4 ms·

> the program is perfectly palatable to voters. [...] The problem is that the investors who fund political campaigns and media oligarchs hate HATE HATE public h

> the program is perfectly palatable to voters. [...] The problem is that the investors who fund political campaigns and media oligarchs hate HATE HATE public housing, because it reduces the value of their property investments. I'm not sure that's largely true. I suspect that many property-owning voters are okay with the concept of public housing, but are less ken on the actuality that building public housing increases the supply of housing which reduces the value of their property. There's also the weird conservative thinking that public housing provision somehow amounts to people getting "something for nothing".

consp 3y ago
> getting "something for nothing" With renting, you never get anything. You just are allowed to live there while you pay.
pydry 3y ago
[flagged]
- ejb999 3y ago
  It is almost comical how you want to blame those evil 'conservatives' for this - I guess that makes it easy for democrats to have excuses about why they haven't solved the problem in places where they 100% control the statehouse and legislature and the purse strings. If liberals/democrats were truly in favor of public housing, then places like California would have a surplus of housing options available for everyone - or are you somehow suggesting that even though conservatives that cannot even come close to winning an election in CA, that they still somehow control all the levers of public policy?
  - pydry 3y ago
    I thought I made it clear that Democrats were just as much a part of the problem as Republicans. It's sad that American minds are so addled by their sports-team ("If you're not conservative you must be democrat!") politics that they literally can't see perceive the outside of it. You think that Democrats don't need a powerful media propaganda machine on their side? That they don't need campaign financing? That the billionaires who own them don't own property?
hellojesus 3y ago
> There's also the weird conservative thinking that public housing provision somehow amounts to people getting "something for nothing". Isn't this true though? You tax away peoples' purchasing power to give away free goods/services to a subset of the population excluding those that paid for it. Why not instead make a private company that provides free housing conditional on those living there working X hours in a factory producing widgets? So long as both parties agree, that would be a better solution as it is pareto optimal.
- aperrien 3y ago
  What happens when the company lays people off, or shuts down?
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    Then people move out or go elsewhere based on their negotiated grace period after emoloymejt termination.
- harimau777 3y ago
  Wouldn't that more or less be a company town?
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    Yes, and they have a very… mixed… history.
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      I'm not saying it's an ideal situation. But it sure as hell beats redistributory theft. Housing cannot be a public good simply because it fails the definition: nonrivalous and nonexcludable. It is by definition rivalous and excludable. Why does Joe get the free house on the beach but my free house is in the desert? Not at all fair! But what is fair? Voluntary transactions with private property.

consp 3y ago

> getting "something for nothing" With renting, you never get anything. You just are allowed to live there while you pay.

pydry 3y ago

[flagged]

ejb999 3y ago
It is almost comical how you want to blame those evil 'conservatives' for this - I guess that makes it easy for democrats to have excuses about why they haven't solved the problem in places where they 100% control the statehouse and legislature and the purse strings. If liberals/democrats were truly in favor of public housing, then places like California would have a surplus of housing options available for everyone - or are you somehow suggesting that even though conservatives that cannot even come close to winning an election in CA, that they still somehow control all the levers of public policy?
- pydry 3y ago
  I thought I made it clear that Democrats were just as much a part of the problem as Republicans. It's sad that American minds are so addled by their sports-team ("If you're not conservative you must be democrat!") politics that they literally can't see perceive the outside of it. You think that Democrats don't need a powerful media propaganda machine on their side? That they don't need campaign financing? That the billionaires who own them don't own property?

hellojesus 3y ago

> There's also the weird conservative thinking that public housing provision somehow amounts to people getting "something for nothing". Isn't this true though? You tax away peoples' purchasing power to give away free goods/services to a subset of the population excluding those that paid for it. Why not instead make a private company that provides free housing conditional on those living there working X hours in a factory producing widgets? So long as both parties agree, that would be a better solution as it is pareto optimal.

aperrien 3y ago
What happens when the company lays people off, or shuts down?
- hellojesus 3y ago
  Then people move out or go elsewhere based on their negotiated grace period after emoloymejt termination.
harimau777 3y ago
Wouldn't that more or less be a company town?
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Yes, and they have a very… mixed… history.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    I'm not saying it's an ideal situation. But it sure as hell beats redistributory theft. Housing cannot be a public good simply because it fails the definition: nonrivalous and nonexcludable. It is by definition rivalous and excludable. Why does Joe get the free house on the beach but my free house is in the desert? Not at all fair! But what is fair? Voluntary transactions with private property.