How should the U.S. address its ongoing housing crisis?

[Christian Confederation]

Stop Inflating the US Dollar and sending billions Overseas. Bring our jobs home and let the American People Get back to Work. The Economy Goes up so will the number of Houses built. Ban Corporations and Banks from buying up housing for financial incentive. We can't have mega corporations buying up housing way above market at prices the average home owner can't afford. Cut unnecessary red tape so more Americans have the ability to afford Housing and Land.

[Sungoldy-China]

Stop Inflating the US Dollar and sending billions Overseas. Bring our jobs home and let the American People Get back to Work. The Economy Goes up so will the number of Houses built. Ban Corporations and Banks from buying up housing for financial incentive. We can't have mega corporations buying up housing way above market at prices the average home owner can't afford. Cut unnecessary red tape so more Americans have the ability to afford Housing and Land.

That is, everything except free

[Sundiata]

Public housing should be available to everyone.

[Shofercia]

Not even remotely close to what I said, so let me dumb it down even more. One person living in a house that's worth $500,000, pays $5,000 in Property Taxes to the city, hypothetically speaking. The city spends $2,500 to service said person. Thus the net bang for the buck for that person is $2,500.

10 people live in an apartment complex that's worth $2,500,000. They jointly pay $25,000 in taxes, on average $2,500 apiece. The city spends $15,000 to service them, or $1,500, on average, per person. Thus the next average bang for the buck for one of these people is $1,000.

It doesn't matter whether they're paying jointly or separately. It doesn't matter if their rubbish is collected jointly or separately. And you seem to be the only one, Forsher, to fail to grasp this basic economic concept.

Yes, that was my point... it doesn't matter if they're paying jointly or separately. Why do you think I wanted you to report if the rubbish was a personalised collection?

Your point was that your point didn't matter?

Actually I can, but when someone makes flippant comments like did you think my socialist joke was entirely unconnected to what I was talking about they get a flippant response. What goes around, comes around Forsher. If you want others to treat you politely, learn to be polite yourself.

This is absurd.

Making jokes is not impolite.

Making flippant jokes is impolite. The fact that you think that's absurd is quite telling.

I asked for specific city names, not YouTube link spam. As for a source, this one took me all of two seconds to find:

Shockingly, a single example is not data.

First, that example contained plenty of data. Second, when you say things like single family zoning is a major feature of the main reason cities go bankrupt in the US you should be able to name a single city in the US that went bankrupt for that reason. Otherwise you're simply spouting nonsense for the sake of spouting nonsense.

https://www.ocregister.com/2020/04/24/pensions-leave-cities-with-bankruptcy-as-their-life-raft/

Your source would probably be interested to know not every state allows cities to go bankrupt.

The bankruptcy case I cited was Detroit, which isn't located in California. Furthermore, despite semantics, a lack of real life examples, and lots of YouTube videos, if a city is bankrupt and has to be bailed out by the state, in my book that's still a bankrupt city.

You know what? I'll do you one better, I'll do something that you couldn't, I'll name an actual case, rather than linking to YouTube: Detroit Bankruptcy of 2013.

What are you even trying to prove? Oh, that's right... that most cities go bankrupt because of pension schemes and, additionally, that the pension schemes aren't related to the housing market.

You cannot demonstrate either of those claims with a SINGLE example. So, let's delete your little quote.

That why I provided two sources with several examples. You couldn't even provide a single non-YouTube source. Here's an actual document after all of five seconds on Google, coming from reality: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10116.pdf

In recent years, a significant number of cities, towns, and other municipalities in the United States have found themselves increasingly unable to pay their debts. In order to offer municipalities relief from many types of debts they cannot repay, Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes certain municipalities to file for bankruptcy. However, filing for bankruptcy may adversely affect the municipality’s creditors, especially beneficiaries of underfunded municipal retirement plans (who, along with bondholders, often hold “the lion’s share” of a municipality’s financial obligations). Because a number of municipalities face a “dramatic and growing shortfall in public pension funds,” many “firefighters, teachers, police officers, and other public employees” who purportedly have “a right to pension benefits at retirement” face a significant risk that their pensions will ultimately not be fully repaid. The fact that public pensions, unlike their private counterparts, are neither subject to the “vesting and funding rules imposed by” the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 nor “protected by the federal pension guarantee program operated by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation” could, according to some commentators, further exacerbate that risk. Moreover, because courts presiding over municipal bankruptcy cases have generally been “amenable to modifying pension debt in bankruptcy,” retirees’ pension benefits may potentially be significantly curtailed when a municipality declares bankruptcy. Although many Chapter 9 debtors have ultimately opted not to cut pensions “for political or practical reasons,” courts and commentators generally accept that, under certain circumstances, municipalities “have the legal ability to shed pension debt” in bankruptcy if they so choose.

That's from the Congressional Research Service. And it's a PDF document, not a YouTube video. And it has all of information ready in the first paragraph. But I'm not asking you for that, I'm just asking you to name a single city.

And here's the entire quote: However, you claimed that cities in the US go bankrupt because of single family zoning. You've yet to prove that insane assertion, and in fact you've ran away from it quite well Forsher, so now here we are, with me having to explain the basics of economics.

You do realize these are recorded, right? So when will you name this mythical US city that went bankrupt due to single family zoning? Oh, is the name Atlantis?

Considering you just tried to demonstrate what you were talking about profit without having quoted yourself talking about profit...

Also, that doesn't ask for a single city.

No, it asks for several cities, but it order to get several cities, you have to name at least one city. If I ask for eight cities, that means you have to name eight individual cities. You've yet to name a single city.

I was talking about the average net bang for the buck by pointing out that people living in wealthier homes, on average, provide a bigger net financial benefit to the city than apartment dwellers, on average.

Source.

The entire thread.

I didn't realize this had to be demonstrated, because in the US, it's fairly common knowledge.

Now establish that it's relevant.

Relevant to what? The fact that it's easier for cities to raise revenue from wealthier individuals than poorer individuals on property taxes and sales taxes? Or the fact that one rich person uses less services than several poor people, while contributing similar property tax revenues to the city? That's common sense. And you've yet to name a single city Forsher.

Areas with high income earners living in houses are wealthier, and less likely to go bankrupt, than areas with low income apartment dwellers. This is common sense for those of us actually living in the US, and your quote was about cities in the US, not Australia.

You do not understand what you're talking about. At all.

Forsher: single family zoning is a major feature of the main reason cities go bankrupt in the US
Me: Name them
Forsher: here's a bunch of YouTube links
Me: Name at least one city
Forsher: You do not understand what you're talking about. At all.
Me:

Let's quote from a PDF you're probably going to struggle finding. And because it's you I'm talking to, I'm not going to bother fixing the problems that copying and pasting from PDF's cause.

\·Ve pay a high social price for sprav.-1 as
well. By spreading residences, medical and commercial offices. and industries through-
out a re�ion 011 large tracl5 of land, we in crease resident-;' dependence on aiuomnhik

transportation. En'rything and e\'er�·one is
too spread out to make public transportation

economicalh- feasible. \fith insufficient coor-
dination of work sites and highwa\'s, traffic l '

congestion result-;. Nor can eyeryone get
around by car: A lifestyle rhat requires a car

discriminates against poor families, the dd-
erly. the disabled, and the young. Suburban

i.e. "bang for buck per person" is stupid

Nothing there proves that it's stupid. Also, owning cars in California discriminates against the young?! That's funny. California has 755 cars per 1,000 people, so while cars do discriminate against the poor, you know what else does? Cities with piss poor schools because they're located in areas where the property tax per person ain't that high. Furthermore, wealthy people, who prefer single family homes, are more likely to donate to their local schools, thus improving overall school quality. Why don't you tell the people who are desperate to drive for two hours to get their kids in good schools about how stupid the "bang for buck per person" is? I'm just wondering how hard they'll laugh at said statement.

Financial Costs. Conventional \>\-risdom says
that development strengthens the municipal
tax base. That may have been true in the

1980s, but by the 1990s local officials had dis-
covered that increases in ta.x rcven ucs were

eaten up by costs to their communities for de-
livering new services (including water and

sewer lines, schools, police and fire protec-
tion, and roads) to people who lived far away

from Lhe existing infrastructure. Here are
some exam pl es:

I'm deliberately not going to quote the examples.

Of course not, as that would be actual evidence, and thus far you've yet to produce the name of a single city. Also, the cities that are wealthy, but sparsely populated, aren't the ones facing bankruptcy in California. The cities that are poor, but densely populated, are in much worse financial position. But please, continue to claim that net profits don't matter for cities.

Once again... bang for buck per person doesn't matter, because services are provided geographically.

No, services are provided on a per city basis, based on strict lines that separate the cities. Irvine and Santa Ana might have similar geographies, but Irvine has elite schools, and Santa Ana doesn't, and Irvine's residents provide a better bang for the buck than Santa Ana's residents. Forsher, you are the only person I know who's arguing that profit doesn't matter.

It's like a restaurant... a table pays, not customers. Fourteen people paying $20 each on items that cost $100 to prepare, profits $180. Apparently that gives bang for buck per person of about $13. A different table with one person that spends $20 on a meal that costs $10, has a bang for buck per person of $10.

You want the table of 14. Which, in practice, is probably six tables (six, six and then two on each of the ends) pushed together (fewer with six person tables), yes. But six tables four fourteen and eight singletons is better than fourteen singletons.

Tables are inanimate objects, they do not pay. The people pay. And I'm not even remotely sure where you're going with that hypothetical, but in your hypothetical one person that's part of the 14 has a higher net bang for the buck than the solo table diner, and because said table has the higher bang for the buck per person, it's preferable. So you've essentially proven that profit matters, while arguing that it doesn't.

A Maryland study predicted that, in the first
two decades of the twenLy-firsL century, sprawl
will cost state residents about $10 billion
more for n ew roads, schools, sewers, and water
than would be ne<.:e.ssary if growth were more
concentrated. Similar studies in California,
Florida, and elsewhere have demonstrated a

direct relationship between sprawl and the spi-
raling costs of government (McMahon 1 997:4) .

These additional costs don't occur only in the
grmving communities. As people flock ro the
outlying suburbs, cities-their tax base
eroded-must raise taxes on the remaining
taxpayers to pay for city services.

i.e. due to the way American cities work, American cities are required to increase the "bang for buck per person" in cities to stay in place.

The source you're not looking at this time is: Cities and urban life, 4th ed. (2007) by Macionis, John J.; Parrillo, Vincent N. You're not looking for chapter four.

Forsher says: "bang for buck per person" is stupid
Forsher also says: American cities are required to increase the "bang for buck per person"
Logical Conclusion: American cities are required to increase stupidity

Didn't need to, since your source pointed out that in 1960s, when we had similar distances between houses and schools, only 16% drove; today it's over 60%, so it's not zoning changes, as communities weren't downzoned. The first line of your source destroyed your point, so you ignored it. Shocking!

So ignoring a source, after it contradicts your very own statements, is something you find hilarious?

What does that have to do with land placement? Your comment was about zoning.

People live places. Where they live affects their perception of what is possible. Here's a video on it.

Also, it should be obvious that as cities increase in size in places that do not provide for walkability and public transport, the perceived need to drive increases.

Except most cities have sidewalks that provide for walkability, probably because they're called sidewalks, the "walk" is part of the name. Also, what does cities increasing in size have to do with single family zoning?

As an example:

The size of the city has expanded significantly in the last 50 years—both by land area and population. Houston proper encompassed 453 square miles in 1969. Today, at 665 square miles, the city of Houston could contain the cities of New York, Boston, San Francisco, Washington D.C. Seattle and Minneapolis—with a bit more room to spare.

I'm still not sure what cities increasing in size has to do with single family zoning, nor do I particularly admire your failed attempt to move goalposts. If a city increases in size, it should provide more schools, hospitals, roads, etc, as it increases in size. If I own a house that's properly serviced, and I buy raw land that's not, the house that's properly serviced doesn't magically start malfunctioning.

While I am asking you to believe that cities and suburbs in the US in general (as opposed to just Houston) are bigger than they were in the 1960s... easily substantiated (Between 2000 and 2010, urban land area in the U.S. increased by 15%. Urban land area is 106,386 square miles, or 3% of total land area in the U.S., and is projected to more than double by 2060.6,7)... the actual point is the conclusion: if you have people that are being increasingly encouraged to drive, why would you be surprised that a reaction against sprawl in the last decade or so hasn't had much of an effect? And why would you be so insistent that a source not talking about these issues at all is refuting them?

If I have a 1,000 acre city, and I rezone it to high density, that's still a 1,000 acre city. If I have a single family home zoned city of 1,000 acres, and I expand it to 10,000 acres, while keeping single family zoning, that's still a single family zoned city. Do you see how those two concepts are not related? I'm arguing in favor of single family zoning; I'm not arguing in favor of building one city to rule them all, since it affects peoples lives, rather than the Settlers of Catan.

And, yes, single family zoning is responsible here:



I'm sure you recognise the formatting.

I'm not unsure how single family zoning forces cities to expand. Some single family zoned cities grew. Others didn't. Still not seeing the connection.

If you have a single unique thing to say, I'll be amazed if I can find a remotely mainstream urban discourse that doesn't reject your views. Yes, even Demographia, whom the experts reject. You see, Demographia want single family zoning to increase affordability, i.e. because it reduced bang for buck per person.

The actual voters in California, who actually know what's going on, are fully aligned with my views. YouTube videos posted by those who cannot name a single city to back up their argument, aren't. I'll take actual, real life voters, over YouTube videos. I'll take actual, Congressional Research, over an online poster on NSG. And speaking of these noble developers who are pushing for more housing and more profits at the expense of elderly residents, who pretend that it's all about fighting homelessness, erm, they're actually not so noble: https://www.dailybreeze.com/2021/07/26/ ... he-middle/

Those are real people Forsher. Not pixels. People. They pay. Not tables. The people pay. And you still cannot name a single city to support your point. And yes, a reduced bang for the buck per person increases affordability; it also decreases the quality of life.

Temporal claims require temporal evidence.

That means that if you claim you were doing X in time t, you need to show what you were doing in time t, not what you're doing now.

So if an online poster misunderstands something that I thought was clear cut, I'm supposed to engage in temporal debates? Now that's funny, great joke Forsher!

No, Shofercia, it was you're rubbish example. As in, you literally made rubbish an example.

You're the one who brought up rubbish in the first place.

And, yes, I know this is your point. What I am saying is that you don't see the logical implication of your own point... bang for buck per person isn't remotely relevant to what cities actually care about, just as it isn't relevant to restaurants.

Ah, so cities don't care about that, hmm, is this why Atlanta doesn't want Buckhead to secede? There's another actual example.

I know what my claim was. What my claim was is not being disputed. What is being "disputed" is the idea that I haven't demonstrated it by providing four different Youtube videos talking about the subject.

When I say "multiple actors played in Star Wars, A New Hope" and someone says "name them" I can list "Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, etc. You specifically used the word "cities" and cities have names, so name those cities. This. Is. Not. Complicated.

You didn't. You asked for examples.

Of city names.

[The Lake-]

Implement a nationwide local minimum wage: Employers are required to pay a wage equal to the annual cost of living in the county, divided by 2080.
This would give busnesses an incentive to employ in places with lower costs of living, which, surprise! are where there is surplus housing.
The issue isn't that there aren't enough homes. It's that all the jobs got concentrated in already heavily developed areas where housing is expensive.

Also start giving land away again.

[Forsher]

Have you watched any of the videos, Shof? No? Then don't waste my time.

[Maricarland]

Implement a nationwide local minimum wage: Employers are required to pay a wage equal to the annual cost of living in the county, divided by 2080.
This would give busnesses an incentive to employ in places with lower costs of living, which, surprise! are where there is surplus housing.
The issue isn't that there aren't enough homes. It's that all the jobs got concentrated in already heavily developed areas where housing is expensive.

Also start giving land away again.

How would that help those whom are involuntarily unemployed, voluntarily unemployed, and those unable to work (or at least work in any "gainful" way under capitalist conditions)?

[Forsher]

Excuse me, dealing with some bullshit. No need to trouble the thread.

Yes, that was my point... it doesn't matter if they're paying jointly or separately. Why do you think I wanted you to report if the rubbish was a personalised collection?

Your point was that your point didn't matter?

Let's quote you: "It doesn't matter whether they're paying jointly or separately. It doesn't matter if their rubbish is collected jointly or separately"

Now, let's quote what you're replying to: "So... it bang for buck per person is entirely irrelevant. Gotcha."

Here is your example:

10 people live in an apartment complex that's worth $2,500,000. They jointly pay $25,000 in taxes, on average $2,500 apiece. The city spends $15,000 to service them, or $1,500, on average, per person. Thus the next average bang for the buck for one of these people is $1,000.

The city pays $15,000 to service them. That's the key metric. Let's say your ten people are five couples that are pregnant. How many babies would they need to have before they're spending more than $15,000 to service the complex? No idea? You better have an idea... it's one of the arguments you're trying to prove... that the costs scale so much with density that if you take "revenues collected from the people at an address divided by the people at the address" - "cost of services rendered to an address by the number of people at an address". (The other argument you're trying to prove is that US municipalities actually run their finances this way.)

The thing about cities is that their costs quite often have nothing to do with their revenues due to this thing called "future costs". Now the obvious example of this is "debt" which, in public finance, is generally taken to mean "borrowing from tomorrow to spend today". It's an inter-temporal concept. However, what also happens is this thing called depreciation:

In economics, depreciation is the gradual decrease in the economic value of the capital stock of a firm, nation or other entity, either through physical depreciation, obsolescence or changes in the demand for the services of the capital in question. If the capital stock is {\displaystyle K_{t}}K_{t} in one period {\displaystyle t}t, gross (total) investment spending on newly produced capital is {\displaystyle I_{t}}I_t and depreciation is {\displaystyle D_{t}}D_{t}, the capital stock in the next period, {\displaystyle K_{t+1}}{\displaystyle K_{t+1}}, is {\displaystyle K_{t}+I_{t}-D_{t}}{\displaystyle K_{t}+I_{t}-D_{t}}. The net increment to the capital stock is the difference between gross investment and depreciation, and is called net investment.

What this means in the context of roads, is that you build them first and then you don't have to spend money on them until (basically) they need replacing. The same is true of houses. The thing is, that suburban expansion in the USA was pretty much paid for by state and/or federal governments, rather than developers or municipalities, but the replacement of the depreciated assets won't be. Now, you can access grants to build new roads and suburbs, but that doesn't solve the financial position municipalities all across the USA face... unless you believe Ponzi Schemes are financially stable... because the single family home zones aren't financially sensible developments. And why aren't they? Because the costs scale in terms of people much slower than they scale in terms of land.

(And, also, in a lot of the US, municipalities have to pay for costs that occur in their borders but the people actually work and spend money in other municipalities. This is the inverse to the death spiral of population loss in inner suburbs.)

But let's go back to the five couples in the apartment complex. If they all have babies, they're going to suddenly be a minimum of 15 people, right? And babies don't earn money, so they're still going to be paying $25,000 in taxes, but now that totals out to nearly $1667 each. Which means even if the costs remain completely static, that $15,000 means the bang for buck per person translates to a bang for buck per person of just $667 (actually, ever so slightly less). More people being covered for the same cost, is a good thing. But bang per buck per person means it's a bad thing.

Okay, okay, cities sometimes do crazy shit like this all the time (here's a video talking about that), so let's take into account the notion that maybe we've got multiple single family zones. Ten, say. And they all follow the same rules that Shof previously laid out: "One person living in a house that's worth $500,000, pays $5,000 in Property Taxes to the city, hypothetically speaking. The city spends $2,500 to service said person. Thus the net bang for the buck for that person is $2,500."

Right, so ten people, gives us $50,000 now, and $25,000 and we still have a net bang for the buck (why is it net? I thought the whole point was that bang for buck per person was that it meant "profit" which is, in this sense, already a net amount??).

Now, let's add in 1 extra person per house. And as Shofercia says "It doesn't matter whether they're paying jointly or separately" and it doesn't how much these people earn (they can all be babies again) because it's the properties that earn money for the city. So, now we've got $50k revenue/20 - $25k tax/20 = 2,500 - 1,250 = $1250. Hmm, the single family houses are still winning. But 2 people per house isn't a family, is it? Might not even be a couple.

Okay, so in 2019 there were 107.21 million residents of rentals in the US. At the same time, there were 80.68 million owner occupied households in the US and some 328.9 million people (Google). So, we can say from the first source that renters of single family homes averaged out at just over 3 people per house. Not 1, 3. If we assume that everyone in an owner occupied home (328.9 - 107.21) was in a single family home, then we'd have 2.74 (2dp), which will underestimate the number we're interested in (since we're including owner occupiers of 1 bedroom flats). Also, in 2009 anyway, rental dwellings averaged fewer people than owner occupied ones (pg. 19). (We're using estimates because I didn't have any luck finding the number and I'm already bored of trying to find it.)

Right, so let's use 3 since it's a round number. $50k revenue/30 - $25k tax/30 = 1667 - 1,250 = $833. Wow, bang for buck per person has gone way down. But it turns out (first source) that a 10 unit apartment complex has an average occupancy (people per unit) of 2, so we better be fair to Shofercia's example and compare like with like... $25,000/20 - $15,000/20 = 1250 - 750 = $500. Oh, noes, this completely fake example that I didn't give the time of day before validates the beliefs of the person who made it up out of hot air.

Shocking.

Interestingly, $1250 > $700, so we still have, even with this example, the case that improving density whilst using data based average occupancies decreases the cost of providing services per person.

Making flippant jokes is impolite. The fact that you think that's absurd is quite telling.

No, flippant jokes aren't impolite either. It's absurd that you care about this. In fact, I rather suspect you don't care about this and are instead using it as a justification for ignoring the point... that user pays principles are used in a wide variety of city service contexts, including in more than 70% (by the only source we've seen) of American municipalities, for the exact example (water) you brought up as an area to demonstrate that bang for buck per person mattered. The problem being, of course, that in a user pays system, you'd expect only cost recovery. But, hey, maybe municipalities are profit driven entities...

Shockingly, a single example is not data.

First, that example contained plenty of data. Second, when you say things like single family zoning is a major feature of the main reason cities go bankrupt in the US you should be able to name a single city in the US that went bankrupt for that reason. Otherwise you're simply spouting nonsense for the sake of spouting nonsense.

Or, alternatively, I made a claim that is substantiated by several Youtube videos that you refuse to watch because...

And, no, that article contained statements of fact (so we assume) about one example. A datum.

Your source would probably be interested to know not every state allows cities to go bankrupt.

The bankruptcy case I cited was Detroit, which isn't located in California.

So... you're either telling me that your source is irrelevant to everywhere other than California or it doesn't know what it's talking about?

Furthermore, despite semantics, a lack of real life examples, and lots of YouTube videos, if a city is bankrupt and has to be bailed out by the state, in my book that's still a bankrupt city.

Which has what to do with whether or not your source is factually correct about a topic it purports to provide information on? And excuse me for being careful about what words mean when you're currently claiming that you meant "profit" by "bang for buck (per person)".

What are you even trying to prove? Oh, that's right... that most cities go bankrupt because of pension schemes and, additionally, that the pension schemes aren't related to the housing market.

You cannot demonstrate either of those claims with a SINGLE example. So, let's delete your little quote.

That why I provided two sources with several examples. You couldn't even provide a single non-YouTube source. Here's an actual document after all of five seconds on Google, coming from reality: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10116.pdf

In recent years, a significant number of cities, towns, and other municipalities in the United States have found themselves increasingly unable to pay their debts. In order to offer municipalities relief from many types of debts they cannot repay, Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes certain municipalities to file for bankruptcy. However, filing for bankruptcy may adversely affect the municipality’s creditors, especially beneficiaries of underfunded municipal retirement plans (who, along with bondholders, often hold “the lion’s share” of a municipality’s financial obligations). Because a number of municipalities face a “dramatic and growing shortfall in public pension funds,” many “firefighters, teachers, police officers, and other public employees” who purportedly have “a right to pension benefits at retirement” face a significant risk that their pensions will ultimately not be fully repaid. The fact that public pensions, unlike their private counterparts, are neither subject to the “vesting and funding rules imposed by” the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 nor “protected by the federal pension guarantee program operated by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation” could, according to some commentators, further exacerbate that risk. Moreover, because courts presiding over municipal bankruptcy cases have generally been “amenable to modifying pension debt in bankruptcy,” retirees’ pension benefits may potentially be significantly curtailed when a municipality declares bankruptcy. Although many Chapter 9 debtors have ultimately opted not to cut pensions “for political or practical reasons,” courts and commentators generally accept that, under certain circumstances, municipalities “have the legal ability to shed pension debt” in bankruptcy if they so choose.

You'll note nothing in there talks about "most cities go bankrupt (or whatever semantic term you want to use) because of pension schemes" which is what you're claiming it proves. Everything in green makes it pretty clear that your source is about pensions and is interested in convincing people to care about public pensions... in fact, it doesn't even have an interest in why cities are bankrupt. Did you, like, read this?

That's from the Congressional Research Service. And it's a PDF document, not a YouTube video. And it has all of information ready in the first paragraph. But I'm not asking you for that, I'm just asking you to name a single city.

Which can't prove, let alone substantiate, the point I'm making at all. Similarly to how you can't prove "most" with a source that says "a number of". In contrast, the Youtube videos do back up what I'm saying.

No, it asks for several cities, but it order to get several cities, you have to name at least one city. If I ask for eight cities, that means you have to name eight individual cities. You've yet to name a single city.

Asking me to say "1+1 = window" doesn't advance my argument at all. Neither does naming one, or many, cities.

Source.

The entire thread.

Aside from that other post where you suddenly decided you needed a net to involve addition and subtraction?

If it was easy, you'd have done it by now. Or you'd have linked me to someone else saying "look, it's not just me that uses bang for buck to mean profit".

Now establish that it's relevant.

Relevant to what? The fact that it's easier for cities to raise revenue from wealthier individuals than poorer individuals on property taxes and sales taxes? Or the fact that one rich person uses less services than several poor people, while contributing similar property tax revenues to the city? That's common sense. And you've yet to name a single city Forsher.

But cities don't work like that, do they Shofercia? The most expensive parts of pretty much every city are in the densest parts of them. Unless you're saying the people in Staten Island are richer than those in Manhattan? Or that houses cost more in Staten Island than Manhattan? Or that Staten Island is more dense than Manhattan? Of course, is Staten Island even part of NYC? And maybe New York is just weird... hmm, it's like giving one example doesn't demonstrate a general rule! Try this instead.

\·Ve pay a high social price for sprav.-1 as
well. By spreading residences, medical and commercial offices. and industries through-
out a re�ion 011 large tracl5 of land, we in crease resident-;' dependence on aiuomnhik

transportation. En'rything and e\'er�·one is
too spread out to make public transportation

economicalh- feasible. \fith insufficient coor-
dination of work sites and highwa\'s, traffic l '

congestion result-;. Nor can eyeryone get
around by car: A lifestyle rhat requires a car

discriminates against poor families, the dd-
erly. the disabled, and the young. Suburban

i.e. "bang for buck per person" is stupid

Nothing there proves that it's stupid.

Why?

Also, owning cars in California discriminates against the young?! That's funny. California has 755 cars per 1,000 people, so while cars do discriminate against the poor, you know what else does?

Couldn't find it by age, but just accept the idea that black people in California are younger than typical (could only find figures for the US as a whole) and you have the idea.

How on earth you could imagine 755 per 1000 people demonstrates anything about the age distribution of car access or ownership I have no idea.

Cities with piss poor schools because they're located in areas where the property tax per person ain't that high. Furthermore, wealthy people, who prefer single family homes, are more likely to donate to their local schools, thus improving overall school quality. Why don't you tell the people who are desperate to drive for two hours to get their kids in good schools about how stupid the "bang for buck per person" is? I'm just wondering how hard they'll laugh at said statement.

Wasn't it earlier a point that CA funds schools equitably?

Of course not, as that would be actual evidence, and thus far you've yet to produce the name of a single city. Also, the cities that are wealthy, but sparsely populated, aren't the ones facing bankruptcy in California. The cities that are poor, but densely populated, are in much worse financial position. But please, continue to claim that net profits don't matter for cities.

Actual evidence? As opposed to a quote from a book saying exactly what I want it to say... *yawn*

Once again... bang for buck per person doesn't matter, because services are provided geographically.

No, services are provided on a per city basis, based on strict lines that separate the cities. Irvine and Santa Ana might have similar geographies, but Irvine has elite schools, and Santa Ana doesn't, and Irvine's residents provide a better bang for the buck than Santa Ana's residents. Forsher, you are the only person I know who's arguing that profit doesn't matter.

"Services are provided geographically"
"No, they're provided geographically"

As I said, before you start complaining about "bankrupt" maybe look at how you handle words, no?

It's like a restaurant... a table pays, not customers. Fourteen people paying $20 each on items that cost $100 to prepare, profits $180. Apparently that gives bang for buck per person of about $13. A different table with one person that spends $20 on a meal that costs $10, has a bang for buck per person of $10.

You want the table of 14. Which, in practice, is probably six tables (six, six and then two on each of the ends) pushed together (fewer with six person tables), yes. But six tables four fourteen and eight singletons is better than fourteen singletons.

Tables are inanimate objects, they do not pay. The people pay.

Let's quote you again: "It doesn't matter whether they're paying jointly or separately." Also, have you been to a restaurant? You pay by table or you figure out who got what and pay for that separately or you average costs ("split the bill"). But more to the point, the restaurants ability to generate revenues is by table. It does matter how many people are at a table and the relative likelihood of a particular number of patrons. Go into a McDonalds or something (well, maybe don't go in, Covid)... you're probably going to have fixed in place tables, but they provide a number of viable dining experiences... bars for individual customers, tables, booths and so on. Similarly, a classical restaurant is going to have some tables set up for more than four people (even if it's just the standard table size pushed together as in my example). Ever been asked or seen the phrase "table for?"

And I'm not even remotely sure where you're going with that hypothetical, but in your hypothetical one person that's part of the 14 has a higher net bang for the buck than the solo table diner, and because said table has the higher bang for the buck per person, it's preferable. So you've essentially proven that profit matters, while arguing that it doesn't.

Okay, yes, I see the problem. What if the singleton spent $30? And that cost $15 to provide?

Fourteen singletons brings in 14*15 = $210. A table of fourteen, which is really six tables pushed together, and eight singletons brings in: 1*180 + 6*15 = $270. Maximising bang per buck per person failed. Maximising bang per buck per table did better. You'd have to have a per person profit for the singleton meal of more than $19 to do better with the original numbers.

Bang per buck per person is just not related to the decision making tasks relevant to the restaurant. They don't care who pays and how (well, they might... paywave has fees, for example) as long as they get paid and throughput isn't compromised. Which, yes, you might think of as bang per buck per person, but that's a weird way of thinking about "people per hour" or whatever time period they use.

Forsher says: "bang for buck per person" is stupid
Forsher also says: American cities are required to increase the "bang for buck per person"
Logical Conclusion: American cities are required to increase stupidity

The problem is that you don't recognise there's a disconnect between costs and "number of people". Which is why bang per buck per person is stupid. In the death spiral, you lose people at one rate, but your costs decrease disproportionately to that rate. If you're losing population to continue covering costs, you have to do what? Gather more revenue from the people you already have:

" As people flock ro the
outlying suburbs, cities-their tax base
eroded-must raise taxes on the remaining
taxpayers to pay for city services."

As the good book says.

So ignoring a source, after it contradicts your very own statements, is something you find hilarious?

It's hilarious you think that contradicts what I said.

Except most cities have sidewalks that provide for walkability,

Maybe interrogate that you felt a need to insert the qualifier "most" into that sentence. Also, no, that's not what walkability means:

Walkability is a measure of how friendly an area is to walking. Walkability has health, environmental, and economic benefits.[1] Factors influencing walkability include the presence or absence and quality of footpaths, sidewalks or other pedestrian rights-of-way, traffic and road conditions, land use patterns, building accessibility, and safety, among others.[2] Walkability is an important concept in sustainable urban design.[3] Project Drawdown describes making cities walkable as an important solution in the toolkit for adapting cities to climate change: it reduces carbon emissions, and improves quality of life.[4]

A place without paths isn't "walkable" (in general you can walk there, even if it's insanely dangerous to do so), but the mere existence of a path doesn't make something walkable. Or rather, it doesn't mean its walkability is good. Here's a map with the difference between single family zoning (sprawling) and compact design's likely impacts on walkability.

If you see people say crazy shit, maybe look up the words because, as our discussion on ad homs shows, the answer is probably that what they're saying isn't crazy... you just have a limited understanding.

Also, what does cities increasing in size have to do with single family zoning?

dafuq

https://medium.com/sidewalk-talk/is-it- ... 233d69a25a
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/06/81219972 ... nge-battle
https://www.planetizen.com/definition/s ... ily-zoning

"What does zoning that requires large land space have to do with making cities bigger?" is quite possibly the dumbest question I've ever encountered.

As an example:

The size of the city has expanded significantly in the last 50 years—both by land area and population. Houston proper encompassed 453 square miles in 1969. Today, at 665 square miles, the city of Houston could contain the cities of New York, Boston, San Francisco, Washington D.C. Seattle and Minneapolis—with a bit more room to spare.

I'm still not sure what cities increasing in size has to do with single family zoning,

And now Shofercia argues against the existence of suburban sprawl. Why? I don't know. Presumably there's some secret sauce that explains his POV but I doubt it.

nor do I particularly admire your failed attempt to move goalposts. If a city increases in size, it should provide more schools, hospitals, roads, etc, as it increases in size.

Yes, that is the problem.

If I own a house that's properly serviced, and I buy raw land that's not, the house that's properly serviced doesn't magically start malfunctioning.

I mean, you literally just read:

" As people flock ro the
outlying suburbs, cities-their tax base
eroded-must raise taxes on the remaining
taxpayers to pay for city services."

whilst having argued that cities can't really do this and that inner city schools are bad, so I'm really not sure how you think this but okay.

While I am asking you to believe that cities and suburbs in the US in general (as opposed to just Houston) are bigger than they were in the 1960s... easily substantiated (Between 2000 and 2010, urban land area in the U.S. increased by 15%. Urban land area is 106,386 square miles, or 3% of total land area in the U.S., and is projected to more than double by 2060.6,7)... the actual point is the conclusion: if you have people that are being increasingly encouraged to drive, why would you be surprised that a reaction against sprawl in the last decade or so hasn't had much of an effect? And why would you be so insistent that a source not talking about these issues at all is refuting them?

If I have a 1,000 acre city, and I rezone it to high density, that's still a 1,000 acre city.

So fucking what? What does this have to do with anything?

If I have a single family home zoned city of 1,000 acres, and I expand it to 10,000 acres, while keeping single family zoning, that's still a single family zoned city. Do you see how those two concepts are not related? I'm arguing in favor of single family zoning; I'm not arguing in favor of building one city to rule them all, since it affects peoples lives,

You have now literally provided an example of a city growing bigger. Why are you not getting the idea that cities can grow in area? I understand how someone could be confused about the idea that a city could expand in size but lose population (even though I've given examples of this happening), but being confused at the notion that Houston was once 453 square miles but is now 665 square miles (more than 200 square miles bigger) is something else. Of course, you might argue "b-but Houston doesn't have zoning". Sorry, folks, Houston does have zoning... it just does it in different places rather than a zoning document.

Wait, wait, I hear the thread cry, there are places that grew bigger but lost population? Yes. It's not even that unusual by the sounds of it:

Yet sprawl doesn't occur only because of population growth. Cincinnati, which lost 15 percent of its population between 1970 and 1980, then another 10 percent between 1980 and 2000, nonetheless increased its land area from 335 square miles in 1970 to 573 square miles. Metro Cleveland's population declined by 11 percenl between 1970 and 1990, but it still consumed 33 percent more land. Also, between 1990 and 1996, Akron, Ohio, experienced a 37 percent decrease in population
but a 65 percent increase in developed land area use (Florian 1999:25).

Those were all excerpts from chapter four of Cities and urban life, 4th ed. (2007) by Macionis, John J.; Parrillo, Vincent N... and (to be completely clear) re-edited by Forsher due to nasty reproduction errors caused by copying and pasting from a PDF.

The Britannica link below has a few more examples (which may be the same), some of the other links might, too. In truth I didn't read them past the bit they proved what I wanted them to.

rather than the Settlers of Catan.

Apparently, unlike you, I have played Settlers of Catan. It doesn't work like this. In Catan a city and a settlement take up exactly the same amount of space. The curious can play a knock off version online here.

Also, Catan doesn't have cars. We're talking about cars... and why urban form affects how people choose to live in cities.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowled ... 103014747/
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/cli ... the-answer
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30163440 (I haven't read the paper, based on the abstract Shofercia might have written it but for the fact the author is interested in the link between "cars" and "sprawl"... their conclusion is weird, "A significant increase in urban decentralization will require more than just reduced auto reliance" means "a significant increase in urban sprawl" based on how they defined sprawl ("what is characterised here as decentralisation"), a bit of a weird definition but okay, and the finding "a 10 percent reduction in the percentage of households owning one or more autos would reduce the square mile size of an urban area by only 0.5 percent". Also, the whole thing just reeks of reverse causality... we know that urban sprawl came before the cars, but maybe the actual article has evidence to support policies now being worked like this)
https://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm104.htm

That last one provides an interesting quote:

Sprawl - Dispersed, low-density, single-use (i.e., residential, commercial and institutional land uses are separated), automobile dependent land use patterns with wide roads, abundant parking, large scale blocks, and little consideration of walking conditions.

https://www.britannica.com/explore/savi ... ban-sprawl

Although the phenomenon of urban sprawl contributes greatly to various sectors of the economies of developed countries, there are several economic costs. Many of those costs are passed on to longtime residents of the community or are borne by the public at large. In the United States, current residents of a city or town typically subsidize new construction and infrastructure even before new residents move in. A portion of the tax revenue normally spent on existing neighbourhoods is allocated to the new development. As a result, fewer resources are available to maintain services (such as fire and police protection and the repair of roads and utilities) in older neighbourhoods, and many cities and towns often raise taxes to compensate.

After residents move in, they must contend with high transportation costs associated with automobile ownership and endure time-consuming commutes. Surburban residents pay higher energy fees on average than city dwellers. In addition, since homes, stores, workplaces, and schools are dispersed, suburbs pay more for bus transportation for school-age children, road construction and maintenance, and materials used to build infrastructure, such as electrical wire and pipes needed for energy and water delivery.

that also has a nice walkability quote:

As a result of the court decision, the term Euclidean zoning became synonymous with single-use zoning. Despite the honourable intentions of Euclidean zoning, it discourages the development of walkable communities. Homes built deep within housing tracts are located far away from stores, schools, and employment areas. As a result, residents often depend on automobiles. In contrast, in older urban neighbourhoods, diverse land-use types are typically interspersed with one another.

Like, these results are better established than climate change's existence.

Meanwhile, Shof is just asserting bang per buck per person is how it all works and is what matters. He provides no substantiation beyond examples he created that are examples that clearly void the actual character of the situations they're supposedly modelling or demonstrate the irrelevance of bang per buck per person.

I'm not unsure how single family zoning forces cities to expand. Some single family zoned cities grew. Others didn't. Still not seeing the connection.

You're not unsure? You've twice asked the question.

Or did you miss those examples of cities that lost population and increased in area (grew bigger)?

If you have a single unique thing to say, I'll be amazed if I can find a remotely mainstream urban discourse that doesn't reject your views. Yes, even Demographia, whom the experts reject. You see, Demographia want single family zoning to increase affordability, i.e. because it reduced bang for buck per person.

The actual voters in California, who actually know what's going on,

You're trying to argue people that you say go to bad schools are correct on a topic? Are these schools bad or not? Meanwhile, at least one of the literally dozens of links I've given in this thread, to you, specifically states that Californians time and time again oppose the experts (and their elected representatives) in votes.

Also, people can be wrong: note how this video is about the existence of a metric that superficially makes sense but in actual reality fails to measure traffic levels whilst simultaneously incentivising urban sprawl. You might call it an example of these bad boys, but, hey, watchu gonna do?

Oh, fuck, I was flippant. Haul me away mods. I've been a very naughty boy.

...I just can't even right now.

are fully aligned with my views. YouTube videos posted by those who cannot name a single city to back up their argument, aren't.

Given that I had to prove that you've characterised Californian votes correctly and that I didn't make those videos, any of them, you can tell by the way they're all made by Americans and Canadians.

I'll take actual, real life voters, over YouTube videos.

The voters are wrong. I really don't know what to tell you. No, wait, Vote Fraud. Hijacked elections! That's you, right? You're the "voter fraud is rampant" guy, right? I know it is because you're currently trying to say that I reported you for flamebaiting in a different thread because I think I'm losing a debate in this thread (I'm not kidding, here's the quote: "Sometimes NSGers use moderators when they're being destroyed in a debate, so I'll just leave this here to show Forsher's motive for baiting." As proof, Shofercia quote this post I'm replying to now; the mind boggles). And in that thread you're all about dat voter fraud. I don't understand you... if elections are fraudulent, why should I believe Californian voters? And if I can believe Californian voters, why should I believe elections are fraudulent?

(n.b. the reality is elections in the US aren't fraudulent, for the curious Kowani did a great explanation of why Shofercia's most recent proofs are wrong, and California's voters are wrong, too)

I'll take actual, Congressional Research

about an entirely different subject that doesn't validate the claims you want it to at all.

over an online poster on NSG. And speaking of these noble developers who are pushing for more housing and more profits at the expense of elderly residents, who pretend that it's all about fighting homelessness, erm, they're actually not so noble: https://www.dailybreeze.com/2021/07/26/ ... he-middle/

The thing about YIMBYs is that they like developers. Not everyone who says this stuff is a YIMBY... e.g. here's a video (or, rather, a video series, I can't remember if it was this) by the most boring sarcastic man alive saying so. (Not that anyone should be shocked that critiques entirely amenable to the left are often made by people who don't like land developers.) Either way, this is a tu quoque fallacy, so I don't fucking care and nor should anyone else.

Those are real people Forsher. Not pixels. People. They pay. Not tables. The people pay. And you still cannot name a single city to support your point. And yes, a reduced bang for the buck per person increases affordability; it also decreases the quality of life.

So... it's more affordable to live in a $500,000 house than a $400,000 apartment? Maybe the interest rates work out if the latter's renting, but if they're both renting or they both own, no, it's not the case. And it definitely won't be the case if you factor in transport (assuming the apartment is closer to a transport network). See here for a video and here for an article demonstrating it in a real world city that's sometimes pronounced Oakland.

So if an online poster misunderstands something that I thought was clear cut, I'm supposed to engage in temporal debates? Now that's funny, great joke Forsher!

If I've actually misunderstood your usage, you should be able to show me doing it.

No, Shofercia, it was you're rubbish example. As in, you literally made rubbish an example.

You're the one who brought up rubbish in the first place.

Did I? Your fault for not naming it as a specific example of a city service then.

And, yes, I know this is your point. What I am saying is that you don't see the logical implication of your own point... bang for buck per person isn't remotely relevant to what cities actually care about, just as it isn't relevant to restaurants.

Ah, so cities don't care about that, hmm, is this why Atlanta doesn't want Buckhead to secede? There's another actual example.

I imagine a city would be quite concerned about losing taxbase that it has to provide infrastructure for when they commute into Atlanta proper. You might recall the bit where I said these municipalities should be aggregated to solve the housing crisis. No? Too bad, because I did, see.

Though, maybe, don't cite Buckhead? It's not a good example of what you're trying to prove:

To reverse a downturn in Buckhead Village during the 1980s, minimum parking spot requirements for bars were lifted, which quickly led to it becoming the most dense concentration of bars and clubs in the Atlanta area.[9] Many bars and clubs catered mostly to the black community in the Atlanta area, including Otto's, Cobalt, 112, BAR, World Bar, Lulu's Bait Shack, Mako's, Tongue & Groove, Chaos, John Harvard's Brew House, Paradox, Frequency & Havana Club.[10][11] The area became renowned as a party spot for Atlanta area rappers and singers, including Outkast, Jazze Pha, Jagged Edge, Usher and Jermaine Dupri, who mentioned the neighborhood's clubs on his song "Welcome to Atlanta."

(They've knocked most of this down.)

Also, the skyline. And also, if it is a good example of single family housing, how is it that you believe in affordability from the same?

In short: a lot. Buckhead is known for being the most affluent neighborhood in Atlanta, which means that newcomers will pay a hefty price to enter into the communities. The median home value in Buckhead is $500,000, but some estates in the area can sell for several million dollars. Compared with the rest of Atlanta, homes in Buckhead cost 223% more on average. The average rent in Buckhead is also expensive, with most renters paying $1,640 per month on average.

Other living expenses are also high in Buckhead, including goods & services, transportation, and healthcare. Most families in Buckhead own 2 cars, and professionals in the neighborhood usually commute via car to work. Therefore, you should also consider fuel and repair costs when determining the cost of living in Buckhead for your family.

Mind you, it seems to fall between Auckland and Houston in density (it appears to be somewhere between 45 sqkm and 55 sqkm in area)... both cities being characterised by sprawling single family homes. Note also, that even low income parts of Auckland have single family median house prices equivalent to Buckhead... in a city and country where people earn a lot less and face a higher cost of living. And I can't really tell where people in Buckhead tend to work.

I know what my claim was. What my claim was is not being disputed. What is being "disputed" is the idea that I haven't demonstrated it by providing four different Youtube videos talking about the subject.

When I say "multiple actors played in Star Wars, A New Hope" and someone says "name them" I can list "Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, etc. You specifically used the word "cities" and cities have names, so name those cities. This. Is. Not. Complicated.

Watch the videos.

And choose equivalent examples. Tell me three moments where Han Solo's dice are visible.

You didn't. You asked for examples.

Of city names.

Watch the videos.

[Forsher]

Nope. I'm done.

I'm never going to reply to another post by Shofercia again. That took more than five fucking hours to write (and 4387 words that I either wrote or quoted from sources). And I have to point this out because, as I said, he's making a meal of what's happening in this thread elsewhere.

[South Reinkalistan]

oooh i have an idea

[The Lake-]

Implement a nationwide local minimum wage: Employers are required to pay a wage equal to the annual cost of living in the county, divided by 2080.
This would give busnesses an incentive to employ in places with lower costs of living, which, surprise! are where there is surplus housing.
The issue isn't that there aren't enough homes. It's that all the jobs got concentrated in already heavily developed areas where housing is expensive.

Also start giving land away again.

How would that help those whom are involuntarily unemployed, voluntarily unemployed, and those unable to work (or at least work in any "gainful" way under capitalist conditions)?

Not the topic of this thread. However to answer your question. The first does not exist, the second can get fucked and the last will benefit from falling housing prices making it easier to find a home on their tight budget.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

How would that help those whom are involuntarily unemployed, voluntarily unemployed, and those unable to work (or at least work in any "gainful" way under capitalist conditions)?

Not the topic of this thread. However to answer your question. The first does not exist

What 18th century economics texts have you been reading? Involuntary unemployment is well-known. Even in a perfectly functioning economy at full potential, you will have the natural rate of unemployment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_r ... employment

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

In all honesty, I’ve been pondering this topic for a while and I don’t know how to address it. It’s a no win situation. One: you let the crisis happen to its end and do nothing. There will be a lot of foreclosures, dumping a lot of houses on the market, homelessness and crashing of the market. Two: you could open the vaults of the treasury and pay for everyone who’s behind on rent, but if you do that, the people who tried their best and kept paying, will feel screwed and hate you for it. Three: pay everyone’s rent or mortgage whether they paid or not, so no one gets hosed but you have money going to people who don’t really need it. Pro- you won’t be hated. Fourth: for mortgages only, you could mandate by law that any of those deferred amounts must be tacked on to the end of the mortgage game cannot be demanded upfront. This won’t do a thing for the renters’ market.

And my head is reeling.

[Gim]

Nope. I'm done.

I'm never going to reply to another post by Shofercia again. That took more than five fucking hours to write (and 4387 words that I either wrote or quoted from sources). And I have to point this out because, as I said, he's making a meal of what's happening in this thread elsewhere.

You know, I shudder at the name, every time I see his post. I can totally anticipate what's coming.

[Kubra]

How would that help those whom are involuntarily unemployed, voluntarily unemployed, and those unable to work (or at least work in any "gainful" way under capitalist conditions)?

Not the topic of this thread. However to answer your question. The first does not exist, the second can get fucked and the last will benefit from falling housing prices making it easier to find a home on their tight budget.

>involuntary unemployment: doesn't exist
>The unable to work: does exist
Kek

[James_xenoland]

Everything else aside.. and there are some major issues there.

I know that there is an argument for easing, reducing, or eliminating zoning regulations to make it easier for construction corporations to build more housing, however I think that this is unnecessary and may have some serious negatives as well.

Wait, so let's see If I understand this correctly. You argue that we are at the point of national crisis over this issue, and are purposing an unprecedented level and scope of federal power grabbing, expansion and micromanagement to solve it.. Yet you're leaving the biggest cause of and overall threat to solving the issue, nearly completely intact?!?

[The Lake-]

Not the topic of this thread. However to answer your question. The first does not exist

What 18th century economics texts have you been reading? Involuntary unemployment is well-known. Even in a perfectly functioning economy at full potential, you will have the natural rate of unemployment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_r ... employment

Nobody is involuntary unemployed. Delivery companies will hire literally any warm body. This has been true since the lockdowns began.
"but I don't have exper-" don't care: we'll train you.
"my class schedu-" doesn't matter. We run 24/7, we'll find room for you
"but i'm a dumba-" perfect, we have upper management positions open.
this isn't 2008, that excuse don't fly.

In all honesty, I’ve been pondering this topic for a while and I don’t know how to address it. It’s a no win situation. One: you let the crisis happen to its end and do nothing. There will be a lot of foreclosures, dumping a lot of houses on the market, homelessness and crashing of the market. Two: you could open the vaults of the treasury and pay for everyone who’s behind on rent, but if you do that, the people who tried their best and kept paying, will feel screwed and hate you for it. Three: pay everyone’s rent or mortgage whether they paid or not, so no one gets hosed but you have money going to people who don’t really need it. Pro- you won’t be hated. Fourth: for mortgages only, you could mandate by law that any of those deferred amounts must be tacked on to the end of the mortgage game cannot be demanded upfront. This won’t do a thing for the renters’ market.

And my head is reeling.

The actual solution would be to allow landlords to claim unpaid rent from people who lost their jobs due to covid to claim that lost revenue as a tax credit.
but that would require governments to be willing to bear the burden of their interference in other peoples lives, instead of pushing that burden onto an even smaller number of voters, only to predictably fuck over everyone in the end.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

What 18th century economics texts have you been reading? Involuntary unemployment is well-known. Even in a perfectly functioning economy at full potential, you will have the natural rate of unemployment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_r ... employment

Nobody is involuntary unemployed. Delivery companies will hire literally any warm body. This has been true since the lockdowns began.
"but I don't have exper-" don't care: we'll train you.
"my class schedu-" doesn't matter. We run 24/7, we'll find room for you
"but i'm a dumba-" perfect, we have upper management positions open.
this isn't 2008, that excuse don't fly.

Do you just not believe in economics? I will eat my shoe if you find a single person with an economics degree that believes that there is no such thing as involuntary unemployment. This is so basic. Your common sense is just wrong.

Also, the economy isn't perfect. Even at full employment, there is some frictional unemployment going on.

Do you have any economics education?

[Senkaku]

What 18th century economics texts have you been reading? Involuntary unemployment is well-known. Even in a perfectly functioning economy at full potential, you will have the natural rate of unemployment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_r ... employment

Nobody is involuntary unemployed.

spoken like someone who's never been fired lol

Delivery companies will hire literally any warm body. This has been true since the lockdowns began.
"but I don't have exper-" don't care: we'll train you.
"my class schedu-" doesn't matter. We run 24/7, we'll find room for you
"but i'm a dumba-" perfect, we have upper management positions open.
this isn't 2008, that excuse don't fly.

come back to us w that upper management position in a week or two

[Senkaku]

In all honesty, I’ve been pondering this topic for a while and I don’t know how to address it. It’s a no win situation. One: you let the crisis happen to its end and do nothing. There will be a lot of foreclosures, dumping a lot of houses on the market, homelessness and crashing of the market. Two: you could open the vaults of the treasury and pay for everyone who’s behind on rent, but if you do that, the people who tried their best and kept paying, will feel screwed and hate you for it. Three: pay everyone’s rent or mortgage whether they paid or not, so no one gets hosed but you have money going to people who don’t really need it. Pro- you won’t be hated. Fourth: for mortgages only, you could mandate by law that any of those deferred amounts must be tacked on to the end of the mortgage game cannot be demanded upfront. This won’t do a thing for the renters’ market.

And my head is reeling.

the ways Americans rationalize our eternal debate between saving lives and making money are getting more baroque and hilarious by the minute this year

your "head is reeling" considering the "no win situation" of choosing either A-- tanking the economy, killing thousands, and possibly irreversibly destabilizing the republic-- and B, where we don't do any of those things, but some people are mad and posting about it? Or C, where the absolute worst case scenario is a rich girl using her stimmy check to buy clothes or something?

[The Lake-]

Nobody is involuntary unemployed. Delivery companies will hire literally any warm body. This has been true since the lockdowns began.
"but I don't have exper-" don't care: we'll train you.
"my class schedu-" doesn't matter. We run 24/7, we'll find room for you
"but i'm a dumba-" perfect, we have upper management positions open.
this isn't 2008, that excuse don't fly.

Do you just not believe in economics? I will eat my shoe if you find a single person with an economics degree that believes that there is no such thing as involuntary unemployment. This is so basic. Your common sense is just wrong.

I don't believe that there's not such thing as involuntary unemployment. But I do know there are jobs available for literally anyone right now, the distinction you are failing to grasp is that a job for anyone does not mean a job for everyone. It does, however, mean that until these positions are filled, anyone saying they cannot find work is lying.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Do you just not believe in economics? I will eat my shoe if you find a single person with an economics degree that believes that there is no such thing as involuntary unemployment. This is so basic. Your common sense is just wrong.

I don't believe that there's not such thing as involuntary unemployment. But I do know there are jobs available for literally anyone right now, the distinction you are failing to grasp is that a job for anyone does not mean a job for everyone. It does, however, mean that until these positions are filled, anyone saying they cannot find work is lying.

The economy is not magic. It's absolutely possible to not come across a job when one exists. Besides, for a job-seeker, there are considerations such as whether to hold out for a better job and keep looking (especially for someone who would be wasting their talents/education at a delivery job), or just take the first job they come across. That is actually an important consideration.

There is also frictional unemployment: finding a new job, even if it exists, may take considerable time, during which someone is involuntarily unemployed. There is also seasonal work, where individuals cannot find employment at a certain place for parts of the year.

Also, you did say that involuntary employment does not exist earlier.

But let's see if you're consistent. At a time when the economy is at (or above) potential, would you have such a callous attitude to the involuntarily unemployed?

[Senkaku]

anyone saying they cannot find work is lying.

your deep knowledge of the intimate personal details of tens of millions of strangers is quite breathtaking! I never knew economics would give me facts & logic that could let me extrapolate my experience onto my entire society's, so cool

[Page]

Do you just not believe in economics? I will eat my shoe if you find a single person with an economics degree that believes that there is no such thing as involuntary unemployment. This is so basic. Your common sense is just wrong.

I don't believe that there's not such thing as involuntary unemployment. But I do know there are jobs available for literally anyone right now, the distinction you are failing to grasp is that a job for anyone does not mean a job for everyone. It does, however, mean that until these positions are filled, anyone saying they cannot find work is lying.

That's kind of like saying anyone who can't find someone to have sex with them is lying, in the sense that it is literally true but for many people the only options are unpleasant, exploitative, degrading, or dangerous.

[The Lake-]

come back to us w that upper management position in a week or two

No. I like my position. I don't have to be responsible for anyone's bullshit. The work isn't boring, I get good wages, bennies and hours, and like 2/3rd of my department are Latinas, so it's like having my own little harem.
There's a reason only dumbasses go into management.

I don't believe that there's not such thing as involuntary unemployment. But I do know there are jobs available for literally anyone right now, the distinction you are failing to grasp is that a job for anyone does not mean a job for everyone. It does, however, mean that until these positions are filled, anyone saying they cannot find work is lying.

The economy is not magic. It's absolutely possible to not come across a job when one exists. Besides, for a job-seeker, there are considerations such as whether to hold out for a better job and keep looking (especially for someone who would be wasting their talents/education at a delivery job), or just take the first job they come across. That is actually an important consideration.

this is true. However that is a reason for underemployment, not unemployment.

There is also frictional unemployment: finding a new job, even if it exists, may take considerable time, during which someone is involuntarily unemployed. There is also seasonal work, where individuals cannot find employment at a certain place for parts of the year.

It has been 509 days

Also, you did say that involuntary employment does not exist earlier.

No, I said people who are involuntary employed do not exist. An important distinction.

But let's see if you're consistent. At a time when the economy is at (or above) potential, would you have such a callous attitude to the involuntarily unemployed?

I'm going to assume by that you mean when there is a labor surplus and people are actually struggling to find work(why there needs to institutional unemployment to for the economy to be "above potential" is probably a discussion for another time.) In that case no.
However I will point out that in 2008, when an economic crisis cause a shortage of jobs, there was no eviction moratorium, and no student loan forgiveness. Surely it would be more appropriate then.