Wealth inequality doesn't have anything to do with homelessness

[Seattle]

Exactly. And if Mississippi had the sort of tech incubators / startup funding programs that California has (for example) there would be Microsoft type companies. But that takes funding.

No one "funded" Microsoft in that way. This isn't a centrally planned economy.

 

[billvon]

Do you generally take everything literally in real life. If someone says "The weather is beautiful today" do you say "It's sunny today, I guess you have never tried to do physical labor on a hot sunny day"?

Nope.

Income inequality has little to do with the cost of housing unless you are the only one with a low income and everyone else has a higher income.

Income inequality has a great deal to do with the AVAILABILITY of housing for the poor. As a very simple example, many rich people own more than one house/condo/apartment; homeless people own none. In fact, nationwide, there are 28 empty homes for every one homeless person.

(And to derail your next strawman, no, this does not mean that the government should take away vacation homes from rich people and give them to poor people. It simply illustrates that income inequality results in homeless people even in a market with plenty of housing.)

Are you actually, literally, arguing that everyone should have the same income? Should the local gardener make exactly as much as you?

Nope. We call that a "strawman argument" - a situation where you cannot/do not want to argue against what I said, so you make up a ridiculous position, assign it to me and argue against that instead.

Why take a position and make it ridiculous.

Indeed.

 

[billvon]

No one "funded" Microsoft in that way. This isn't a centrally planned economy.

I didn't say they did. I said that if a state spends more money on incubators/startup funding they have more companies like Microsoft.

Startups need ecosystems. They need a supply of educated and talented workers; education (both primary and secondary) is critical for this. They need low cost paths towards starting their businesses; the "garage company" was popular years ago, but nowadays more often incubators and/or cheap warehouse space provide that. They need someone to fund them and buy their early products; both state and private startup funding and programs like the SBIR and CalOSBA provide that.

Mississippi doesn't have those. California (and Texas, and Massachusetts) does.

 

[Seattle]

Nope.


Income inequality has a great deal to do with the AVAILABILITY of housing for the poor. As a very simple example, many rich people own more than one house/condo/apartment; homeless people own none. In fact, nationwide, there are 28 empty homes for every one homeless person.

(And to derail your next strawman, no, this does not mean that the government should take away vacation homes from rich people and give them to poor people. It simply illustrates that income inequality results in homeless people even in a market with plenty of housing.)



Nope. We call that a "strawman argument" - a situation where you cannot/do not want to argue against what I said, so you make up a ridiculous position, assign it to me and argue against that instead.



Indeed.

To illustrate the ridiculousness of a position it is often helpful to present the extreme case. It just cuts off further discussion to label it as a strawman argument. It's the same with labeling something as trolling, in many cases.

If a wealthy person has a vacation house, that rarely would take away housing from a poor person. The poor person can't afford that vacation house. Housing not being available for a poor person isn't because a rich person owns a house. If that house is put on the market is a poor person likely to buy it? By definition, "no".

 

[Seattle]

I didn't say they did. I said that if a state spends more money on incubators/startup funding they have more companies like Microsoft.

Startups need ecosystems. They need a supply of educated and talented workers; education (both primary and secondary) is critical for this. They need low cost paths towards starting their businesses; the "garage company" was popular years ago, but nowadays more often incubators and/or cheap warehouse space provide that. They need someone to fund them and buy their early products; both state and private startup funding and programs like the SBIR and CalOSBA provide that.

Mississippi doesn't have those. California (and Texas, and Massachusetts) does.

We were talking about whether people move to a state due to jobs or progressive policies. Are most progressive policies based around business start-ups, less regulation, lower taxes or is it more about higher taxes, more regulations, dealing with the homeless, less police and more social workers?

 

[Jeeves]

I don't think anyone is arguing that there never was systemic racism.

But it has since disappeared? What, because of All in the Family and The Cosby Show?

We're talking about the system, which is the laws.

Not everyone who talks about systemic racism considers only the laws relevant to how people are generally treated. Employers, police officers, landlords, school administrators and retail store employees may do things that are technically legal, yet racist. Politicians - eg Trump - make public speeches that are openly racist and their social media outlets provide a platform for racist propaganda, which in turn affects its readers' attitude.

When they are broken, we prosecute.

Do you really? Even if the law is broken by cops? Eve if it's broken by rich, influential people? If so, never mind; Trump's tame Supreme Court will make all better.

Good because everyone's quality of life is less limited by poverty

Not visibly, no.
Not

Wealth inequality doesn't have anything to do with homelessness. Mental illness, drug addiction, not having a job has a lot to do with homelessness.

the cost of living - particularly housing? Harris' hairbrained idea of creating more affordable housing might have been helpful..... but the extremely wealthy might have had to pay some tax. All those crazy people on the street might have been helped in a less unequal society. There might be less drug addiction if treatment were available, but that would cost government spending. More people could conceivably have jobs if they had not been downsized to increase profits, which adds to the wealth inequality. But of course, these matters are entirely unconnected.

I'd say it's even simpler than that - it's based on homophily, which is something we all experience. Unless you recognize and fight it, you'll end up treating people who look/talk/act/dress differently than you - differently.

Not as a natural phenomenon. Without preparation to fear or disdain people of a different appearance, the natural reaction is interest, curiosity. Thus, Columbus and his gang, Cartier, etc. were welcomed by the unwary American natives. The early travellers to China met with polite interest. The first time I saw an African-American - I was 9 - I thought him quite wonderful; a chocolate man. There is recognizing difference and there is prejudice. They're not the same. Denying people credit, a seat on the bus or a lease on an apartment is not about difference; it's about the history of slavery.

Trump is a POS and I think terms like racism probably do not apply to him.

While I don't know what POS stands for, I agree. Trump loves and hates people according to which way his wind blows. He respects nobody and has no creed or principle; he attacks whichever group he thinks his base fears.

My Spidy senses told me somebody was talking about me behind my back. But that was days ago. I'm pretty much caught up now.

 

[Seattle]

the cost of living - particularly housing? Harris' hairbrained idea of creating more affordable housing might have been helpful..... but the extremely wealthy might have had to pay some tax. All those crazy people on the street might have been helped in a less unequal society. There might be less drug addiction if treatment were available, but that would cost government spending. More people could conceivably have jobs if they had not been downsized to increase profits, which adds to the wealth inequality. But of course, these matters are entirely unconnected.

Not only are they not connected, they aren't even relevant. The wealthy do pay tax. They pay most of the Federal Income taxes. Crazy people on the street "may" have been helped in a less unequal society? You can help them without focusing on how how "unequal" income or wealth is.

Government seems to spend plenty and just monetizes the debt. It's not a good idea but that's the current reality. How much more one person makes than another isn't relevant. There is no causal connection.

Jobs aren't created for the sake of creating jobs. Profit is the mechanism that efficiently allocates societies scarce resources.

Yes, these things are entirely unconnected. It's rainy on Wednesday and my garbage pickup is Wednesday. Does that mean that rain and garbage pickup is connected?

 

[billvon]

It just cuts off further discussion to label it as a strawman argument. It's the same with labeling something as trolling, in many cases.

If you present a strawman and it cuts off the discussion, or if I point it out and it cuts off the discussion, that's a good thing.

If a wealthy person has a vacation house, that rarely would take away housing from a poor person.

If that person was not as wealthy, and could not afford that vacation house, someone else would, most likely, be living in it. Not a poor person; call them someone in the 80% quintile. That in turn would free up that 80% person's house for someone in the 60% quintile. And so it goes downward, until a not-quite-poor person can move out of their horrible, disgusting, cheap apartment - thus making it available from the poor person you list above.

That is why wealth inequality is a factor in homelessness. If .1% of the people at the top can buy 4 homes a piece rather than 3, that is 300,000 fewer houses available for the people in the next .1% beneath them. And that propagates downward.

 

[Seattle]

If that person was not as wealthy, and could not afford that vacation house, someone else would, most likely, be living in it. Not a poor person; call them someone in the 80% quintile. That in turn would free up that 80% person's house for someone in the 60% quintile. And so it goes downward, until a not-quite-poor person can move out of their horrible, disgusting, cheap apartment - thus making it available from the poor person you list above.

That is why wealth inequality is a factor in homelessness. If .1% of the people at the top can buy 4 homes a piece rather than 3, that is 300,000 fewer houses available for the people in the next .1% beneath them. And that propagates downward.

So, is your argument that houses are finite and that no one should own more than one and if no one owned more than one that would be significant for the lack of present housing for the homeless?

Is it also your argument that the free market doesn't address this?

 

[(Q)]

We aren't talking about government jobs.

No one said we were.

Any state can't offer good, high tech jobs.

Good jobs don't have to be high tech. Every state offers good jobs.

Microsoft is in Seattle because Gates was born there, the state has no state income taxes and it has an educated population and it's scenic and many people want to live here.

Yes, people have different reasons for wanting to live in Seattle and every other city. Jobs is not the only reason.

Mississippi is corrupt, hot and humid, it's not a place where most people would want to live and it has no Microsoft or Google type of companies.

California and Florida are hot and humid and probably have corruption, too. Mississippi has good jobs just like every other state, but people aren't flocking there because it lacks progressive policies.

People move to Seattle for Microsoft and not for the crazy city council.

Microsoft is not the only reason to move to Seattle.

Metrics clearly show states without progressive policies fail miserably.

 

[TheVat]

My impression was that regressive or NIMBY zoning laws, supply chain shortages, and builders incentivized to build larger more luxurious homes, had led to a shortfall of millions of smaller starter homes and affordable multiplexes. If builders were incentivized (at the local level especially) to build affordable 700-1200 sf bungalows without jacuzzis, french doors, electronic miniblinds and marble countertops, a lot of the housing crunch would go away. Young couples and families could move out of (for them) cramped apartments, thus lowering demand for those apartments and opening the door to lower income people who might presently be living in a van, couch surfing, or otherwise scraping by. And yes, some at the bottom would be greatly helped by a living wage, just to take that first step out of a tent.

 

[(Q)]

I saw a meme today showing two houses in the half million dollar range, one in Texas and the other in San Fran. The house in Texas was much larger than the one in San Fran. which the author of the meme was boasting on how great of a house you can get in Texas, yet it showed instead people are moving out of Texas.

 

[billvon]

So, is your argument that houses are finite and that no one should own more than one and if no one owned more than one that would be significant for the lack of present housing for the homeless?

Again, no. It is an example of how high wealth inequality contributes to homelessness. You know, the (now) topic of this thread.

Is it also your argument that the free market doesn't address this?

The free market is currently not addressing this sufficiently to avoid homelessness, correct.

 

[Jeeves]

"Watch a 5 year old meet another child who is missing an arm (or have some other obvious anatomic difference.) They will generally touch their own arm to verify that there's a difference, then look at their parents or the people around them to see how to react - because they have been alerted that something is different and potentially dangerous by that instinct, homophily. " Billvon, left behind in the other thread.
I would have to see the video to be sure, but I doubt your conclusion. Is the child with two arms recoiling in fear? By the age of five, she's seen enough people to know that he's simply missing an arm. What makes you think she considers the other kid potentially dangerous? She's more likely looking around for an explanation, or else expecting to be reprimanded for staring.
"If the people around them show no bad reactions and/or encouragement they will generally accept the new kid. They have learned that he's not a threat."
If there are no adults nearby to inhibit the encounter, she'll more probably go up to the other kid and ask him "What happened to your arm?" Or whatever difference has caught her attention. That's curiosity. The prejudice starts building up when Mom or Dad, "I don't want you playing with those children." I've lived long enough in mixed neighbourhoods and done enough child-watching to have witnessed such encounters.

 

[parmalee]

My impression was that regressive or NIMBY zoning laws, supply chain shortages, and builders incentivized to build larger more luxurious homes, had led to a shortfall of millions of smaller starter homes and affordable multiplexes. If builders were incentivized (at the local level especially) to build affordable 700-1200 sf bungalows without jacuzzis, french doors, electronic miniblinds and marble countertops, a lot of the housing crunch would go away. Young couples and families could move out of (for them) cramped apartments, thus lowering demand for those apartments and opening the door to lower income people who might presently be living in a van, couch surfing, or otherwise scraping by. And yes, some at the bottom would be greatly helped by a living wage, just to take that first step out of a tent.

There are also a lot of restrictions placed by various entities--from insurance companies to local governments--making smaller homes (typically, under 900 sq ft) less viable; in many instances, smaller homes aren't even legally allowable. Our house, an A frame with a loft, is no more than 650 sq ft, no matter how you slice it. For various purposes, we have to exaggerate this by including the basement, outbuildings, whatever. As far as I can tell, the reasoning for these restrictions is solely financial incentive.

Edit: I should add, we're out in the sticks at the edge of a State Forest. Nearest neighbors aren't even remotely visible--with the naked eye and through the trees and hills, that is. Just alluding to the "NIMBY zoning laws" here. And yet there are all sorts of restrictions, with respect to smaller homes or, say, tiny houses on flatbeds--no structures on wheels!

In much of the world, even within most affluent nations, the average house size is much, much smaller than the average US house--and in many instances, the average house wouldn't even be allowed in many US jurisdictions.

 

[billvon]

I would have to see the video to be sure, but I doubt your conclusion. Is the child with two arms recoiling in fear? By the age of five, she's seen enough people to know that he's simply missing an arm. What makes you think she considers the other kid potentially dangerous? She's more likely looking around for an explanation, or else expecting to be reprimanded for staring.

In my case it was a "he" and he looked worried, and seemed to be looking at the adults for reassurance that this was OK. It's a natural reaction when a child sees someone unusual.

 

[billvon]

There are also a lot of restrictions placed by various entities--from insurance companies to local governments--making smaller homes (typically, under 900 sq ft) less viable; in many instances, smaller homes aren't even legally allowable.

California recently made some progress here. They passed a law that specifically allows ADU's to be built on one's property, and this cannot be overriden by HOA's or local building codes. That allows homeowners to build small homes in their yards if they have space for them. The idea was to allow detached homes for "granny flats" but they can be rented to anyone the homeowner likes.

 

[parmalee]

California recently made some progress here. They passed a law that specifically allows ADU's to be built on one's property, and this cannot be overriden by HOA's or local building codes. That allows homeowners to build small homes in their yards if they have space for them. The idea was to allow detached homes for "granny flats" but they can be rented to anyone the homeowner likes.

That's actually pretty significant. With more and more people sharing "residences" with family or acquaintances--usually for financial reasons--this alleviates the burden of having to share the same space with people whom one (for various reasons) generally would prefer not to. And with respect to "tiny houses", finding a place where they are even allowed, especially within urban and suburban areas, has always been a considerable challenge.

Unfortunately, a lot of people wind up abandoning tiny houses eventually, as they find they don't care much for the limitations they place upon one's "lifestyle". But that's another subject entirely.

 

[Seattle]

Again, no. It is an example of how high wealth inequality contributes to homelessness. You know, the (now) topic of this thread.

It doesn't explain that except in the most superficial and statistically insignificant way.

The free market is currently not addressing this sufficiently to avoid homelessness, correct.

The free market is doing fine. We do need some government both services and enforcement. The mentally ill need to be treated and taken off the streets and the same applies to drug addicts.

If the focus wasn't on "inequality" then the housing issue would fix itself. Move from a HCOL city to a LCOL city. Problem fixed. You don't fix it by building mother in law dwellings in everyone's backyard. You just create an urban high density mess along with more crime and drugs.

When one city is overcrowded, move to a less crowded city rather than turn the first city into a ghetto.

 

[billvon]

The free market is doing fine.

Overall it's better than the alternatives. However, "fine" is pushing it. Which is why there are issues like homelessness, poverty and medical bankruptcy.

We do need some government both services and enforcement.

Agreed - and we need to do more of that.

The mentally ill need to be treated and taken off the streets and the same applies to drug addicts.

Also agreed. Something the free market cannot handle - and is not designed to handle. It requires government intervention, and yes, even money.

If the focus wasn't on "inequality" then the housing issue would fix itself. Move from a HCOL city to a LCOL city. Problem fixed.

So how do you enforce that? Pack em into trucks and move them? Drop them just outside the city border, then tell them that it's going to be going down to 20F by nightfall?

That reminds me of the old maxim. For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple - and wrong.

You don't fix it by building mother in law dwellings in everyone's backyard. You just create an urban high density mess along with more crime and drugs.

Uh - not sure you get the point of the ADU law. Apartment owners can't build ADU's. People in high density areas can't build ADU's. Only people with land, generally in the suburbs, can build them. You're not going to create an "urban high density mess" in a suburb that started out zoned for half acre lots.

It's not the only fix needed - but it's a good start. It provides more cheap housing AWAY from city centers. And when people move from the city centers to a cheap ADU in the suburbs, the price of housing in the city center drops - due to that free market you are always touting.