4 ms·

That only makes sense if there is a positive externality from housing. Is there?

by rayiner 8mo ago

ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
Of course, many. To be sure, are you asking if society does better when its people are homed vs. homeless? Because that seems like a question with an obviously-yes answer.
- rayiner 8mo ago
  The concept of externality has a specific definition and you’re not addressing housing in those terms.
  - ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
    I'm not sure "externality" means what you think it means. Society being better off in many ways (more productive society, happier society, less crime-ridden society) is an example of multiple positive externalities resulting from its people being homed vs. homeless.
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
donkeybeer 8mo ago
Why shouldn't housing, like any other goods, be as cheap as possible for as high quality as possible?
- pembrook 8mo ago
  Because "cheap" government housing has never been "high quality" in the history of the world. Those two properties are antithetical. Humans don't have a ton of preferences for the electricity they consume or the water they drink, just that it exists. It's a commodity, so a good task for government. Housing is not an undifferentiated commodity and is subject to extreme variances in preference. Markets do differentiation and preference matching infinitely better. Hence why Government housing always takes the form of a utilitarian blight on the community with giant towers of tiny apartments with tiny windows...doesn't matter if its communist Russia or the richest capitalist city on earth (NYC), all government housing results in the same outcome. Assuming someone will chime in with some "halo" government housing project in the nordics that represents like 0.01% of the government stock there but socialists will use as propaganda. However, it's important to remember these are not cherry picked examples, they are median examples: [1] NYC government housing: https://www.brickunderground.com/sites/default/files/styles/new_blog_entry_primary_image_sm/public/2024-07/iStock-172225335.jpg https://www.brickunderground.com/sites/default/files/styles/... [2] Russian government housing: https://i.redd.it/twz37r739xse1.jpeg https://i.redd.it/twz37r739xse1.jpeg
  - donkeybeer 8mo ago
    Not just government made housing but any housing. Housing market needs don't seem to have as much wide fragmentation as eg most of the Western world seems quite happy with suburb style housing and most asia seems content with apartment though aspiring to owning houses. I am saying just like any other capitalist endeavour, where things that barely existed or were quite expensive many years ago eventually reached a point where both the price became so low and quality so good that it became a mindlesss thing eg sawblades. And housing for whatever reason has been an extremely anticapitalist market. Even if we take the exact same houses people want today, their execution seems far from optimized. Think of something like precutting all the timber and sheets at a factory and doing some light adjustment and fitting on site, developing new materials that are cheaper or easier to work with tools, etc there are countless angles of attack. In optics for example, it was mostly this rather bespoke work by a few artisans and people back then might have said this needs a fine touch that can't be done on mass scale. And then Carl Zeiss emerged. I feel housing is in the pre Carl Zeiss era. EDIT: Neither example looks bad to me. The russian looks denser but both look clean and well organized. It doesn't at all look like blight to me, any more than a grid of houses in a suburb does. It's clean and geometric just like rows of houses in suburbs. If you like one but have a problem with another, I think you are trying to get offended deliberately.
  - estearum 8mo ago
    Pretty sure France and Singapore both have quite successful and high quality public housing projects.
    - pembrook 8mo ago
      France has similar issues as the US housing projects from the 70s (creating ghettos), these are not places that people choose to live. And yes, all governments put up halo projects that you see in the press that do not represent the average, please link me to them claiming I'm wrong, and I will say yes, this halo project designed by a famous architecture firm does look nice! Now show me the median late-1970s constructed French public apartment. Singapore is different because they eliminated the "cheap" part. Singaporean HDB flats are expensive, have extremely long wait times (you're stuck for life when one comes up), while still being super tiny. Fertility rates are 0.87 there (replacement rate is 2.1). The domestic population is literally disappearing itself. I'm sure highly regulated tiny housing stock and development policy has no influence on family size though...
- rayiner 8mo ago
  Do you think that’s what government produced goods gets you? If so, shouldn’t the government make everything?
  - donkeybeer 8mo ago
    I was saying in general, privately or government built housing, not that government in particular should be making housing. I meant that housing market seems to be highly anticapitalist in many ways valuing the opposite of what a good should be.
malfist 8mo ago
Yeah, there's no positive benefit to making sure people have housing. That's why every day when I walk home from work, I have to think really hard about if I'm going to go home today, or just hang out under the overpass and panhandle.

That only makes sense if there is a positive externality from housing. Is there?

by rayiner 8mo ago

That only makes sense if there is a positive externality from housing. Is there?

Of course, many. To be sure, are you asking if society does better when its people are homed vs. homeless? Because that seems like a question with an obviously-yes answer.

rayiner 8mo ago
The concept of externality has a specific definition and you’re not addressing housing in those terms.
- ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
  I'm not sure "externality" means what you think it means. Society being better off in many ways (more productive society, happier society, less crime-ridden society) is an example of multiple positive externalities resulting from its people being homed vs. homeless.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]

donkeybeer 8mo ago

Why shouldn't housing, like any other goods, be as cheap as possible for as high quality as possible?

pembrook 8mo ago
Because "cheap" government housing has never been "high quality" in the history of the world. Those two properties are antithetical. Humans don't have a ton of preferences for the electricity they consume or the water they drink, just that it exists. It's a commodity, so a good task for government. Housing is not an undifferentiated commodity and is subject to extreme variances in preference. Markets do differentiation and preference matching infinitely better. Hence why Government housing always takes the form of a utilitarian blight on the community with giant towers of tiny apartments with tiny windows...doesn't matter if its communist Russia or the richest capitalist city on earth (NYC), all government housing results in the same outcome. Assuming someone will chime in with some "halo" government housing project in the nordics that represents like 0.01% of the government stock there but socialists will use as propaganda. However, it's important to remember these are not cherry picked examples, they are median examples: [1] NYC government housing: https://www.brickunderground.com/sites/default/files/styles/new_blog_entry_primary_image_sm/public/2024-07/iStock-172225335.jpg https://www.brickunderground.com/sites/default/files/styles/... [2] Russian government housing: https://i.redd.it/twz37r739xse1.jpeg https://i.redd.it/twz37r739xse1.jpeg
- donkeybeer 8mo ago
  Not just government made housing but any housing. Housing market needs don't seem to have as much wide fragmentation as eg most of the Western world seems quite happy with suburb style housing and most asia seems content with apartment though aspiring to owning houses. I am saying just like any other capitalist endeavour, where things that barely existed or were quite expensive many years ago eventually reached a point where both the price became so low and quality so good that it became a mindlesss thing eg sawblades. And housing for whatever reason has been an extremely anticapitalist market. Even if we take the exact same houses people want today, their execution seems far from optimized. Think of something like precutting all the timber and sheets at a factory and doing some light adjustment and fitting on site, developing new materials that are cheaper or easier to work with tools, etc there are countless angles of attack. In optics for example, it was mostly this rather bespoke work by a few artisans and people back then might have said this needs a fine touch that can't be done on mass scale. And then Carl Zeiss emerged. I feel housing is in the pre Carl Zeiss era. EDIT: Neither example looks bad to me. The russian looks denser but both look clean and well organized. It doesn't at all look like blight to me, any more than a grid of houses in a suburb does. It's clean and geometric just like rows of houses in suburbs. If you like one but have a problem with another, I think you are trying to get offended deliberately.
- estearum 8mo ago
  Pretty sure France and Singapore both have quite successful and high quality public housing projects.
  - pembrook 8mo ago
    France has similar issues as the US housing projects from the 70s (creating ghettos), these are not places that people choose to live. And yes, all governments put up halo projects that you see in the press that do not represent the average, please link me to them claiming I'm wrong, and I will say yes, this halo project designed by a famous architecture firm does look nice! Now show me the median late-1970s constructed French public apartment. Singapore is different because they eliminated the "cheap" part. Singaporean HDB flats are expensive, have extremely long wait times (you're stuck for life when one comes up), while still being super tiny. Fertility rates are 0.87 there (replacement rate is 2.1). The domestic population is literally disappearing itself. I'm sure highly regulated tiny housing stock and development policy has no influence on family size though...
rayiner 8mo ago
Do you think that’s what government produced goods gets you? If so, shouldn’t the government make everything?
- donkeybeer 8mo ago
  I was saying in general, privately or government built housing, not that government in particular should be making housing. I meant that housing market seems to be highly anticapitalist in many ways valuing the opposite of what a good should be.

malfist 8mo ago

Yeah, there's no positive benefit to making sure people have housing. That's why every day when I walk home from work, I have to think really hard about if I'm going to go home today, or just hang out under the overpass and panhandle.