I know I was kidding but we do live in a country where a man makes the median amazon salary every 9 seconds. One where massive corporations get all sorts of subsidies and advantages.
I’d say maybe we just really suck at policies in general.
Of course we do. It’s because most policies suck and government is not good at achieving good outcomes. People do that, but not if policy makes good outcomes impossible to achieve.
I agree. But we also are in a society where the top 10% of households control 97% of capital income. And we spend close to a trillion on defense if this estimation (below) is correct. Numerous other examples.
It’s simply a matter of priorities. I don’t believe this is a big priority in America. The vast majority of people are only mad because they see it.
https://www.thenation.com/article/tom-dispatch-america-defense-budget-bigger-than-you-think/
Also I’m not sure what the right thing to do is. I’m not sure of the proper solution if I knew what the right thing to do was.
I just know we easily have the resources to do essentially whatever we determine is the right thing here if we wanted.
1 Like
Of course not. This is evident in the polices where we see the the worst outcomes happening. Our government schooling of the people who live in government housing is not producing good outcomes in large populations of people. Our government policies in places like California are creating the conditions for typhus, in addition to the effects I’ve described above.
Don’t mistake me for an anarchist here. I agree inequality is a concern, especially when government policy makes it so. I’m less concerned with someone becoming very rich, provided they did so by a series of mutual agreements not backed by threat of force somehow. Before Nelson Rockefeller the country had no oil wealth. Nobody did. He pioneered an industry, seeded an economic revolution and got a lot of people to agree to buy his product. I’m sure he did some shady stuff, but I’d also bet that much of the shady stuff wouldn’t be possible without the benefit of government policy. I don’t really know the details on that. I know that he generated an incalculable (to me) amount of economic activity that has benefited everyone since, including you and I. I think he also founded some universities and hospitals and other great works as well.
You’re talking about dividing up the pie differently using force. It’s an old argument and not one with a particularly good track record of lifting populations out of poverty.
I’m talking about letting the pie grow. Making more pies. Making the pie as good and affordable as possible, so more people will get their piece of pie. It’s also an old argument, but one with an unquestionably good track record of lifting populations out of poverty.
2 Likes
The base pricing of real estate on the west coast makes absolute property prices a higher target to hit. I’m not sure how else to phrase it.
There’s enough housing for everyone given the land and space they could build. It’s just that many who want said housing cannot afford it, nor are areas fond of housing them for subsidization.
What policy change are you suggesting that would stimulate production to a level that America has never seen before.
That’s what you’re suggesting, after all. The required level of increased supply to bring prices down are staggering, and you’re still fighting the locals every step of the way. They have no incentive to do so.
I’d imagine nobody would respond well. But I thought ignoring the wishes of the local taxpayers was given in these discussions.
Can you reliably set up a long term camp, if it cannot last longer than 6-7 months? How do you see that working, for people with no means to transport more than very basic belongings.
Nah. They’re nowhere near the stop and frisk level of NYC. You need pretty heavy authoritarianism to wrangle that many societal outcasts.
Do you have any inkling as to what that would cost? I certainly don’t, but would be interested in a number.
At what point do we acknowledge that forcing the locals to pay for housing, that will have the added effect of costing them more money on the back end, is the same ‘using force’ as your example?
I’m totally down for forcing the locals to eat shit on their property value, fwiw. But I also fully acknowledge it would be a govt policy, instituted by force against the wishes of the locals.
I have to get going, but this cuts to the heart of it. The presence of a government policy is what is preventing more housing. Period. The locals are using the power of government to limit the freedom of other people to do what they please with their private property.
If the freedom existed to develop your own private property, people would begin doing it on a staggering scale that has never been seen before in California. The demand is there from people who both want a place to live AND want more affordable places to live than where they are at now.
Would it be a big investment for those willing to do it? Absolutely. Would that stop it from happening? Of course not. The demand is there, perhaps more than it ever has been.
Don’t think it’s possible? Let’s go back the the question you passed over. Manhattan. 1876. Look at that photo. Imagine they had EXACTLY THE SAME policies California has now in places like the Mission District or Malibu or Beverly Hills or take your pick.
They didn’t, so look at the next photograph and the explosion of development in just 55 years. Do you think a few people managed to lift themselves out of poverty during that flurry of development? Or do you think they would have been better of deciding that their little slice of heaven is perfect as it was in 1876?
Actually I wasn’t talking about that at all but if we’re going to give it to me I’ll use your example even if I think the pie thing has been done too death by politicians.
I’m saying we are already dividing up the pie. The trillion dollar defense spending article. Numerous other examples. Wouldn’t you agree defense spending is dividing the pie up by force? Welfare? Medicare? I don’t like the force part but I’m not interested in that debate.
I’m merely saying if it was a priority we would solve it. We’d use the pie to fix it. Maybe that would be less pieces somewhere else. But we have plenty of pie to take care of it. We already have numerous examples of picking and choosing what parts of the pie people get. I’m not even saying this what we should do. Like I said you made that position for me.
I’m saying our system works where the people with by far the largest pieces of the pie have the power to influence the pie makers to make sure that their pie continues to grow at a rate much faster than anyone else. You’re saying hopefully more pie is made because their portion grows so fast some of it will definitely fall off their chin and then the rest can snatch it.
I also think it’s strange to have a thread essentially about people in poverty and then talk about our good track record. Well it obviously ain’t that good if we’re here discussing this.
1 Like
The obvious problem is lack of housing. You can train and skill and clean up as many people as you want, if they got no place to go it doesn’t matter. I don’t know about Portland be California has a ton of unoccupied land.
But you said it yourself, affordable housing got shot down. I am pretty sure it was to preserve property values, not a strain on resources. The vast homeless population should be murdering resources far more than housing using normal resources.
I bet my house in California would be $2M given its size and the amount of property it sits on and its nothing special.
The programs aren’t working.
Like I said in an earlier post, there 500 veterans on the street with vouchers in hand and can’t get a place to live. That’s a disgrace.
If history has any say so, if unchecked soon, the rich will move and the poor will flood the gates.
If anything, a report by a rag like The Nation should be taken with a given grain of salt … I’d research it with the CBO myself … it’s probably a lot more accurate and less of a spin … of course I’d take that with a bit less of a grain of salt but it’s probably more accurate and robust
Yes there is. Those 500 veterans with free housing vouchers would be in a house if there was a house to live in.
It the same thing all the time. These elitists don’t want the muck around them so they build walls to keep them out, mean while they pay lip service while phoning it in from their private jets.
It’s the old ‘its ok for you, but not for me’. Let the builders in. Theyed hace 200 new neighborhoods ready in 6 months.
@pat Fix your quote! I never said such a thing!
Sorry man! I took a quote you were quoting
1 Like
Fair enough. True statement. California does, after all, have the largest pie in the country to slice up, and our collective pie is quite large indeed.
How?
Take care of it how? How will additional government policies and additional government spending achieve the outcomes you wish for?
I believe it is highly pertinent to examine the phenomena by which people increase their standard of living. Up to and including the construction of new housing. Think of the number of people that would benefit simply doing the work to build the housing California needs, let alone the people who will benefit when they move into it.
As I said above, almost any outcome we actually experience is bad when you compare it to Utopia, where no pain, suffering or problems are present. As it stands free markets and the actions people take within those markets are responsible for lifting nearly everyone out of poverty that isn’t in poverty today. Government certainly plays a role in that via smart and (in my opinion) limited-in-scope policy, chiefly centered around dispute resolution, criminal code enforcement, protection from foreign invasion and basic public services like…
Sanitation.
I think a good case can be made for other services like infrastructure and even education, but let’s keep the scope pertinent.
I don’t know about you, but in my decades of working for myself (including a stint as a consultant for the State of Maine) and as part of someone else’s business, I’ve never had anyone from the government come to help our private business out. Exceptions exist for the time they hired me to do an impossible task, the times they’ve been a customer of a business I’ve worked at and their contributions to infrastructure and the above-mentioned basic security and dispute resolution functions.
Otherwise, we’ve arranged for our own suppliers, who are also collections of private individuals. We’ve sold to our own customers, who have also been mostly private individuals. Thanks to all taxpayers for those government contracts, btw. I’ve never been paid so much for achieving so little. And not for lack of effort, but lack of conditions for meaningful achievement to even be possible.
Meanwhile during the bulk of my career, we’ve machined our own parts. We’ve unloaded our own trucks. We’ve hired our own contractors to make building improvements, which were possible because no policy stopped us from doing it. We’ve assembled our own finished products and arranged for delivery with other individuals on mutually-agreed-upon terms. We’ve made the decision to acquire new property and move to locations that better suited our needs. We’ve done our own forecasting, planning and supply chain management functions. Etc. Etc.
Meanwhile we’ve all been paid, able to spend our money as we see fit. We’ve supplied goods and services that are in-demand because they are needed, along with creating our own demand for goods and services we depend on others to supply. It seems silly to explain how basic economic activity generates good outcomes, but you seem to have this belief in the ability of government to generate outcomes that are somehow on par with those of people who go out and participated in the economy.
I find it very pertinent to note that the conditions for this level of participation must be present, otherwise you have economic activity that doesn’t take place. Like economically-viable housing units that can be built in places like California, but aren’t. Nobody’s making money off of work that isn’t being done.
I wonder, how can the outcomes you seek to produce ever be possible by dividing up the pie differently? How is more policy the answer to problems that seem to be caused by policy in the first place? I’m hoping you can explain.
Except that’s not what causes it. Corporate housing has ZERO incentive to produce living spaces in CA at Green New Deal level cost speed in order to tank the value of the very units they’re building. That’s just not how the real world works. Anywhere.
The insane demand and local wages are what inflate the property values 90%. Govt being the remaining 10% at most. It’s not some magic wand by which the Dems sit down and prices plummet. Demand keeps prices high, not the govt.
Do you know what there’s not supply of? The level of corporate funding that’s so large, it would make recouping your investment 10x harder due to intentionally tanking property values for the greater good.
Like I keep saying, I’m on board. But the people with the money to make that happen sure as hell aren’t. They didn’t get that way being stupid as fuck.
Did that time period have MASSIVE pushback from the local community? Literally the people having it forced on them saying no? Genuinely asking, I’m not well read on it.
Which isn’t a housing shortage. Do you think those vouchers can be cashed in for a 1M+ residence?
Pretty much.
I guess if you can force the property owners to sell, then force the banks to lend at a rate that ruins their own investment (subsidization probably required), you’ll see prices start to decline after 5 or so years, finally gaining traction 15-20 in.
I’m down. I’m no fan of CA. Just can’t say I’d want that shit happening in my neighborhood. I’d sure as hell vote against it in my backyard.
I said I don’t know.
I don’t know. And I don’t know what would.
I merely said we had the resources to do essentially anything with the problem. And then I said it’s definitely not a high priority. Build them all a house, throw them all in jail, provide rehab, etc. I’m just saying it doesn’t seem like a priority. And it may be cynical but I don’t think people on the whole care about the people. They just don’t want to see them.
I don’t believe I’ve even presented outcomes? I feel like positions I’m not taking are being created. I don’t believe I said free markets are bad or that government is perfect but it seems like you’re acting like I have. I apologize if I’m reading you wrong. Not my intention.
Really? REALLY? You don’t think LACK OF SUPPLY factors into sky-high prices?
You think that’s how economic decisions are made? You don’t think anyone would have any incentive at all to develop real estate? You had better get in your time machine and go back to Manhattan in 1876 to warn them.
You don’t believe it would be economically feasible to buy up a Hollywood mansion, tear it all down and construct a 50 unit condominium in it’s place? Sure the rent would be high compared to a condo in Nebraska, but it doesn’t need to match that to be viable. It just needs to compete against other available housing in that area.
Might that drop the value of other people’s private property? Yes, it would. But that’s the free market at work, doing the good work it usually does. Those values were artificially-created by government policy that prevents people from developing private property. Increase supply to bring prices down and within reach of more people. There is no other mechanism.
You could have gotten a billion dollars for the iphone in your pocket if you could time travel with it to only 50 years ago. Nobody had anything like it. Today they are within reach of nearly everyone.
Why do you think that is?
Why do you say this? If I’m a private individual in possession of property I’m free to develop, don’t you think someone would find it in their interests to do so? Sure, some might like their quaint Malibu mansion, let them keep it. Don’t stop their neighbors from building an apartment building though.
Who makes that happen? Who votes on policy? Is it only the haves, or do the people not have mechanisms to influence policy?
You get what you vote for. California voted for the polices it has, in some shape or form.
They can build. Clearly there is a demand for sub $1M dollar homes. And there is plenty of space in southern Cali.
I think the simple truth is that movie stars and directors want their exclusivity and will keep it at any cost, even human cost.
It really is a solvable problem. And while government isn’t the solution they sure are getting in the way.
Would you like your bubonic plague with a side of horseradish sauce.
I think it absolutely does. I don’t think the level of supply shift you need to see massive price drops comes without govt intervention. This industry doesn’t have any incentive to intentionally tank prices and values. Not with massive pushback from the locals added on.
Do you think the real estate levels developed at such a rate as to DECREASE prices? I was under the impression it was one of the most expensive places on the planet to exist.
Seriously?
Sure. It would probably only take 2-3 years to get that going. Imagine helping those 200 people.
Or did you mean 3000 of those happening at the same time?
I don’t think time travel supply and demand rules apply to housing. Happy to sell you a bridge though
Do you possess the millions upon millions required to pull that off? Or, like 99% of all building constructions, will you seek funding from the private sector?
I think there’s a bigger thing here. You clearly know where to access GND level funding. Please share.
Well, if we listen to our resident GOP members, they’ll do whatever the media tells them to.
Agreed
Why do you think the development didn’t happen pre ‘these recent laws’ at a level required to tank values. Demand has been high for 30 years. World just doesn’t work that way. Values go up in mortgage until something crashes. Welcome to the world?
Now we’re getting to some juicy meat. Please, explain.
What industry do you speak of?
I can think of many industries with tremendous incentive to embark on the mass-scale construction that would take place in California, if not for government policies preventing it from happening. The holders of private property who seek development. The construction industry. The food industry. The local You-Name-It service provider industry.
Imagine all of the extra spending that would take place if even 10 percent more of the household budget could be made available through more viable housing options. What would happen in a place like California, which is basically America’s best spot, if housing costs came more in line with most of the rest of the country?
No. I am contending that the real estate values have increased because of zoning laws that people implement to prevent their neighbors from doing what they want to do with their private property. The demand continues to grow, but the supply stays fixed.
There’s no shortage of demand for people who want to live in these conditions under this type of policy. Again, I’m no expert on west coast local and state politics, but these type of policies seem to be fairly well-entrenched.
Fine. If that’s what the people vote for, so be it.
I imagine many more than that in many places all across California and beyond, but that will never be possible unless development is allowed.
Nope, but many investors do and there will be no shortage of capital for developing California real estate, if policies allowed it to be possible.
Such as?