5 ms·

They tried this in the communist countries when they were still around. Sure, people had affordable housing and didn't have to worry about homelessness, but at

They tried this in the communist countries when they were still around. Sure, people had affordable housing and didn't have to worry about homelessness, but at what cost? That's not a rhetorical question.

VonGuard 2y ago
Uhm, at the cost of some tax dollars. It's still like this in Cuba. people still beg, BUT they have a home to go to at the end of the day. I don't think this is a particularly bad thing. Would you rather our tax dollars are spent on missiles and tanks for other places.
- kcplate 2y ago
  I work with and am friends with many Cuban immigrants and former Soviet bloc country immigrants. I think I’ll ask them if they would trade the freedom and security they have now for the guarantee against homelessness they had then (and all that other stuff). Pretty sure none will be willing to trade back and would view any attempts at establishing public housing for all as a scary step in the wrong direction.
  - theragra 2y ago
    This approach won't get you realistic data. Immigrants are immigrants for a reason. I'm living in the exUSSR. Plenty of older people are nostalgic about security they had back then. Food, housing, healthcare and even job were mostly handled for them. Most of the people prefer that to the extreme freedom and self-reliance. When we talk about balance of these things, though, Scandinavian countries seem to be pretty popular. I myself don't think socialist model will work without AGI, but maybe some hybrid model will do.
    - kcplate 2y ago
      It was more a figurative comment, I am not going to actually ask anyone anything. But it is my sense from past conversations that none of these friends and acquaintances would be willing to trade back. I also think it’s reasonable to conclude that the people who stayed vs the people who left might have different opinions over those governments too. The man who is willing to risk floating 90 miles across shark infested seas in a makeshift raft might have a different perspective of security and personal risk then someone who just kept their head down and suffered silently…or was content in their station.
  - harimau777 2y ago
    Luckily, no one is proposing that they trade the freedom and security that they have now.
    - kcplate 2y ago
      My comment was a response to the parent comment “It's still like this in Cuba. people still beg, BUT they have a home to go to at the end of the day. I don't think this is a particularly bad thing” My point was it is a bad thing because people would likely not be willing to trade back to that for housing security. They had housing security and still left.
harimau777 2y ago
It's also the way things work in Singapore; a decidedly not communist country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore
- glial 2y ago
  Same in Vienna: https://www.marketplace.org/2021/05/03/in-vienna-public-housing-is-affordable-and-desirable/ https://www.marketplace.org/2021/05/03/in-vienna-public-hous...
VyseofArcadia 2y ago
Are you attempting to imply that you can only build public housing in communist countries?
- wesselbindt 2y ago
  That's what rhetorical questions are for. This one isn't one of those. I'm genuinely asking about a real life situation where this was tried, and asking about the costs. I genuinely don't know, I never lived in those countries, and my education was in a very anticommunist country, so that doesn't help me much.
lucidguppy 2y ago
I don't think free markets in land constrained areas is possible for real estate.
hobs 2y ago
https://www.vox.com/2014/5/30/5764096/homeless-shelter-housing-help-solutions https://www.vox.com/2014/5/30/5764096/homeless-shelter-housi... Generally the research I have seen says that its cheaper to build houses/house folks than deal with the negative side effects of not doing that. That seems like a net win when you don't just consider the cost of doing it, but the cost of not doing it.
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
Affordable housing and quality housing are not mutually exclusive though, even though from a capitalist point of view they have to be.
master-lincoln 2y ago
They also tried this in the US before it went full neoliberal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing#United_States But > Initially, public housing was intended to be built widespread, and as such be mixed-income, but lobbyists who did not want to see public housing decrease their housing values blocked such housing from going up >With the introduction of suburbs and expansion of choices for the white working class, the demographics of public housing changed from more class and racially integrated to predominantly impoverished, single-parent, welfare, and people of color[30]. This led to stigmatization of public housing, through pushing the narrative that people living in public housing were "Welfare Queens", or otherwise living in a state of abject poverty and terrible conditions[30]. These demographic changes also decreased support for housing, leading to the government cutting funding for the program
- ElFitz 2y ago
  And also massively implemented in the UK, with "council homes". An initiative that was thoroughly gutted in the 80s, which might have contributed to the current housing shortage.
beeboobaa3 2y ago
> but at what cost? That's not a rhetorical question. Well? Go on? At what cost?
- wesselbindt 2y ago
  I didn't ask the question to answer it myself. I don't know the answer. That's why I'm asking.

VonGuard 2y ago

Uhm, at the cost of some tax dollars. It's still like this in Cuba. people still beg, BUT they have a home to go to at the end of the day. I don't think this is a particularly bad thing. Would you rather our tax dollars are spent on missiles and tanks for other places.

kcplate 2y ago
I work with and am friends with many Cuban immigrants and former Soviet bloc country immigrants. I think I’ll ask them if they would trade the freedom and security they have now for the guarantee against homelessness they had then (and all that other stuff). Pretty sure none will be willing to trade back and would view any attempts at establishing public housing for all as a scary step in the wrong direction.
- theragra 2y ago
  This approach won't get you realistic data. Immigrants are immigrants for a reason. I'm living in the exUSSR. Plenty of older people are nostalgic about security they had back then. Food, housing, healthcare and even job were mostly handled for them. Most of the people prefer that to the extreme freedom and self-reliance. When we talk about balance of these things, though, Scandinavian countries seem to be pretty popular. I myself don't think socialist model will work without AGI, but maybe some hybrid model will do.
  - kcplate 2y ago
    It was more a figurative comment, I am not going to actually ask anyone anything. But it is my sense from past conversations that none of these friends and acquaintances would be willing to trade back. I also think it’s reasonable to conclude that the people who stayed vs the people who left might have different opinions over those governments too. The man who is willing to risk floating 90 miles across shark infested seas in a makeshift raft might have a different perspective of security and personal risk then someone who just kept their head down and suffered silently…or was content in their station.
- harimau777 2y ago
  Luckily, no one is proposing that they trade the freedom and security that they have now.
  - kcplate 2y ago
    My comment was a response to the parent comment “It's still like this in Cuba. people still beg, BUT they have a home to go to at the end of the day. I don't think this is a particularly bad thing” My point was it is a bad thing because people would likely not be willing to trade back to that for housing security. They had housing security and still left.

harimau777 2y ago

It's also the way things work in Singapore; a decidedly not communist country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore

glial 2y ago
Same in Vienna: https://www.marketplace.org/2021/05/03/in-vienna-public-housing-is-affordable-and-desirable/ https://www.marketplace.org/2021/05/03/in-vienna-public-hous...

VyseofArcadia 2y ago

Are you attempting to imply that you can only build public housing in communist countries?

wesselbindt 2y ago
That's what rhetorical questions are for. This one isn't one of those. I'm genuinely asking about a real life situation where this was tried, and asking about the costs. I genuinely don't know, I never lived in those countries, and my education was in a very anticommunist country, so that doesn't help me much.

lucidguppy 2y ago

I don't think free markets in land constrained areas is possible for real estate.

hobs 2y ago

https://www.vox.com/2014/5/30/5764096/homeless-shelter-housing-help-solutions https://www.vox.com/2014/5/30/5764096/homeless-shelter-housi... Generally the research I have seen says that its cheaper to build houses/house folks than deal with the negative side effects of not doing that. That seems like a net win when you don't just consider the cost of doing it, but the cost of not doing it.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago

Affordable housing and quality housing are not mutually exclusive though, even though from a capitalist point of view they have to be.

master-lincoln 2y ago

They also tried this in the US before it went full neoliberal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing#United_States But > Initially, public housing was intended to be built widespread, and as such be mixed-income, but lobbyists who did not want to see public housing decrease their housing values blocked such housing from going up >With the introduction of suburbs and expansion of choices for the white working class, the demographics of public housing changed from more class and racially integrated to predominantly impoverished, single-parent, welfare, and people of color[30]. This led to stigmatization of public housing, through pushing the narrative that people living in public housing were "Welfare Queens", or otherwise living in a state of abject poverty and terrible conditions[30]. These demographic changes also decreased support for housing, leading to the government cutting funding for the program

ElFitz 2y ago
And also massively implemented in the UK, with "council homes". An initiative that was thoroughly gutted in the 80s, which might have contributed to the current housing shortage.

beeboobaa3 2y ago

> but at what cost? That's not a rhetorical question. Well? Go on? At what cost?

wesselbindt 2y ago
I didn't ask the question to answer it myself. I don't know the answer. That's why I'm asking.