4 ms·

> The fact that providing people with housing is even seen as an "industry" > It is essential to living a decent life. What troublesome phrasing. "Provide" im

by Alupis 2y ago

> The fact that providing people with housing is even seen as an "industry" > It is essential to living a decent life. What troublesome phrasing. "Provide" implies people should get housing for free, and "decent" implies getting "decent" housing for free... Well, so who is actually paying for it then? Magical handwavy "government" money? Everyone knows where government money comes from, right? Right? Do we want more printed money and uncontrollable inflation? No? Oh so we should just steal this money from people who worked hard, because some others didn't? > It should not be a driver of lining the pockets of people who are already rich. Ah yes, the ol' "rich people bad" whipping horse. Despite the tens of millions of jobs created by "rich people" and the millions and millions of people who live in actually decent housing in exchange for market rates. The fact that some people actually truly believe "free government housing" is going to be "decent" is absolutely tragic. Yes, let's doom millions to the "projects" because it makes us feel better knowing those darn rich people aren't making money! If anyone wants a porthole view into what government housing looks like - take a look at the plethora of stories and pictures from our military barracks, across all branches. Mold, bugs, broken appliances, holes in walls, locks that don't work... and nobody cares despite the very vocal, highly visible complaints. There's a reason our service men and women scramble to off-base housing the moment they are allowed.

switch007 2y ago
I'll totally accept you're speaking just in the context of the USA but... > The fact that some people actually truly believe "free government housing" is going to be "decent" is absolutely tragic Council houses are fairly highly regarded in the UK (i.e. the property, in terms of space, light, build quality. The estates/tenants, not so much...). They also have a track record of maintaining them far better than private/social landlords - I can personally attest to that. It is the large homebuilder companies that build truly awful, "tragic" homes, cutting every single possible corner imaginable for an extra penny of profit.
- Alupis 2y ago
  Wikipedia indicates most of these Council Homes were built in the early 1900's - and are not modern construction. An additional average of a around 100 homes total were built per year from the 40's through 1980. So these don't appear to be helping a significant portion of the population. Wikipedia also indicates in the 1970's the UK government dramatically and suddenly cut back on funding for these homes (among other things), which led to some very poor living conditions. Your quality of life being dependent on the whims of politicians and budgets outside-your-control seems awful...
  - switch007 2y ago
    I note you don't link to your sources. You need better sources and/or better research skills. 100 per year is way off. Have you confused 100 with 100,000? I think even that is low Yes the Conservatives stopped building council homes, mostly through neoliberal ideology that the government shouldn't provide housing. The private market houses are far worse quality
    - chgs 2y ago
      The number of new council house starts dropped in the 70s, before thatcher. The trend continued into the 80s but blaming thatcher and neoliberalism is simplistic at best. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/datasets/ukhousebuildingpermanentdwellingsstartedandcompleted https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/... Table 2A, housing starts by FY. 1970 185k. 110k in 1978/79 before thatcher’s landslide. By 1980 (so before the 1980 housing act came in) down to 58k. The starts are what’s important as those are the ones impacted by new legislation and policy.
      - switch007 2y ago
        From your source, this is the number dwellings "Completed - Local Authorities" from 1979 to 1997: 89,630 (1979) 88,540 68,330 40,080 39,170 37,580 30,410 25,380 21,820 21,450 19,350 17,870 11,230 5,700 3,360 2,880 3,440 1,740 1,550 (1997) You're going to claim the Conservatives of that era didn't stop building council houses? Compare with the 18 year period before Thatcher: 119,350 (1961) 132,070 126,240 156,830 167,300 179,170 202,860 190,670 182,380 179,280 157,380 122,360 104,570 124,140 152,470 153,750 145,070 113,660 (1978) > By 1980 (so before the 1980 housing act came in) down to 58k. I don't recognise this 58k. What is the exact cell of that number?

by Alupis 2y ago

switch007 2y ago

I'll totally accept you're speaking just in the context of the USA but... > The fact that some people actually truly believe "free government housing" is going to be "decent" is absolutely tragic Council houses are fairly highly regarded in the UK (i.e. the property, in terms of space, light, build quality. The estates/tenants, not so much...). They also have a track record of maintaining them far better than private/social landlords - I can personally attest to that. It is the large homebuilder companies that build truly awful, "tragic" homes, cutting every single possible corner imaginable for an extra penny of profit.

Alupis 2y ago
Wikipedia indicates most of these Council Homes were built in the early 1900's - and are not modern construction. An additional average of a around 100 homes total were built per year from the 40's through 1980. So these don't appear to be helping a significant portion of the population. Wikipedia also indicates in the 1970's the UK government dramatically and suddenly cut back on funding for these homes (among other things), which led to some very poor living conditions. Your quality of life being dependent on the whims of politicians and budgets outside-your-control seems awful...
- switch007 2y ago
  I note you don't link to your sources. You need better sources and/or better research skills. 100 per year is way off. Have you confused 100 with 100,000? I think even that is low Yes the Conservatives stopped building council homes, mostly through neoliberal ideology that the government shouldn't provide housing. The private market houses are far worse quality
  - chgs 2y ago
    The number of new council house starts dropped in the 70s, before thatcher. The trend continued into the 80s but blaming thatcher and neoliberalism is simplistic at best. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/datasets/ukhousebuildingpermanentdwellingsstartedandcompleted https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/... Table 2A, housing starts by FY. 1970 185k. 110k in 1978/79 before thatcher’s landslide. By 1980 (so before the 1980 housing act came in) down to 58k. The starts are what’s important as those are the ones impacted by new legislation and policy.
    - switch007 2y ago
      From your source, this is the number dwellings "Completed - Local Authorities" from 1979 to 1997: 89,630 (1979) 88,540 68,330 40,080 39,170 37,580 30,410 25,380 21,820 21,450 19,350 17,870 11,230 5,700 3,360 2,880 3,440 1,740 1,550 (1997) You're going to claim the Conservatives of that era didn't stop building council houses? Compare with the 18 year period before Thatcher: 119,350 (1961) 132,070 126,240 156,830 167,300 179,170 202,860 190,670 182,380 179,280 157,380 122,360 104,570 124,140 152,470 153,750 145,070 113,660 (1978) > By 1980 (so before the 1980 housing act came in) down to 58k. I don't recognise this 58k. What is the exact cell of that number?