Why Are So Many Young People Becoming Socialists? - Page 24 - 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.
#15166172
Julian658 wrote: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.


Part of that could be driven by right wing cities pushing the homeless out. It's not too crazy.

But I do believe, too, that some of the traditional rent control/zoning policies of those cities exacerbate the problem. This can be seen by the relative exodus of lower income (yet not homeless) population of some of those places or the whole phenomenon of supercommuting.
#15166176
@Rancid the short answer to who is homeless in the USA? Just about anyone who is not a multimillionaire.

Divorced fathers who do pay child support and live out of their parked vans, couch surfers who can't pay room rent or basic rent, added in relatives who are sleeping on the Uncle's couch or sofa bed, people in shelters for domestic violence, unemployed people who got evicted and can't get another apartment because they have an eviction on their record and bad credit due to not paying a couple of credit card minimums due to loss of a job, families who had a parent die of a disease and loss of that income led to not enough income to retain a house that was budgeted on the dead or in prison parents' incomes. If I sat here and told you how many scenarios for homelessness exists including mental issues and just-let-out-of-prison scenario we would be here for months.

Statistically speaking, anyone who can save between $400 to $1500 dollars in an emergency bank account can avoid becoming homeless. Most people get evicted just because they were short on that month's rent by that amount. Or mortgage non payment between 2-5 months. If you keep that in the bank as emergency untouchable funds at all times? You should be able to avoid it.

The problem becomes issues like pandemic job losses and unemployment checks not being enough to cover another socioeconomic lifestyle, too much borrowing and credit card payments cutting into your personal expenses. That is why I always would tell people in my emergency planning kits? Make sure you either can eliminate all debts or not be in debt. Avoid student loan debt and credit card debt. They tend to be very very hard to cope with in emergencies. Medical debt you might be able to negotiate better terms and if you declare bankruptcy it might affect your ability to find another job, get another apartment. It last ten years (bankruptcy does on your credit rating) and it is problematic.

Got to do things with a long term goal in mind. Pay all bills on time. Don't delay. And save at least 10% of your pay for a rainy day fund.

With immigrants being deported? Sock away the equivalent of $5000 US dollars in a bank account or in cash you have access to fast. Without penalty for withdrawals.
In Mexico or Latin America $5000 gets you far. You can rent a place, buy basic furniture and even a bike or scooter and do a 3-5 month job search here with that amount.

Failure to plan for these things? Deep deep problems. Espeically allowing your children to be taken into foster care. You could lose your kids and your parental rights fairly easily if you allow them to be separated from you for homelessness, neglect or just being deported and without means to support or stabilize them.

Go to your home country and your hometowns. Don't be stuck in a big border city in Mexico thousands of kilometers from your family that does have housing (an empty couch and so on) and the needed help. Have enough to get there and settled. Also have up to date passports of your own nation's required status to re-enter the home nation. Many immigrants work undetected for years and let their original documents lapse and are stuck in detention centers for months because the paperwork is expired in Mexico or Honduras, El Salvador, Venezuela, etc. It is a nightmare of red tape bureaucracy.

I did the emergency kits. I learned how much in DENIAL people live about the possibilities of problems. They fail to plan properly and their situations get extremely complicated and even dangerous for the family and themselves.

Homelessness is about lack of a safety net.

People think government subsidized affordable housing is easy to get sometimes. They are dead wrong. Trying to get an affordable or cost controlled rent? In many cities? Like SF or Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Austin, Dallas, etc is about waiting around for YEARS for approval. About 2-4 years of waiting just to move in. And people usually only move out if they are found to be in violation of some strict standards like no drug dealing and or crime, and extra unauthorized people in the place, sold the property to a private place, gentrification. Because if not? People don't move from that good affordable housing. Under death is the only way.
#15166177
@wat0n

1. I have given examples of financial incentives that governments have that private developers do not and that have a impact on the quality of housing and maintenance. You have countered with the argument that there are other financial incentives that affect both. This may be true, but it does not contradict my claim at all. To disprove my claim, it would be necessary to show that private developers have financial incentives to build and maintain high quality housing that governments do not, and provide an argument why these latter incentives would be more significant.

I have also explained why governments are more accountable than private landlords and you were unable to refute that, so you are wrong when you claim that governments are less accountable.

And I also already explained that lowered funding does not affect things like what materials or details are used, and that it only affects how much work is done and not its quality. So, this argument about administrations shirking duties is also incorrect.

2. Please provide evidence for this claim.

3. So no, you cannot think of a single building regulation that would impact the housing market. Now, can you think of a specific zoning issue? Perhaps an example about height restrictions?

—————————

As for the idea that more progressive cities crate homelessness, this idea is ridiculous. In Canada, it is well known that right wing provincial administrations will buy homeless people one way bus tickets to Vancouver.
#15166179
wat0n wrote:Part of that could be driven by right wing cities pushing the homeless out. It's not too crazy.

But I do believe, too, that some of the traditional rent control/zoning policies of those cities exacerbate the problem. This can be seen by the relative exodus of lower income (yet not homeless) population of some of those places or the whole phenomenon of supercommuting.


Why is homelessness lower in latin Americans?
Many of the Hispanic immigrants tend to be quite poor. Well educated people are in the minority. So how come they have so little homelessness? Why are Anglo Americans leading in homelessness?
The answer is likely better family values in Hispanic people. That applies to Asians too.

As for housing: I would give them a free apartment and a yearly budget for maintenance. As owners they would be responsible for the maintenance. Home ownership would provide some dignity and they would also have to learn to maintain the home. The left treats the poor and minorities as stray dogs that need help. It is dehumanizing!
Last edited by Julian658 on 12 Apr 2021 17:41, edited 1 time in total.
#15166180
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. I have given examples of financial incentives that governments have that private developers do not and that have a impact on the quality of housing and maintenance. You have countered with the argument that there are other financial incentives that affect both. This may be true, but it does not contradict my claim at all. To disprove my claim, it would be necessary to show that private developers have financial incentives to build and maintain high quality housing that governments do not, and provide an argument why these latter incentives would be more significant.


Not really. To disprove your arguments, I only need to show those incentives aren't really all that important and one can show that through counterexamples.

Also, electability isn't a relevant issue for private landlords. It is only relevant for the government.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I have also explained why governments are more accountable than private landlords and you were unable to refute that, so you are wrong when you claim that governments are less accountable.


I explained why this isn't the case, again, by using examples. In particular, a local government may fail to hold itself accountable and this would justify leaving enforcement of the construction regulations relevant to public buildings to a higher level of government, if any.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And I also already explained that lowered funding does not affect things like what materials or details are used, and that it only affects how much work is done and not its quality. So, this argument about administrations shirking duties is also incorrect.


Wow, you're such an expert that you believe buildings don't need fixing from time to time even if they are built with the best available materials at the time. Nonsense, maintenance is clearly part of the regular investment on the housing stock.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. Please provide evidence for this claim.


Which one? What's happened to NYCHA? Sure, I can cite the NYT too if you want:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/nyre ... g-fix.html

Pants-of-dog wrote:3. So no, you cannot think of a single building regulation that would impact the housing market. Now, can you think of a specific zoning issue? Perhaps an example about height restrictions?


Sure, just look at floor limits set up by most (if not all) municipalities in a city.
#15166183
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n


As for the idea that more progressive cities crate homelessness, this idea is ridiculous. In Canada, it is well known that right wing provincial administrations will buy homeless people one way bus tickets to Vancouver.

I do not deny that POD. But, if you treat them well they will come out of the woodwork.
#15166185
Julian658 wrote:
I do not deny that POD. But, if you treat them well they will come out of the woodwork.




Looks like you want to drive them out of Right wing places until the decent places are overwhelmed, and lose the ability to help, and start driving them out of necessity.. that's roughly what happened in the Great Depression, many died.

Why is it everything the Right wants has a body count?
#15166187
@wat0n

1. Whether or not something is important seems subjective at this point. Feel free to try and make a more objective argument. But yes, electability is another reason why governments are more accountable than their private counterparts.

2. Please quote the relevant text and explain how it supports your claim. Thanks.

3. Please provide a specific example. Thank you.

—————————

Using this “teach a man to fish” analogy for housing, the left wants to give the man a fish to eat right now, and teach him to how fish as well, while the right wants to ignore him and let him starve until he goes to see the leftie who will actually help him.
#15166189
late wrote:Looks like you want to drive them out of Right wing places until the decent places are overwhelmed, and lose the ability to help, and start driving them out of necessity.. that's roughly what happened in the Great Depression, many died.

Why is it everything the Right wants has a body count?


I am a libertarian. I believe that less intervention is best to keep homelessness down. I know it sounds heartless, but if you make it too easy they will come. We need some balance.

I will round up the homeless from public streets and offer them free room and board outside the city free of charge. I would also provide them jobs for the good of the community, doing maintenance work, mowing the laws, cooking in the free cafeteria, etc, etc. If a homeless person does not want a free home I guess we cannot force them, but once the are living under a bridge I would round them up again if they break the law.

This is a bit like the "tough love" rule when a teen is unruly and rebellious. The last thing a parent wants to do is kiss the ass of a rebellious teen.
#15166190
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. Whether or not something is important seems subjective at this point. Feel free to try and make a more objective argument. But yes, electability is another reason why governments are more accountable than their private counterparts.


And yet the administrations were able to be elected despite those problems. Maybe, because maintenance problems begin to show up after the election has taken place.

And whether a city's public housing stock is having maintenance problems or not is not all that subjective.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. Please quote the relevant text and explain how it supports your claim. Thanks.


No, I have done so several times before and you refuse to read it because you can't stand the fact that you're just wrong. Read it yourself if you want.

Pants-of-dog wrote:3. Please provide a specific example. Thank you.


At least in the US, municipalities have a general right to limit building height to prevent densification:

https://www.planning.org/pas/reports/report111.htm
#15166193
1. Many public housing projects will have maintenance issues. So will private housing. The question is which will have more. The economic arguments as well as the evidence seem to indicate that public housing is better for each dollar spent.

2. I will now consider this argument dismissed for lack of evidence.The text quoted from the Murdoch tabloid does not support your claim. I can provide the link to your post again, if you wish. You never quoted the other article and it is behind a paywall. So no, you have not supported this claim.

3. So, in which city did these have a significant impact on raising housing prices for low income people?
#15166198
Pants-of-dog wrote:1. Many public housing projects will have maintenance issues. So will private housing. The question is which will have more. The economic arguments as well as the evidence seem to indicate that public housing is better for each dollar spent.


What evidence would that be? So far you've presented none to that effect.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. I will now consider this argument dismissed for lack of evidence.The text quoted from the Murdoch tabloid does not support your claim. I can provide the link to your post again, if you wish. You never quoted the other article and it is behind a paywall. So no, you have not supported this claim.


I also cited the NBC and other sources. Again, if you want you can actually read those too.

Your disregard for the plight of NYC's black population living under its public housing projects is also duly noted. I'd advice you to reconsider, because it may make you seem racist.

Pants-of-dog wrote:3. So, in which city did these have a significant impact on raising housing prices for low income people?


Zoning in general? It's a problem across California.
#15166201
Julian658 wrote: You just recycled left wing talking points that promote victimology. Why is homelessness not a problem among Hispanics and Asians?

:?:

Julian658 wrote: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.


What are you trying to imply with this statement? What exactly is the reason you've made this statement? You are trying to say something without saying it, so what are you saying?
#15166202
Rancid wrote::?:



What are you trying to imply with this statement? What exactly is the reason you've made this statement? You are trying to say something without saying it, so what are you saying?


The chances of finding a study that indicates that woke cities promote homelessness is unlikely. The people that could do the study will not go there. I am using observation and common sense. You have won the argument of no citation. This is a copy of my reply to your compañero late.

"I am a libertarian. I believe that less intervention is best to keep homelessness down. I know it sounds heartless, but if you make it too easy they will come. We need some balance.

I will round up the homeless from public streets and offer them free room and board outside the city free of charge. I would also provide them jobs for the good of the community, doing maintenance work, mowing the laws, cooking in the free cafeteria, etc, etc. If a homeless person does not want a free home I guess we cannot force them, but once the are living under a bridge I would round them up again if they break the law.

This is a bit like the "tough love" rule when a teen is unruly and rebellious. The last thing a parent wants to do is kiss the ass of a rebellious teen".

Feel free to debate the above. I f you make a valid point i will accept it. I am not POD like.
#15166203
Julian658 wrote:The chances of finding a study that indicates that woke cities promote homelessness is unlikely. The people that could do the study will not go there. I am using observation and common sense. You have won the argument of no citation. This is a copy of my reply to your compañero late.


What I'm saying is that your common sense and observation is highly flawed as I pointed out. It has nothing ot do with being woke, left/right/whatever. You're correlations based on assumptions is completely off base. It would be foolish to make policy decisions off of your assumptions.

I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to have a conversation. The fact that you view this as there has to be a loser and winner in this discussion is very telling.
#15166204
Rancid wrote:What I'm saying is that your common sense and observation is highly flawed as I pointed out. It has nothing ot do with being woke, left/right/whatever. You're correlations based on assumptions is completely off base. It would be foolish to make policy decisions off of your assumptions.

I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to have a conversation. The fact that you view this as there has to be a loser and winner in this discussion is very telling.

I agree, I am not into battles of win or lose.
My experience with homelessness comes from walking in the downtown areas of the major cities in America. Most of what I saw was drug dependence and mental illness.

I would be happy to help those that are truly in dire straits that are not strung out on drugs. However, i did not see them. Maybe they were staying in the shelters.

There is also an upscale homeless type that you see in Hollywood, California. They dress better and walk around with luggage rather than a shopping cart, Many have cell phones and an address where they received some monetary help.

The question that begs an answer is: Why not move these people to the country side and build them nice homes they can have on their names? Give them some dignity. Why must the local government engage in activities that promotes the shanty tent areas in downtown? Why give them drugs? Why are they not prosecuted for petty crimes?
#15166205
Pants-of-dog wrote:1. Many public housing projects will have maintenance issues. So will private housing. The question is which will have more. The economic arguments as well as the evidence seem to indicate that public housing is better for each dollar spent.

If public housing projects are better built then why not regulate the quality of house building? Like how you can't put shoddy electrical wiring in a house.
#15166209
@wat0n

1. From your paper:

    We aggregate these numbers over the entire population of renters impacted by the rent control law. The aggregate welfare benefits are very large. Older households received a cumulative benefit of $3.960 billion dollars over the entire period, while younger households received a cumulative benefit of $3.661 billion dollars. Across the entire population, the aggregate benefit was $7.621 billion dollars, reflecting an annual average of $423.383 million dollars. Note also that these welfare numbers are only for the 1994 population impacted by the rent control expansion. It does not take into account the welfare benefits for renters who moved into the impacted properties in later years, which presumably were also quite large.

So, rent controls helped SF renters to the tune of over 7 billion dollars.

2. Please provide the link to the NBC article again. Thanks. Also, I do not care if you think I am racist.

3. You seem unable to provide an actual example of zoning laws being a problem for low income housing.
  • 1
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 34
Hartlepool By-Election

That's not too difficult. Southwick is pretty non[…]

Controversial opinion: Foreign multinational cong[…]

At the end of the math below, to convert all ca[…]

It seems his main selling point doesn't work anym[…]