit.
- somewhereoutth 3y ago
  > The reason for this massive wealth distribution is the inflationary monetary system Inflation serves to reduce wealth (if just stuffed under the mattress), and encourages investment (to beat inflation). The real problem is that wealth begets wealth - if left to it's own devices the capitalist system will ensure wealth becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. The only way this can be counter-balanced is with government regulation (e.g. anti-monopolistic laws, wealth redistribution).
  - BirAdam 3y ago
    In the absence of government intervention, wealth is more likely to tend toward the center. The issue is that any democratic form of government featuring any kind of legislature reliant on voting will be bought. First, large companies will want small little advantages like a new road to their factory. Overtime, it becomes massive like immunity from prosecution from drugs that kill people like opioids. Over time, these companies receiving benefits become indistinguishable from the government itself and drive nearly all policy like Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed, JP Morgan, Goldman, etc. Generally, all attempts to stop this are subverted and used to the benefit of these megacorporations via riders on any such bill introduced by politicians who’re on the take. Further, the agencies tasked with enforcement of any regulation usually have people who previously worked at these companies or who hope to work at them in the future on their staff. Humans respond to incentives, and all incentives line up toward the merger of corporation and state in a democracy. I’d like to see a free market democracy that lacks corporate personhood to see if that changes the structure, but a human life isn’t long enough to really witness such a thing.
dantheman 3y ago
There are not enough houses in the right place, which is all that matters.
- coldtea 3y ago
  If those people become homeless is not just because they can't afford a higher over a lower rent, that "more houses" will fix. It's because they can't get a job, or don't have savings to retire on or to handle a health or other emergency, and can't afford neither rent nor mortgage repayments.
bigbacaloa 3y ago
[dead]
poorbutdebtfree 3y ago
[flagged]
- epiccoleman 3y ago
  Wow, this is a take on gun control I don't think I've ever seen: "Lack of gun control is preventing the state from forcibly redistributing the wealth of middle class families." (And this is bad). NRA, eat your hearts out, I guess.
  - poorbutdebtfree 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - nraf 3y ago
      [dead]
    - logicchains 3y ago
      It was actually closer to 3/10 of the adult population.
    - jpadkins 3y ago
      poe's law. I can't tell if you are trolling sarcastically or actually a progressive.
- PixyMisa 3y ago
  That's the strongest argument in favor of the Second Amendment I've ever seen.
  - poorbutdebtfree 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - DiabloD3 3y ago
helen___keller 3y ago
> (though often in the wrong place). This is the entirety of the problem. Economic opportunity is here, affordable housing is there. If you want access to the economic opportunity you have to pay the wealthy landowning class. It’s a drain on the economy that brings us all down.
pc86 3y ago
A house in Omaha doesn't help someone living in NY, so saying there are plenty of houses but they're just in the wrong place is so wildly wrong I have to think it's intentionally done just to score cheap political points.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- shoe2OtherFoot 3y ago
  [flagged]
- trident5000 3y ago
  Imagine thinking where you want to live is more important than physics.
  - kuchenbecker 3y ago
    I'm going to positively interpret your comment and respond anyway. Instead of moving away people move further into the suburbs and commute so they can arbitrage the higher pay of the urban area with the lower cost of living. We have a term for this, its called suburban sprawl. The number of jobs in low cost of living areas can't support the cities, and lack of housing leads to folks moving just far enough away to make the math work.
PixyMisa 3y ago
All the problems you mention were created by the government taking wealth away from people and giving it to others. The solution is for the government to stop doing that.
ryanmcbride 3y ago
Call me crazy but I think we should build more houses AND address wealth inequality.
naasking 3y ago
> The issue is not supply and demand for houses - there are plenty enough to go around (though often in the wrong place). So... the issue is supply and demand then, because the supply is not where the demand is.
lelanthran 3y ago
> This means taking wealth away from those who have amassed too much, and returning it Have you ever actually run the numbers to see how little each person would get if you did this? > to those who had it stolen from them. Talk about nailing your colors to the mast. Who, exactly, stole what from whom, and when did this allegedly take place?
escapedmoose 3y ago
I won’t argue with you on the developing underclass, but the numbers have shown for a while now that there is a very real housing shortage. Part of the problem here is that we’re not building to keep pace with the population.
gniv 3y ago
> This means taking wealth away from those who have amassed too much, and returning it to those who had it stolen from them. This is what inflation does, partly. Assuming of course that wages keep up.
csomar 3y ago
> This means taking wealth away from those who have amassed too much, and returning it to those who had it stolen from them. Letting the government (especially the current system of governance) do such a task is an extremely dangerous move. This will most likely result in pulling more wealth from the middle-class to the upper-class. There is no reason to believe that the government that enabled this will suddenly turned around 180 degrees. Almost always why a communist/socialist revolution results in more misery to the common man.

colonelpopcorn 3y ago

Pretty sure the under class is by design. Anyone who's ever used the phrase "real job" believes in the necessary existence of an under class.

dantheman 3y ago
Not at all, there a jobs that are good for students and other low skill/low experience workers... you can walk in and generate value, the phrase real job as I've heard it means career where with experience the amount of value increases.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  What do you call a low experience worker, who only has access to jobs that pay insufficient to the cost of living? Underclass works fine for me. It seems like you do agree, you just either don't see that you do, or aren't honest enough to admit what the agreement means for the people who work these jobs. Their status as students or "other low skill" is irrelevant to their need to pay for food, housing, transport, healthcare etc.
  - BytesAndGears 3y ago
    It’s totally relevant because someone in their 20s might be able to live with their parents, or has multiple roommates etc. The amount of money that they need is much less than that of someone more established. It is a really interesting contrast though, that in Amsterdam where I now live (and many other parts of Europe), this divide doesn’t exist as strongly. We have a perfectly happy and healthy ~40 year old woman come to the office to tend to the plants, and she’s paid a totally fair livable wage. The guy who works at the cafeteria for the office complex supports his family in that job (and I’ve talked to him about it). Same with many other “low skill” workers that I talk to. Baristas at a cafe seem to still be mostly 20 year olds, but maybe a bit less so than in the US
    - ohyes 3y ago
      And then people wonder why none of us are having families. You’re too poor in your 20s, then you aren’t able to biologically by the time you’re in your 40s. But by then everyone in their 40s has the “I’ve got mine” mentality so nothing changes. We live in the stupidest timeline.
      - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
        I don't wonder why people aren't having families because the reason is obviously that they don't want to. It's not because things are worse now than ever in human history; that's pure rationalization/delusion/cope.
        bombcar 3y ago
        People always do things "because they want to" - even if forced to do it at gunpoint (they could choose to die, of course). Things on many metrics are likely better now than any point in human history, but people's perceptions of that are way off. But it doesn't change that there are people who would like to start a family and feel they can't. Obviously they can, as the mechanics of it all hasn't changed in the last million years, but they choose not to.
        SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
buttercraft 3y ago
Maybe, but someone once told me that I don't have a "real job" because I sit at a desk all day. And their perception didn't change when I told them I have a standing desk.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Every job that I feel is "beneath me" is a fake job. Of course the job I do is by definition a "real job", as is any job I'd like to do. Any job that is icky and I don't want to do is also a real job, of course. Even if paid less than fake ones. (heh above is pretty accurate for most people, though they won't admit it).

api 3y ago

The issue is absolutely supply and demand for houses, otherwise housing would be affordable for more people. Housing markets are local. Their supply and demand dynamics are local. Affordable housing in Kentucky does not help people in San Francisco or Seattle unless everyone can telework. Unaffordable housing is a major contributor to inability to build wealth. In most cases it’s no high paying jobs or unaffordable housing, pick one.

sokoloff 3y ago
It’s not needed for everyone to be able to work remotely. A large subset of people being able to do so should make affordable housing in one location be helpful in other areas. It takes time and confidence that the remote work is widespread and durable, but it doesn’t have to be across every field.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  even 5-10% going permanent remote could shift the housing market dramatically. doesn't have to be "moving to rural Montana" just a couple hours out of a city, and that would open up the market.
peoplefromibiza 3y ago
> In most cases it’s no high paying jobs or unaffordable housing, pick one isn't this another effect of inequality of wealth distribution? Suppose you live where high paying jobs are, but people getting high pays contribute proportionally and schools, medical bills, etc. are affordable, there would be a lot more families that could funnel the money saved to housing, instead of having to chose.
carlosjobim 3y ago
Housing is unaffordable for labourers everywhere. The main reason people move into the expensive cities chasing the high paying jobs is because they cannot afford to live in the rural communities or small town they grew up in, since wages there have stayed low while cost of real estate has exploded.

throwawaaarrgh 3y ago

Most Metro areas do not have enough affordable housing. It's well established that local governments cannot build enough new affordable housing, partly because any contractor that bids goes way over the value of a private housing venture. The idea that there's enough housing but "in the wrong place" is like saying there's plenty of jobs, they're just in third world countries and Scandinavia. The idea that the solution is "play Robin Hood with the global economy" is literally a fairy tale.

jmclnx 3y ago
>Most Metro areas do not have enough affordable housing. Not only that, the definition of "affordable housing" is skewed. In the big metro area near me, "affordable housing" means 1500 to 2000 USD per month. That is not affordable to any normal person. To me, affordable rent should be below 1000 USD. You think this homeless crises is bad, wait 30 years and then you will see Cities with large slums like many "third" world countries have. And yes, it is the Gov. job to fix this, but the politicians wants to continue receiving their "bribes" from companies, some of which are buying up rental properties as fast as they become available. Ever see "cash for your house" ? Those properties are probably being bought up for use with AirBNB or being turned into rentals for around 3000 USD.
- no_wizard 3y ago
  ProPublica did a whole series on one of the larger "Cash for your house" type businesses. It seems they're really trying to extract cheap homes from distressed sellers with pressure tactics[0][1][2][3] [0]: https://www.propublica.org/article/ugly-truth-behind-we-buy-ugly-houses https://www.propublica.org/article/ugly-truth-behind-we-buy-... [1]: https://www.propublica.org/article/behind-the-scenes-of-we-buy-ugly-houses-deal https://www.propublica.org/article/behind-the-scenes-of-we-b... [2]: https://www.propublica.org/article/state-federal-laws-do-little-protect-homeowners-we-buy-ugly-houses-deals https://www.propublica.org/article/state-federal-laws-do-lit... [3]: https://www.propublica.org/article/want-to-sell-home-for-cash-read-this-first https://www.propublica.org/article/want-to-sell-home-for-cas...

robertlagrant 3y ago

> The issue is not supply and demand for houses - there are plenty enough to go around (though often in the wrong place). This drives prices up, though. Not just price of homes, but, similarly to fuel, prices of almost everything. Not many people are in the correct stage of life to evenly distribute themselves across the US's geography. > For example, medical bills. For example student loans. I doubt the baby boomers have student loan debt. They existed in a time long before the current university bureaucratic infrastructure was put in place and drove up costs (and thus prices), and they were far less likely to get a degree with no job prospects. Medical bills, sure, but they have always been around. > The solution is to address wealth inequality. This means taking wealth away from those who have amassed too much, and returning it to those who had it stolen from them. You have to be aware of all the massive, country-breaking problems this approach all but guarantees. We need a system that works, not a system that doesn't work with a heavy-handed thumb on the scale. The actual obvious candidate is not punishing people who create so much value they have a load of money, because that value is worth that money, and without it we might be stuffed. The big reasons are: fuel prices, which are actually driving inflation, the post-Covid economic impact, and investing giant sums in defending Ukraine's border. You could say land and medical legislation give the worst of both worlds in those sectors, probably less efficient than public running or private markets. You might say all of those things are worth it. But it's silly to just assume we can raid piggy banks on an ongoing basis, even if you had no moral issue with it.

esarbe 3y ago
You're making quite a number of faulty assumptions. > Medical bills, sure, but they have always been around. Prices for medical care have increased disproportionately in the last few decades[0]. > Investing giant sums in defending Ukraine's border. It's barely 1% of your budget. It's 3% or so of your military budget. That doesn't move the needle. I mean sure; you're spending too much on the military, no doubt about that. But that doesn't have anything to do with Ukraine. > We need a system that works, not a system that doesn't work with a heavy-handed thumb on the scale. You already have that. Currently it is heavily biased in favor or the upper 10% of the population. > The actual obvious candidate is not punishing people who create so much value they have a load of money, That's assuming that people that "have a load of money" necessarily created that value. Given the current socio-economic conditions, I doubt that is usually the case. [1] [0] https://www.in2013dollars.com/Medical-care/price-inflation https://www.in2013dollars.com/Medical-care/price-inflation [1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/social-mobility-upwards-decline-usa-us-america-economics/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/social-mobility-upwar...

carlosjobim 3y ago

> The issue is that a sizeable underclass is being created that have no wealth, not least because what wealth they did have has been funneled to the very wealthy. This has happened in all of the industrialized world, and it's happening very quickly right now. The reasons you mention are very US-specific, but the funneling happens everywhere, usually by more traditional means such as rents and taxes. Yes, taxes are greatly beneficial for the rich, just scrutinize any European government budget and you'll see it is in large part a scheme to pay out money to wealthy people that are in favour with the political class. The reason for this massive wealth distribution is the inflationary monetary system, that's the common denominator in all countries experiencing it, and it's not hard to see how. In the past, serfdom was at least more honest. You knew your tax payments went to the lord for his own benefit.

somewhereoutth 3y ago
> The reason for this massive wealth distribution is the inflationary monetary system Inflation serves to reduce wealth (if just stuffed under the mattress), and encourages investment (to beat inflation). The real problem is that wealth begets wealth - if left to it's own devices the capitalist system will ensure wealth becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. The only way this can be counter-balanced is with government regulation (e.g. anti-monopolistic laws, wealth redistribution).
- BirAdam 3y ago
  In the absence of government intervention, wealth is more likely to tend toward the center. The issue is that any democratic form of government featuring any kind of legislature reliant on voting will be bought. First, large companies will want small little advantages like a new road to their factory. Overtime, it becomes massive like immunity from prosecution from drugs that kill people like opioids. Over time, these companies receiving benefits become indistinguishable from the government itself and drive nearly all policy like Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed, JP Morgan, Goldman, etc. Generally, all attempts to stop this are subverted and used to the benefit of these megacorporations via riders on any such bill introduced by politicians who’re on the take. Further, the agencies tasked with enforcement of any regulation usually have people who previously worked at these companies or who hope to work at them in the future on their staff. Humans respond to incentives, and all incentives line up toward the merger of corporation and state in a democracy. I’d like to see a free market democracy that lacks corporate personhood to see if that changes the structure, but a human life isn’t long enough to really witness such a thing.

dantheman 3y ago

There are not enough houses in the right place, which is all that matters.

coldtea 3y ago
If those people become homeless is not just because they can't afford a higher over a lower rent, that "more houses" will fix. It's because they can't get a job, or don't have savings to retire on or to handle a health or other emergency, and can't afford neither rent nor mortgage repayments.

bigbacaloa 3y ago

[dead]

poorbutdebtfree 3y ago

[flagged]

epiccoleman 3y ago
Wow, this is a take on gun control I don't think I've ever seen: "Lack of gun control is preventing the state from forcibly redistributing the wealth of middle class families." (And this is bad). NRA, eat your hearts out, I guess.
- poorbutdebtfree 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - nraf 3y ago
    [dead]
  - logicchains 3y ago
    It was actually closer to 3/10 of the adult population.
  - jpadkins 3y ago
    poe's law. I can't tell if you are trolling sarcastically or actually a progressive.
PixyMisa 3y ago
That's the strongest argument in favor of the Second Amendment I've ever seen.
- poorbutdebtfree 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - DiabloD3 3y ago

helen___keller 3y ago

> (though often in the wrong place). This is the entirety of the problem. Economic opportunity is here, affordable housing is there. If you want access to the economic opportunity you have to pay the wealthy landowning class. It’s a drain on the economy that brings us all down.

pc86 3y ago

A house in Omaha doesn't help someone living in NY, so saying there are plenty of houses but they're just in the wrong place is so wildly wrong I have to think it's intentionally done just to score cheap political points.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
shoe2OtherFoot 3y ago
[flagged]
trident5000 3y ago
Imagine thinking where you want to live is more important than physics.
- kuchenbecker 3y ago
  I'm going to positively interpret your comment and respond anyway. Instead of moving away people move further into the suburbs and commute so they can arbitrage the higher pay of the urban area with the lower cost of living. We have a term for this, its called suburban sprawl. The number of jobs in low cost of living areas can't support the cities, and lack of housing leads to folks moving just far enough away to make the math work.

PixyMisa 3y ago

All the problems you mention were created by the government taking wealth away from people and giving it to others. The solution is for the government to stop doing that.

ryanmcbride 3y ago

Call me crazy but I think we should build more houses AND address wealth inequality.

naasking 3y ago

> The issue is not supply and demand for houses - there are plenty enough to go around (though often in the wrong place). So... the issue is supply and demand then, because the supply is not where the demand is.

lelanthran 3y ago

> This means taking wealth away from those who have amassed too much, and returning it Have you ever actually run the numbers to see how little each person would get if you did this? > to those who had it stolen from them. Talk about nailing your colors to the mast. Who, exactly, stole what from whom, and when did this allegedly take place?

escapedmoose 3y ago

I won’t argue with you on the developing underclass, but the numbers have shown for a while now that there is a very real housing shortage. Part of the problem here is that we’re not building to keep pace with the population.

gniv 3y ago

> This means taking wealth away from those who have amassed too much, and returning it to those who had it stolen from them. This is what inflation does, partly. Assuming of course that wages keep up.

csomar 3y ago

> This means taking wealth away from those who have amassed too much, and returning it to those who had it stolen from them. Letting the government (especially the current system of governance) do such a task is an extremely dangerous move. This will most likely result in pulling more wealth from the middle-class to the upper-class. There is no reason to believe that the government that enabled this will suddenly turned around 180 degrees. Almost always why a communist/socialist revolution results in more misery to the common man.