Why Are So Many Young People Becoming Socialists? - Page 23 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15166093
wat0n wrote:Was it legal for him to do so? What problems did you have?


I assume so, since the landlord was never forced to do anything.

At least here in Chicago it's illegal for your landlord to neglect the unit to a point where the heating doesn't work on winter. I know this because my heating went out on winter once and my landlord got scared shitless about it to the point that he fixed within 24 hrs.


Maybe the experiences of people poor enough to need public housing are different from yours. For example, my landlord was confident that I, like all of her other tenants, was too poor to take her to court.

——————-

I will now assume that you concede the discussion about public versus private housing.
#15166094
Pants-of-dog wrote:Maybe the experiences of people poor enough to need public housing are different from yours. For example, my landlord was confident that I, like all of her other tenants, was too poor to take her to court.


Maybe, although we were students at the time, living in Chicago's south side - but then again, our landlord was a PhD student. So I guess you are right.

Now, pray tell me, how would that be any different from what happened in NYC? One would expect more from the city here, don't you think?
#15166096
Rancid wrote:What the hell is the context of this photo? :lol: :?:

The context is that I have been laying in a hospital bed for 22 days and am bored shitless. Looks like I have another 2 weeks so …… hang on, it gets worse :lol:
#15166097
wat0n wrote:Maybe, although we were students at the time, living in Chicago's south side - but then again, our landlord was a PhD student. So I guess you are right.

Now, pray tell me, how would that be any different from what happened in NYC? One would expect more from the city here, don't you think?


I already discussed the many ways in which a municipality is accountable that private landlords are not.

Would you like me to repeat them?
#15166098
Pants-of-dog wrote:I already discussed the many ways in which a municipality is accountable that private landlords are not.

Would you like me to repeat them?


What failed in places like NYC and Chicago?

Again, I would expect more from cities than being akin to predatory landlords who rent defective (even if cheap) housing to poor people who cannot sue.
#15166099
Pants-of-dog wrote:1. So public buildings have regular inspections by inspectors (who are building professionals) to ensure maintenance while private housing relies on the complaints of tenants (i.e not building professionals).

Since the whole point of building regulations is to protect building users from non-apparent defects (i.e. those that are noticed by a building professional and not by laypeople), it is obvious that public housing has a system to enforce regulations while private housing does not.

2. Providing one example from one city, while refusing to provide the conditions for private housing in the same city at the same time, does not show chronic problems.

3. This is the final time I will ask you to address the financial incentives. If you once again ignore this point, I will assume you concede the point that government has financial incentives to pay for better housing that is cheaper in the long run while private housing does not.

4. In terms of accountability, government housing has all the same systems that private housing has, plus it is transparent, has inspectors, and is also accountable through the same mechanisms that democratic governments are accountable.

5. The only problem facing the NYCHA right now is a lack of funding. This does not support your claims about NYCHA.

The problem is easily solved by making the tenants the owner of the apartment.
#15166103
wat0n wrote:What failed in places like NYC and Chicago?


Since you did not ask me to repeat how municipalities are more accountable than private landlords for maintenance issues, then I would assume that you agree.

Now, moving on to this new argument: what is the reason behind this question? What argument are you trying to make?

Again, I would expect more from cities than being akin to predatory landlords who rent defective (even if cheap) housing to poor people who cannot sue.


And you should, since they are more capable and have more incentives to do better than private landlords.
#15166104
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you did not ask me to repeat how municipalities are more accountable than private landlords for maintenance issues, then I would assume that you agree.

Now, moving on to this new argument: what is the reason behind this question? What argument are you trying to make?


You are claiming cities face incentives and regulation that inherently make them good landlords. So I'm asking you, why did both cities operate famously bad public housing projects for low income families (in terms of maintenance and related aspects of them)?

Pants-of-dog wrote:And you should, since they are more capable and have more incentives to do better than private landlords.


Which further underscores the question I'm asking above. I don't think most private landlords would offer such service, if only because they would not offer a rent low enough for these low income families to be able to afford them. Partly because their legal duties in terms of maintenance and the like represent costs that are likely borne by tenants in the form of higher rents.
#15166105
wat0n wrote:You are claiming cities face incentives and regulation that inherently make them good landlords. So I'm asking you, why did both cities operate famously bad public housing projects for low income families (in terms of maintenance and related aspects of them)?

Which further underscores the question I'm asking above. I don't think most private landlords would offer such service, if only because they would not offer a rent low enough for these low income families to be able to afford them. Partly because their legal duties in terms of maintenance and the like represent costs that are likely borne by tenants in the form of higher rents.


1. I never claimed that cities make good landlords, just better ones.

2. You are the only one portraying NYC and Chicago as bad, except, for the Murdoch tabloid you cited before.

3. Yes, many private landlords would not offer housing at all to very poor people. This is yet another reason why government would be better than private companies for providing low income housing.
#15166106
Pants-of-dog wrote:1. I never claimed that cities make good landlords, just better ones.


Maybe, but I don't think this is good enough. Are there any private projects that were as disastrous?

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. You are the only one portraying NYC and Chicago as bad, except, for the Murdoch tabloid you cited before.


I also added some extra sources in case you don't like the NYP. I can give you NYT if you want.

Pants-of-dog wrote:3. Yes, many private landlords would not offer housing at all to very poor people. This is yet another reason why government would be better than private companies for providing low income housing.


Well, that depends. Another solution could, maybe, just to build more units to put downward pressure on prices - which can be done by the government itself or through softening zoning and other regulations. I'm just saying, you know.

But yes, shit housing is better than no housing.
#15166112
jimjam wrote:The context is that I have been laying in a hospital bed for 22 days and am bored shitless. Looks like I have another 2 weeks so …… hang on, it gets worse :lol:


I hope you get better. We need you nuggets of wisdom.
#15166114
wat0n wrote:Maybe, but I don't think this is good enough. Are there any private projects that were as disastrous?

I also added some extra sources in case you don't like the NYP. I can give you NYT if you want.

Well, that depends. Another solution could, maybe, just to build more units to put downward pressure on prices - which can be done by the government itself or through softening zoning and other regulations. I'm just saying, you know.

But yes, shit housing is better than no housing.


1. Well, that was my initial claim. You seem to agree. If you want to move on to what would be even better, we can discuss that. Housing can be treated as a human right, and gov’ts can create a massive infrastructure project to create quality housing that is free or (for those who insist on capitalism) rent is fixed at 30% of monthly income.

2. I think that discussing a portrayal or an opinion of NYCHA is productive. Do you have a more concrete argument?

3. I do not think getting rid of any building regulations would help. Can you think of one that would is unnecessary and would have a significant market impact in terms of dropping housing prices?
#15166115
Pants-of-dog wrote:1. Well, that was my initial claim. You seem to agree. If you want to move on to what would be even better, we can discuss that. Housing can be treated as a human right, and gov’ts can create a massive infrastructure project to create quality housing that is free or (for those who insist on capitalism) rent is fixed at 30% of monthly income.


Normally, landlords will avoid renting to you if it's too high percentage of your income (and actually I think it's around 30%).

But, I don't agree with you about the incentives, at least not in full. Yes, private landlords can perfectly have incentives not to maintain properties, but the government can have them as well: After all, what administrations want is to be elected and then keep getting reelected afterwards. Shirking on maintenance may actually free resources to that effect in the short run, even if it's harmful in the long run.

And unlike the private landlords, the government likely has an easier time avoiding regulations, unless it's decentralized enough and a higher level of government acts as a regulator.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. I think that discussing a portrayal or an opinion of NYCHA is productive. Do you have a more concrete argument?


Sure, it didn't properly maintain properties because of NYC's municipal crisis in the 1970s, and hiking taxes or the tenants' rents and reprioritizing spending to this effect where unpopular at the time.

Pants-of-dog wrote:3. I do not think getting rid of any building regulations would help. Can you think of one that would is unnecessary and would have a significant market impact in terms of dropping housing prices?


Zoning, not building. For instance, some cities establish rather hard limits on how far up can buildings go. Surely, this puts upwards pressures on housing prices so softening them would do the opposite - at the cost of more density, and the quality of life problems that brings. There are no free lunches here.

Building regulations themselves are probably not the problem. In some cases they might even be less stringent than they should be.
#15166142
Rancid wrote:So you are saying that you don't have data saying the homeless services create more homelessness?

OF course "woke" cities will have more homeless, as they tend to offer more services for the homeless. However, that does not mean that those services CREATE homelessness.


The cities with the largest number of homeless are run by democrats. Homelessness had been going down until 5 years ago or so. It remains sky high and going up in cities where the services are best (democrat controlled cities). I say best in a sarcastic manner as offering drugs does not seem like a plan to me. Mississippi the most poor state in the USA has the lowest number of homeless. Whites lead the way in homelessness ahead of blacks whom are supposed to be more poor. Other ethnicities are underrepresented. Homeless among Hispanics and Asians is quite rare.

I could not find a study that said services increased the number. All I found is that cities with better services have many more homeless. So you have win the argument.
#15166150
Julian658 wrote:
The cities with the largest number of homeless are run by democrats. Homelessness had been going down until 5 years ago or so. It remains sky high and going up in cities where the services are best (democrat controlled cities). I say best in a sarcastic manner as offering drugs does not seem like a plan to me. Mississippi the most poor state in the USA has the lowest number of homeless. Whites lead the way in homelessness ahead of blacks whom are supposed to be more poor. Other ethnicities are underrepresented. Homeless among Hispanics and Asians is quite rare.

I could not find a study that said services increased the number. All I found is that cities with better services have many more homeless. So you have win the argument.


You have not found anything, but yet will still believe that these cities create homelessness. Correct?

This a common conservative tactic/concept/idea. They will point to say suburban Dallas, exclaim how they've solved the homeless problem (by making it illegal to be homeless), then point to the cities like Austin that are willing to try and solve/alleviate this problem, and call them failures. Then they go further to push claims that simply are unproven (like these cities are creating homelessness). These conservatives basically kick the can down the road so that they don't have to deal with it, and claim they are successful or whatever. It's disingenuous, just fucking own the fact that you are outlawing homelessness and don't want to deal with them. Rather than point to those that are actually trying to solve a problem as failures.

Ultimately, our entire society is creating homelessness. It's not individual cities. This is why individual cities cannot solve this problem. As much as Austin is trying, I think they will fail. This needs a national level effort, and it's not going to happen because conservative continue to want to both ignore the problem, and blame others for it.
Last edited by Rancid on 12 Apr 2021 15:58, edited 1 time in total.
#15166156
Excluding outright psychosis I have noticed that young people are generally more innocent and enjoy a higher degree of mental health than their older counterparts. As we age a sort of low grade creeping mental illness enters our outlook and we tend to view life through a fog of depression/cynicism or, outright hatred.

To the young socialism projects a more hopeful and fair reality than that of the predatory capitalism that prevails in America today. A good example can be found in this week's news. Fat Donald holding a gala hate fest down at Mar A Money with the usual hate spewing name calling sewer slop. Price of admission btw to Don's Make America Hate Again fest was an eye popping $400,000 :eek: . Meanwhile Joe Biden is hard at work at actually fixing the massive problems facing America today. Young folks are more clear eyed and receptive to a hopeful agenda ("socialism") than they are to the usual hate thy neighbor while we pick your pockets agenda of predatory capitalism.
#15166167
wat0n wrote:Indeed, there is a quite evident bias going on there.

Also, some homeslessness problem could be imported from elsewhere (i.e. homeless people moving to places with milder weather).


Exactly, I bet if you go around Austin, and ask all the homeless people where they are from. Most of them will not say they are from Austin. They come here from places like Dallas that basically kick them out. As such, it would be wrong to assume or claim that Austin is creating homelessness. This is much like climate change, that people just don't want to look at this objectively, and instead, use it to make largely unsupported political points.
#15166170
Rancid wrote:You have not found anything, but yet will still believe that these cities create homelessness. Correct?

This a common conservative tactic/concept/idea. They will point to say suburban Dallas, exclaim how they've solved the homeless problem (by making it illegal to be homeless), then point to the cities like Austin that are willing to try and solve/alleviate this problem, and call them failures. Then they go further to push claims that simply are unproven (like these cities are creating homelessness). These conservatives basically kick the can down the road so that they don't have to deal with it, and claim they are successful or whatever. It's disingenuous, just fucking own the fact that you are outlawing homelessness and don't want to deal with them. Rather than point to those that are actually trying to solve a problem as failures.

Ultimately, our entire society is creating homelessness. It's not individual cities. This is why individual cities cannot solve this problem. As much as Austin is trying, I think they will fail. This needs a national level effort, and it's not going to happen because conservative continue to want to both ignore the problem, and blame others for it.

You just recycled left wing talking points that promote victimology. Why is homelessness not a problem among Hispanics and Asians?

I am not saying that conservatives are correct. However, SJWs socialist types are not correct either.

As I said I will not invoke the correlation/causation rule but left wing cities have more homeless. Left wing cities run by black mayors also have much more inner city black poverty. There is not a single Republican in those cities.
  • 1
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 34
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Again: nope. Putin in Feb 2022 only decided ... […]

Helping Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion an[…]

https://twitter.com/huwaidaarraf/status/1773389663[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

What wat0n is trying to distract from: https://tw[…]