3 ms·

> Should the government subsidize "below market rate" luxury cars too? People have families and lives built around geographic locations, not cars. I'm not sayi

> Should the government subsidize "below market rate" luxury cars too? People have families and lives built around geographic locations, not cars. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't subsidize housing (I lean libertarian personally), but it's disingenuous to suggest this is like the car market. What's at stake for many people is a foundational part of their lives.

epicureanideal 13y ago
They can build families and lives somewhere else if they can't afford to live here, right? Do people have a fundamental right to raise a family in San Francisco rather than Omaha or Austin? Are other places so horrible that we should use taxpayer money to ensure that the largest number of people possible can live in SF? And we should make it easier for the moderately low income to live here rather than people with higher income because ... why? Because people who work in technology don't deserve to raise their families here? Because despite education and hard work we really should make the ability to raise a family in a great area a random selection? I actually think the car analogy is useful. Not subsidizing housing in San Francisco does not deny people the ability to start families. They can still start them in many other fine places that they can afford. Not driving a BMW or Tesla doesn't deny people the ability to get to work. A Honda or Toyota does that just as well. NOTE: "Affordable housing" does not apply exclusively to people who have lived in the area for N years previously as far as I know, and even if it did I don't see why that would be fair. If you rent, you rent. When your lease is up, if the price goes up, that's how rent works. Also, there are already rent control policies that would serve this purpose.
- TheEzEzz 13y ago
  You can decide to build a family anyway. It's harder to move a family, especially an extended family.
- sophacles 13y ago
  It doesn't apply so well. It's not just about the kids you raise. It's about the fact that people's parents and grandparents and uncles and cousins live nearby. It's about friendships built over years. It's about community. What you're saying is this: Fuck those people - they don't deserve community nor the benefits of it they worked for, because they can't afford the prices you are willing to pay to kick them out (despite most of them being decent citizens with jobs and everything). It's kinda messed up. Not saying I have a solution, just pointing out a real problem.
  - epicureanideal 13y ago
    So the ability to live in San Francisco should become an inherited right? Or at least being first in line for housing? Oh, I see, your parents lived here Mr. X, so even though Mr. Y is offering more money, I'll cast that newcomer aside. He isn't one of "us", who belong here.
    - sophacles 13y ago
      Getting a little hostile aren't you? I actually flat out said I don't have a solution, so whatever the heck you are reacting to your own insecurity at something. I merely pointed out that what you propose has problems. And that your attitude is simply: anyone who can't afford it deserves to not have their lives considered. Honestly, you are saying that the only consideration people should have for one another is net worth and that interpersonal relationships are of no value, yet you are angry that your lack of those same things could be used to keep you from spending your money (suggesting value). This is a pretty strange. I do think that perhaps some consideration besides "number of dollars" should be taken in situations like this, because I don't really think a group of people should be able to so fundamentally fuck over another group because they can afford to. But those are my ethics - I value respecting people on more than money.

epicureanideal 13y ago

They can build families and lives somewhere else if they can't afford to live here, right? Do people have a fundamental right to raise a family in San Francisco rather than Omaha or Austin? Are other places so horrible that we should use taxpayer money to ensure that the largest number of people possible can live in SF? And we should make it easier for the moderately low income to live here rather than people with higher income because ... why? Because people who work in technology don't deserve to raise their families here? Because despite education and hard work we really should make the ability to raise a family in a great area a random selection? I actually think the car analogy is useful. Not subsidizing housing in San Francisco does not deny people the ability to start families. They can still start them in many other fine places that they can afford. Not driving a BMW or Tesla doesn't deny people the ability to get to work. A Honda or Toyota does that just as well. NOTE: "Affordable housing" does not apply exclusively to people who have lived in the area for N years previously as far as I know, and even if it did I don't see why that would be fair. If you rent, you rent. When your lease is up, if the price goes up, that's how rent works. Also, there are already rent control policies that would serve this purpose.

TheEzEzz 13y ago
You can decide to build a family anyway. It's harder to move a family, especially an extended family.
sophacles 13y ago
It doesn't apply so well. It's not just about the kids you raise. It's about the fact that people's parents and grandparents and uncles and cousins live nearby. It's about friendships built over years. It's about community. What you're saying is this: Fuck those people - they don't deserve community nor the benefits of it they worked for, because they can't afford the prices you are willing to pay to kick them out (despite most of them being decent citizens with jobs and everything). It's kinda messed up. Not saying I have a solution, just pointing out a real problem.
- epicureanideal 13y ago
  So the ability to live in San Francisco should become an inherited right? Or at least being first in line for housing? Oh, I see, your parents lived here Mr. X, so even though Mr. Y is offering more money, I'll cast that newcomer aside. He isn't one of "us", who belong here.
  - sophacles 13y ago
    Getting a little hostile aren't you? I actually flat out said I don't have a solution, so whatever the heck you are reacting to your own insecurity at something. I merely pointed out that what you propose has problems. And that your attitude is simply: anyone who can't afford it deserves to not have their lives considered. Honestly, you are saying that the only consideration people should have for one another is net worth and that interpersonal relationships are of no value, yet you are angry that your lack of those same things could be used to keep you from spending your money (suggesting value). This is a pretty strange. I do think that perhaps some consideration besides "number of dollars" should be taken in situations like this, because I don't really think a group of people should be able to so fundamentally fuck over another group because they can afford to. But those are my ethics - I value respecting people on more than money.