4 ms·

At least in the more immediate term, I think housing should be provided somewhere affordable (you might need to go 100-200 miles east realistically) But actual

At least in the more immediate term, I think housing should be provided somewhere affordable (you might need to go 100-200 miles east realistically) But actually I'll go a step further and say everyone should have access to housing. Don't make it glamorous. People will choose to work to have a nicer quality of life. Aligning the state against capital might actually result in meaningful changes. The government can increase their holdings of property and develop subsistence housing on it. Right now a big problem is also that there isn't enough housing. I think this would need to be implemented at the federal level to avoid the issues you're talking about. Also, at least at the start, people shouldn't be able to move to new cities and receive free housing. Instead they should be limited to free housing in a place nearby where they've been living, or the option to move somewhere that the federal government is able to provide an adequate housing supply. Basic housing shouldn't be seen as a 'luxury'.

inglor_cz 2y ago
"But actually I'll go a step further and say everyone should have access to housing." The hidden catch is "everywhere?". Because the most salient parameter of housing is its location. Taken globally, perhaps 100 million people would gladly move into, say, NYC or London if housing there was very affordable. Of course, they wouldn't fit there.
- pcthrowaway 2y ago
  ... you did read the rest of my comment right?
edmundsauto 2y ago
Government housing in America is traditionally known as the Projects. They tend to breed crime. We’ve done this before - what would be different this time?
- sudosysgen 2y ago
  The projects have a hard maximum income which is close to poverty. They have to breed crime because it's the only way to have a decent-ish income without being kicked out. It didn't use to be this way, it was possible to live in the projects with a middle class income, and crime was far lower then. Also, there was as a result a severe lack of funds for maintenance and operations because rents were no longer high enough to cover maintenance, which causes a downward spiral in maintenance and enforcement.

inglor_cz 2y ago

"But actually I'll go a step further and say everyone should have access to housing." The hidden catch is "everywhere?". Because the most salient parameter of housing is its location. Taken globally, perhaps 100 million people would gladly move into, say, NYC or London if housing there was very affordable. Of course, they wouldn't fit there.

pcthrowaway 2y ago
... you did read the rest of my comment right?

edmundsauto 2y ago

Government housing in America is traditionally known as the Projects. They tend to breed crime. We’ve done this before - what would be different this time?

sudosysgen 2y ago
The projects have a hard maximum income which is close to poverty. They have to breed crime because it's the only way to have a decent-ish income without being kicked out. It didn't use to be this way, it was possible to live in the projects with a middle class income, and crime was far lower then. Also, there was as a result a severe lack of funds for maintenance and operations because rents were no longer high enough to cover maintenance, which causes a downward spiral in maintenance and enforcement.