[Rancid]

In Switzerland there's a reference interest rate for mortgages. If it goes down, landlords have to lower rents. It basically puts on limit on how much profit they can make on their investment. There are also lots of building cooperatives, which are non-profit. It has a lot to do with political power. With more tenants than house owners, you get more tenant-friendly legislation.

That's an interesting idea.

I just looked, for $2000/month you get a ~1000sqft apartment in Austin. That doesn't seem excessively expensive.

24k a year is a pretty large burden for the type of people that have to rent in Austin. Couple this with massive student debt, or the fact that there are entire family's that make less than say 30k a year. How can they support this rent? How can say, a local school teacher support this if they only make 35-40k/yr?

Couple that with all the other expenses in life, like healthcare and trying to save for retirement. $2000 is a lot. Cost of living is relatively higher in Austin. What's jacking up the rent is basically all the Californians moving here and bidding things up.

Basically housing is sucking up all extra income, this is a global problem by the way. Many large cities around the world with the exception of Chinese cities are seeing issues like this.

[wat0n]

In Switzerland there's a reference interest rate for mortgages. If it goes down, landlords have to lower rents. It basically puts on limit on how much profit they can make on their investment. There are also lots of building cooperatives, which are non-profit. It has a lot to do with political power. With more tenants than house owners, you get more tenant-friendly legislation.

Is this defined at the local, cantonal or national level? What's the homeownership rate there?

But yes, zoning is all about political power.

I just looked, for $2000/month you get a ~1000sqft apartment in Austin. That doesn't seem excessively expensive.

That's not too bad for US standards.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog regardless of your cherry picking of the paper on rent controls, the fact of the matter as far as NYCHA's troubles go is that even the NYCHA (and NYC) don't deny that, which is why the city settled with the Justice Department. I'd say covering the situation up also implies intent, and recognizing the cover-up implies a recognition of such intent.

In US law, arriving at a settlement between the parties is way o avoiding court, and people use it because neither side has to admit guilt or error.

So no, settlements do not show wrongdoing.

—————————

2000$ a month is decent for anyone making 6000$ or more a month.

This is about 37$ an hour.

By the way, that is take home pay, not gross.

[wat0n]

In US law, arriving at a settlement between the parties is way o avoiding court, and people use it because neither side has to admit guilt or error.

So no, settlements do not show wrongdoing.

Legally, indeed. But we all know that the city settled because it had little chance for winning.

As the piece from NBC shows, even NYCHA admits the problems it has and the shortfall capital it faces.

2000$ a month is decent for anyone making 6000$ or more a month.

This is about 37$ an hour.

By the way, that is take home pay, not gross.

Indeed, but it gets worse in NYC or SF. And you won't get 1000 sqft, you'll get something half of it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Legally, indeed. But we all know that the city settled because it had little chance for winning.

As the piece from NBC shows, even NYCHA admits the problems it has and the shortfall capital it faces.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

Indeed, but it gets worse in NYC or SF. And you won't get 1000 sqft, you'll get something half of it.

Perhaps it is time for a different solution than relying on the private market.

[wat0n]

Perhaps it is time for a different solution than relying on the private market.

...Or maybe those cities should just accept some more density. I mean, Manhattan is as dense as it gets but the other boroughs could be densified some more.

[Pants-of-dog]

...Or maybe those cities should just accept some more density. I mean, Manhattan is as dense as it gets but the other boroughs could be densified some more.

So that developers can make more expensive condos per land parcel and crowd out the shorter and older buildings that low income earners live in now?

That would reduce the amount of low income housing.

Unless you are proposing that these changes would also include some sort of requirement for developers to make low income housing and eschew all those profits. Are you arguing for that?

[wat0n]

So that developers can make more expensive condos per land parcel and crowd out the shorter and older buildings that low income earners live in now?

That would reduce the amount of low income housing.

Unless you are proposing that these changes would also include some sort of requirement for developers to make low income housing and eschew all those profits. Are you arguing for that?

Sure, you can add that requirement if you wish.

[Pants-of-dog]

If we did things the way I wished, there would be no one without a decent home. But we are restricted to a capitalist framework in real life, so we have to accept crappy developments by the lowest bidder trying to make a buck by doing low quality work. So we are stuck with trying to limit their ability to price it so that only the top 40% can afford it.

[wat0n]

If we did things the way I wished, there would be no one without a decent home. But we are restricted to a capitalist framework in real life, so we have to accept crappy developments by the lowest bidder trying to make a buck by doing low quality work. So we are stuck with trying to limit their ability to price it so that only the top 40% can afford it.

If everything was the way I wished, there would be universal peace and no poverty, war, scarcity. But that's not the world we live in.

Rent controls have shown to be problematic. I think then a subsidy would make more sense, or have the government build more public housing (with an option to sell them to the tenants after some years of rent payments).

[Rancid]

Balloon frame homes baby!

Let the low quality reign!

[Rugoz]

24k a year is a pretty large burden for the type of people that have to rent in Austin. Couple this with massive student debt, or the fact that there are entire family's that make less than say 30k a year. How can they support this rent? How can say, a local school teacher support this if they only make 35-40k/yr?

Couple that with all the other expenses in life, like healthcare and trying to save for retirement. $2000 is a lot. Cost of living is relatively higher in Austin. What's jacking up the rent is basically all the Californians moving here and bidding things up.

Yeah, obviously depends on income levels. Paying teachers 35-40k is kind of obscene though.

Basically housing is sucking up all extra income, this is a global problem by the way. Many large cities around the world with the exception of Chinese cities are seeing issues like this.

$500 for what looks like a 150sqft "apartment" in Shanghai is hardly cheap, especially given wages are much lower.

Is this defined at the local, cantonal or national level? What's the homeownership rate there?

The net rate of return cannot be higher than the reference interest rate + 0.5%, where:

net rate of return = net income / invested equity (construction/land acquisition costs etc. - borrowed capital).
reference interest rate = volume-weighted average interest rate on domestic mortgages

Home ownership rate is 41.6%, the lowest in Europe.

[wat0n]

@Rugoz my question was more if it was defined by the national government or was defined at a more local level.

The US has a higher homeownership rate (65.8%) so I think it's unlikely to happen.

[Rugoz]

my question was more if it was defined by the national government or was defined at a more local level.

"domestic mortgages", hence national level.

The US has a higher homeownership rate (65.8%) so I think it's unlikely to happen.

Clearly not.

[Tainari88]

@Rancid and @wat0n I used this section 42 for housing for many of my medical case people with very low incomes of less than $18k a year.

I went to the capital and spoke with the senators. The conservative Right who love bullshit capitalism only voted against expanding it. But the ones who were the most leftist of all voted for it.

https://www.apartments.com/blog/what-is ... 42-housing

It solved a lot of problems section 42. I got ten of my clients in that program. The apartments looked like this:

https://www.amaranthdenver.com/?gclid=C ... XpEALw_wcB


One guy I got into that building and all he had to pay was $250 a month in rent back in 2012. But he overdosed one day before the move in date. Drug addiction will kill you quicker than poverty.

[Unthinking Majority]

@Rancid and @wat0n I used this section 42 for housing for many of my medical case people with very low incomes of less than $18k a year.

I went to the capital and spoke with the senators. The conservative Right who love bullshit capitalism only voted against expanding it. But the ones who were the most leftist of all voted for it.

https://www.apartments.com/blog/what-is ... 42-housing

It solved a lot of problems section 42. I got ten of my clients in that program. The apartments looked like this:

https://www.amaranthdenver.com/?gclid=C ... XpEALw_wcB

One guy I got into that building and all he had to pay was $250 a month in rent back in 2012. But he overdosed one day before the move in date. Drug addiction will kill you quicker than poverty.

The root cause of much homelessness isn't capitalism, it's mental illness and child abuse, which lead to drug addiction.

There are reasons why people can't afford rent or can't get or maintain employment. I don't think anyone should get free or subsidized housing or welfare without participating in social programs that will help break this dependency and improve their lives so they can, if possible, function as independent adults instead of wards of the state.

[Julian658]

Capitalism has nothing to do with welfare for the poor. However, most systems spray capitalism with social programs that are generally administered by the bleeding heart types.
Any successful society needs a balance between the right and the left. The lefties and SJWs have a legitimate role as they speak for the disenfranchised. The conservative capitalists have a legit role in that they create wealth.

[Godstud]

@Julian658 It's called a MIXED Economy. People are just wanting for there to be more Socialism than Capitalism in that Mixed Economy that is so common in the developed world.

Capitalism left to its own ends, ends up being Predatory Capitalism.

[Julian658]

@Julian658 It's called a MIXED Economy. People are just wanting for there to be more Socialism than Capitalism in that Mixed Economy that is so common in the developed world.

Capitalism left to its own ends, ends up being Predatory Capitalism.

We agree. however, i do not like the word mixed economy. The economy is created by capitalism and the socialist types redistribute the wealth.

[Godstud]

@Julian658 Socialism isn't about redistribution of wealth, and people have already pointed out that Capitalism is also a redistribution of wealth.

Socialism says that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. This is not a redistribution of wealth, per se.

You seem to be confusing Communism with Socialism.

The main difference is that under Communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under Socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government.

Under communism, the people are compensated or provided for based on their needs. In a pure communist society, the government provides most or all food, clothing, housing and other necessities based on what it considers to be the needs of the people. Socialism is based on the premise the people will be compensated based on their level of individual contribution to the economy. Effort and innovation are thus rewarded under socialism.
https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-be ... government.

Time to stop believing the propaganda and start doing some critical thinking.