4 ms·

What do you propose to do instead of providing affordable rental housing? I can't imagine it'd be practical to provide free housing after all. I guess I'm just

by rifung 12y ago

What do you propose to do instead of providing affordable rental housing? I can't imagine it'd be practical to provide free housing after all. I guess I'm just a little confused because you definitely sound like you have a strong opinion on the matter and disagree with what other people think should be done but don't really get into specifics about what you think should be done. It sounds like right now we have a safety social net for poor people, but you don't think that's a good idea. Does this mean that you think we need a safety social net for people who aren't poor as well? But if they aren't poor why would they need one? Perhaps I'm "part of the problem" so do enlighten me. Also, at least based off your situation, it seems like what we really need isn't just affordable housing but treatment for those with mental illness. Despite the fact that I actually have health insurance I'm still hesitant to get treatment because it's so expensive.

slazaro 12y ago
> Does this mean that you think we need a safety social net for people who aren't poor as well? But if they aren't poor why would they need one? From what I've understood from threads like this, I think the idea is that social services designed for people in need should not try to prove that the person requesting actually needs it. It creates friction, and it's a waste of resources (money, people, time), and some people that need the service might not get it because the system fucks up every now and then. If you'd open it up to whoever asked for it, people in need would naturally request it and get it, and people that don't wouldn't. If someone abused the system (and this is the big assumption IMO), the amount lost would probably be lower than what would have been spent trying to enforce requirements. So you'd solve the false negatives and would also spend less, and the system would be simpler. Of course, I don't know much about this, this is what I've gathered from reading around.
- Mz 12y ago
  From years of study and first-hand experience, defining "need" based on something other than income is far more effective in helping people attain and keep a middle class lifestyle. Requiring people to first be able to meet a definition of poverty helps encourage people to fail and actively creates barriers to escaping poverty. So, for example: Affordable, good quality health care for all. Price breaks on public transit passes for people who are handicapped (this actually exists and I think is a good example of something helpful). Functioning public transit systems that give people options other than owning a car for how to get around. An abundance of affordable, decent housing -- where "affordable" is not a code word for slum housing but honestly just means the price is not out of reach of average folks with ordinary jobs. Lack of affordable housing is such a problem in some places that police, teachers and so on often cannot afford to live in the communities they serve. These are not people who are incompetent and looking for a handout, yet some communities have to set up special programs to help them buy a house or live reasonably close to work because our housing policies are so horribly broken. Maternity leave and other policies that help women get and keep jobs and pursue real careers. I read a lot about this in my twenties. In America, women pursued the American historical position of "Don't tread on me!" and took the position that "I can too do the job if you just get the fuck out of my way." The result is that women who are without a man and without children make about 98% of what men make who have similar education and experience. But the minute you introduce a man or a child into the picture, American women make more like 2/3s what men make -- the same figure cited in the bible as what women were worth compared to men 2000-ish years ago. In contrast, European women have pushed for help in carrying the burden of bearing and raising kids and the result has been substantially more gains in terms of closing the wage gap and overall lower divorce rates. The things you are suggesting are problematic because it actively disincentivizes working. I am not for just free handouts for poor people. I am for fixing the system so it stops actively creating problems and pushing folks off a cliff and then blaming them when their life falls apart and they can't figure out how to get it back together.
  - slazaro 12y ago
    What are your thoughts on basic income?
    - Mz 12y ago
      I strongly suspect it is a recipe for disaster and have written about that here: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/09/nightmare-fuel-world-of-nothing-but.html http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/09/nightmare-fu...
Mz 12y ago
I am not suggesting free housing for anyone. In the 1950s, the average new house was under 1200 square feet. It was bought by a family that either had kids or was going to have kids. The average family had 2-3 kids. It had basics, like a functioning kitchen and heat in the winter. By 2000, the average new home was over 2000 square feet. The average family had one child. It had all kinds of amenities, like a microwave and multiple bathrooms. You seem to think, as many people do, that "poor people" are a separate class of people, distinct from everyone else. I was middle class most of my life. I am not mentally ill. I am physically ill. Most people on the street do have some sort of mental health or medical issue or disability. The fact that the American health care system is such a mess is definitely part of the problem. The last time I looked at stats on the issue, more than half of all bankruptcies involved high medical bills. This held true even in cases where they had good insurance. So fixing our health care system would help. But also removing some of the tax incentives that give tax breaks to folks who can already afford a house in a way that actively encourages them to buy the largest house they can afford, with the most amenities, would help. We need to stop dividing up the housing market between housing for rich folks and slum housing. There used to be middle class housing. That is essentially disappearing. The other thing we need is more walkable communities and better public transit. America is arranged such that most people basically need a car in order to have a job at all. I gave up my car while still working for a Fortune 500 company and although it was about a 7-10 minute drive to work, it was an hour long walk and you basically "couldn't get there from here" via public transit -- or, more accurately, it would have taken me longer to use public transit than to walk there. All of the incentive programs at work trying to encourage people to carpool and what not were heavily biased towards an assumption of everyone having a car and driving everywhere and largely worthless for someone like me. I eventually stopped trying to participate in any of them. People who drive everywhere have very biased and inaccurate concepts about how getting around works if your life is not car-centered. If America worked better, there would be fewer poor people. Fucking people over and then forcing them to become "charity cases" (please note that is a contemptuous term, not one of caring) is an actively harmful, disrespectful model and blames the victims of larger processes that are largely beyond their control. You seem unable to view this as a societal issue that negatively impacts specific individuals. Your comment makes it clear that you view "poor people" as simply incompetents who need charity, not folks who need a system that makes it easier to make their lives work while still exercising agency.

by rifung 12y ago

slazaro 12y ago

> Does this mean that you think we need a safety social net for people who aren't poor as well? But if they aren't poor why would they need one? From what I've understood from threads like this, I think the idea is that social services designed for people in need should not try to prove that the person requesting actually needs it. It creates friction, and it's a waste of resources (money, people, time), and some people that need the service might not get it because the system fucks up every now and then. If you'd open it up to whoever asked for it, people in need would naturally request it and get it, and people that don't wouldn't. If someone abused the system (and this is the big assumption IMO), the amount lost would probably be lower than what would have been spent trying to enforce requirements. So you'd solve the false negatives and would also spend less, and the system would be simpler. Of course, I don't know much about this, this is what I've gathered from reading around.

Mz 12y ago
From years of study and first-hand experience, defining "need" based on something other than income is far more effective in helping people attain and keep a middle class lifestyle. Requiring people to first be able to meet a definition of poverty helps encourage people to fail and actively creates barriers to escaping poverty. So, for example: Affordable, good quality health care for all. Price breaks on public transit passes for people who are handicapped (this actually exists and I think is a good example of something helpful). Functioning public transit systems that give people options other than owning a car for how to get around. An abundance of affordable, decent housing -- where "affordable" is not a code word for slum housing but honestly just means the price is not out of reach of average folks with ordinary jobs. Lack of affordable housing is such a problem in some places that police, teachers and so on often cannot afford to live in the communities they serve. These are not people who are incompetent and looking for a handout, yet some communities have to set up special programs to help them buy a house or live reasonably close to work because our housing policies are so horribly broken. Maternity leave and other policies that help women get and keep jobs and pursue real careers. I read a lot about this in my twenties. In America, women pursued the American historical position of "Don't tread on me!" and took the position that "I can too do the job if you just get the fuck out of my way." The result is that women who are without a man and without children make about 98% of what men make who have similar education and experience. But the minute you introduce a man or a child into the picture, American women make more like 2/3s what men make -- the same figure cited in the bible as what women were worth compared to men 2000-ish years ago. In contrast, European women have pushed for help in carrying the burden of bearing and raising kids and the result has been substantially more gains in terms of closing the wage gap and overall lower divorce rates. The things you are suggesting are problematic because it actively disincentivizes working. I am not for just free handouts for poor people. I am for fixing the system so it stops actively creating problems and pushing folks off a cliff and then blaming them when their life falls apart and they can't figure out how to get it back together.
- slazaro 12y ago
  What are your thoughts on basic income?
  - Mz 12y ago
    I strongly suspect it is a recipe for disaster and have written about that here: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/09/nightmare-fuel-world-of-nothing-but.html http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/09/nightmare-fu...

Mz 12y ago

I am not suggesting free housing for anyone. In the 1950s, the average new house was under 1200 square feet. It was bought by a family that either had kids or was going to have kids. The average family had 2-3 kids. It had basics, like a functioning kitchen and heat in the winter. By 2000, the average new home was over 2000 square feet. The average family had one child. It had all kinds of amenities, like a microwave and multiple bathrooms. You seem to think, as many people do, that "poor people" are a separate class of people, distinct from everyone else. I was middle class most of my life. I am not mentally ill. I am physically ill. Most people on the street do have some sort of mental health or medical issue or disability. The fact that the American health care system is such a mess is definitely part of the problem. The last time I looked at stats on the issue, more than half of all bankruptcies involved high medical bills. This held true even in cases where they had good insurance. So fixing our health care system would help. But also removing some of the tax incentives that give tax breaks to folks who can already afford a house in a way that actively encourages them to buy the largest house they can afford, with the most amenities, would help. We need to stop dividing up the housing market between housing for rich folks and slum housing. There used to be middle class housing. That is essentially disappearing. The other thing we need is more walkable communities and better public transit. America is arranged such that most people basically need a car in order to have a job at all. I gave up my car while still working for a Fortune 500 company and although it was about a 7-10 minute drive to work, it was an hour long walk and you basically "couldn't get there from here" via public transit -- or, more accurately, it would have taken me longer to use public transit than to walk there. All of the incentive programs at work trying to encourage people to carpool and what not were heavily biased towards an assumption of everyone having a car and driving everywhere and largely worthless for someone like me. I eventually stopped trying to participate in any of them. People who drive everywhere have very biased and inaccurate concepts about how getting around works if your life is not car-centered. If America worked better, there would be fewer poor people. Fucking people over and then forcing them to become "charity cases" (please note that is a contemptuous term, not one of caring) is an actively harmful, disrespectful model and blames the victims of larger processes that are largely beyond their control. You seem unable to view this as a societal issue that negatively impacts specific individuals. Your comment makes it clear that you view "poor people" as simply incompetents who need charity, not folks who need a system that makes it easier to make their lives work while still exercising agency.