Wages and Poverty

[Kfox]

I mentioned the US specifically when I said it was worse for poor people than most other Western countries, which is borne out by literally every statistic on the subject.

Actually you said the poor was worse off in the US than in any other western country. I would like to see data to back that up. It is my understanding the countries of the Western Hemisphere include all the countries of North, Central, and South America, West Africa, and Europe. I am not familiar with Europe, but I know the poor in this country are much better off than in all the other countries of the Americas, as well as anywhere in Africa. So perhaps you can provide evidence that the poor in Africa, and the Americas are better off than the poor in the United States. I would like to see this data.

 

[Revoltingest]

With a public housing programme no-one would need you to nor would you be owning properties as investments while people sleep on the streets.

Yeah...as though government would provide
all the housing needed, & of the desired quality.
Piffle!
And there'd be the huge tax increase upon us
to fuel such a massive boondoggle. Government
inefficiency is far more costly than profit.

If you don't want people sleeping on the streets,
where's your government? It could provide some
minimal housing for them. But does very little.
In fact, government persecutes them, eg, hassling
& even arresting them for vagrancy.
It's your government that prevents the lowest cost
housing...smaller apartments & tiny homes. It uses
building codes & zoning laws to keep such riff raff
away from the NIMBYs
You want to put those thoughtless bumbling gov't
minions in charge of all housing? Barsh! Flimshaw!

 

[Revoltingest]

That has not been the experience of myself, anyone I know, or have ever spoken to on the subject.

I don't know where you live, but it's certainly not here.
Government housing....

 

[Kooky]

Actually you said the poor was worse off in the US than in any other western country.

If you want to be pedantic, my exact words were "The United States is one of the worse places to live in the West if you're poor."

I'm no longer interested in debate at this point, sorry.

 

[Kfox]

If you want to be pedantic, my exact words were "The United States is one of the worse places to live in the West if you're poor."

I'm no longer interested in debate at this point, sorry.

When I am proven wrong, I admit my mistake, and change my views in light of new information. What do YOU do?

 

[Kooky]

When I am proven wrong, I admit my mistake, and change my views in light of new information. What do YOU do?

And you have never been proven wrong so far, correct?

 

[Yerda]

Yeah...as though government would provide
all the housing needed, & of the desired quality.
Piffle!
And there'd be the huge tax increase upon us
to fuel such a massive boondoggle. Government
inefficiency is far more costly than profit.

Government house building programs have been successful all over the world on many occasions. The UK made an effort to provide low rent, quality homes for anyone that wanted them as part of the post war settlement. Provided the foundation for the sharpest growth in living conditions and fall in economic inequality we've ever experienced. No market in housing will ever come close to the success that we can get from a public house building program.

It's true there will be inefficiency. This is inherent in every sphere of human activity but it's hard to imagine anything more inefficient than working full time to pay someone else's mortgage (and bit extra) for them.

If you don't want people sleeping on the streets,
where's your government? It could provide some
minimal housing for them.

Yeah, it could. Like I said, has happened before in many countries. It starts with electing a government on the promise to do so.

That the government could provide more housing is hardly a strong argument against public housing programs.

But does very little.
In fact, government persecutes them, eg, hassling
& even arresting them for vagrancy.
It's your government that prevents the lowest cost
housing...smaller apartments & tiny homes. It uses
building codes & zoning laws to keep such riff raff
away from the NIMBYs
You want to put those thoughtless bumbling gov't
minions in charge of all housing? Barsh! Flimshaw!

This is a silly strawman.

If we build public houses we can take the heat out of the market and go some way to guaranteeing stable housing for everyone regardless of their economic situation. Rather than the situation we have throughout the developed world where shell companies and buy-to-let landlords own large shares of our national housing stocks as a means of storing wealth of extracting it from others through rents.

 

[Revoltingest]

Government house building programs have been successful all over the world on many occasions. The UK made an effort to provide low rent, quality homes for anyone that wanted them as part of the post war settlement. Provided the foundation for the sharpest growth in living conditions and fall in economic inequality we've ever experienced. No market in housing will ever come close to the success that we can get from a public house building program.

USA state & local governments aren't as capable.

It's true there will be inefficiency. This is inherent in every sphere of human activity but it's hard to imagine anything more inefficient than working full time to pay someone else's mortgage (and bit extra) for them.

Yeah, it could. Like I said, has happened before in many countries. It starts with electing a government on the promise to do so.

That the government could provide more housing is hardly a strong argument against public housing programs.

This is a silly strawman.

You see a straw man.
I see the reality of providing housing.
It differs from the perfect dream world
presented as the total alternative to
privately supplied housing.

If we build public houses we can take the heat out of the market and go some way to guaranteeing stable housing for everyone regardless of their economic situation. Rather than the situation we have throughout the developed world where shell companies and buy-to-let landlords own large shares of our national housing stocks as a means of storing wealth of extracting it from others through rents.

The better way to take the "heat" out of housing is to
end government subsidies that encourage over-buying
as an inflation hedge. Government could also end
restrictions that make housing spendier than it need be.

BTW, all the residential landlords & builders I know
aren't "shell companies". They're individuals who
run a business.

 

[Yerda]

USA state & local governments aren't as capable.

I'm sure it is perfectly capable. Just not politically motivated in that direction.

You see a straw man.
I see the reality of providing housing.
It differs from the perfect dream world
presented as the total alternative to
privately supplied housing.

There are still going to be private housing stocks. I mean, if you provide a useful service some people will want it, yes?

The better way to take the "heat" out of housing is to
end government subsidies that encourage over-buying
as an inflation hedge. Government could also end
restrictions that make housing spendier than it need be.

Why not a bit of both?

BTW, all the residential landlords & builders I know
aren't "shell companies". They're individuals who
run a business.

I have a landlord myself. She's lovely. A good person and landlord. I also have friends and family who own homes that they rent out.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sure it is perfectly capable. Just not politically motivated in that direction.

There are still going to be private housing stocks. I mean, if you provide a useful service some people will want it, yes?

Why not a bit of both?

I have a landlord myself. She's lovely. A good person and landlord. I also have friends and family who own homes that they rent out.

I'm not a fan of advocating based upon "capable".
I go by emergent properties. Private housing is better.
For those who need housing assistance, the UBI
would enable them to buy/rent in the market.

 

[Kfox]

And you have never been proven wrong so far, correct?

Believe it or not; I used to share a lot of the views you have. The reason I no longer do is due to being proven wrong and changing my views in light of new information.