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

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Easy, offer a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants that have steady jobs in construction. This means the president would need to pardon a few million people. Use the income tax revenue from them and their employers to fund trade schools. Offer tax credits for people who move to the rust belt and move into a city with declining population. Any new government buildings/military bases should be built in the states/cities that don't have many, as these effectively have been subsidizing a handful of regions for decades.

Edit: Exponentially increased property taxes.
1 home X
2 homes X +5%
3 homes X +10%
4 homes X +20%
5 homes X +40%

[Ifreann]

You understand this perfectly well. You don't care that people without a house have to live on the street, but the rest of us generally do think that it's bad when people suffer needlessly.

What do you mean by needlessly?

I mean without need. There is no need for people to be homeless. We can provide them with housing.

It's a problem of their own making, it isn't on the rest of the country to provide for them something that they're either unable or unwilling to provide for themselves.

We should give people somewhere to live anyway.

[Maricarland]

@Equitania

Capitalism and other forms of oppression like systemic racism, systemic classism, systemic misogyny, systemic ableism and ablenormativity, systemic homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, and heterocisnormativity, religious bigotries like antisemitism, islamophobia, and atheophobia, amongst many other forms of bigotry, are all connected. You cannot address one without addressing all the others.

We acknowledge the racist history of housing in the U.S. with things such as redlining, and that systemic racism still impedes homeownership for many people of color. You are right, if we do not address systemic racism, then any efforts to address the housing crisis will fail because we are ignoring a significant portion of the housing insecure and general population (a demographic that is over represented in the housing insecure population). However, addressing systemic racism alone will not solve the housing crisis, because the housing crisis has more dimensions to it than just race. We must address homelessness and housing insecurity among poor whites, poor women of every color, the disabled, religious minorities, people convicted of crimes whom may find it hard to find housing that will accept them, immigrants, gender/romantic/sexual minorities (GRSM), and so on. If we don't then we will be doing the same thing as if we failed to address systemic racism, ignoring a significant portion of the housing insecure and general population. Also, any focus on race exclusively while ignoring all these other problems will create resentment and reactionary attitudes that may undo any work to address systemic racism, so not only is addressing systemic racism alone going to be insufficient to address the housing crisis, it will also be insufficient to address systemic racism itself.

Though I feel I have gotten off track.

The issue is in the U.S. we have millions of people who are housing insecure, in most years we have just shy or just over about a million homeless people (in a population of about 330 million, that means 1 in every 330 people are homeless), we have people unable to move to seek out better jobs or social situations or quality of life, we have housing that is too expensive for most people to buy or rent, we have people's entire savings in a single asset that if the housing market crashes would leave them owing more on a mortgage debt than the value of their homes, we have corporate landlords buying out all the existing housing and new housing development creating a "nation" of renters where only the wealthy may own a home, we have entire generations of people whom are involuntarily made to live with parents or other relatives (and I am fully supportive of people who voluntarily choose to live in multi-generational or extended family households, the key word here being voluntary), and so on...

It seems that the primary issue here is capitalism, with all the dimensions of other forms of oppression that comes with it. Reparations cannot solve the housing crisis, but other policies that are more comprehensive may, that does not mean we ignore the systemic racism and racist history of housing in America, we can address more than one thing at a time.

[Maricarland]

Obviously the answer is to stop treating houses as a commodity. No matter how we fiddle with zoning laws or mortgage regulations or land value taxes, at the end of the day a house will cost money to buy or rent, and some people have no money to spare. So we should stop letting houses cost money. Stop letting people and companies buy and sell houses. Provide housing on the basis of need, not on the basis of profitability, and share the cost of building new houses among everyone. Then we will have solved the housing crisis.

If you can't afford something what entitles you to it?

How about need?, or the fact that all private property originates as a form of theft from society as a whole?

Also by the same token, are you going to tell me people are not entitled to education, or healthcare.

[Picairn]

Offer tax credits for people who move to the rust belt and move into a city with declining population.

I'm skeptical that tax credits alone would be enough. Even if the gub'mint pays me 1 million dollars I would still rather live in the cities or bustling suburbs than in the middle of dying towns with little job opportunities.

People leave their towns mainly for work or education. I don't see a recovery of the Rust Belt any time soon.

[CoraSpia]

If you can't afford something what entitles you to it?

How about need?, or the fact that all private property originates as a form of theft from society as a whole?

Also by the same token, are you going to tell me people are not entitled to education, or healthcare.

Pretty much.

[Maricarland]

You understand this perfectly well. You don't care that people without a house have to live on the street, but the rest of us generally do think that it's bad when people suffer needlessly.

What do you mean by needlessly? It's a problem of their own making, it isn't on the rest of the country to provide for them something that they're either unable or unwilling to provide for themselves.

You cannot be serious. The whole reason people enter a social contract and leave a state of nature, is because society is supposed to offer a better way of life than survival of the fittest, is because of the advantages that collectivism offers people, because of what society can provide to its members. You do not have a functioning society if people are not obligated to take care of each other, even if they are unable or "unwilling" to care for themselves. The position you are advocating for is very simply anti-society (or anti-social if you prefer).

[Ifreann]

What do you mean by needlessly? It's a problem of their own making, it isn't on the rest of the country to provide for them something that they're either unable or unwilling to provide for themselves.

You cannot be serious. The whole reason people enter a social contract and leave a state of nature, is because society is supposed to offer a better way of life than survival of the fittest, is because of the advantages that collectivism offers people, because of what society can provide to its members. You do not have a functioning society if people are not obligated to take care of each other, even if they are unable or "unwilling" to care for themselves. The position you are advocating for is very simply anti-society (or anti-social if you prefer).

Yeah, this is GVH's whole thing. He doesn't care about any appeal you might make to anyone's welfare or life, even his own. He'd rather be left to die on the side of the road than be taxed to fund an ambulance service and healthcare system that could save his life.

[The Socialist Republic of Astrakhan]

Decrease inequality in USA , by raising taxes on the Rich. Firstly provide free Public Healthcare to all.

[CoraSpia]

What do you mean by needlessly? It's a problem of their own making, it isn't on the rest of the country to provide for them something that they're either unable or unwilling to provide for themselves.

You cannot be serious. The whole reason people enter a social contract and leave a state of nature, is because society is supposed to offer a better way of life than survival of the fittest, is because of the advantages that collectivism offers people, because of what society can provide to its members. You do not have a functioning society if people are not obligated to take care of each other, even if they are unable or "unwilling" to care for themselves. The position you are advocating for is very simply anti-society (or anti-social if you prefer).

The reason people enter a 'social contract' is because they were unfairly coerced into it. If the social contract was an actual contract a court would throw it out.

[Page]

Obviously the answer is to stop treating houses as a commodity. No matter how we fiddle with zoning laws or mortgage regulations or land value taxes, at the end of the day a house will cost money to buy or rent, and some people have no money to spare. So we should stop letting houses cost money. Stop letting people and companies buy and sell houses. Provide housing on the basis of need, not on the basis of profitability, and share the cost of building new houses among everyone. Then we will have solved the housing crisis.

If you can't afford something what entitles you to it?

If your only claim to ownership of private property is a piece of paper and the backing of the state, just glorified warlords and their cops, glorified mercenaries, what entitles you to it?

State violence is the one and only reason people aren't constantly expropriation the excess claimed property of the wealthy.

[Maricarland]

If you can't afford something what entitles you to it?

If your only claim to ownership of private property is a piece of paper and the backing of the state, just glorified warlords and their cops, glorified mercenaries, what entitles you to it?

State violence is the one and only reason people aren't constantly expropriation the excess claimed property of the wealthy.

Exactly, this is a good illustration of how private property is theft.

[CoraSpia]

If you can't afford something what entitles you to it?

If your only claim to ownership of private property is a piece of paper and the backing of the state, just glorified warlords and their cops, glorified mercenaries, what entitles you to it?

State violence is the one and only reason people aren't constantly expropriation the excess claimed property of the wealthy.

The wealthy could pay their own people to defend their claims, it'd just lead to an even smaller group of landowners owning more. And it's hardly excess, it's what they were able to afford with the money they have earned.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Race based class disunity only helps the rich, hard pass. Like, institutional racism is totally a real thing, but people like you actively make shit worse.

On the contrary it is racially unconscious class agitation that has stymied the liberation of my people for decades. All the righteous energy of the civil rights movement became diffused over a multitude of supposed class concerns which, when one looks at the disparties between POC and non-POC, are overwhelmingly actually racial concerns. Not coincidentally there have been few POC among those leading such class based agitation. As in everywhere else in this society the movement to liberate POC became dominated by non-POC individuals.

I'll be real, I don't think you know much about the civil rights movement or why it came to an end.

"It'll make the white supremacists mad!" Well goody gumdrops. The idea that POC should focus on the welfare of the non-POC because putting all their effort into their own liberation first will make the white-sheets mad is cowardly. I think you have the naive understanding that I believe in politely negotiating for what is owed to my people. I do not. The only thing that will secure the future of POC is commiting exclusively to our own welfare by any means necessary.

And this is just next level stupid, why do you want to help Nazis and the Klan?

[Ifreann]

Trying to design a housing policy that won't outrage racists is probably impossible, short of having it explicitly benefit whites only.

[Kubra]

remove barriers to foreign investment in the housing market, really drive up prices.
Then when the bubble pops, it's free real estate.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Trying to design a housing policy that won't outrage racists is probably impossible, short of having it explicitly benefit whites only.

Thankfully they aren't a large group in America. The last Klan rally I heard about was canceled when only 4 people showed up and over a thousand protesters arrived. Of course the news portrays it as hundreds of millions of racists but.... sensationalism sells.

[Maricarland]

remove barriers to foreign investment in the housing market, really drive up prices.
Then when the bubble pops, it's free real estate.

Huh...

If I understand your position correctly, you believe the best way to address the housing crisis is to exacerbate it to the point that it will collapse in on itself.

[Kubra]

remove barriers to foreign investment in the housing market, really drive up prices.
Then when the bubble pops, it's free real estate.

Huh...

If I understand your position correctly, you believe the best way to address the housing crisis is to exacerbate it to the point that it will collapse in on itself.

yes.

[Ifreann]

Trying to design a housing policy that won't outrage racists is probably impossible, short of having it explicitly benefit whites only.

Thankfully they aren't a large group in America. The last Klan rally I heard about was canceled when only 4 people showed up and over a thousand protesters arrived. Of course the news portrays it as hundreds of millions of racists but.... sensationalism sells.

Few members of the literal Klan doesn't mean few racists.

[Maricarland]

Huh...

If I understand your position correctly, you believe the best way to address the housing crisis is to exacerbate it to the point that it will collapse in on itself.

yes.

Accelerationism causes massive amounts of suffering in the meantime, is unnecessary, and has no guarantee of actually working to the best outcomes. I really don't think this is feasible.

[Kubra]

yes.

Accelerationism causes massive amounts of suffering in the meantime, is unnecessary, and has no guarantee of actually working to the best outcomes. I really don't think this is feasible.

Well, not with that attitude!

[Duvniask]

yes.

Accelerationism causes massive amounts of suffering in the meantime, is unnecessary, and has no guarantee of actually working to the best outcomes. I really don't think this is feasible.

Consider the possibility that Kubra might not be serious.

[Kowani]

What is the precise nature of the housing crisis in the US? Is it another "oh noes, people can't do this really specific thing* that they probably shouldn't be doing anyway?" like NZ's popular framing of the housing crisis in NZ**? Or has the US somehow woken up to the fact the way it builds houses is literally bankrupting its towns and cities? Because those are two really different problems, albeit with somewhat similar solutions.

*i.e. buy houses

**The NZ subreddit (here) might as well be renamed "I can't buy real estate". The NZ Herald might as well be renamed "house price monitor".

partly the latter, in that people have realized that our towns and cities are being bankrupted, there is just an overrepresented faction opposed to public policy (and often opinion) that would connect the dots on or remedy how housing construction is causing that

[Kubra]

Accelerationism causes massive amounts of suffering in the meantime, is unnecessary, and has no guarantee of actually working to the best outcomes. I really don't think this is feasible.

Consider the possibility that Kubra might not be serious.

No, I'm deadly serious.
I of course suggest such a course of action purely as a matter of public policy and public interest, and it has nothing to do with any two reasonably central condos I may or may not own.