5 ms·

This is the standard conservative "big government" and "young people today don't want to work" rant. > The problem is government regulation. In some places, it

This is the standard conservative "big government" and "young people today don't want to work" rant. > The problem is government regulation. In some places, it's almost impossible to build new houses due to regulations. Regulation yes, but it's not the lack of building; we're building like crazy all over North America. Many new homes are "lost" and become second or third homes for the wealthy or airbnb rentals. Regulations are not building for high capacity, preferring to sprawl and build monster homes that house few, wealthier people. Regulations are preferring condos to low income rentals. > I think we have a situation where part of the population is literally voting to appropriate wealth from another part of the population. Yep, but unintentionally. Governments are cutting taxes on the wealthy while transferring remaining tax money to their investments in the form of corporate welfare. > Voting for more immigration which drives up demand for houses and voting for more regulations which constrain the supply of housing. One of the parties in the US and a couple in Canada are literally running on "Immigration is bad" platforms. People aren't voting for immigration, they are getting immigration despite how they are voting. > t the same time, those people who do not own a house are wising up to the scheme and so they increasingly refuse to work or provide value to society. Instead, they resort to financial schemes, illegal activity, freeloading government benefits; they've checked out from the system. Ah yes, the welfare queen rant. People aren't "refusing to work", many are sick (physically and/or mentally) and/or homeless and can't take on jobs, not because they are lazy but because no one hires someone who smells like they haven't showered in a month. Companies are the ones resorting to financial schemes and illegal activity; wage theft and union busting is big business. Companies are freeloading FAR more than sick people. People have "checked out from the system" because the system has abandoned them. When homes are $1M or more, there is no point working a second or harder job in order to afford a home, for many people owning a home is now forever out of reach. > It seems that we are headed for an economic and political disaster. We are and the biggest part of the problem is people who have fallen for the "it's big government and poor people who are robbing you blind" story.

fnimick 3y ago
Agreed. We're in this mess because of unregulated capitalism, but sure, removing even more regulations will definitely solve it! (for the people who are fortunate enough to "have a venture" goes unsaid - the rest will be left poor, and they deserve it, for they weren't good / useful enough) There is absolutely an argument to be made here about regulatory capture with respect to zoning laws, parking minimums, etc making building dense housing impossible. The parent comment started fine and then devolved into typical libertarian drivel about how if we just remove ALL regulations to business, this will definitely get resolved.
- Ensorceled 3y ago
  It's so disheartening. I have a lot of family who are suffering and they are all blaming the school unions and welfare recipients for all their problems.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > We're in this mess because of unregulated capitalism, but sure, removing even more regulations will definitely solve it! How can there be regulations to remove if it's unregulated? There are hundreds of thousands of regulations.
  - fnimick 3y ago
    Insufficiently regulated, then. The parent comment looks at regulations on home building (zoning, etc) that are harmful, and extrapolates from that that all regulations are harmful and that the root cause of inequality is regulation preventing poor people from starting venture businesses. Because everyone knows that the startup world is definitely not inequitable at all, where some people walk away with hundreds of millions and others lose everything.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > Insufficiently regulated, then. I don't think this is necessarily the case either. In the cases where there are harmful regulations, the answer isn't "more regulations". You might well say "incorrectly regulated", and put the blame where it belongs: on the people writing the regulations.
- gcanyon 3y ago
  > We're in this mess because of unregulated capitalism, but sure, removing even more regulations will definitely solve it! I'm not arguing that removing regulations will solve it, but it is possible to have an island of misery in the middle of two more pleasant extremes. Meaning that both more and less regulation would make the problem better, just in different ways. To your point, you can't simply ridicule the solution you don't like and call that an argument.
api 3y ago
> Regulations are not building for high capacity, preferring to sprawl and build monster homes that house few, wealthier people. So you’re saying regulations are blocking new home construction. Got it. What you describe is exactly what people mean when they say you “can’t build housing.” In reality you kind of can but only a few homes and only at the very high end. You can only build at the high end because of density limits and zoning and also because complicated regulations and battles with NIMBYs increase costs. When the cost to build is high only big luxury homes can be profitable. Lower margin per unit affordable homes and apartments can’t be funded.
- Ensorceled 3y ago
  > > Regulations are not building for high capacity, preferring to sprawl and build monster homes that house few, wealthier people. > So you’re saying regulations are blocking new home construction. Got it. Oh come on, new home construction is doing just fine ... but the homes are 5600 sq ft, $2+ million and 30-40 minute drive from city centre. And it's not regulation requiring it, developers prefer to build condos and monster homes because the ROI is much higher. Regulation is allowing it. > What you describe is exactly what people mean when they say you “can’t build housing.” In reality you kind of can but only a few homes and only at the very high end. New housing starts in the US[1] have climbed steadily for the past 10 years until inflation and interest rates in 2022 caused it to drop. What you are saying is not happening. Maybe some housing development you wanted to happen got blocked, but we ARE building new housing and when we do stop ... it's not regulation that stopped it. [1] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/housing-starts https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/housing-starts
  - fnimick 3y ago
    Actually I will disagree, regulations are very much blocking development of the type of housing that is needed, at least in my experience. Whenever a dense block of housing is proposed, people abuse zoning regulations here to shut it down. They add on tons of extra costs (mandatory parking etc) and then complain about how much the houses cost. Go look at your city and see if it's actually legal to build a new mid rise apartment in the city center. I'm guessing, if it's anything like every city I've ever lived in, it's not.
carlosjobim 3y ago
> People have "checked out from the system" because the system has abandoned them. When homes are $1M or more, there is no point working a second or harder job in order to afford a home, for many people owning a home is now forever out of reach. In the past decade I've seen a ton of young labourers who just do seasonal work and then spend the rest of the year backpacking or living in a cheap country Asia. These are talented and very hard workers, but they have little chance to make a life for themselves in the country they grew up in. They will loose money if they stay and work the whole year, because of the cost of living, and the progressive taxes, not to mention that all-year employment is usually the 9-5 with no overtime. Better to make a quick buck working hard in the season and then go travel and have a much higher quality of life for much less expenses. You'd be dumb not to do it. The people who have a chance of owning a home are either those whose parents help them financially or those who manage to get a government or corporate full time job that the bankman likes. The rest are completely screwed, and have been for decades.
volkl48 3y ago
> we're building like crazy all over North America. No, we really haven't been. It doesn't seem to be well appreciated just how deeply housing construction collapsed at the end of the 2000's and has only recently returned to something approximating the long-term averages. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST However, there's a still a whole lot of deficit from the decade of underproduction to make up for in that sense. As you sort of get at - housing production "where the jobs are" has been far shakier. Many of the metro areas that did the best with job creation in the previous decade were among the worst with housing creation. SV, Boston, NYC, etc.
metabagel 3y ago
I think you misunderstood. I think the comment you are responding to is about NIMBY-ism.
- Ensorceled 3y ago
  It's about 15 different things, including NIMBY-ism.
Lord-Jobo 3y ago
>Ah yes, the welfare queen rant. People aren't "refusing to work", many are sick (physically and/or mentally) and/or homeless and can't take on jobs, not because they are lazy but because no one hires someone who smells like they haven't showered in a month. Companies are the ones resorting to financial schemes and illegal activity; wage theft and union busting is big business. Companies are freeloading FAR more than sick people. I really need to emphasis an aspect of this for anyone else reading: Wage theft is larger (in dollars) than the next biggest type of theft (robberies) by around 300%.(https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-2021/ https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-2021/) Its not even close. Corporations are literally the biggest thieves in America by a tremendous margin.

fnimick 3y ago

Agreed. We're in this mess because of unregulated capitalism, but sure, removing even more regulations will definitely solve it! (for the people who are fortunate enough to "have a venture" goes unsaid - the rest will be left poor, and they deserve it, for they weren't good / useful enough) There is absolutely an argument to be made here about regulatory capture with respect to zoning laws, parking minimums, etc making building dense housing impossible. The parent comment started fine and then devolved into typical libertarian drivel about how if we just remove ALL regulations to business, this will definitely get resolved.

Ensorceled 3y ago
It's so disheartening. I have a lot of family who are suffering and they are all blaming the school unions and welfare recipients for all their problems.
robertlagrant 3y ago
> We're in this mess because of unregulated capitalism, but sure, removing even more regulations will definitely solve it! How can there be regulations to remove if it's unregulated? There are hundreds of thousands of regulations.
- fnimick 3y ago
  Insufficiently regulated, then. The parent comment looks at regulations on home building (zoning, etc) that are harmful, and extrapolates from that that all regulations are harmful and that the root cause of inequality is regulation preventing poor people from starting venture businesses. Because everyone knows that the startup world is definitely not inequitable at all, where some people walk away with hundreds of millions and others lose everything.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Insufficiently regulated, then. I don't think this is necessarily the case either. In the cases where there are harmful regulations, the answer isn't "more regulations". You might well say "incorrectly regulated", and put the blame where it belongs: on the people writing the regulations.
gcanyon 3y ago
> We're in this mess because of unregulated capitalism, but sure, removing even more regulations will definitely solve it! I'm not arguing that removing regulations will solve it, but it is possible to have an island of misery in the middle of two more pleasant extremes. Meaning that both more and less regulation would make the problem better, just in different ways. To your point, you can't simply ridicule the solution you don't like and call that an argument.

api 3y ago

> Regulations are not building for high capacity, preferring to sprawl and build monster homes that house few, wealthier people. So you’re saying regulations are blocking new home construction. Got it. What you describe is exactly what people mean when they say you “can’t build housing.” In reality you kind of can but only a few homes and only at the very high end. You can only build at the high end because of density limits and zoning and also because complicated regulations and battles with NIMBYs increase costs. When the cost to build is high only big luxury homes can be profitable. Lower margin per unit affordable homes and apartments can’t be funded.

Ensorceled 3y ago
> > Regulations are not building for high capacity, preferring to sprawl and build monster homes that house few, wealthier people. > So you’re saying regulations are blocking new home construction. Got it. Oh come on, new home construction is doing just fine ... but the homes are 5600 sq ft, $2+ million and 30-40 minute drive from city centre. And it's not regulation requiring it, developers prefer to build condos and monster homes because the ROI is much higher. Regulation is allowing it. > What you describe is exactly what people mean when they say you “can’t build housing.” In reality you kind of can but only a few homes and only at the very high end. New housing starts in the US[1] have climbed steadily for the past 10 years until inflation and interest rates in 2022 caused it to drop. What you are saying is not happening. Maybe some housing development you wanted to happen got blocked, but we ARE building new housing and when we do stop ... it's not regulation that stopped it. [1] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/housing-starts https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/housing-starts
- fnimick 3y ago
  Actually I will disagree, regulations are very much blocking development of the type of housing that is needed, at least in my experience. Whenever a dense block of housing is proposed, people abuse zoning regulations here to shut it down. They add on tons of extra costs (mandatory parking etc) and then complain about how much the houses cost. Go look at your city and see if it's actually legal to build a new mid rise apartment in the city center. I'm guessing, if it's anything like every city I've ever lived in, it's not.

carlosjobim 3y ago

> People have "checked out from the system" because the system has abandoned them. When homes are $1M or more, there is no point working a second or harder job in order to afford a home, for many people owning a home is now forever out of reach. In the past decade I've seen a ton of young labourers who just do seasonal work and then spend the rest of the year backpacking or living in a cheap country Asia. These are talented and very hard workers, but they have little chance to make a life for themselves in the country they grew up in. They will loose money if they stay and work the whole year, because of the cost of living, and the progressive taxes, not to mention that all-year employment is usually the 9-5 with no overtime. Better to make a quick buck working hard in the season and then go travel and have a much higher quality of life for much less expenses. You'd be dumb not to do it. The people who have a chance of owning a home are either those whose parents help them financially or those who manage to get a government or corporate full time job that the bankman likes. The rest are completely screwed, and have been for decades.

volkl48 3y ago

> we're building like crazy all over North America. No, we really haven't been. It doesn't seem to be well appreciated just how deeply housing construction collapsed at the end of the 2000's and has only recently returned to something approximating the long-term averages. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST However, there's a still a whole lot of deficit from the decade of underproduction to make up for in that sense. As you sort of get at - housing production "where the jobs are" has been far shakier. Many of the metro areas that did the best with job creation in the previous decade were among the worst with housing creation. SV, Boston, NYC, etc.

metabagel 3y ago

I think you misunderstood. I think the comment you are responding to is about NIMBY-ism.

Ensorceled 3y ago
It's about 15 different things, including NIMBY-ism.

Lord-Jobo 3y ago

>Ah yes, the welfare queen rant. People aren't "refusing to work", many are sick (physically and/or mentally) and/or homeless and can't take on jobs, not because they are lazy but because no one hires someone who smells like they haven't showered in a month. Companies are the ones resorting to financial schemes and illegal activity; wage theft and union busting is big business. Companies are freeloading FAR more than sick people. I really need to emphasis an aspect of this for anyone else reading: Wage theft is larger (in dollars) than the next biggest type of theft (robberies) by around 300%.(https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-2021/ https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-2021/) Its not even close. Corporations are literally the biggest thieves in America by a tremendous margin.