[Julian658]

And yet everyone still wants to live in California and not Alabama? Funny that. [/quot]
Whether!!!

My favorite UK politician is Jacob Rees Mogg and he seems more conservative than most American conservative politicians. Corbin is a lunatic that is closer to Bernie Sanders in the USA. It is the bleeding heart syndrome and the inner desire to help. The desire to help is to be applauded, but it comes loaded with virtue signaling which is a narcissistic trait.

The point is a rather simple. If you offer a lot to the homeless then homelessness becomes a career choice for those that are on the fence. This is the typical error of left wingers. They have good intentions, but are never aware of the unintended consequences. Take socialism: Anyone that does not love socialism does not have a heart. Marx is very compelling and attractive. His analysis of the flaws of capitalism is 100% correct. However, the prescription to fix the problem has not worked. And yet in every generation there are people that want to try again. I don't blame you the words are beautiful and they touch the heart.

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

[late]

If you offer a lot to the homeless then homelessness becomes a career choice for those that are on the fence.

Economists call that the Free Rider Problem. Recent research has cast doubt on it. Not just recent research, either.

Before Clinton's welfare reform, Republicans wanted to prove people on welfare were bums. You need to understand most social science research is underfunded, at best. But with Republican support, this was able to have all the bells and whistles, which almost never happens in the social sciences.

What they found was that most on welfare were always trying to get off it. The implication being that if they had more support, a lot would get off it.

You can find similar results in Europe, where support works. Which is kinda obvious, if you think about it.

[B0ycey]

The point is a rather simple. If you offer a lot to the homeless then homelessness becomes a career choice for those that are on the fence. This is the typical error of left wingers. They have good intentions, but are never aware of the unintended consequences.

In regards to just building homes, this Social program can and has historically fitted in well with Capitalism. If we have stopped building homes and we are still short of homes, clearly outside influences have stopped what is a vital service from happen.

My problem with you is CLEARLY you have no idea why people become homeless. I have dealt with them. I have spoken to them. I don't need some avatar on the internet making shit up and reciting that back to me to know why people become homeless. Most of the time it isn't anyones fault, it is usually some external factor. It is NEVER a career choice. That is fucking bonkers and so not true that nobody can take that seriously, even lurkers. Nobody becomes homeless so they can claim benefits or be given handouts. Get that out of your head and if you repeat it I want a source to back that claim up.

As for why people want to live in Blue states, the more liberal the community the more appealing for the people clearly. People like a fair community. So for California to have an issue with homelessness due to lack of affordable housing, this has nothing to do with the weather or Hollywood of their bloody beaches. It has to do with California not having enough affordable homes for the people who live or more importantly who want to move there and the competition of people fighting for what avaliable housing there is.

[Pants-of-dog]

...But that are not.

That seems iffy.

That's a pretty interesting read of the paper. Don't you think that finding landlords of the rent controlled properties would tend to evict the tenants (by paying them off or through other means) to redevelop them and market them at higher rents (i.e. so the control doesn't quite apply) is a fairly relevant result?

No. Almost every person in capitalism is gong to try and make as much money as possible. It therefore makes sense that landlords would try to find ways around rent controls.

But that is not a result of rent controls.

That's particularly true when considering that someone born when this regulation went into effect would be 27 years old now.

This is irrelevant.

What does "other things equal" mean in this case?

I would say that, quite possibly, enforcement of regulation is not equal between both. Particularly when the same institution is both the landlord and the regulator.

That is not how building regulation is enforced.

For example, if the department if housing is my client, it is not the dept of housing that inspects, nor are they looking over my shoulder while I make the designs.

...Along with crumbling roofs, non-existent maintenance, heat that tends to go out of commission during winter cold snaps...

Yes, all these things are even more likely and harder to fix when dealing private owners.

And again, this is due to the financial incentives that you have already agreed with.

Well, it's fairer than what? That's exactly the point. I'd say it's fairer than having the government redline them like before the Civil Rights Act in the US. It's fairer than giving controlled rents to the well-connected politically.

Just to provide a couple of examples. I don't think one should assume the government will automatically be fairer than the cold market mechanism.

Yiur beliefs about fairness are subjective and are not a good argument.

[wat0n]

That seems iffy.

Why?

No. Almost every person in capitalism is gong to try and make as much money as possible. It therefore makes sense that landlords would try to find ways around rent controls.

But that is not a result of rent controls.

It isn't? So why would the owners of newly rent controlled redevelop housing towards higher income tenants compared to those that were always rent controlled if it wasn't for the controls?

This is irrelevant.

That's exactly the population that is being most affected by unaffordable housing.

That is not how building regulation is enforced.

For example, if the department if housing is my client, it is not the dept of housing that inspects, nor are they looking over my shoulder while I make the designs.

Sure, but if the regulator is under the same level of government, as it happens in large cities in the US for instance, then the problem will remain.

Yes, all these things are even more likely and harder to fix when dealing private owners.

And again, this is due to the financial incentives that you have already agreed with.

Governments also have their own financial incentives. In particular, their incentive is to also try to cut costs even if in this case is to be able to provide the housing at (very) low rents. It's why NYC has those problems to begin with.

A private developer does indeed want to cut costs as much as possible, which is why there need to be enforceable building standards (the true state of the building can easily be hidden from the tenants before they begin to have problems). However, they should actually have a tougher time doing that than cities where the same city both provides public housing and enforces building codes. I can imagine that if enforcement of building codes was done by the State governments, cities would face similar pressures - but this would conceivably drive rents for the tenants in public housing up.

Yiur beliefs about fairness are subjective and are not a good argument.

I know they are subjective, my only point there is that there is no reason to assume governments will be more ethical than markets in assignment in practice.

[Julian658]

As for why people want to live in Blue states, the more liberal the community the more appealing for the people clearly. People like a fair community. So for California to have an issue with homelessness due to lack of affordable housing, this has nothing to do with the weather or Hollywood of their bloody beaches. It has to do with California not having enough affordable homes for the people who live or more importantly who want to move there and the competition of people fighting for what avaliable housing there is.

The homeless capital of the USA is San Francisco. It is a gorgeous city with incredible weather and controlled by the extreme left wing of the Democrat Party. Yes, they attract the homeless. At the same time San Francisco is home to wealthy people that see themselves as saviors of the disenfranchised. That is what SF is all about, the rich and the homeless. There is little room in that city for the middle or upper middle class. The situation worsens from year to year. The more they try the worse it gets. You are offering some of the same solutions. A new paradigm is needed.

The problem of homelessness in SF was somewhat under until 2015 .


The woke lefties are part of the elite wealthy. They serve the SF wealthy and engage in massive virtue signaling when it comes to homelessness. You are correct in describing the massive hypocrisy of the American left. There are no Republicans in SF and yet the blame the Republicans for the homeless situation. Very clever.

[jimjam]

You have said NOTHING. You posted a photo of a homeless person and have repeated ;eft wing platitudes.



I am a libertarian on the center and you look like a left winger dude. Wear your badge with honor.

The point I am trying to make is simple. If people like you provide everything for the homeless, then homelessness becomes a career choice for many that are on the fence. The more you offer the more they come.

I don't want to sound like a moronic left wing commie but ….. I love you man and I respect your opinions ….. now please excuse me, dude, but have to get back to reading Das Kapital……

[Pants-of-dog]

Why?

It seems like a fairly subjective discussion.

It isn't? So why would the owners of newly rent controlled redevelop housing towards higher income tenants compared to those that were always rent controlled if it wasn't for the controls?

To make more money.

That's exactly the population that is being most affected by unaffordable housing.

Sure, but if the regulator is under the same level of government, as it happens in large cities in the US for instance, then the problem will remain.

No. That is not how building codes work. For example, in Quebec, an architect can be held personally liable if they sign off on a project that is not up to code. So, unless you think the government can cook up some nefarious scheme where architects risk their entire careers, this is an unrealistic criticism.

Governments also have their own financial incentives. In particular, their incentive is to also try to cut costs even if in this case is to be able to provide the housing at (very) low rents. It's why NYC has those problems to begin with.

Yes, and I described how building higher quality buildings reduces long term costs, which is the reason that the incentive to cut costs actually supports my claim.

A private developer does indeed want to cut costs as much as possible, which is why there need to be enforceable building standards (the true state of the building can easily be hidden from the tenants before they begin to have problems). However, they should actually have a tougher time doing that than cities where the same city both provides public housing and enforces building codes. I can imagine that if enforcement of building codes was done by the State governments, cities would face similar pressures - but this would conceivably drive rents for the tenants in public housing up.

No. You are assuming that the client would be held responsible for not following regulations. It is the seller (i.e. the architects, engineers, contractors, and subcontractors) who would be held liable, not the client who is the government.

I know they are subjective, my only point there is that there is no reason to assume governments will be more ethical than markets in assignment in practice.

They are no more ethical.

What they want is to pay the lowest possible costs over the entire time they are responsible for the building.

This is exactly true for private companies as well.

The difference is that the government is responsible for the building for the entire life cycle of the building. The developer is responsible only until they can sell it to a client for as much profit as possible. This creates different strategies to minimise costs.

And for government, this means using a strategy of increased initial costs to reduce maintenance and repair costs.

[B0ycey]

The woke lefties are part of the elite wealthy. They serve the SF wealthy and engage in massive virtue signaling when it comes to homelessness. You are correct in describing the massive hypocrisy of the American left. There are no Republicans in SF and yet the blame the Republicans for the homeless situation. Very clever.

I believe Sam Francisco is in California which I have addressed. I have also told you how to combat homelessness... build more social housing. But nonetheless stop fucking calling the Democrats a party on the left. They wouldn't even be regarded as a centre right party in Europe. They would be described as a rightwing party because you don't even have fucking healthcare, have low tax for the rich, hardly any welfare, shit minimum wage and they don't want to repel gun ownership either. That is worse than the Tories here who are actually funding social building here again because the realise it has become a problem again and they are actually called a right wing party too I might add.

The mere fact you call Democrats "Lefty" means you don't even know what that means. They are the same party as the Republicans but with better seasoned politicians. If housing is failing in Blue states it is because the lobbyists fund both parties. It is that simple.

[Goranhammer]

In a nutshell, it's because of continued generations becoming less and less self-aware and self-accountable, and socialism is a good ideology to shift blame from the internal to the external. It's the "everyone gets a trophy" philosophy that allows kids to shirk the idea that everyone is NOT equal, should be held culpable for their own mistakes, and can't have a ready source of blame for not having all the things they didn't actually earn.

[wat0n]

To make more money.

So you are saying they were somehow making less money before the rent controls were established?

No. That is not how building codes work. For example, in Quebec, an architect can be held personally liable if they sign off on a project that is not up to code. So, unless you think the government can cook up some nefarious scheme where architects risk their entire careers, this is an unrealistic criticism.

What happens after the unit is built, though? There is also regulation on maintenance, for instance. Who's enforcing those?

For instance, I don't think the issue with NYCHA's housing stock lies with how the units were built, but with lack of maintenance.

Yes, and I described how building higher quality buildings reduces long term costs, which is the reason that the incentive to cut costs actually supports my claim.

That's irrelevant if the landlord (the city) doesn't maintain them. The costs for maintenance in that case are as low as they can possibly get.

No. You are assuming that the client would be held responsible for not following regulations. It is the seller (i.e. the architects, engineers, contractors, and subcontractors) who would be held liable, not the client who is the government.

I misspoke here, unless maintenance is included in building codes.

They are no more ethical.

What they want is to pay the lowest possible costs over the entire time they are responsible for the building.

This is exactly true for private companies as well.

The difference is that the government is responsible for the building for the entire life cycle of the building. The developer is responsible only until they can sell it to a client for as much profit as possible. This creates different strategies to minimise costs.

And for government, this means using a strategy of increased initial costs to reduce maintenance and repair costs.

What happens when the government doesn't maintain the building? There is also regulation on building maintenance for private landlords, you know... It's illegal in several cities to (for instance) neglect the building to such a point that it becomes infested with all sorts of animals or that heating doesn't work on winter.

[Pants-of-dog]

So you are saying they were somehow making less money before the rent controls were established?

No. I am saying that landlords will try to circumvent rent controls in order to make more money. This is not a result of rent controls.

What happens after the unit is built, though? There is also regulation on maintenance, for instance. Who's enforcing those?

For instance, I don't think the issue with NYCHA's housing stock lies with how the units were built, but with lack of maintenance.

Again, there are financial incentives that make it more likely for government to maintain buildings properly.

A private owner can ignore problems, especially if he is confident that the defects are hidden from the tenants. They also have the option of selling the building if it becomes too run down.

The government, due to its ownership of the buildings over the entire life cycle, means they are better off dealing with maintenance issues while they are still small.

That's irrelevant if the landlord (the city) doesn't maintain them. The costs for maintenance in that case are as low as they can possibly get.

No. It is still relevant even if we are now changing the subject to this new argument. I assume you are now conceding the argument that government has clear financial incentives to build better housing than private builders.

As for this new argument about financial incentives when it comes to repair and maintenance, please see above.

What happens when the government doesn't maintain the building? There is also regulation on building maintenance for private landlords, you know... It's illegal in several cities to (for instance) neglect the building to such a point that it becomes infested with all sorts of animals or that heating doesn't work on winter.

The same maintenance regulations would cover all housing regardless of owner, and the same inspection protocols would take place. So there is no difference here.

The difference is in the financial incentives I described above.

[jimjam]

My approach is different. Don’t make it so easy to be homeless. Stop providing so much and their numbers will dwindle. Do not allow them on the street. Round them up every night and put them in detention centers in the country side.

You leftie libs just don't get it do you. I say round em up and put em in "detention camps". Next allocate em into labor pools to rent out to construction companies to build luxury condos for Fat Donald's and Matt Gaetz' ilk. The money collected from renting out labor pools of urinating bums could then be used to dig ditches for them to collect their shit and piss (behind walls ,of course).



Another day on Easy Street for a lazy bum compliments of the American taxpayer.

[Julian658]

I believe Sam Francisco is in California which I have addressed. I have also told you how to combat homelessness... build more social housing. But nonetheless stop fucking calling the Democrats a party on the left. They wouldn't even be regarded as a centre right party in Europe. They would be described as a rightwing party because you don't even have fucking healthcare, have low tax for the rich, hardly any welfare, shit minimum wage and they don't want to repel gun ownership either. That is worse than the Tories here who are actually funding social building here again because the realise it has become a problem again and they are actually called a right wing party too I might add.

The mere fact you call Democrats "Lefty" means you don't even know what that means. They are the same party as the Republicans but with better seasoned politicians. If housing is failing in Blue states it is because the lobbyists fund both parties. It is that simple.

The left is different here I agree. However, they are the left in relationship to most Americans, not Brits. I live in the USA and never had an issue with how the government operates. I paid astronomical taxes, but I never tried to cheat the system. However, as a libertarian I prefer minimal government. I also believe that those that place their hopes for the future on the election of benevolent sympathetic left wing leaders are destined to be on the bottom of the socioeconomic spectrum.

When I came to America all I saw was opportunity despite some discrimination for my accent and surname. OTOH those many that have been in America for many generations have lost the drive and they expect the government to take care of them from the cradle to the tomb. IMO, that is not plan.

There has always been a class struggle in every society that ever existed on the planet, I get it. And the top can be oppressive. That is the problem with the hierarchy of talent and competence. Those on top can become tyrannical. Nevertheless, we need talent at the op to advance as a society.

Socialism is not the answer because someone has to go out and create the wealth. Socialist have never created any wealth.

[wat0n]

No. I am saying that landlords will try to circumvent rent controls in order to make more money. This is not a result of rent controls.

Why would they do anything like that if there were no rent controls? It would seem it was more profitable to them, at the time, not to redevelop and just charge the market price.

Again, there are financial incentives that make it more likely for government to maintain buildings properly.

A private owner can ignore problems, especially if he is confident that the defects are hidden from the tenants. They also have the option of selling the building if it becomes too run down.

The government, due to its ownership of the buildings over the entire life cycle, means they are better off dealing with maintenance issues while they are still small.

But in some cases, governments may let them run amok until they aren't small. For instance, they may prefer to charge low rents and dedicate the resources that would be used for maintenance to other ends, and let a future administration deal with the problem when it arises.

That is, there is a similar problem to the one you mention between private developers and owners, but this is between present and future administrations. You can also see it with the GOP's "starve the beast" strategy, leaving it to the Democrats to clean the mess.

No. It is still relevant even if we are now changing the subject to this new argument. I assume you are now conceding the argument that government has clear financial incentives to build better housing than private builders.

As for this new argument about financial incentives when it comes to repair and maintenance, please see above.

No, it's not relevant if the present administration will leave all the consequences arising from a lack of maintenance to the next one.

The same maintenance regulations would cover all housing regardless of owner, and the same inspection protocols would take place. So there is no difference here.

The difference is in the financial incentives I described above.

...Except when the inspectors come from the same city government that is also a landlord. That's why in that case you need the enforcement of maintenance regulations of public buildings to be carried out by a higher level of government (e.g. State/Provinces enforcing regulation on the cities).

[Julian658]

You leftie libs just don't get it do you. I say round em up and put em in "detention camps". Next allocate em into labor pools to rent out to construction companies to build luxury condos for Fat Donald's and Matt Gaetz' ilk. The money collected from renting out labor pools of urinating bums could then be used to dig ditches for them to collect their shit and piss (behind walls ,of course).



Another day on Easy Street for a lazy bum compliments of the American taxpayer.

The homeless is a problem of the left. A less sympathetic right government would round them up, you are correct. And in the end we would have less homeless people. You are looking at this in a very tribal manner "us versus them". I see it quite differently. In every society you will always have people in the gutter. About 15% of the population have an IQ below 85 in an era where menial jobs that require no skills are disappearing. We have a problem.

[late]

The homeless is a problem of the left.

A less sympathetic right government would round them up, you are correct. And in the end we would have less homeless people.

You are looking at this in a very tribal manner "us versus them". I see it quite differently. In every society you will always have people in the gutter. About 15% of the population have an IQ below 85 in an era where menial jobs that require no skills are disappearing. We have a problem.

That doesn't make sense, not that anyone here expects you will make sense.

They would still be homeless, Einstein. Unless you plan on killing them.

What we can do is end homelessness. It's actually cheaper than what we do now. Finland provides help to get most back on their feet, which means a job.

Not exactly rocket science.

[Julian658]

That doesn't make sense, not that anyone here expects you will make sense.

They would still be homeless, Einstein. Unless you plan on killing them.

What we can do is end homelessness. It's actually cheaper than what we do now. Finland provides help to get most back on their feet, which means a job.

Not exactly rocket science.

The Armed forces tested recruits for intelligence for years and those that score low could not even enter the military to perform basic duties.

The you have folks that simply do not want to try.
Mental illness, drug use, lack of family values, etc.

I know I sound harsh and heartless, but this is not a simple problem. What you propose will help the homeless person with none of the above problems. I would agree ith that. Boyce said give them a home and if they do not maintain the home kick them out. Honestly, I don't know how many can run a household on their own with no outside help. This problem will continue to grow as there will be zero jobs in the future to people with no skills. We do not have elevator operators anymore.

The solution is to create menial jobs and have humans do the work even if a computer is available. Or just go with UBI and hope for the best. I am cynical I know.

If every person had a family homelessness would not be an issue.

[B0ycey]

Honestly, I don't know how many can run a household on their own with no outside help. This problem will continue to grow as there will be zero jobs in the future to people with no skills.

OMG! This guy clearly needs to get out more. What you think every homeless person is the crazy pigeon lady from Home Alone or something? There is a problem with drink, drugs and crime with the homeless people but they don't start off like that. It is their way to fucking deal with the shit they have to face with and a way to just survive. When you actually help someone on the streets they are so grateful they will open up to you and tell you their entire story. They are begging for help. People who are homeless are not fucking idiots. They are just people like you and me but who had misfortune. I will give you SOME examples that I have heard but of course everyone's story is different. Girls who were running away from rape from parents. Teenagers who got thrown out of their house because their mom met a new boyfriend, countless dads who broke up with the children's mother, gamblers who lost it all to pay off debt, families evicted because their tenants wanted to sell their home. They are not fucking idol people. They are people who if they had the chance would fucking work. Many were working. Some wanted to go to uni. They don't all have low IQs. Tesla was talking to fucking pigeons and that guy was a bloody genius. So do not pigeonhole and chat shit please. You have no idea who is on the streets because you haven't taken time to open your bloody eyes.

[jimjam]

not that anyone here expects you will make sense.

I'm wondering if what we have here is Matt Gaetz working incognito testing ideas

The homeless is a problem of the left.

We have a problem

#658 claims to be something called a "libertarian" and, yet, everyone he disagrees with is a member of the "left" which seems to indicate that he buys into the simple minded dichotomy of the day : "left" vs "Right". Now, lessee now Homelessness is a problem of the "left" but "we have a problem" perhaps only when #658 has to witness, horror of horrors, public urinating.

This gets very confusing but I am obviously wasting my time splitting political hairs most likely due to the fact that I have been sitting in a hospital bed for 3 weeks and am bored shitless. Homelessness seems to be a political problem not a human problem to #658 types which conveniently permits them to sidestep the issue but for the usual vapid inflammatory type one liners. Solutions? Best #658 can come up with is to round up all homeless folks every day and ship em out to the country for the night where #658 doesn't have to step in their poop.