I haven't watched that series but ill certainly start listening tomorrow at work.

Gradual change is bargaining rights and lives for your convenience. I tend to find that reprehensible and so did people we respect like MLK, but whatevs.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Dec 21 2020 09:43pm

That it is a basic necessity is at the core of far-left principles. Our society has taken various basic necessities and turned them into profit-making ventures, which to many is quite bizarre. Private for-profit entities prioritize profit over everything else and will place the well-being of people far lower on the list if anywhere at all. That dynamic would be largely inconsequential if they were overseeing luxury commodities, but isn't so inconsequential when looking at something so essential as housing.

You're Canadian so here is a good look at one of Canada's territories.


52% of housing in Nunavut is public housing. Nunavut's public housing is also in complete disrepair. The government can't keep up with the repairs at this point. Tenants destroy units so quickly, units become mould ridden and eventually condemned resulting in less public units resulting in more overcrowding in existing units resulting in more damage.

The gov't builds more units, the cycle continues. In public housing rent is a formula that takes into account your prior year reported income as well as any changes you file in the current year like job loss as well as a few other things. If you have no employment income rent is 32 bucks a month. All utilities and other costs paid. O&M on a single public housing unit is 26,000 annually, that's as of 2019.

Public housing is a sad state and needs significant restructuring. I still believe in rent to own models where payments to build equity are not based on fair market value of the home but rather a formula on what that tenant can't afford. Govts paying for it anyways, ownership might result in people taking pride in what they own.

The new owner wouldn't be able to afford O&M but again its being paid for under the current modle anyways so continue to subsidize that.


This post was edited by SBD on Dec 21 2020 10:37pm

You can have both for profit housing, high rates of home ownership and landlords. Singapore seems to be doing alright without catering to far left extremes on the issue. Public housing isn't well done in the west but it'd be the key to solving the housing crisis and I don't see why the singaporean model can't be replicated elsewhere.

https://blogs.worldbank.org/sustainablecities/what-about-singapore-lessons-best-public-housing-program-world

I'm ignorant of the model in Singapore, so I certainly can't speak to it. Thanks for link though, as I'll definitely check it out in the future.

To me there's just something morally repugnant about taking a necessity for life, creating an effective class-based monopoly, and then profiting off of it. If capitalists could create a monopoly around oxygen and make money off it they absolutely would.

I'm not sure what the answer is for people like this but i know they exist. If people can't take care of such amazing freebies I'm not sure they deserve to be housed to begin with. Maybe I'm a monster 🤔

Well housing is only one cog in the wheel. Other social initives are required. The primary destruction of buildings in Nunavut is tied closed to families that suffer from alcohol and drug abuse.

When it comes to betterment of people's lives there's a big pictures with no real singular pieces that are not interlinked. That's why its difficult to offer working solutions and often why arguments here an elsewhere just breakdown. To fix social issues you need to move the entirety and by that I mean majority into a a direction that looks to fix or improve upon many issues. The hope being that addressing many things has an accumulating impact.

Would homes be destroyed if xyz was corrected.

Housing is possibly one of the most "neither here nor there" subjects to bring up. First, is it morally wrong to purchase a property, and utilize it for profit? No. Is it morally wrong to provide housing to people who need it for a fee? No. Is it your right to charge whatever fee you want for the use of your privately owned property? Yes.

Most of the problems around rentals, and even out of control motel/extended stay prices (especially in blue cities) is that prices aren't based on costs, they're based on mean wages in the area. This is how you get "extended stay" prices on the outskirts of metro areas like Portland charging $2000/month for a 200 square foot room with barely functional plumbing, no stove, no full size fridge, and not even the courtesy of HBO. If you're operating under the "My average monthly non-purchase cost to maintain this rental will be 50% of what I charge" then honestly you're doing the world a service. The problem with such a plan is with all upkeep, maintenance, property taxes, etc. etc. if your average monthly cost over 10 years is only $300/month, then you're only charging $600/month in rent. If the property cost you $70K to purchase (just picking random numbers for the example, don't go apeshit on me) then working on a $300 monthly profit will require 233 months aka over 19 years to pay for the property. That's honestly reasonable. Most home buyers typically take out 10-20 year mortgage loans, and work full time jobs to pay them off. You're not working a job. You're just collecting checks and putting in a minimal amount of maintenance, and paying property taxes. Effectively meaning somebody spends 20 years paying your mortgage, after which you can remodel, revamp, and actually sell the property for a huge markup. But... That's not how it's being done anymore. Instead, it's about fast and free money. Effectively investors want the property paid in full, by the renters, within 5 years or less, meaning a net profit equal to the value of the house itself has already been made within 10 years. Seems reasonable though, right? Except... It's not a job. You aren't producing anything. The person who IS producing something is having the majority of the product of their labor funneled right into your bank account, and receiving very little in return.

So... If you're thinking of going into the renters business, what you have to ask yourself is, "Am I simply attempting to provide affordable housing to those in need, building myself a great little nest egg 20 years down the road, or am I trying to make a fast and hard profit?" If the answer is yes to the first, there's zero moral quandry. If your answer is yes to the second, then just be aware that you are actively preventing the savings by the tenant to eventually go into home ownership for themselves. You are literally keeping them down to build yourself up. Is that morally wrong? I don't know, that depends on your standard. If it's a consensual contract, I would say not from a legal sense. But from a principled sense... What do you stand for?

Agree.