5 ms·
Sure, so long as the balance involves not housing people which is pretty sick and twisted
by throwaway27448 8mo ago
Sure, so long as the balance involves not housing people which is pretty sick and twisted
- rayiner 8mo agoI don’t understand your sentence. What’s the subject of the verb “housing.”
- mijowi 8mo agoThe subject is “people”. Parent is suggesting that the equilibrium point of housing supply and demand naturally leaves some people unhoused.
- ekkeke 8mo agoThat is the object of the sentence. He is asking who the subject is, in other words the thing or person that is doing the housing of the people. Is it the government? Is it you? I'm currently responsible for housing myself, which is annoying so I would prefer someone else take on this responsibility.
- Retric 8mo agoWhich isn’t quite accurate as for example people prefer to move out of their parent’s homes while young adults but aren’t necessarily homeless if they don’t. Basic housing is a necessity, but people also huge homes and 2nd homes etc. So housing policy should therefore be more complicated than simply subsidizing anything you can call housing. Capping the home mortgage tax deduction at ~median home prices for example is probably a better use of government funds.
- pinkmuffinere 8mo agoI think the subject is perhaps an implied "you", "us", or "society". Here's how I read it: Sure, so long as involves (you / us / society) not housing people which is pretty sick and twisted
- pinkmuffinere 8mo agoI never claimed the balance will occur at a point that I like. This is just math, it’s not a political stance. If you want more homes, go build homes.
- estearum 8mo agoThen your point is meaningless. I (GP) was also pointing out the same equilibrium mechanic. The specific point I was making is that all evidence points to the equilibrium (in the US and elsewhere) being at a point that does not make housing easily attainable, and so becomes a political liability. "Go build homes [beyond equilibrium]" is not a solution