patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,249,150 comments by 14,896 users - HeadSet, RC2006 online now
Robert J. Schiller on Why Cities Become Unaffordable
invite response
2017 Jul 22, 2:59pm 10,846 views 69 comments
Comments 1 - 40 of 69 Next » Last » Search these comments
Dan8267
2017 Jul 22, 7:25pm
But the existing owners of high-priced homes have little incentive to support such construction, which would diminish the value of their own investment.
Translation: land hording.
100% tax on rental income and real estate capital gains solves this problem.
FortWayne
2017 Jul 22, 7:32pm
As a homeowner I would prefer that they build more housing. I don't expect my place to be a capital gain. Hell, will probably die in it one day unless end up moving back to Indiana.
More supply of SFR would mean more of our society owns houses instead of paying rent. Leaving more money in peoples pockets to start businesses. This doesn't really apply in fly over country where housing is dirt cheap. But in coastal cities rental prices are high.
There are still those damn property taxes every year.
Translation: land hording.
What?
FortWayne
2017 Jul 22, 7:33pm
As a homeowner I would prefer that they build more housing. I don't expect my place to be a capital gain. Hell, will probably die in it one day unless end up moving back to Indiana.
More supply of SFR would mean more of our society owns houses instead of paying rent. Leaving more money in peoples pockets to start businesses. This doesn't really apply in flyover country where housing is dirt cheap. But in coastal cities rental prices are high.
There are still those damn property taxes every year.
Translation: land hording.
What?
Strategist
2017 Jul 22, 8:41pm
But the existing owners of high-priced homes have little incentive to support such construction, which would diminish the value of their own investment.
Translation: land hording.
100% tax on rental income and real estate capital gains solves this problem.
The 40% who rent, would end up in the streets. You should run for President of Venezuela.
This doesn't really apply in fly over country where housing is dirt cheap
i think you've just solved the affordability crisis in california.
dear bottom feeders: OUT! OUT! OUT!
Dan8267
2017 Jul 22, 10:36pm
The 40% who rent, would end up in the streets. You should run for President of Venezuela.
Obviously you haven't listened to my plan of providing non-profit housing. But hey, why let reality interfere with your fantasy.
PeopleUnited
2017 Jul 23, 6:16am
But the existing owners of high-priced homes have little incentive to support such construction, which would diminish the value of their own investment.
Translation: land hording.
100% tax on rental income and real estate capital gains solves this problem.
Some city should try implementing your policies and see if it helps. If the idea is good, why can't you find a city that will try it?
Strategist
2017 Jul 23, 9:04am
The 40% who rent, would end up in the streets. You should run for President of Venezuela.
Obviously you haven't listened to my plan of providing non-profit housing. But hey, why let reality interfere with your fantasy.
Non profit housing would mean government building homes. We all know how inefficient the government is. Lets also build non profit cars, computers, toilet paper, and everything else. Now you have communism.
You are living proof of Einstein's theory of insanity.
FortWayne
2017 Jul 23, 9:07am
The 40% who rent, would end up in the streets. You should run for President of Venezuela.
Obviously you haven't listened to my plan of providing non-profit housing. But hey, why let reality interfere with your fantasy.
Venezuela or North Korea would be just perfect for you.
SFace
2017 Jul 23, 10:58am
Unaffordable price. It's a nice problem to have. Who in their right minds want to tank their price on purpose?
You think Cleveland, the city don't go, yeah we love to have median sfh at 1.5mil too.
Politicians are old folks too with old folk friends. Good luck with that one
re 8
they aren't really my view (or not my view). I'm just reporting Schiller's view cuz it seems well articulated and thought-out
Generally, most cities are not going to try them because they would be favorable to the less privileged classes, who are generally not strongly represented in the governments
y'all can judge for yourselves if this is good or bad
Dan8267
2017 Jul 23, 1:47pm
If the idea is good, why can't you find a city that will try it?
1. I have a day job, so I'm not going to implement this.
2. Government officials don't do what's in the public's interest, but rather their own.
3. It will take political will and will be opposed by all those owning houses because they want to use those houses as retirement plans.
4. For all practical purposes, it would have to be done at the state level.
Dan8267
2017 Jul 23, 1:47pm
We all know how inefficient the government is.
That's only when conservatives are in charge. There is nothing magical about the distinction between a company and a government organization. It's the people in it that matters.
Dan8267
2017 Jul 23, 1:49pm
Lets also build non profit cars, computers, toilet paper, and everything else. Now you have communism.
You are living proof of Einstein's theory of insanity.
This is a slippery slope argument and is empirically false. We have a government military. According to your reasoning we should be communist already because of that. Government guns. Government tanks. Government Apache helicopters. Government soldiers. Fucking communism.
Dan8267
2017 Jul 23, 1:51pm
Venezuela or North Korea would be just perfect for you.
Afghanistan would be just perfect for you.
By the way, Venezuela and North Korea are dictatorships, so they are the exact opposite of everything I've proposed. But hey, why let facts get in the way of your fantasy?
FortWayne
2017 Jul 23, 1:56pm
Venezuela or North Korea would be just perfect for you.
Afghanistan would be just perfect for you.
By the way, Venezuela and North Korea are dictatorships, so they are the exact opposite of everything I've proposed. But hey, why let facts get in the way of your fantasy?
No, they are exactly what you are proposing, left wing dictatorship, beating everyone into lowest common denominator. You are just as usual, too blind to see it.
Dan8267
2017 Jul 23, 1:58pm
No, they are exactly what you are proposing, left wing dictatorship, beating everyone into lowest common denominator.
If we're making shit up, then you're proposing that we bash the heads of babies against rocks until they die. This is what all Christians propose. It's right in their Bible.
Don't like that? Well, that's what you get when you decide that you can state what someone else is proposing in contradiction to what they are saying their position is.
Strategist
2017 Jul 23, 3:04pm
Lets also build non profit cars, computers, toilet paper, and everything else. Now you have communism.
You are living proof of Einstein's theory of insanity.This is a slippery slope argument and is empirically false. We have a government military. According to your reasoning we should be communist already because of that. Government guns. Government tanks. Government Apache helicopters. Government soldiers. Fucking communism.
So what? It's the job of the government to provide safety for the citizens. That does not make us communists.
Cuba finally allowed some people to grow and sell their own produce. Does that make them fucking capitalists?
Strategist
2017 Jul 23, 3:11pm
2. Government officials don't do what's in the public's interest, but rather their own.
And yet you want corporations to be owned by the government. All rental housing to be owned by the government.
3. It will take political will and will be opposed by all those owning houses because they want to use those houses as retirement plans.
Oh, those evil capitalist pigs. They're all like that asshole strategist.
1. I have a day job, so I'm not going to implement this.
Thank God.
Dan8267
2017 Jul 23, 4:06pm
Lets also build non profit cars, computers, toilet paper, and everything else. Now you have communism.
You are living proof of Einstein's theory of insanity.This is a slippery slope argument and is empirically false. We have a government military. According to your reasoning we should be communist already because of that. Government guns. Government tanks. Government Apache helicopters. Government soldiers. Fucking communism.
So what? It's the job of the government to provide safety for the citizens.
The so what is that according to what you just said, that makes us communists. The fact that you immediately contradict yourself by then claiming it doesn't show that everything you say about shit making us communist is wrong.
Our government can and does already provide housing in various forms. Just because you don't like something, doesn't make it communistic.
Just because you lived through the cold war doesn't mean this is still 1950. Get with the 21st century. You have been thoroughly brainwashed by CIA propaganda.
Strategist
2017 Jul 23, 4:36pm
The so what is that according to what you just said, that makes us communists. The fact that you immediately contradict yourself by then claiming it doesn't show that everything you say about shit making us communist is wrong.
In a capitalistic country, the means of production is privately owned. That makes the US a capitalist country.
Dan8267
2017 Jul 24, 5:18pm
In a capitalistic country, the means of production is privately owned. That makes the US a capitalist country.
Finally you got something right. Production and distribution of wealth created is controlled by a few owners in a capitalist economy. The people who actually create the wealth don't own the wealth they created. This is the fundamental problem with capitalism and with communism. In communism, the state owns the wealth you create. In capitalism, the corporate owners own the wealth you create. Not much difference.
In an good economic system, you would own the wealth you create. I've been saying that for years. Are you finally listening?
In any case, what makes our country capitalist is only that the means of production and distribution of wealth created is privately owned. Commerce does not make us capitalistic. Private property does not make us capitalistic. Free markets do not make us capitalistic. Deregulation does not make us capitalistic. Banking does not make us capitalistic. Entrepreneurship does not make us capitalistic. Even owning your own business does not make us capitalistic. You could have privately founded, owned, and operated businesses without making the production and distribution of wealth controlled by a few owners that do not actually produced the wealth. And if you can't image how, that's your failure to think outside the box.
Any economic system in which people do not own the wealth they create is a flawed economic system. Such systems discourage productivity and encourage zero-sum games, waste, rigging the system, and corrupting government. Capitalism and communism both fail for the exact same reason because they are the exact same economic system just with different owners. Feudalism also fails because it's also the same damn system. Three flavors of vanilla.
Dan8267
2017 Jul 24, 5:37pm
Dan likes to talk big on the internet, but that is all he willing to do, talk.
Honey buns, talking about ideas is exactly how you spread ideas and allow others to refine them. And quite frankly, intelligent conversations is the ONLY power the average American citizen has to make our country better. Unless you are a high ranking politician, you have jack diddly squat power to enact policy change. So telling people that discussing politics is a waste of time is quite frankly a great disservice to our country, and you should stop doing that.
Dan has no way of holding the government accountable, which is why he hates freedom and wants to implement conservative policies.
Wow, you are delusional. I've posted on PatNet many ways to increase government accountability. I've also been the greatest advocate of freedom here. And how have I ever been conservative? Although, you are right to imply that conservatives are evil scums who should be ashamed of being conservative.
Once more you prove that Jesus freaks are incapable of grasping reality. This is why Christianity is harmful. It brainwashes people like you to the point where you cannot even think.
Dan knows his taxation ideas are unpopular and would never receive support of the free people of even one city in this nation.
Popularity is not what determines correct action. Desegregation was not popular. Abolition of slavery was not popular. Any way of balancing the budget would not be popular. Any means of paying off the national debt would not be popular. Cutting entitlements would not be popular. Are you saying none of those things should have been done?
In any case, the average person isn't intelligent enough or informed enough to know what is in his best long-term interest. My idea would prevent people from using their houses as retirement plans, but it would mean people lived in better houses and spent a fraction of what they currently do on housing. This would greatly increase the quality of life for virtually all people in the U.S., the exception being lazy parasites who produce nothing and live off rental income.
Given the choice between living in a slum that costs millions but will pay for your retirement when you sell it to move into an assisted living facility or living like a king in a mansion but having to work for a living doing something productive to save for retirement, I think most people would choose the later.
Tell me, what the hell is the social benefit of letting people fund their retirement with zero-sum games? Anyone who profits off selling a house does so at the equal expense of someone else who loses because of it. Housing is not like stocks. A house does nothing more a hundred years after it was built than it did the day it was built. A company can grow and become more productive and constantly produces goods or services. A house produces nothing. Real estate transactions are completely zero-sum games. So what is the benefit of promoting zero-sum games? Go on, write an answer. This is not a rhetorical question.
Dan likes wealth confiscation
Do you really think the audience is dumb enough to believe your lies or that I'm not smart enough to refute them? My plan involves no wealth confiscation. A person selling a house for more than what he bought it for is not generating wealth. He's taking wealth from the buyer. There's a huge difference. My plan actually prevents the transfer of wealth.
Good trade involves wealth creation, not wealth transfer. A system set up to force people to lose wealth through rent or through buying inflated assets is a system that decreases some people's wealth only to increase other people's wealth. Such systems are inherently wasteful as all zero-sum games are really negative sum games because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
as a conservative he loves using the power of the state to do so
Weren't you and your butt buddies just complaining on several other threads that it is the damn liberals who love to use the power of the state to confiscate wealth? Get your lies straight.
Thankfully the first sentence in this bullet point remains true, and as long as people are able to own property, and property owners can vote,
Actually, no. The current system is unsustainable because it ever increases concentration of wealth and ownership to the hands of fewer and fewer owners. Eventually renters start outnumbering owners and the political will changes and the whole system collapses. You cannot keep concentrating wealth into fewer and fewer hands without eventually creating a revolt.
In summary, on one hand you have a rational argument based on mathematical reasoning and one the other hand you have the assertions of someone who thinks Noah's ark is real and climate change is a myth. Consider that when deciding who's ideas are more plausible.
Dan8267
2017 Jul 24, 6:26pm
Sweetheart, that is exactly why you won't let so many of the regular Patnetters post on your threads. You know your ideas are full of holes and you are tired of people exposing them.
Honey, if you think you exposed any flaws, you're delusional for even for someone who believes in Noah's Ark.
But the point I was making is you are a talker. NOT A DOER.
Are you a doer? What laws have you passed? Are you saying that it's pointless for anyone who's not a member of Congress to talk about political or economic ideas? How stupid is that?
Discussing and promoting ideas is the ONLY thing that any America citizen who isn't an elected official can do. And honey, there are only 100 senator seats in the country, so it's completely pointless for the common citizen to even try to become a senator.
As for doing, I have a day job in which I've done more every week than you have accomplished in your lifetime. Ever heard of the Internet? You're welcome. That was me and about 10,000 other people like me building it. That alone makes our accomplishes outweigh all the accomplishments of Christianity over the past 2000 years.
Strategist
2017 Jul 24, 6:49pm
Given the choice between living in a slum that costs millions but will pay for your retirement when you sell it to move into an assisted living facility or living like a king in a mansion but having to work for a living doing something productive to save for retirement, I think most people would choose the later.
So you are saying....someone who lives modestly and saves up money to buy a rental property, and keeps repeating it every few years, is not as better off as someone who spends rent money on a mansion living the good life.
You know when we are both retired, I will be paying taxes to support you, because people who like to live beyond their means by renting a mansion will never have enough for their retirement.
This is part of the system I hate. Those who work, save and invest wisely, have to support those who foolishly fritter away their earnings on luxuries they do not need. And I am the bad guy?
Dan8267
2017 Jul 24, 8:47pm
So you are saying....someone who lives modestly and saves up money to buy a rental property, and keeps repeating it every few years, is not as better off as someone who spends rent money on a mansion living the good life
No. I'm saying that investment and zero-sum games are different things. Investments increase productivity. Zero-sum games don't. Rents are zero-sum games.
It is bad for an economy to have zero-sum games. It is good for an economy to encourage productivity.
PeopleUnited
2017 Jul 24, 8:48pm
Desegregation was not popular. Abolition of slavery was not popular. Any way of balancing the budget would not be popular. Any means of paying off the national debt would not be popular. Cutting entitlements would not be popular.
Wrong, wrong wrong and wrong. Care to try again?
These ideas have had many, many, many supporters, in fact one could argue that because 1, 2 and 3 have actually been done they are/were in fact very popular.
PeopleUnited
2017 Jul 24, 8:50pm
Honey, if you think you exposed any flaws
Don't need to expose flaws Dan, they are apparent for all to see. The fact that you ban the majority of people who are willing to debate your lunacy is further evidence that your ideas can't stand on their own, you have to silence those who disagree with you. How conservative of you.
Dan8267
2017 Jul 24, 8:54pm
Wrong, wrong wrong and wrong.
The federal government had to send in the national guard to enforce desegregation. It had to fight a civil war for four years to end slavery. Learn your country's history you damn hippie!
Dan8267
2017 Jul 24, 8:55pm
Don't need to expose flaws Dan
Translation: can't
How conservative of you.
If you think you are upsetting me by calling me a conservative, you are wrong. Now if you were to call me a Christian, that would be very insulting. Those dumb asses believe a hippie rose from the dead. How stupid are they?
PeopleUnited
2017 Jul 24, 8:57pm
Are you a doer?
Yes, I vote with my labor, I vote with my dollars and not just my words. But you don't really care about what I do. It is all about Dan right?
So I respect people who say what they believe in and then go out and do what they believe in. For example, missionaries who forsake their life to promote their beliefs. Prius owners who put their money where their mouth is and at least try to reduce oil consumption. Gun owners who not just speak about 2nd Amendment but then go out and train themselves to be responsible users and owners of arms. People who live in tiny houses to be more efficient. People who walk or bike to work. People who buy American. These are the kind of people who are doers. Not some drip on the internet spouting foolishness and banning the majority of people who dare speak out against him. If you think we need changes in laws then you ought to go out and campaign, spend your money promoting the idea, run for office, not just blather on on an anonymous forum.
PeopleUnited
2017 Jul 24, 8:59pm
Wrong, wrong wrong and wrong.
The federal government had to send in the national guard to enforce desegregation. It had to fight a civil war for four years to end slavery. Learn your country's history you damn hippie!
The national guard was willing to support the desegregation, the Union army was willing to die to end slavery. Think before you criticize. People supported these ideas so much they were willing to die for them. Ever heard of Martin Luther King and the million man march! POPULAR IDEAS!!!!!
PeopleUnited
2017 Jul 24, 9:01pm
Don't need to expose flaws Dan
Translation: can't
How conservative of you.
If you think you are upsetting me by calling me a conservative, you are wrong. Now if you were to call me a Christian, that would be very insulting. Those dumb asses believe a hippie rose from the dead. How stupid are they?
Calling you a Christian would be an insult to Christians. It would be an insult to Christ, the very person you mock.
PeopleUnited
2017 Jul 24, 9:03pm
As for doing, I have a day job in which I've done more every week than you have accomplished in your lifetime.
Not that you care what anyone else does, but I literally save lives every day. That is my job. I don't invent anything. I prevent people from dying. As small as the world is, I may have even saved someone you know. You're welcome.
PeopleUnited
2017 Jul 24, 9:09pm
Ever heard of the Internet? You're welcome. That was me
Dan is Al Gore???!?!?!?!
Now it is starting to make sense.
Thanks Al. The internet has been used of God to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to literally billions of people and probably millions have been saved because of it. Thank you!
On the other hand, the internet has been used to hack elections (allegedly), take down power grids, promote lies, steal from innocent people, enrich the capitalists who control the bulk of the world's wealth, recruit terrorists, and one day may directly or indirectly literally be used to destroy or enslave people. Gee, you technology sounds kinda dangerous. Are you still so proud? You are literally a worker bee for the capitalists! Nice going!!!
Nearly every technology can be used for good or for destruction. I wouldn't brag too much about creating the internet Dan. One day it may be your downfall.
PeopleUnited
2017 Jul 24, 9:12pm
So you are saying....someone who lives modestly and saves up money to buy a rental property, and keeps repeating it every few years, is not as better off as someone who spends rent money on a mansion living the good life
No. I'm saying that investment and zero-sum games are different things. Investments increase productivity. Zero-sum games don't. Rents are zero-sum games.
It is bad for an economy to have zero-sum games. It is good for an economy to encourage productivity.
Giving people a place to live is productive. Either the capitalist will do it, or your taxes will do it. Someone has to do it. Grow up.
Strategist
2017 Jul 24, 9:13pm
Ever heard of the Internet? You're welcome. That was me
Ha ha ha. Now I know who to thank for the viruses and malware.
Comments 1 - 40 of 69 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://www.atimes.com/article/why-do-cities-become-unaffordable/
But the barriers may also be political. A huge dose of moderate-income housing construction would have a major impact on affordability. But the existing owners of high-priced homes have little incentive to support such construction, which would diminish the value of their own investment. Indeed, their resistance may be as intractable as a lake’s edge. As a result, municipal governments may be unwilling to grant permits to expand supply.
The new Luddites
Insufficient options for construction can be the driving force behind a rising price-to-income ratio, with home prices increasing over the long term even if the city has acquired no new industry, cachet, or talent. Once the city has run out of available building sites, its continued growth must be accommodated by the departure of lower-income people.
The rise in housing prices relative to income is unlikely to be sudden, not least because speculators, anticipating the change, may bid up prices in advance. They may even overshoot, temporarily pushing the ratios even higher than necessary, creating a bubble and causing unnecessary angst among residents.
But this tendency can be mitigated, if civil society recognizes the importance of preserving lower-income housing. Many of the calls to resist further construction, residents must understand, are being made by special interests; indeed, they amount to a kind of rent seeking by homeowners seeking to boost their own homes’ resale value.
In his recent book The New Urban Crisis, the University of Toronto’s Richard Florida decries this phenomenon, comparing opponents of housing construction to the early-19th-century Luddites who smashed the mechanical looms that were taking their weaving jobs.
In some cases, a city may be on its way to becoming a “great cityâ€, and market forces should be allowed to drive out lower-income people who can’t participate fully in this greatness to make way for those who can. But more often, a city with a high housing-price-to-income ratio is less a “great city†than a supply-constrained one lacking in empathy, humanitarian impulse, and, increasingly, diversity. And that creates fertile ground for dangerous animosities.
#housing