There's not a single US state where a minimum wage worker can afford a 2-bedroom rental

[Shad]

Exactly my point, and that's exactly what we need to fix the problem.

I am cautious when it comes to government mandates especially when government is part of the problem. Government controls city planning and zoning. Passing the buck along to real estate ignores this issue. Why are employers responsible for the failures of government? Why is real estate responsible for government failures?

I don't see why it is a problem for so many people. There's more than enough to go around for everyone, so there's no particular reason why some people have to hoard so much. Only the hoarders and the misers are the ones who complain about it, and they're the ones who are the problem.

See above. There is a difference between creating low cost housing and mandating low rent after the fact. The former is fine with me. The later is theft by government edict.

Not the minimum wage workers, since they're not asking for much. It's those who demand more than what they're worth or what they deserve who are the problem.

Bottom line is: If people who work at burger-flipping jobs aren't worth that much, then neither is anyone else really "worth it."

I said the job isn't worth the pay people want to see.

What is the value of a person flipping burgers say compared to a doctor? If you want to get into the idea of everyone has a value and is "worth" something that is.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, Mighty Mouse was worried about the same thing, but I assured him that such a thing was an impossibility. Even if someone offered me such power, I'd probably turn it down, if only because I know I'd be assassinated in less than a week.

"Group punishment" is a term which should only be applied to groups based upon immutable conditions and/or something they had no choice in being a part of. If they choose to be part of a certain industry or business, then that's their choice. If they happen to suffer for picking a bad business to get involved in (and they would only suffer financially, not physically), then that's pretty much their choice, isn't it?

Reagan imposed a law which allowed the government to confiscate someone's money and property if they even suspected that they were dealing drugs. I believe that law is still in effect today. All I'm proposing is the same thing, except directed at a different type of business.

Rent controls are not unprecedented so I don't see how they can be considered unconstitutional.



Maybe so, although I know of a property right now, on the corner of a major intersection, right across from the main campus of the community college, less than a mile from the university, close to downtown, and less than a mile from I-10. It's been a vacant lot for years, probably decades - but I can't remember the last time anything was ever built on it. It's in a prime location, and no takers. There's also another property at the same intersection which is catty-corner to it. Another vacant lot. It's also been vacant for years.

I can't believe that nobody wants it. I drive by there all the time.

Elsewhere around the city, I see other vacant lots, boarded up buildings, empty warehouses - and they've been that way for a very long time with signs in front saying "Available." There have been restaurants which have gone out of business, only because the rent was too high. It wasn't because of taxes (as many cons and libertarians would have us believe), nor was it due to not having enough customers. It was all because of the rent being too high.

Rent is actually kind of like a tax, at least in terms of its effect. Some economic theories suggest that lowering taxes can actually stimulate the economy by people having more money to spend. I would say the same principle would apply to rent. Lowering rents could also stimulate the economy because people (and businesses) would have more money to spend - less overhead.



What about taxation? Who should I leave that to?

It's easy to be certain of notions about things which one hasn't investigated.
But it always looks different with real world experience. There are complexities
to be discovered & coped with.

The theme of punishing people based upon group membership without regard
to individual circumstance comes up regularly in oppressive governments.
Tis dismaying that you advocate this.

 

[suncowiam]

Minimum wage workers can't afford a modest 2-bedroom home anywhere in the country, report says - CNN





Here's my solution to the problem: Rent controls. All rents should be immediately reduced to 10% of what they are now. That way, everyone would be able to afford housing, but the bigger plus is that it would free up people's disposable income to the point where they'd spend it and would stimulate the economy across all sectors. The only ones who might suffer are greedy landlords, but too bad for them.

Another idea that might work is an unused/vacant property tax which doubles each month a property or rental unit goes vacant. This would also include commercial properties. I've seen a lot of vacant lots and boarded up buildings in prime areas, many for months or even years. It's inexplicable that no one seems to want to buy them. The only explanation is that the owner is too greedy and is holding out for more money.

Or people can move to cheaper parts of the nation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Its a relevant point. Suppose that I want to do someone a good deed letting them stay in my apartment for a month, but then they refuse to leave. The law supports them. I cannot simply kick them out. The result is that I won't risk it. Its not a good idea to help a homeless person or anyone. Once they're in they can mess up and trash the place, and you have to give 30 days notice.

The only significance to "30 days notice" is that it's a legal step which leads to others.
Depending upon various factors, it could take most of a year or more to evict someone.
An old saying which goes double for landlords....
No good deed goes unpunished.
So when helping others, tis best to do so in a manner with maximal benefit, but minimal downside.

I also think building codes should be dropped. Instead there should be certifications. A builder should be allowed to choose whether to build to a particular code.

I still favor building codes.
Zoning laws are more burdensome & vulnerable to corruption.

Cities and counties have hurt the middle class with their tough zoning practices. Cities keep annexing land, instantly making it more expensive to develop. Any land near a city has stupid built in extra costs.

True dat.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or people can move to cheaper parts of the nation.

This is where home ownership can become a real impediment.
Total transfer costs can run 10% with commissions & taxes.
And when there's an economic downturn, as happened between
2001 & 2015, the home's equity can be negative. Then people
cannot afford to sell & move. Obama's administration exacerbated
this by prohibiting Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac from negotiating
debt reduction for troubled loans. And HARP notwithstanding,
there was no assistance for underwater borrowers.
Government only bails out major Wall St players (donors), eh.

So I might be the only real estate broker (former) who
advocates renting over home ownership for most people.
Leasing gives greater flexibility to those who need it most.

 

[suncowiam]

This is where home ownership can become a real impediment.
Total transfer costs can run 10% with commissions & taxes.
And when there's an economic downturn, as happened between
2001 & 2015, the home's equity can be negative. Then people
cannot afford to sell & move. Obama's administration exacerbated
this by prohibiting Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac from negotiating
debt reduction for troubled loans. And HARP notwithstanding,
there was no assistance for underwater borrowers.
Government only bails out major Wall St players (donors), eh.

So I might be the only real estate broker (former) who
advocates renting over home ownership for most people.
Leasing gives greater flexibility to those who need it most.

Math and history has shown that investing in a house has been better than renting unless one is willing to manage their investments full-time.

Still, no one can predict a housing market. People will have to plan for the worst and have enough capital to stick it out if it turns for the worst. That is how most people failed by spreading themselves too thin.

 

[Stevicus]

Most had a keen interest in their communities as well and that is something you don't get listening to @Stevicus on the matter. It's the large brush tarring the best among us.

The thing is, we know what's going on based on the data at hand - how much wealth is owned by the wealthiest 1% and the huge disparities between rich and poor. If the "best among us" didn't want to be tarred with the same brush, then they shouldn't be defending the system which caused this. They should set themselves apart from that and oppose the political system which leads to the problem at hand. If they refuse to do that, then that's their choice, but they can hardly complain if they're being tarred with a "large brush."

 

[Stevicus]

It's easy to be certain of notions about things which one hasn't investigated.
But it always looks different with real world experience. There are complexities
to be discovered & coped with.

The theme of punishing people based upon group membership without regard
to individual circumstance comes up regularly in oppressive governments.
Tis dismaying that you advocate this.

They always have the choice of withdrawing from that group.

 

[Stevicus]

Tis dismaying that you advocate this.

What do you think it is that I'm advocating? A worst case scenario is that the wealthy today might end up with a standard of living similar to that of the burger-flippers, but what's so wrong about that? If it's okay for burger-flippers to live a certain way and nobody has a problem with that, why should it be a problem if others also live at the same standard of living?

Is it just ego? Is that it?

 

[YmirGF]

The thing is, we know what's going on based on the data at hand - how much wealth is owned by the wealthiest 1% and the huge disparities between rich and poor. If the "best among us" didn't want to be tarred with the same brush, then they shouldn't be defending the system which caused this. They should set themselves apart from that and oppose the political system which leads to the problem at hand. If they refuse to do that, then that's their choice, but they can hardly complain if they're being tarred with a "large brush."

We all know this, @Stevicus so it is hardly news. What do you propose to rectify the problem? Here, I am looking for a realistic plan or at least something reasonable.

 

[Revoltingest]

Math and history has shown that investing in a house has been better than renting unless one is willing to manage their investments full-time.

This analysis is....?

Still, no one can predict a housing market. People will have to plan for the worst and have enough capital to stick it out if it turns for the worst. That is how most people failed by spreading themselves too thin.

What you say has merit.
But people will do what people will do until government stops
subsidizing & incentivizing highly leveraged borrowing.

The problem of people becoming "house poor" by excessive borrowing is incentivized by
government. They treat home ownership as an investment, & buy more house than they
need, eg, bigger size, more desirable neighborhood. This is because of...
- The policy of continual inflation (ie, currency devaluation) means that homes will increase
in price, even if not necessarily in economic value. So ownership is a hedge against inflation.
- Government created PMI to encourage highly leveraged borrowing, with as little as nothing
down.
- Tax policy leaves much of sale profit entirely untaxed (there are limits).
- Government created & runs Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (largest residential lenders of all)
to provide cheap loans.

 

[Revoltingest]

They always have the choice of withdrawing from that group.

Hah!
You've never been in the business, & tried to exit.
It can take a long time to rent our or sell some kinds of properties.
And under your policy, buyers would evaporate, making things far far worse.

 

[Revoltingest]

What do you think it is that I'm advocating? A worst case scenario is that the wealthy today might end up with a standard of living similar to that of the burger-flippers, but what's so wrong about that? If it's okay for burger-flippers to live a certain way and nobody has a problem with that, why should it be a problem if others also live at the same standard of living?

Is it just ego? Is that it?

Your approach didn't work so well in the CCCP or PRC.

 

[Stevicus]

We all know this, @Stevicus so it is hardly news. What do you propose to rectify the problem? Here, I am looking for a realistic plan or at least something reasonable.

Well, you didn't even seem to think that there was a problem a few posts ago. Now you're saying that you already knew and that it's "hardly news."

As for my proposal, I've already offered it. Rent/price/wage controls. Some say that it would be a bad thing, but it's not unprecedented, and such policies were implemented during WW2 and led to the greatest period of economic boom in US history. People who think I don't know what I'm talking about don't even bother to read history. They're the ones who don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Stevicus]

Your approach didn't work so well in the CCCP or PRC.

But it did work well in the USA under FDR.

 

[Stevicus]

Your approach didn't work so well in the CCCP or PRC.

Besides, it actually improved the CCCP and PRC by leaps and bounds from the situation they had before.

 

[Revoltingest]

But it did work well in the USA under FDR.

I don't recall real estate confiscation being one of his policies.

 

[Revoltingest]

Besides, it actually improved the CCCP and PRC by leaps and bounds from the situation they had before.

This is a novel use of the word, "improved",
which I've not encountered before.
But even worse....you believe it would improve
our lot too? As an intellectual, you'd be one of
the first executed in the purge.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't recall real estate confiscation being one of his policies.

"Confiscation"? Who said anything about confiscation?

 

[Revoltingest]

"Confiscation"? Who said anything about confiscation?

It was that @Stevicus guy.
(One of his loopier proposals.)