1990s brought us worldwide austerity measures that saw governments divest and then leave the public housing responsibility entirely, depending on where, leaving less competition for private house builders
Banking deregulation and continued capture and corruption of government by private corporation allowed riskier and easier money flow
a great many of the legislators are of the monied investor class that themselves are multi-house owners and landlords, a conflict of interest with the general public good
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 33 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,232,672
> 1990s brought us worldwide austerity measures that saw governments divest and then leave the public housing responsibility entirely, depending on where, leaving less competition for private house builders
This isn't the answer, because government spending isn't some magic way to create wealth out of nothing. Publicly funded housing still has to be paid for from taxes.
Cutting $1k off someone's rent, and adding $1k onto their taxes doesn't fix anything.
> a great many of the legislators are of the monied investor class that themselves are multi-house owners and landlords, a conflict of interest with the general public good
Yes, and they have a vested interest in restricting the housing supply to drive prices up and profit even more without doing any work.
If you want more housing, first make it legal. Dense housing is blocked by local governments, or artificial costs are added on to make sure it's never competitive with current housing stock and high rents aren't threatened.
You also need to actually pay the people that do the work. Who's going to work long days in the sun, with loud + dangerous tools when they are barely making any more money then they would standing around in retail? Replacing worn out clothes and equipment, paying for transportation to the job site, covering medical issues, drinking and eating more for a more demanding job all cut into take home pay. Then you are taxed at a higher rate for having a higher gross income.
Construction crews cut their job demand in half, and lose maybe 10% of their pay by moving to easier industries. This is a new development, it didn't happen in a free market, but when everyone is supposed to earn the same money it makes more sense to get that pay by becoming a slacker than working for nothing.
> > 1990s brought us worldwide austerity measures that saw governments divest and then leave the public housing responsibility entirely, depending on where, leaving less competition for private house builders > > This isn't the answer, because government spending isn't some magic way to create wealth out of nothing. Publicly funded housing still has to be paid for from taxes. > > Cutting $1k off someone's rent, and adding $1k onto their taxes doesn't fix anything. > > > a great many of the legislators are of the monied investor class that themselves are multi-house owners and landlords, a conflict of interest with the general public good > > Yes, and they have a vested interest in restricting the housing supply to drive prices up and profit even more without doing any work. > > If you want more housing, first make it legal. Dense housing is blocked by local governments, or artificial costs are added on to make sure it's never competitive with current housing stock and high rents aren't threatened. > > You also need to actually pay the people that do the work. Who's going to work long days in the sun, with loud + dangerous tools when they are barely making any more money then they would standing around in retail? Replacing worn out clothes and equipment, paying for transportation to the job site, covering medical issues, drinking and eating more for a more demanding job all cut into take home pay. Then you are taxed at a higher rate for having a higher gross income. > > Construction crews cut their job demand in half, and lose maybe 10% of their pay by moving to easier industries. This is a new development, it didn't happen in a free market, but when everyone is supposed to earn the same money it makes more sense to get that pay by becoming a slacker than working for nothing.