For anything and everything that's not already covered in the other forums. Except for that which is forbidden. Check the forum guidelines to make sure or risk the wrath of the warrior cobalt tarantulas!
FaxModem1 wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2019 9:17 pm
That's what happens when you artificially inflate housing prices and prevent it from resetting, while also not keeping the social safety net and minimum wage up to livable standards. California is also very much a red state, with wealthy Republicans very much having a vote in how state benefits go to the poor, and they vote no on a lot of legislation because it'd affect taxes.
So, you can have three bedroom houses that cost over a million dollars, with people unable to afford that, and jobs are nowhere near the wage level. So, you have a lot of people renting very expensive studio and 1 bedroom apartments that would be worth a three bedroom house in Texas. If they can't afford that, expect to find them living in bridges, in cars, and on the street. So much so that you can't throw a stick without hitting at least a homeless person on every corner.
Hell, I worked at a nonprofit in San Diego for a year, and that's a VERY conservative town. Military members were begging for financial aid due to all the financial strain they were under because living expenses and income were nowhere near each other. And these are people with COLA added to their paycheck.
Welcome to inflation of prices and how wages need to keep up with them, or you face these kinds of problems.
I agree that San Diego is conservative, but I cannot see the whole state as red, let alone very much red. The state senate has 28 democrats and 10 republicans; that's almost 3 to 1 in favor of democrats.
What do you think if artificially inflating the real estate prices there?
FaxModem1 wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2019 9:17 pm
That's what happens when you artificially inflate housing prices and prevent it from resetting, while also not keeping the social safety net and minimum wage up to livable standards. California is also very much a red state, with wealthy Republicans very much having a vote in how state benefits go to the poor, and they vote no on a lot of legislation because it'd affect taxes.
So, you can have three bedroom houses that cost over a million dollars, with people unable to afford that, and jobs are nowhere near the wage level. So, you have a lot of people renting very expensive studio and 1 bedroom apartments that would be worth a three bedroom house in Texas. If they can't afford that, expect to find them living in bridges, in cars, and on the street. So much so that you can't throw a stick without hitting at least a homeless person on every corner.
Hell, I worked at a nonprofit in San Diego for a year, and that's a VERY conservative town. Military members were begging for financial aid due to all the financial strain they were under because living expenses and income were nowhere near each other. And these are people with COLA added to their paycheck.
Welcome to inflation of prices and how wages need to keep up with them, or you face these kinds of problems.
I agree that San Diego is conservative, but I cannot see the whole state as red, let alone very much red. The state senate has 28 democrats and 10 republicans; that's almost 3 to 1 in favor of democrats.
What do you think if artificially inflating the real estate prices there?
Mostly because California is the fifth largest economy in the world. Not nation, world, and while that's awesome for all that they're able to do, it has the side effect of making a living there VERY expensive, because a lot of money is concentrated there. Something similar happened in Japan in the 1980s, with all the money and big business there, until eventually they had a bubble burst with their real estate that they still haven't recovered from. California has been edging towards that, with companies moving away to cheaper real estate areas(such as Texas) that have the same level of population density and education. This is why, for instance, Hollywood movies are being filmed all over instead of largely in California, due to the fact that prices there are getting too high to do so, and it's cheaper to film in Georgia.
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 2:03 pm
All the more reason for somebody to do something about the outrageous housing costs there. =/
Like what?
I see three (not mutually exclusive) major alternatives. 1 - limit how much homes cost, 2- provide low-cost housing for those without much money, or 3 - give people money for homes.
With 1, you've just beggared people who own property and may depend on that investment for their retirement. And all that money ceasing to exist in California will have interesting effects.
With 2, well, California does that. I suppose it could do more. Housing projects are often not very nice places to live, of course, but it's probably better than under a bridge.
With 3, well, you've probably pushed housing prices higher because you've made them artificially affordable, reducing the pressure keeping prices down. And yes, even with the high prices, there is pressure keeping prices down.
What are other alternatives? Building low-cost housing for them in areas with lower real estate prices? Arcologies in Arkasas? Mississippi mass housing? Apartments in Alaska? Something starting with K in Kentucky?
And if California's very liberal (for the U.S.) politicians haven't done it, why haven't they?
Edit: That's not to put you on the spot. This isn't "Answer these questions or put on a MAGA hat right now!" I'm trying to indicate I'm open to answers, but I'm not sure the tone came across right in the message above.
What is so wrong with literally building low-income housing? We have a whole federal department for that, even though it's run by a somnambulist whose very existence calls into question the idea that brain surgeons are smart.
"Believe me, there’s nothing so terrible that someone won’t support it."
— Un Lun Dun, China Mieville
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 2:03 pm
All the more reason for somebody to do something about the outrageous housing costs there. =/
Like what?
I see three (not mutually exclusive) major alternatives. 1 - limit how much homes cost, 2- provide low-cost housing for those without much money, or 3 - give people money for homes.
With 1, you've just beggared people who own property and may depend on that investment for their retirement. And all that money ceasing to exist in California will have interesting effects.
With 2, well, California does that. I suppose it could do more. Housing projects are often not very nice places to live, of course, but it's probably better than under a bridge.
With 3, well, you've probably pushed housing prices higher because you've made them artificially affordable, reducing the pressure keeping prices down. And yes, even with the high prices, there is pressure keeping prices down.
What are other alternatives? Building low-cost housing for them in areas with lower real estate prices? Arcologies in Arkasas? Mississippi mass housing? Apartments in Alaska? Something starting with K in Kentucky?
And if California's very liberal (for the U.S.) politicians haven't done it, why haven't they?
Edit: That's not to put you on the spot. This isn't "Answer these questions or put on a MAGA hat right now!" I'm trying to indicate I'm open to answers, but I'm not sure the tone came across right in the message above.
What is so wrong with literally building low-income housing? We have a whole federal department for that, even though it's run by a somnambulist whose very existence calls into question the idea that brain surgeons are smart.
Other than that it costs money, and other possible effects, and I suspect puts kids into higher-crime neighborhoods, but it probably is better than being on the street.
Then spend some money. Housing is essential to life, therefor houses people can actually pay to live in are a top priority. I don't know why this seems so radical to you.
"Believe me, there’s nothing so terrible that someone won’t support it."
— Un Lun Dun, China Mieville
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2019 1:59 am
Then spend some money. Housing is essential to life, therefor houses people can actually pay to live in are a top priority. I don't know why this seems so radical to you.
It's not radical, unless the cost is exorbitant or illegal aliens are housed. You asked what was wrong with it, and I gave some of the downsides.
The problem isn't low income housing itself the problem is the type of people they attract. They started doing that up here as well as sending people from down the hill up here. All it accomplished is the nice quiet towns turning into out of control places that are getting robbed constantly. Heck I can even use a more personal example, my first apartment was low income, but our first landlord was strict so there wasn't a lot of trouble, skip ahead a few years with a different landlord that didn't care, the place went into the toilet, we had wackos druggies and whatever else after that.
