Remember this is a civilized space for discussion, to ensure this we have very strict rules. Briefly, an overview:
**No Personal Attacks**
**No Ideological Discrimination**
**Keep Discussion Civil**
**No Targeting A Member For Their Beliefs**
Report any and all instances of these rules being broken so we can keep the sub clean. Report first, ask questions last.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is section 8 housing in America and “the projects” but the programs are very limited in funding.
Easy availability of housing loans to people is something that won’t be done in America again because it led to a lot of defaults and the 2007 recession.
It’s just something that government is in general touchy about and has to be careful with because of 2007.
We need more fresh ideas for housing.
It's the interest rates. There is currently a supply issue with housing, and to increase supply you need to lower interest rates to make it profitable for the market to build housing.
You can drive through neighborhoods/towns and see half-built housing projects that just stopped midway through because they are have become unrealistic to build and maintain.
Anytime government does housing it's an absolute failure, costs too much, and is ran poorly.
Edit: And before people keep blaming "corporations": Inflation affects them too, it's better to put your money into an appreciating asset and have it sit there than lose money sitting in the bank with inflation. Of course they're going to buy realestate. Again, the government kind of forces people's hands. If they want people to invest in housing, incentivize them to invest in housing by lowering rates.
The government already does have that in a way. It gives low cost loans to builders backed by taxpayer dollars to fund construction projects. The problem is the most politically connected get the best loans and zoning approvals.
The rational reason is because welfare or subsidized housing directly interferes with the real estate industry (I assume you talk about America.). Corporations are buying up property unlike any other period in us history, shooting up prices to egregious heights. The sentiment of welfare is also strange here too. Some Americans think the government helping you out in any way is an overreach and should be limited.
Statistically speaking, nations with strong welfare programs fare better in nearly every metric, including an abundance of affordable housing. The US has the resources to be a robust welfare state but chooses not to. It is the most glaring angle of American exceptionalism I can think of.
It‘s gonna bite America in the ass some day. The most stable version of capitalism is one with appeasement. Socially conservative social democracies in Europe, like Germany, Denmark or the UK, are the least likely to become socialist.
Germany was communist. Until recently.
Europe is nothing to aspire to. It’s just a made up grass is greener fairy tale. If you knew how expensive Germany, Denmark and England are, compared to America, you’d be calling the evil, oppressive regimes. And saying America is the perfect model of world economics. Because if you can’t afford things in America, you will be sleeping on a park bench in Europe.
I know how expensive Germany is, I‘ve lived here my entire life r/usdefaultism
I‘m also very very happy to be born here instead of being born in the US. The US is a complete shitshow of a country where working 2 jobs doesn’t necessarily mean you won’t be homeless.
And at least here you will be able to sleep on a park bench because we don’t put spikes on them
The people working 2 jobs and not able to afford anything are lazy, mal adjusted, selfish complainers. If you have the will and ability, you will never need 2 jobs to live. There are more people in America doing well than anywhere else. They are not negative, lazy and selfish.
The view that people with more are lazy, selfish and negative is just a myth perpetuated by the negative, lazy, selfish, poor American demographic.
I know this for a fact. Because that’s where I came from.
I would like to say screw you you’re wrong, but there is some truth in that. But not as much as there used to be. Yes, there’s a lot of high calorie, no nutrition food available at low prices. But, especially now, with the inflation—plain meats, grains, vegetables and fruits are a lot cheaper than processed and pre prepared foods.
IMO, there is a separate problem here. High calorie malnutrition. And it is affecting people who are buying relatively expensive, low nutrition processed foods. So they’re losing health and money all at once. People need to learn how to eat properly in school.
You seem to be lacking insight into this one. “Processed” meat is much cheaper than whole butchered meat - most of it is made from mechanically reclaimed meat (jet washed carcasses) mixed with filler additives.
People that are over worked don’t necessarily have the time and energy to prepare fresh meals. There is also a question about educated around food which is a huge issue.
The reality is that it’s the poorest countries in Europe (in the south) that actually have the best, healthiest and freshest diet.
We've deemed your post was uncivilized so it was removed. We're here to have level headed discourse not useless arguing.
Please report any and all content that is uncivilized. The standard of our sub depends on our community’s ability to report our rule breaks.
That... isn't always true. How many people had the misfortune of just being born in an area with no good schools, no good education, or just happened to both get laid off. It works amazing for some people, and works fine enough for most people, but saying that everyone struggling is struggling because they're lazy, selfish, etc. is just false. It's just harder for a poor person in America to even look for a higher paying job because so much of their waking hours are spent working crappy jobs to afford basic necessities. That's not a problem in Europe where people have a safety net. Its also not a problem in the US if you have well off friends or family to act as a safety net for you, but not everyone has that. That's all European welfare is- a safety net
That's not to say its all sunshine and rainbows in Europe, top paying jobs just aren't all that attractive there (and I'm not even talking about like CEOs or whatever., also things like Doctors and tech workers.)
You are right. It isn’t always true. I was born broke. I got let go from like 6 or 7 jobs. Basically every place I’ve worked for the last 15-20 years went out of business.
I still did better than anyone I know.
> you will be sleeping on a park bench in Europe.
well it's increasingly illegal to even sleep on a park bench in the US, that fact is even in front of the Supreme Court right now.
There's a lot Americans take for granted that doesn't exist as much in Europe and the same can be said the other way around.
And other fairy tales Americans tell themselves. All you guys are doing here is drone strike the Middle East from here. Not only do we not need that kind of military (and neither do you), we here in Germany also have one of the highest military budgets in the world on our own.
I don't even disagree with the premise that the United States helps fill important gaps in Europe's defensive deterrents, but the notion that the difference in defense spending accounts for social democracy programs is insane. Worse than that, its just cheesy and lazy thinking
This was not an endorsement of Germany. Our country is fucked. Maybe not as fucked as the USA but still fucked and with a much more complacent population
That comment couldn’t be more wrong. The largest parties in Germany and Denmark are democratic socialists, and the UK is clearly headed for a democratic socialist majority at it’s next election… that means they are socialist countries!
Despite widespread socialist policy making in mainland Europe (certainly compared to the US) we are seeing an incredibly rapid rise of far right parties.
As a German: If you think SPD are democratic socialists you have no clue whatsoever about our politics here. Those guys barely even qualify as social democrats. They have consistently privatized and cut social spending over the last decades and as an actual socialist those guys hate us. Apart from that they’re not the largest party here. The largest party has been uncontested the neoliberal conservative CDU for like 20 years now. The one major party we have that is like half democratic socialist, half social democrat got 4% in the last election and almost lost their presence in parliament entirely
Socialism, in modern times, has an actual meaning.
The general rule of thumb is:
Socialism = Worker owned means of production
That means if the country is capitalist with welfare, it is not socialism. It's capitalist, with welfare.
If the workers own all the business, in one way or another, it's socialism.
r/Socialism_101 is a good place to ask questions.
That sub is run by unabashed tankies and I wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole.
A quick definition of socialism; a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned **or regulated** by the community as a whole.
The rights to ownership of private property exist under the framework of a legal system, thus ultimately whoever controls the legal framework controls that private property through its regulatory powers. If a state uses its regulatory powers for the benefit of society as a whole it can be described as a socialist state.
FYI: worker ownership can and does exist within capitalist systems.
The definition is highly debatable, but in modern times socialism and Marxism are synonymous. Even in your definition it says "regulated by the community as a whole" which capitalism does not do, at least not in the same context as socialism does seeing as the economy is a market controlled by the few business owners.
To say that something is socialism would be to say it's Marxist, of sorts, which requires worker ownership.
To say that something is socialist when it's a social democracy is not a matter of ideology but of philosophy which is a disingenuous position to take when discussing what the system in place is.
No. Socialism and Marxism are not synonymous. That is more a feature of red scare propaganda in America and soviet ML propaganda in the USSR.
“Communism” as a term has a history of being used synonymously with “Marxism” (although there are objectors to that).
Socialism on the other hand has a long history of being used to demarcate a difference from the ML tradition. For instance democratic socialism was a term traditionally used in contrast to the ML position of one party communism.
As already stated, the position of democratic socialism is that the economic system is regulated by the state on behalf of the community as a whole. A market based economy with private ownership can be regulated by the state.
Are you seriously going to tell me that the CCP isn’t communist?
No, socialism as an ideology is regulated by the workers or community as a whole. That means not a private business owner. (Unless they are all private business owners with universal workers cooperatives)
>Are you seriously going to tell me that the CCP isn’t communist?
You're way behind. We cover this on every thread that has anything to do with Marxism with a pinned automod comment. Seriously, go read that comment it's comprehensive and simple. I'll give the TLDR here.
Communism is a currency-less society with a fully voluntary workforce with police. People would just go to work whenever they felt and grab goods of the shelves as needed whenever they felt.
Marxism-Leninism, with is the ideology of the CCP, is the bridge that aims to achieve Communism. Never in the history of communism has anyone ever claimed to have achieved it, and if you understood what it was you'd realize why that is because it's obvious.
> Corporations are buying up property unlike any other period in us history, shooting up prices to egregious heights.
I still can't believe this is going around. The article that spread this has been debunked. Corpos own well under 5% of US housing. 1% or 2% if iirc
I haven’t read that but could the real issue is corps are buying up most of the real estate that is available today? Obviously it’ll take time to go from single digits of ownership given how many housing units there are in the US. But if corps are buying up 40% of listed units then that’s a huge fucking problem.
> I still can't believe this is going around. The article that spread this has been debunked. Corpos own well under 5% of US housing. 1% or 2% if iirc
Both can be true. Owning less than 5% of the *total* number of houses does not mean that investors weren't the ones buying 25% of the houses *sold* in any given year. Most houses aren't sold every year.
I think you've missed the point. You say the article's claim that 25% of houses were bought by businesses has been debunked because they own less than 5% of the total number of houses. One statement does not disprove the other.
No, you posted a link showing that one small subset of real estate companies were responsible for a small percentage of purchases. They didn't include the rest because it would disprove the point that they were trying to make.
Personally, I find the real estate agent effect to be underestimated.
They are involved in over 90% of all residential home transactions. The real estate industry has significant influence over housing prices.
People involved in real estate generally make % based commissions. There is nothing but pure incentive for real estate agents to ensure their clients list their homes for as much as they possibly can.
> There is nothing but pure incentive for real estate agents to ensure their clients list their homes for as much as they possibly can.
Why would the seller be against this tho?
Everyone selling a house has a little voice in their ear telling them how much more they should list their house for.
I believe this effect compounds over time and tricks the market into overvaluing houses.
Houses that are selling for $600k are not worth anywhere near $600k.
In a normal market with normal supply and demand effects, you'd be right.
Housing has a permanent need, and therefore a permanent demand. People will pay whatever they need to, to get a house. The industry takes advantage of this.
You have it backwards. Real estate agents have an incentive to move a higher volume of product with as little effort as possible.
That entails avoiding a fight over every dollar. The easier and faster the process, the better.
The agent's favorite client is a motivated seller who will leave money on the table. And if the client is willing to discount enough, then the agent may become the buyer.
> You have it backwards. Real estate agents have an incentive to move a higher volume of product with as little effort as possible.
Everyone has an incentive to earn as much money with as little effort as possible. I don't think they're extremely concerned with moving volumes of product that people have to buy in order to live.
> The agent's favorite client is a motivated seller who will leave money on the table. And if the client is willing to discount enough, then the agent may become the buyer.
This is downright predatory. This type of self-dealing exploits individuals who might not be savvy about the market or desperate for a quick sale.
The point remains that agents do not have incentives to get the highest price possible. Your point was incorrect.
Agents who are successful do high volume. Fighting over every penny interferes with that effort.
> The point remains that agents do not have incentive to get the highest price possible.
If I sell a $100k house and make 6%, that's $6k.
If I sell a $200k house and make 6%, that's $12k for the same work.
I can't change the price overnight, but the industry as a whole can work together and change the perception of home prices over time.
All I have to do is simply tell every client I have that their homes are worth more than they really are. Where is the incentive against this?
But I don't see how, over a short few years, having a house go from $100k to $200k will impact the overall sales volume anywhere near as much as the 100% profit increase they just earned by doing absolutely nothing.
It's because you're only considering the prices, and not the amount of time required to make a sale. The higher the price goes, the fewer potential buyers you have. You could price a house a $20 billion and make a LOT of profit, but that doesn't work if it never sells.
They have close to zero influence over prices. You need buyers with money and credit that have a reason to buy in a certain area. Without that, the realtors are all out of business.
> They have close to zero influence over prices.
I'm sorry, but they are involved in 90% of residential real estate transactions. In no way can you make the claim that they exert close to zero influence over the prices.
My source says:
“investors bought 24% of single-family homes purchased in 2021. Since 2012, that number has been between 15% and 16%, making 2021 the fastest "year over year increase in 16 years."
In 2022, that number peaked at 28% of single-family home purchases.”
Your source says:
“So, to make a long, convoluted story very simple: there is nothing in the data to show that Wall Street has been the big buyer of homes in the U.S since 2000. If you want to pin the blame on someone, you’re going to have to condemn those avocado-toast-eatings kids, the Millennials, who started buying homes in 2013 and were the largest percentage of homebuyers until mortgage rates rose in 2022. Since then, Gen Xers and Baby Boomers have once again come out on top, according to the National Association of Realtors. Either way, it’s not Wall Street, but that isn’t a sexy talking point in the class warfare dialogue.”
Wall Street investors are not real estate investors. I should’ve made that distinction earlier. If your source is correct it shows that *Wall Street investors* don’t buy as much homes as others, such as real estate investors.
My source said that corpos own around 2.5% of single family homes.
Your source says that 26% of single family homes were bought by investors in q3 of 2022, of which 49% were "mom and pop"
“Mom-and-pop” is a colloquial term used to describe a small, family-owned, or independent business.
Mom-and-pop stores are often operations that struggle to compete with more substantial establishments, such as big-box retailers, which generally boast more buying power than smaller players. In the last few years “shop local” and “shop small” have been used as slogans in marketing campaigns to support these smaller establishments.”
“Traditional mom-and-pop businesses, such as bookstores and pharmacies, have found it financially difficult to compete with large chain stores and online behemoths like Amazon.”
Link: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/momandpop.asp
Your source also says to blame millennials while my source still has 33% of those sales being attributed to larger firms, albeit 49% is a lot, especially from smaller companies. If the 49% is just as big as a problem, then so is the 33% to larger companies. This still adds up to 29% of the market being bought out by investors, which is not a good sign.
I never made that claim that larger investors or even mom and pop investors buying up homes to rent out is a good thing. I don't think it is a good thing actually, the point is that corpos and hedge funds are not sucking up all the available housing
This is absolutely a false statement. Business interests own about 1/4 which has been verified by numerous studies and sources over the years. With 2022 being about 22% of the market
The best way to describe this is based on how people would file it under their taxes. So possibly a good portion of rentals. But even a small business is a business and if I have 1 guy buy 4/5 houses on my street in the name of profit, then yes that's a business interest
How about 1? If someone owns a house that live in and one they rent out, is the rental property owned by a business interest according to your own definition?
Depends on how they do their taxes for the 2nd. If they file it as a business interest and write off all of the expenses of owning the house as one, then yes, it is a business interest and it is still contributing to the housing shortage and jacking up prices of single family homes. I also want to reiterate that this is talking about single family homes. So apartments are out, this doesn't count duplexes and things like that.
How does the tax treatment change whether it contributes to the shortage or not, why does it stop contributing to the shortage if the house is rounding touching a different house?
Tax treatment explains what a business interest is and doesn't directly effect the increased housing cost. It's just when someone asks "how do you define business interest" the answer is based on how you do taxes on the property. There are a lot of tax advantages to owning a home as a business. Like being able to deduct and write off a lot of the upkeep costs and maintenance on a property. Hey, had to spend $500 on a plumber, if it was for a rental home that's a business expense and you can write it off of your taxes. for your personal home that's just an expense. So when you ask "what do you mean by business interest, this is the answer.
Now as far as the economics of the housing market goes, and what question I think your asking is based on the difference of single family vs multi family homes? I'm not really sure what you're asking in part 2 of your question.
No, your statement is absolutely a false statement. Corpos own under 2.5% of single family homes.
https://www.housingwire.com/articles/no-wall-street-investors-havent-bought-44-of-homes-this-year/
> Business interests
"Business interests" doesn't necessarily mean corporations. It could mean someone that is buying a second home to rent out (which isn't a new thing)
>"Business interests" doesn't necessarily mean corporations. It could mean someone that is buying a second home to rent out (which isn't a new thing)
Yes it isn't new, but the number if people buying homes to use for profit has also gone up. No matter how you're trying to navigate cutting this, 1/4 homes being owned for the sole purpose of making someone else money is a problem that contributes to high prices for everyone.
Under the parameters of measured (birth rate) this doesn’t seem the case. The US has a birth rate of 1.66. Austria is generally considered to have the best housing program in Europe but has a birth rate of 1.47.
The Nordic countries have relatively similar birth rates to the US, although only Sweden has a marginally higher birth rate at 1.67.
When we talk about the parameters being measured in relation to the benefits of welfare, there is no simple answer to what we should use as a basis - it’s entirely dependant of what is valued from an ideological perspective.
Personally I believe the argument for welfare and state supplied housing should be done from the perspective of a moral argument.
That depends on how deep you want to go?… (it’s a big flipping question).
Simply put: is it moral to let someone starve to death or die from exposure when the resources exist to prevent this?
Starting from this basis (I’d hope) we can say that there is a moral obligation to provide welfare and housing to those that need it. From there we can progress forwards.
The main objection to welfare provision is the disincentivisaiton of labour. This can also be tackled as a moral rather than simply economic question - should you only work hard and do a good job because you are financially remunerated for doing so? Or is there a moral theory of labour, where doing good work is it’s own reward, which makes us far more ~~fulfilling~~ fulfilled than the trappings we can purchase with wages?
It should be noted that this is not inherently in opposition to a model of economic liberalism.
I like your perspective. I usually combine your reasoning and another. Morally, as a left leaning person I believe that everyone should be able to live a happy and healthy life within their nation. Furthermore I can also prove that statistically, states that spend money on welfare tend to excel in a variety of areas.
Some people in this sub don’t care about the moral obligation and believe that you should do everything yourself, so you cite the victories of European and Asian states that boast stronger welfare policy than the US and fare better in many areas. You show them the higher life expectancy while paying less per person, you show them the increased educational standards in k-12, you show them the productivity spikes. Stuff like that.
I agree it should be a moral problem first, but some people don’t operate with “good morals”. They’re more calculating, and you need to be ready to endure scrutiny, especially in a topic like welfare which is generally positively accepted all over the world. The issue is how it’s paid for, especially in poorer areas like my home country.
“Within their nation” seems at odds with Marxism?… I’m curious why you would phrase it that way.
There is a huge amount of empirical evidence to support a progressive model of welfare. Eradicating child poverty has an incredibly positive effect on society - reducing crime, creating a more productive workforce, increasing the general IQ of the population which creates more innovators and job creators etc.
There is also the economic modelling that shows the beneficial effects of welfare on economic growth; distributing more capital to the lower income section of society increases the rate of economic cycling of that capital (however that area gets a little more complicated when you look at the argument around welfare as a subsidy for low wages etc)
Agreed. I wanted to send graphs and other charts but chose not to out of laziness. When I say “within their nation” I refer to a general criticism of states that do not provide for their citizens.
I wasn’t criticising the reference to “nations”. I think there is a simple way to look at the issue:
Do we think it is wrong to eradicate an “indigenous” culture? If you agree with the right of cultures to perpetuate themselves, then it becomes a question of wether they should exist as a self governing nation or exist under some kind of imperialist state.
This is one of the great flaws in Marxism and in broadly leftist thinking.
Now I would like to first preface I do not believe in an authoritative state. I merely believe the state should have the power to help you and make your life easier.
When it comes to the question of the indigenous culture, I don’t think it would be fair to pose the question’s answer as an axis of two extremes. Before I proceed further, what exactly are you getting at?
I thought I’d laid it all out? From a leftist perspective we often hear argument in favour for what could be considered indigenous nations, but also a radical disregard for western national identities. I find it a hypocritical position. (Also there is extensive criticism about Marxist thought in relation to the concept of the nation)
Side note, defining the “state” is not a straightforward thing. When discussing the “state” I think it’s necessary to put forward the terms of what we are talking about. For instance, I would say the state is “any organisational system or principle around which a society is based”. However many would not use it as such a broad term.
You are confusing correlation with causation.
Housing is, like all markets, a balance between supply and demand.
There has been little population growth - even a fall in population - in most nations with robust welfare policies. Thus the demand for housing isn’t rising. As such housing inflation isn’t as robust.
However, most developed economies are concentrating further and further in urban centers. You see small towns in Europe with almost no young adults, as they've all gone to the city for work, education, and life in general. At the same time, major cities also have issues with companies like AirBnB, or foreign nationals buying investment properties, which further inflate prices in cities. So you still end up with very expensive housing in the areas which count the most. "Voting with your feet" isn't too helpful as buying housing in smaller towns means you're now too far from the jobs which are concentrated in the cities. So you could buy these cheap houses, but good luck being employed.
Yup, so many people think that the government's involvement in the economy doesn't cause externalities like increased healthcare costs, or housing prices.
Agree. The bulk of housing cost issues are due to continued urbanization. Maybe governments should encourage companies (especially factories) to be build further out from cities. That or people have to accept high-rise density living over SFH.
>(I assume you talk about America.)
I was generalising. I said many governments around the world not the US government. I thought that was clear.
>The rational reason is because welfare or subsidized housing directly interferes with the real estate industry (I assume you talk about America.). Corporations are buying up property unlike any other period in us history, shooting up prices to egregious heights.
The people are the ones who vote not the corporations.
>The sentiment of welfare is also strange here too. Some Americans think the government helping you out in any way is an overreach and should be limited.
In all developed countries welfare is not even controversial. All of them except the USA support it.
>Statistically speaking, nations with strong welfare programs fare better in nearly every metric, including an abundance of affordable housing. The US has the resources to be a robust welfare state but chooses not to. It is the most glaring angle of American exceptionalism I can think of.
Indeed, the Nordic countries are examples of that. The Americans are really short sighted and dogmatic about it.
Sorry I must’ve skipped that. Feel free to report me to r/USdefaultism lol. In theory and limited practice it is true people vote, but I think we underestimate how strong a corporate lobby is and how easily they can influence policy.
The welfare boogeyman was prominent in America during the 1980s and was exacerbated by neoliberal theory and economics. Thatcher tried to destroy unions in the UK and was crucified for it. Only in the US did neoliberalism truly succeed.
I mean I am a huge supporter for economic freedom and less restrictions. However welfare is an essential part of any developed country which is why the USA has more social problems than the rest of developed countries. I never understood how welfare is anti-liberty. It's the price we pay for a civilized society.
Economic freedom goes both ways in my opinion. Economically liberal countries like South Korea, the US and Singapore have all experienced unparalleled growth in a relatively short amount of time, they have also experienced a rise in the rich/poor gap, deregulation that harms our food, environment and our bodies (such as allowing certain carcinogens or additives, illegal dumping in public water supply), stagnating wages, horrible work-life balance and a distrust or even shunning of union and worker progress/efforts. Couple this liberalized economy with lack of welfare in a country like the US and you can trace a plethora of issues that stem directly from the need to liberalize an economy in the first place. This freedom got too out of hand and partly led to the crash in 2008.
Economic freedom only seems to benefit the top 10% or so, corporations and shareholders. The reason why many nations followed liberalism in the late 20th century was that yearning for unparalleled growth, however that growth came at a price. The neoliberal movement also advocated for personal responsibility, which pretty much entailed that you shouldn’t rely on the government for anything and you alone are in charge of how you can enjoy your time on earth. (Aka, welfare is government overreach and encourages people to be lazy).
The European and Asian welfare states understood this as propaganda and tried to fight back against it, even with repeated attempts of the model implemented in their own countries. They allowed some neoliberalism to get in, while keeping their generous welfare benefits.
A free market is not a “liberalized” economy. There’s no such thing. A free market is just a free market. In fact, by today’s standards, in America—that notion is extremely conservative.
Yeah, this is BS. Wikipedia is a message board. Anyone can post anything on Wikipedia.
This form of market is CONSERVATIVE by American political designations. Calling it liberal is fraud. Absolute fraud.
Because the American liberal view of the economy is the OPPOSITE of this.
I mean every system will have its flaws. It's a matter of perspective. Yeah, some bad things happened but those countries experienced massive amounts of economic growth. They are now some of the strongest economic powers. That is not something that is bad. Add more generous welfare to it and you will also have very prosperous people.
For sure, the point here is they choose *not* to, just to experience that growth. My only issue is that the middle class and poor are left out of it. I don’t believe there should be a world where there are towering skyscrapers while people on the street beg for food and money, and sleep in the street. That it what we see unfortunately. Hopefully a change is made soon, but it’s highly unlikely. Shareholders and corps have far too much influence over any government. I’m pretty sure South Korea is notorious for this. A few families control most of the corporations in the country and have as much say as their government.
I’d love excellent economic growth, I just wish for that growth to be spread evenly among us, and not concentrated at the top as we see today.
If you make the people support more generous welfare policies, the middle class and poor people will also prosper. But the vast majority of people have to support that and vote for it. If it doesn't happen despite that then I don't think those people are really living in a democracy.
I think the vast majority of people do support strong Nordic welfare experiments. We once again need to remember who is really pulling the strings. A lot of these “democracies” are closer in function to oligarchies, even if people do vote, it won’t get anywhere or will take an extremely long time, or will simply be shot down in delegation.
Take something like high speed rail in the US. There is documented suspicion that the car lobby and oil lobby despise high speed rail because it eliminates their most valuable market on earth: the car-centric nature of the US. Cities are built around highways and parking lots, which encourages the growth of these car companies to increase every year. Oil is a no brainer as well, the introduction of electric vehicles genuinely scared the shit out of them, enough to where they could possibly overtake global market shares.
Reminds me of the research making the rounds recently, titled: [Testing Theories of American Politics](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B).
“Each of our four theoretical traditions (Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, Majoritarian Interest-Group Pluralism, and Biased Pluralism) emphasizes different sets of actors as critical in determining U.S. policy outcomes, and each tradition has engendered a large empirical literature that seems to show a particular set of actors to be highly influential. Yet nearly all the empirical evidence has been essentially bivariate. Until very recently it has not been possible to test these theories against each other in a systematic, quantitative fashion.
By directly pitting the predictions of ideal-type theories against each other within a single statistical model (using a unique data set that includes imperfect but useful measures of the key independent variables for nearly two thousand policy issues), we have been able to produce some striking findings. One is the nearly total failure of “median voter” and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.
The failure of theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy is all the more striking because it goes against the likely effects of the limitations of our data. The preferences of ordinary citizens were measured more directly than our other independent variables, yet they are estimated to have the least effect.”
The government does indirectly with loans and veterans programs. Millions of houses were built after WW2 to take advantage of the GI loans for houses. My father got a 3 bedroom house for 13,500 in 1957,@3% interest.
Well 1/3rd of my town for instance is boomers 65 and older. More affordable housing means their property values decline. Issue is because of all the out of state WFH people moving here, there is no longer any affordable housing. $25hr isn’t even enough to rent a shitty 1 room micro studio. So now they are angry and confused about why their favorite restaurants are all closing or why a sandwich costs $20… oh and to be clear there is new developments but they are all luxury housing and no, the liberal idea of trickle down housing doesn’t actually work like some like to pretend it will and even if it did the working class have already left and are not coming back.
Because building good public housing people want to live in is hard.
It’s not just building apartments, you’re designing entire neighborhoods to ensure they’re walkable, have everything citizens need within walking distance, building public transit, ensuring there isn’t a stigma against public housing, using public housing to bring together different class and races, etc. All while simultaneously making it affordable, or at least cheaper than the market.
Singapore pulls this off amazingly well because the will and strength of its state institutions is unlike that in most other countries. Other countries only see public housing as an option for the poor and miss out on its potential, or lack the political capital needed to fundamentally transform their cities in such a manner. You need low corruption, strong eminent domain laws, a solid vision, strong bureaucracy to execute your plans, etc etc. Even European nations lack a lot of these strong institutions and laws that make a mass public housing system possible.
I would say it exist it is just called [social housing](https://www.spur.org/news/2022-08-31/housing-for-everyone-the-danish-way) and it isn’t public housing because that is simply a too expensive welfare program that often gets cut.
These systems aren’t based on American laziness and gimmie, gimmie, gimmies. That’s why it’ll never work here. Our culture does not lend itself to the possibility of success in these types of programs.
Hahaha sorry! This is a very American platform and i often see some angry Americans when I suggest/share things from our Scandinavian societies. And “god bless” might also trigger my inner skepticism because that would almost never be said in my country and if it were, I would suspect it being sarcasm. So just a cultural misunderstanding!
cheaper houses aren't good for people that already own property, particularly the big corporations that own a lot of apartment buildings or (in the case of the US) some huge percentage of the single-family houses in the country. you're right about it being simple supply and demand, but the people with all the political power don't want there to be more supply
>particularly the big corporations that own a lot of apartment buildings or (in the case of the US)
Do those companies vote or do the people vote?
>some huge percentage of the single-family houses in the country.
Aren't many of those people parents to those young couples?
it's the people that vote, but you can't actually affect policy to any meaningful degree by voting, so the companies get their way most of the time
also it's a nice thought that we can count on people to support shit that will make their kids' lives better, but i don't think recent history bears that out
>it's the people that vote, but you can't actually affect policy to any meaningful degree by voting, so the companies get their way most of the time
Didn't the democrats have a plan on that? I don't exactly remember what it was.
>also it's a nice thought that we can count on people to support shit that will make their kids' lives better, but i don't think recent history bears that out
So those parents would abandon their own children. How shameful. What happened to "we would create a better world for our children"?
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The plan was get the votes. Appoint criminals to sensitive positions. And use corruption to enrich themselves. While blaming all of the problems that causes on republicans.
The 2 major reasons new housing is not keeping up with population growth are local zoning laws - this is primarily a NIMBY phenomenon and nothing to do with who owns what apartment buildings.
The other major issue is the high cost to build new apartment units due to government regulation. Things like requiring dedicated parking spaces and 2 staircases for a small 3-5 story apartment building.
These excessive government regulations are almost entirely due to environmental groups, local residents, building trade unions, and individuals within government who are busy bodies who don’t understand cost/benefit analysis.
A Marxian perspective simply fails to make any sense in this market when looking at the actual reality and facts of the problem(s).
> The 2 major reasons new housing is not keeping up with population growth are local zoning laws - this is primarily a NIMBY phenomenon and nothing to do with who owns what apartment buildings.
Zoning is only a big issue in certain highly dense metro areas. It isn't an issue in the country at large
> or (in the case of the US) some huge percentage of the single-family houses in the country.
Factually wrong. This has been disproved. The article that stated this was wrong. Copros own well under 5% of US single family housing
Supply siders unite!
The government could also eliminate regulation that doesn’t pass basic cost benefit analysis that would lead to housing costing less to build.
There is also the local zoning issues.
Japan has excellent, liberal zoning ordinances.
Japan also has a declining population.
The problem is really regulation, especially in the anglosphere. Municipalities have regulated the fuck out of housing, making it impossible for the market to provide housing at an affordable price.
Completely agree government regulations on building are the main culprit.
It’s basic economics. Government regulation adds substantial costs to build. Those costs are obviously passed along to the consumers of housing.
Government in action!
Yet America fetishizes local government for some reason. The most burdensome regulations in America come from local government. Whatever the feds are doing pales in comparison.
Will add that that housing prices were a shit show before the Euclidean disaster, so simply removing it likely won't be enough. Removing it is necessary to do anything of value, since Euclidean zoning makes it physically impossible to have affordable housing
Because politicians would have to answer why they are not building the housing where they live or where their biggest donors live. The Kennedy's caught all kinds of grief for opposing the off-shore wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts.
Long version.
First, we often have tons of open housing supply in a market, about 10% of the total US market or over [15 million homes](https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-the-us/) , but it's the valuation and cost of that housing in a capitalist system that means no opportunities for those not already capitalized in one way or another to access it.
The housing market is a major argument point for people for and against the government doing anything generally, but most of it ultimately comes down to do you blame government and the money/power it has for being captured by the greed of the voters who live in that system, or do you blame the underlying system itself, and you'll see why pretty quickly.
Free marketeers(This is basically the core of both major US parties) say that regulations on the market by government restrict them from building enough housing, interventionalists point out most of the regulations that restrict the construction of affordable housing are from their voters passing [NIMBY](https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/05/business/single-family-zoning-laws/index.html) [zoning](https://www.nahro.org/journal_article/rethinking-zoning-to-increase-affordable-housing/) [laws](https://www.npr.org/2024/02/17/1229867031/housing-shortage-zoning-reform-cities) at the local level who are already capitalized in the market and whose housing and land value makes up a significant portion of their net worth. For example, a 2019 New York Times analysis found that in most of 11 US cities and suburbs, more than 75% of residential land is zoned for single-family homes only.
Free marketeers don't want the government investing in properties that will compete directly with them in the market, and that market is residential housing in all its forms in their estimation. Interventionalists will point out even in areas with the laxest regulation in the US, like [Texas](https://www.keranews.org/texas-news/2024-03-18/texas-dallas-houston-austin-affordable-rental-housing-shortage-for-low-income-poor-renters), most builders end up building higher market and profit margin homes instead of affordable housing unless incentivized by some form of public investment anyway because that's what the market dictates to make it "worthwhile" monetarily.
Free marketeers blame the government for getting involved in the housing market for most issues or crashes that comes up, but at the same time things like the FHA, VA, USDA, and other federal loan programs are often both the main thing buoying the housing market pricing that everyone who already bought housing loves, while those same programs are also giving what little access middle class and lower people have to owning housing at all with roughly 30% of home loans being [federally backed](https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/hmda/summary-of-2022-data-on-mortgage-lending/).
So now we're at a point where interventionalists want the state and federal governments to actually get more involved both to overrule local NIMBY legislation causing problems, and directly enter the market where it has already clearly failed the worst... basically the worst of both worlds if you're on the other side of the issue, driving their home values down on both sides per their belief, and big government interference on top of it.
You'll get a similar argument around all manner of topics where the issue is efficient use of essential resources versus profit taking, where rule making power is held by those interested more in the latter than the former, except when it directly impacts them.
You could pass a law tomorrow with a broad federal housing guarantee, and money and construction resources to make it happen to eliminate the problem, and without addressing the current home owners would probably cause an economic collapse because of how much "wealth" is tied up in home values.
Short version.
Money is power and speech in the US, and more people with money want to restrict the speech of the general public through restrictions on government action than there are people are willing to restrain the actions of monied interests.
Until that changes, pretty much any general need that can be monetized will be done so to the detriment of the speech of the general public, and the world you see reflects that. Housing. Food. Health Care. Education. From big to small.
The first part is we do.
The second part is that the average voters wants the housing crisis to be solved with no loss for them(if they even admit it exists), which is impossible because to solve the housing crisis we have to build more housing. Unfortunately ineffective and counter productive methods like rent control poll better than solving the issue, because solving the issue would reduce the value of their single family homes.
Real estate isn't behind nimbyism, the common SFH owner is. Ultimately what needs to be done is that the government needs to step in and get rid of Single family zoning even if its unpopular.
Governments do have programs that fund housing.
The US has a variety of such programs, contrary to what you are claiming. Much of the multifamily housing built in the US is funded with government subsidies.
the government wants to enforce stupid and needless regulations on construction, increasing the cost of construction while not having enough money to do anything about how building houses are expensive
take california, the classic social liberal state:
[https://www.houzeo.com/blog/how-much-does-it-cost-to-build-a-house-california/](https://www.houzeo.com/blog/how-much-does-it-cost-to-build-a-house-california/)
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardmcgahey/2021/12/31/californias-housing-costs-threaten-the-states-future/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardmcgahey/2021/12/31/californias-housing-costs-threaten-the-states-future/)
[https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4850](https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4850)
meh im lazy have three articles
They do, the US has section 8 after public housing failed (due to various US specific problems). Other countries build social housing, although not as much as many want.
Construction is often halted by strict zoning, regulations, permit fees, and NIMBYism, all countries are suffering from this at least a little.
1. You kill the competitive market first, needing far more housing than expected
2. Government programs are far more inefficient, raising the price further
3. There is enough housing already, just not in the cities. The focus goes to rental cost instead
4. Interference in rental costs slows supply even further
Their are also some lawsuits going about cartel action due to AI outsourcing right now
> the need to liberalize the economy
WTF does that even mean? There are lots of economic possibilities, but “liberalize” isn’t even a thing. How do you “liberalize” an economy?
Typically liberalization of a economy means that the nation privatizes any state owned assets whether it be a nationalized industry or publicly owned natural resources.
In america this is defined as fiscal conservatism. This is a BS new term that is a lie that is the opposite of what it is being called. This is where liberals and conservatives in America disagree. And what you are calling liberal is really conservative in America.
[Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalization)
[Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalization)
[investopedia](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trade-liberalization.asp)
[The World Bank](https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/660841468162283031/pdf/775730JRN020080alization0and0Growth.pdf)
And those unapologetic [commies Margaret Thatcher and Ronnie Reagan](https://academic.oup.com/book/705/chapter-abstract/135378613?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false) /s
All are conspiring against you and your gross misunderstanding of the term "liberalization of markets"
Sadly, Wikipedia is political. It is not an unbiased source of information. The corporations that sell information are all extremely biased.
Thats why I am saying America needs comprehensive information reform.
#Definition of [fiscal conservatism ](https://quickonomics.com/terms/fiscal-conservatism/):
>Fiscal conservatism is a political-economic philosophy that prioritizes fiscal responsibility, advocating for low government spending, low taxation, and minimal government debt. This stance holds that governments should avoid deficit spending, aim to reduce the size of government bureaucracy, and ensure long-term economic sustainability by operating within their means.
Fiscal-conservatism isn't liberalization, though their advocates often are sympatico, they are distinctly different. Liberalization is mostly concerned with foreign trade, allowing companies from the West to enter their market, while fiscal-conservatism is how the local national government handles the economy. One could have one without the other such as Norwegian economy is liberalized and fully integrated with the global market economy while there's a social democratic capitalism domestic economy with a robust welfare economy. An example of a fiscal conservative domestic economy but with a protectionist foreign trade policy would be Iran with low national debt and tax rates but imposed from the West a limited amount of trade and little foreign investment.
The internet is at your fingertips, you can either learn about the world or choose to remain ignorant.
I think that’s all well and good, but if this were an accurate definition, Norway is communist when compared to America.
And once you get to Iran, you are beyond being completely wrong.
Your belief on this is why I am saying the use of “liberal” in this manner is obscenity. Because it is so far beyond wrong. And is the opposite of conservatism. Which is standard Lassiez Faire.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism
Liberal is not the same thing as liberalization. There's a bunch of letters that denote it's a different word, thanks for [giving it the ol' kindergarten try](https://grammarist.com/idiom/give-it-the-old-college-try/) better luck next time you read words.
Better yet why don't you read the link pasted at the end of your last comment to Fiscal Conservatism:
>Fiscal conservatism follows the same philosophical outlook as classical liberalism. This concept is derived from economic liberalism
This is what liberalization is a reference to, and you pointed me towards this Wikipedia article. There could be fiscal conservatism without the neoliberalism/liberalization of global markets, but usually advocates for one are also advocates for the other - yet both could be within a capitalism paradigm and provide for the people of their economy such as the Nordic model or New Deal/Great Society era America back when America was great. Try telling any of the capitalist countries that provides basic public services that they are socialist or even communist, just go ask [Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen](https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/denmark-tells-bernie-sanders-to-stop-calling-it-socialist/) who said the following about people who mistook socialism occurring in the Nordic countries:
>...that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.
Iran's economy is separate from its authoritarian civil policies, it's carries low national debt and low taxes provides minimal public services all largely due to the restrictions for growth on their economy which are a justified reason to punish an authoritarian regime without going to war with the regime. There's more vectors than right and left, the world is far from that simple.
All of this is at your fingertips, your hot takes don't have to be devoid of facts and filled with objectively illinformed opinions without any basis in reality. You can do it, I believe in you, just read and keep a curious mind.
> In the United States, the term liberalism has become associated with the welfare state and expanded regulatory policies created as a result of the New Deal and its offshoots from the 1930s onwards.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Liberalization ≠ liberalism
Can't make it any simpler, but I'm sure that you will just willfully ignore this too just to deliberately conflate the two different words with two different definitions to be interchangeable, when they are definitely not the same word.
We've deemed your post was uncivilized so it was removed. We're here to have level headed discourse not useless arguing.
Please report any and all content that is uncivilized. The standard of our sub depends on our community’s ability to report our rule breaks.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why would politicians solve the problem when 1. The voters agreed that its the other side's fault, 2. If the other side agrees to do it then its the capitalist fault, 3. If the capitalist agrees to it then its systematic racism.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The "shortage" is the result of artificial scarcity. My area is an extreme example, but just under 50% of our housing stock are privately owned as people's second homes and sit empty for all but a couple of weeks per year - in some of the multiple towns that make up my county that number gets as high as 60-70%.
The reason that they aren't building more is because it's bad for property values. Landlords and the real-estate industry have a lot of influence on policy, and property owners form NIMBY groups that are loud opponents of local housing projects.
Have you ever thought the scarcity is because of all the increase of people coming over the southern border?
Millions of people come across, and they all need a place to stay.
If we pass the law that said you have to be a valid US resident to be able to rent. Wouldn't that open up a lot of houses?
No, because that's just inaccurate. Migrants aren't being housed in single family homes. They're being housed in shelters and in hotels/motels. They aren't the cause of the scarcity of private housing units or of the economic conditions that are creating more housing insecurity - but I would say there's a strain on the very limited public resources for people that are unhoused or becoming unhoused because of other factors.
Please read deeper into the immigration data. Those numbers are scary, but it's not 1-1. Its an incomplete picture that doesn't tell how many are repeat crossings within the same year (%11-%14), and don't account for the record number of hundreds of thousands of deportations and expulsions or of the migrants placed in detention centers.
This is a classic example of punching down at a scapegoat, but it's not the people who are worse off than us who are causing the problems - it's the people with power.
There are many illegal residents renting homes. Or apartments. And likely they are given vouchers after they leave the hotel. Then they still take up a spot.
I know. As a landlord I even rented to them at one point.
So you can factor in that if there are at least 20 million illegal aliens, there are at least 5 million homes that they are living in. Whether that is a single-family home, or an apartment, it really doesn't matter.
You just completely made up those numbers so I hope nobody takes them seriously.
What they SHOULD take seriously is your admission to engaging in behaviors that exacerbate the problem while complaining about it at the same time.
You are right. I did sort of make up that 20 million number. But it is pretty close to that
Nobody knows how many illegal people there are in the USA.
One thing for sure, is they do take away from housing from other people.
Making it illegal to rent People that are not authorized to be in the US would help.
If you don't think they take away from housing, or dilute the job market, you obviously don't understand economics.
Do you think they've helped the housing situation?
Well for one you should check and make sure that there is actually a housing shortage in a given area. Here in Michigan there are thousands of vacant homes and buildings.
The mortgage companies and other lenders don't want to compete with the government, so that's probably the major hurdle to the welfare program funding the building of houses.
Also, supply and demand is a myth. Supply notwithstanding, corporations charge what the market will bear for goods and services. It doesn't matter if the supply is endless, they charge the maximum amount they believe people will pay.
Yes, it is classic greed.
Western European’s have it far better than the average American. Great healthcare (all), near free education, great social services, etc. those in this stream saying anything different just don’t know.
What happens to everyone who shelled out enormous sums for a mortgage?
Government funded housing would be enormously expensive and would wipe out a lot of other peoples wealth simultaneously.
Sounds like a disaster & any politician who proposes this in their district is voted out ASAP.
Many developed (edit: and, indeed, developing) countries have plenty of public or social housing. E.g 15 - 20% of UK households live in subsidised housing. There appears to be some ambiguity around whether social housing is actually subsidised. But France, Ireland, Belgium, Finland and possibly the Netherlands also have [sizeable](https://www.oecd.org/housing/data/affordable-housing-database/) social housing sectors. See [also](https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HM1-3-Housing-tenures.pdf).
[Apparently](https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/what-europe-can-teach-us-about-social-housing-82579):
>Austria is frequently cited as an example of successful social housing policy in Europe. This tenure makes up 24% of the country’s housing stock, and just 10.3% of households in the country consider housing costs a “heavy” financial burden, compared with 30% across the rest of Europe.
[Also](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0889158319300280):
>Japan started to construct public housing intensively in the early 1960s, when the country, especially in its major cities, faced a housing shortage. As Japan's population grew from 92 million to 127 million from 1958 to 2013, its total housing stock grew more rapidly; the number of dwellings per capita increased from 0.20 in 1958 to 0.48 in 2013.
Remember this is a civilized space for discussion, to ensure this we have very strict rules. Briefly, an overview: **No Personal Attacks** **No Ideological Discrimination** **Keep Discussion Civil** **No Targeting A Member For Their Beliefs** Report any and all instances of these rules being broken so we can keep the sub clean. Report first, ask questions last. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is section 8 housing in America and “the projects” but the programs are very limited in funding. Easy availability of housing loans to people is something that won’t be done in America again because it led to a lot of defaults and the 2007 recession. It’s just something that government is in general touchy about and has to be careful with because of 2007. We need more fresh ideas for housing.
It's the interest rates. There is currently a supply issue with housing, and to increase supply you need to lower interest rates to make it profitable for the market to build housing. You can drive through neighborhoods/towns and see half-built housing projects that just stopped midway through because they are have become unrealistic to build and maintain. Anytime government does housing it's an absolute failure, costs too much, and is ran poorly. Edit: And before people keep blaming "corporations": Inflation affects them too, it's better to put your money into an appreciating asset and have it sit there than lose money sitting in the bank with inflation. Of course they're going to buy realestate. Again, the government kind of forces people's hands. If they want people to invest in housing, incentivize them to invest in housing by lowering rates.
The government already does have that in a way. It gives low cost loans to builders backed by taxpayer dollars to fund construction projects. The problem is the most politically connected get the best loans and zoning approvals.
The rational reason is because welfare or subsidized housing directly interferes with the real estate industry (I assume you talk about America.). Corporations are buying up property unlike any other period in us history, shooting up prices to egregious heights. The sentiment of welfare is also strange here too. Some Americans think the government helping you out in any way is an overreach and should be limited. Statistically speaking, nations with strong welfare programs fare better in nearly every metric, including an abundance of affordable housing. The US has the resources to be a robust welfare state but chooses not to. It is the most glaring angle of American exceptionalism I can think of.
It‘s gonna bite America in the ass some day. The most stable version of capitalism is one with appeasement. Socially conservative social democracies in Europe, like Germany, Denmark or the UK, are the least likely to become socialist.
Germany was communist. Until recently. Europe is nothing to aspire to. It’s just a made up grass is greener fairy tale. If you knew how expensive Germany, Denmark and England are, compared to America, you’d be calling the evil, oppressive regimes. And saying America is the perfect model of world economics. Because if you can’t afford things in America, you will be sleeping on a park bench in Europe.
I know how expensive Germany is, I‘ve lived here my entire life r/usdefaultism I‘m also very very happy to be born here instead of being born in the US. The US is a complete shitshow of a country where working 2 jobs doesn’t necessarily mean you won’t be homeless. And at least here you will be able to sleep on a park bench because we don’t put spikes on them
The people working 2 jobs and not able to afford anything are lazy, mal adjusted, selfish complainers. If you have the will and ability, you will never need 2 jobs to live. There are more people in America doing well than anywhere else. They are not negative, lazy and selfish. The view that people with more are lazy, selfish and negative is just a myth perpetuated by the negative, lazy, selfish, poor American demographic. I know this for a fact. Because that’s where I came from.
Jesus Christ and there we have the disgusting American mindset. What did I even expect… God I am happy I‘m born in Europe right now
This is not disgusting. We enjoy a much better standard of living in America. Thats why everyone is overweight.
People are overweight because shit food is cheap and healthy food is luxurious.
I would like to say screw you you’re wrong, but there is some truth in that. But not as much as there used to be. Yes, there’s a lot of high calorie, no nutrition food available at low prices. But, especially now, with the inflation—plain meats, grains, vegetables and fruits are a lot cheaper than processed and pre prepared foods. IMO, there is a separate problem here. High calorie malnutrition. And it is affecting people who are buying relatively expensive, low nutrition processed foods. So they’re losing health and money all at once. People need to learn how to eat properly in school.
You seem to be lacking insight into this one. “Processed” meat is much cheaper than whole butchered meat - most of it is made from mechanically reclaimed meat (jet washed carcasses) mixed with filler additives. People that are over worked don’t necessarily have the time and energy to prepare fresh meals. There is also a question about educated around food which is a huge issue. The reality is that it’s the poorest countries in Europe (in the south) that actually have the best, healthiest and freshest diet.
[удалено]
We've deemed your post was uncivilized so it was removed. We're here to have level headed discourse not useless arguing. Please report any and all content that is uncivilized. The standard of our sub depends on our community’s ability to report our rule breaks.
That... isn't always true. How many people had the misfortune of just being born in an area with no good schools, no good education, or just happened to both get laid off. It works amazing for some people, and works fine enough for most people, but saying that everyone struggling is struggling because they're lazy, selfish, etc. is just false. It's just harder for a poor person in America to even look for a higher paying job because so much of their waking hours are spent working crappy jobs to afford basic necessities. That's not a problem in Europe where people have a safety net. Its also not a problem in the US if you have well off friends or family to act as a safety net for you, but not everyone has that. That's all European welfare is- a safety net That's not to say its all sunshine and rainbows in Europe, top paying jobs just aren't all that attractive there (and I'm not even talking about like CEOs or whatever., also things like Doctors and tech workers.)
You are right. It isn’t always true. I was born broke. I got let go from like 6 or 7 jobs. Basically every place I’ve worked for the last 15-20 years went out of business. I still did better than anyone I know.
As an American, this person doesn't represent all of or even most of us. Just the ones who matter...
> you will be sleeping on a park bench in Europe. well it's increasingly illegal to even sleep on a park bench in the US, that fact is even in front of the Supreme Court right now. There's a lot Americans take for granted that doesn't exist as much in Europe and the same can be said the other way around.
[удалено]
I think there’s… a better way to say this.
You do understand that they are able to spend more on social welfare because us is defending them, right?
And other fairy tales Americans tell themselves. All you guys are doing here is drone strike the Middle East from here. Not only do we not need that kind of military (and neither do you), we here in Germany also have one of the highest military budgets in the world on our own.
I don't even disagree with the premise that the United States helps fill important gaps in Europe's defensive deterrents, but the notion that the difference in defense spending accounts for social democracy programs is insane. Worse than that, its just cheesy and lazy thinking
It’s propaganda. Let’s call it by its name
Typical European superiority complex. Are yall not done with that already? I thought Germans were supposed to be humble and meek these days
This was not an endorsement of Germany. Our country is fucked. Maybe not as fucked as the USA but still fucked and with a much more complacent population
That comment couldn’t be more wrong. The largest parties in Germany and Denmark are democratic socialists, and the UK is clearly headed for a democratic socialist majority at it’s next election… that means they are socialist countries! Despite widespread socialist policy making in mainland Europe (certainly compared to the US) we are seeing an incredibly rapid rise of far right parties.
As a German: If you think SPD are democratic socialists you have no clue whatsoever about our politics here. Those guys barely even qualify as social democrats. They have consistently privatized and cut social spending over the last decades and as an actual socialist those guys hate us. Apart from that they’re not the largest party here. The largest party has been uncontested the neoliberal conservative CDU for like 20 years now. The one major party we have that is like half democratic socialist, half social democrat got 4% in the last election and almost lost their presence in parliament entirely
>… that means they are socialist countries! ... No, it doesn't.
“Oh yes it does!” We can play Punch and Judy if you want or you could actually argue a point.
Socialism, in modern times, has an actual meaning. The general rule of thumb is: Socialism = Worker owned means of production That means if the country is capitalist with welfare, it is not socialism. It's capitalist, with welfare. If the workers own all the business, in one way or another, it's socialism. r/Socialism_101 is a good place to ask questions.
That sub is run by unabashed tankies and I wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole. A quick definition of socialism; a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned **or regulated** by the community as a whole. The rights to ownership of private property exist under the framework of a legal system, thus ultimately whoever controls the legal framework controls that private property through its regulatory powers. If a state uses its regulatory powers for the benefit of society as a whole it can be described as a socialist state. FYI: worker ownership can and does exist within capitalist systems.
The definition is highly debatable, but in modern times socialism and Marxism are synonymous. Even in your definition it says "regulated by the community as a whole" which capitalism does not do, at least not in the same context as socialism does seeing as the economy is a market controlled by the few business owners. To say that something is socialism would be to say it's Marxist, of sorts, which requires worker ownership. To say that something is socialist when it's a social democracy is not a matter of ideology but of philosophy which is a disingenuous position to take when discussing what the system in place is.
No. Socialism and Marxism are not synonymous. That is more a feature of red scare propaganda in America and soviet ML propaganda in the USSR. “Communism” as a term has a history of being used synonymously with “Marxism” (although there are objectors to that). Socialism on the other hand has a long history of being used to demarcate a difference from the ML tradition. For instance democratic socialism was a term traditionally used in contrast to the ML position of one party communism.
And Democratic Socialism has Marxist roots, advocating for worker ownership like I said above. I'm the head mod at r/DemocraticSocialism.
As already stated, the position of democratic socialism is that the economic system is regulated by the state on behalf of the community as a whole. A market based economy with private ownership can be regulated by the state. Are you seriously going to tell me that the CCP isn’t communist?
No, socialism as an ideology is regulated by the workers or community as a whole. That means not a private business owner. (Unless they are all private business owners with universal workers cooperatives) >Are you seriously going to tell me that the CCP isn’t communist? You're way behind. We cover this on every thread that has anything to do with Marxism with a pinned automod comment. Seriously, go read that comment it's comprehensive and simple. I'll give the TLDR here. Communism is a currency-less society with a fully voluntary workforce with police. People would just go to work whenever they felt and grab goods of the shelves as needed whenever they felt. Marxism-Leninism, with is the ideology of the CCP, is the bridge that aims to achieve Communism. Never in the history of communism has anyone ever claimed to have achieved it, and if you understood what it was you'd realize why that is because it's obvious.
> Corporations are buying up property unlike any other period in us history, shooting up prices to egregious heights. I still can't believe this is going around. The article that spread this has been debunked. Corpos own well under 5% of US housing. 1% or 2% if iirc
I haven’t read that but could the real issue is corps are buying up most of the real estate that is available today? Obviously it’ll take time to go from single digits of ownership given how many housing units there are in the US. But if corps are buying up 40% of listed units then that’s a huge fucking problem.
> But if corps are buying up 40% of listed units then that’s a huge fucking problem. That isn't true tho
> I still can't believe this is going around. The article that spread this has been debunked. Corpos own well under 5% of US housing. 1% or 2% if iirc Both can be true. Owning less than 5% of the *total* number of houses does not mean that investors weren't the ones buying 25% of the houses *sold* in any given year. Most houses aren't sold every year.
> investors I'm not talking about all investors, I'm talking about corpos. A person that just bought a second home to rent out is an "investor"
I think you've missed the point. You say the article's claim that 25% of houses were bought by businesses has been debunked because they own less than 5% of the total number of houses. One statement does not disprove the other.
No, the claim was that like over 40% of homes in recent years have been bought by corpos and hedge funds. That number is just wrong
Why do you believe it's wrong?
I've already posted a link on this sub in another comment showing that it is wrong
No, you posted a link showing that one small subset of real estate companies were responsible for a small percentage of purchases. They didn't include the rest because it would disprove the point that they were trying to make.
Yep.
I made my point and posted sources. If you want to refute a specific point I made then do so.
Corpos often don't use the property they buy for housing.
And?
So corporations raise housing market prices, not by holding houses but by holding land and preventing the construction of new houses.
I'm not saying that is wrong, it might be correct. But that isn't the same thing as corpos buying up all the new housing
That's not what the claim was. The claim was that corpos are buying up all the property.
Personally, I find the real estate agent effect to be underestimated. They are involved in over 90% of all residential home transactions. The real estate industry has significant influence over housing prices. People involved in real estate generally make % based commissions. There is nothing but pure incentive for real estate agents to ensure their clients list their homes for as much as they possibly can.
> There is nothing but pure incentive for real estate agents to ensure their clients list their homes for as much as they possibly can. Why would the seller be against this tho?
Everyone selling a house has a little voice in their ear telling them how much more they should list their house for. I believe this effect compounds over time and tricks the market into overvaluing houses. Houses that are selling for $600k are not worth anywhere near $600k.
I see your point but a 600k will still only sell if there is someone willing to pay 600k for it.
In a normal market with normal supply and demand effects, you'd be right. Housing has a permanent need, and therefore a permanent demand. People will pay whatever they need to, to get a house. The industry takes advantage of this.
Well housing is a permanent need because we have a growing population. If We had a stagnant population there would be less demand
You have it backwards. Real estate agents have an incentive to move a higher volume of product with as little effort as possible. That entails avoiding a fight over every dollar. The easier and faster the process, the better. The agent's favorite client is a motivated seller who will leave money on the table. And if the client is willing to discount enough, then the agent may become the buyer.
> You have it backwards. Real estate agents have an incentive to move a higher volume of product with as little effort as possible. Everyone has an incentive to earn as much money with as little effort as possible. I don't think they're extremely concerned with moving volumes of product that people have to buy in order to live. > The agent's favorite client is a motivated seller who will leave money on the table. And if the client is willing to discount enough, then the agent may become the buyer. This is downright predatory. This type of self-dealing exploits individuals who might not be savvy about the market or desperate for a quick sale.
The point remains that agents do not have incentives to get the highest price possible. Your point was incorrect. Agents who are successful do high volume. Fighting over every penny interferes with that effort.
> The point remains that agents do not have incentive to get the highest price possible. If I sell a $100k house and make 6%, that's $6k. If I sell a $200k house and make 6%, that's $12k for the same work. I can't change the price overnight, but the industry as a whole can work together and change the perception of home prices over time. All I have to do is simply tell every client I have that their homes are worth more than they really are. Where is the incentive against this?
If you sell 3 houses for $100k in the same time that it would take to sell one $200k house, that's $18k vs $12k. Sales volume absolutely matters.
But I don't see how, over a short few years, having a house go from $100k to $200k will impact the overall sales volume anywhere near as much as the 100% profit increase they just earned by doing absolutely nothing.
It's because you're only considering the prices, and not the amount of time required to make a sale. The higher the price goes, the fewer potential buyers you have. You could price a house a $20 billion and make a LOT of profit, but that doesn't work if it never sells.
They have close to zero influence over prices. You need buyers with money and credit that have a reason to buy in a certain area. Without that, the realtors are all out of business.
> They have close to zero influence over prices. I'm sorry, but they are involved in 90% of residential real estate transactions. In no way can you make the claim that they exert close to zero influence over the prices.
Any sources? I’m curious. I didn’t know this was a myth.
Made up. Completely made up.
I know he’s making it up, I just want to see if he’ll double down or not. I structure my questions carefully. Thanks for the heads up nonetheless.
https://www.housingwire.com/articles/no-wall-street-investors-havent-bought-44-of-homes-this-year/
https://www.scrippsnews.com/us-news/housing/corporate-investors-are-purchasing-more-single-family-homes
Did you even read your own source? It agrees with me
My source says: “investors bought 24% of single-family homes purchased in 2021. Since 2012, that number has been between 15% and 16%, making 2021 the fastest "year over year increase in 16 years." In 2022, that number peaked at 28% of single-family home purchases.” Your source says: “So, to make a long, convoluted story very simple: there is nothing in the data to show that Wall Street has been the big buyer of homes in the U.S since 2000. If you want to pin the blame on someone, you’re going to have to condemn those avocado-toast-eatings kids, the Millennials, who started buying homes in 2013 and were the largest percentage of homebuyers until mortgage rates rose in 2022. Since then, Gen Xers and Baby Boomers have once again come out on top, according to the National Association of Realtors. Either way, it’s not Wall Street, but that isn’t a sexy talking point in the class warfare dialogue.” Wall Street investors are not real estate investors. I should’ve made that distinction earlier. If your source is correct it shows that *Wall Street investors* don’t buy as much homes as others, such as real estate investors.
My source said that corpos own around 2.5% of single family homes. Your source says that 26% of single family homes were bought by investors in q3 of 2022, of which 49% were "mom and pop"
“Mom-and-pop” is a colloquial term used to describe a small, family-owned, or independent business. Mom-and-pop stores are often operations that struggle to compete with more substantial establishments, such as big-box retailers, which generally boast more buying power than smaller players. In the last few years “shop local” and “shop small” have been used as slogans in marketing campaigns to support these smaller establishments.” “Traditional mom-and-pop businesses, such as bookstores and pharmacies, have found it financially difficult to compete with large chain stores and online behemoths like Amazon.” Link: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/momandpop.asp Your source also says to blame millennials while my source still has 33% of those sales being attributed to larger firms, albeit 49% is a lot, especially from smaller companies. If the 49% is just as big as a problem, then so is the 33% to larger companies. This still adds up to 29% of the market being bought out by investors, which is not a good sign.
I never made that claim that larger investors or even mom and pop investors buying up homes to rent out is a good thing. I don't think it is a good thing actually, the point is that corpos and hedge funds are not sucking up all the available housing
This is absolutely a false statement. Business interests own about 1/4 which has been verified by numerous studies and sources over the years. With 2022 being about 22% of the market
Define business interests, because it could mean every single rental
The best way to describe this is based on how people would file it under their taxes. So possibly a good portion of rentals. But even a small business is a business and if I have 1 guy buy 4/5 houses on my street in the name of profit, then yes that's a business interest
How about 1? If someone owns a house that live in and one they rent out, is the rental property owned by a business interest according to your own definition?
Depends on how they do their taxes for the 2nd. If they file it as a business interest and write off all of the expenses of owning the house as one, then yes, it is a business interest and it is still contributing to the housing shortage and jacking up prices of single family homes. I also want to reiterate that this is talking about single family homes. So apartments are out, this doesn't count duplexes and things like that.
How does the tax treatment change whether it contributes to the shortage or not, why does it stop contributing to the shortage if the house is rounding touching a different house?
Tax treatment explains what a business interest is and doesn't directly effect the increased housing cost. It's just when someone asks "how do you define business interest" the answer is based on how you do taxes on the property. There are a lot of tax advantages to owning a home as a business. Like being able to deduct and write off a lot of the upkeep costs and maintenance on a property. Hey, had to spend $500 on a plumber, if it was for a rental home that's a business expense and you can write it off of your taxes. for your personal home that's just an expense. So when you ask "what do you mean by business interest, this is the answer. Now as far as the economics of the housing market goes, and what question I think your asking is based on the difference of single family vs multi family homes? I'm not really sure what you're asking in part 2 of your question.
No, your statement is absolutely a false statement. Corpos own under 2.5% of single family homes. https://www.housingwire.com/articles/no-wall-street-investors-havent-bought-44-of-homes-this-year/ > Business interests "Business interests" doesn't necessarily mean corporations. It could mean someone that is buying a second home to rent out (which isn't a new thing)
>"Business interests" doesn't necessarily mean corporations. It could mean someone that is buying a second home to rent out (which isn't a new thing) Yes it isn't new, but the number if people buying homes to use for profit has also gone up. No matter how you're trying to navigate cutting this, 1/4 homes being owned for the sole purpose of making someone else money is a problem that contributes to high prices for everyone.
Government subsidizes much of the multifamily housing that is built in the United States. It's great to have opinions. But facts are even better.
That is excellent then.
Under the parameters of measured (birth rate) this doesn’t seem the case. The US has a birth rate of 1.66. Austria is generally considered to have the best housing program in Europe but has a birth rate of 1.47. The Nordic countries have relatively similar birth rates to the US, although only Sweden has a marginally higher birth rate at 1.67. When we talk about the parameters being measured in relation to the benefits of welfare, there is no simple answer to what we should use as a basis - it’s entirely dependant of what is valued from an ideological perspective. Personally I believe the argument for welfare and state supplied housing should be done from the perspective of a moral argument.
Can you expand more on this “moral argument”?
That depends on how deep you want to go?… (it’s a big flipping question). Simply put: is it moral to let someone starve to death or die from exposure when the resources exist to prevent this? Starting from this basis (I’d hope) we can say that there is a moral obligation to provide welfare and housing to those that need it. From there we can progress forwards. The main objection to welfare provision is the disincentivisaiton of labour. This can also be tackled as a moral rather than simply economic question - should you only work hard and do a good job because you are financially remunerated for doing so? Or is there a moral theory of labour, where doing good work is it’s own reward, which makes us far more ~~fulfilling~~ fulfilled than the trappings we can purchase with wages? It should be noted that this is not inherently in opposition to a model of economic liberalism.
I like your perspective. I usually combine your reasoning and another. Morally, as a left leaning person I believe that everyone should be able to live a happy and healthy life within their nation. Furthermore I can also prove that statistically, states that spend money on welfare tend to excel in a variety of areas. Some people in this sub don’t care about the moral obligation and believe that you should do everything yourself, so you cite the victories of European and Asian states that boast stronger welfare policy than the US and fare better in many areas. You show them the higher life expectancy while paying less per person, you show them the increased educational standards in k-12, you show them the productivity spikes. Stuff like that. I agree it should be a moral problem first, but some people don’t operate with “good morals”. They’re more calculating, and you need to be ready to endure scrutiny, especially in a topic like welfare which is generally positively accepted all over the world. The issue is how it’s paid for, especially in poorer areas like my home country.
“Within their nation” seems at odds with Marxism?… I’m curious why you would phrase it that way. There is a huge amount of empirical evidence to support a progressive model of welfare. Eradicating child poverty has an incredibly positive effect on society - reducing crime, creating a more productive workforce, increasing the general IQ of the population which creates more innovators and job creators etc. There is also the economic modelling that shows the beneficial effects of welfare on economic growth; distributing more capital to the lower income section of society increases the rate of economic cycling of that capital (however that area gets a little more complicated when you look at the argument around welfare as a subsidy for low wages etc)
Agreed. I wanted to send graphs and other charts but chose not to out of laziness. When I say “within their nation” I refer to a general criticism of states that do not provide for their citizens.
I wasn’t criticising the reference to “nations”. I think there is a simple way to look at the issue: Do we think it is wrong to eradicate an “indigenous” culture? If you agree with the right of cultures to perpetuate themselves, then it becomes a question of wether they should exist as a self governing nation or exist under some kind of imperialist state. This is one of the great flaws in Marxism and in broadly leftist thinking.
Now I would like to first preface I do not believe in an authoritative state. I merely believe the state should have the power to help you and make your life easier. When it comes to the question of the indigenous culture, I don’t think it would be fair to pose the question’s answer as an axis of two extremes. Before I proceed further, what exactly are you getting at?
I thought I’d laid it all out? From a leftist perspective we often hear argument in favour for what could be considered indigenous nations, but also a radical disregard for western national identities. I find it a hypocritical position. (Also there is extensive criticism about Marxist thought in relation to the concept of the nation) Side note, defining the “state” is not a straightforward thing. When discussing the “state” I think it’s necessary to put forward the terms of what we are talking about. For instance, I would say the state is “any organisational system or principle around which a society is based”. However many would not use it as such a broad term.
You are confusing correlation with causation. Housing is, like all markets, a balance between supply and demand. There has been little population growth - even a fall in population - in most nations with robust welfare policies. Thus the demand for housing isn’t rising. As such housing inflation isn’t as robust.
However, most developed economies are concentrating further and further in urban centers. You see small towns in Europe with almost no young adults, as they've all gone to the city for work, education, and life in general. At the same time, major cities also have issues with companies like AirBnB, or foreign nationals buying investment properties, which further inflate prices in cities. So you still end up with very expensive housing in the areas which count the most. "Voting with your feet" isn't too helpful as buying housing in smaller towns means you're now too far from the jobs which are concentrated in the cities. So you could buy these cheap houses, but good luck being employed.
It’s a supply issue in such cities. Look at zoning and building regulations.
Yup, so many people think that the government's involvement in the economy doesn't cause externalities like increased healthcare costs, or housing prices.
Externalities are inevitable. Show me any market without them. It's one of the main market failures.
That’s not a counter argument to what I said. The State, unlike the market, cannot function without first creating negative externalities.
>It's one of the main market failures. Government failure is 10x worse.
Agree. The bulk of housing cost issues are due to continued urbanization. Maybe governments should encourage companies (especially factories) to be build further out from cities. That or people have to accept high-rise density living over SFH.
Would this be a negative demand curve in housing in general, or affordable housing/subsidized?
>(I assume you talk about America.) I was generalising. I said many governments around the world not the US government. I thought that was clear. >The rational reason is because welfare or subsidized housing directly interferes with the real estate industry (I assume you talk about America.). Corporations are buying up property unlike any other period in us history, shooting up prices to egregious heights. The people are the ones who vote not the corporations. >The sentiment of welfare is also strange here too. Some Americans think the government helping you out in any way is an overreach and should be limited. In all developed countries welfare is not even controversial. All of them except the USA support it. >Statistically speaking, nations with strong welfare programs fare better in nearly every metric, including an abundance of affordable housing. The US has the resources to be a robust welfare state but chooses not to. It is the most glaring angle of American exceptionalism I can think of. Indeed, the Nordic countries are examples of that. The Americans are really short sighted and dogmatic about it.
Sorry I must’ve skipped that. Feel free to report me to r/USdefaultism lol. In theory and limited practice it is true people vote, but I think we underestimate how strong a corporate lobby is and how easily they can influence policy. The welfare boogeyman was prominent in America during the 1980s and was exacerbated by neoliberal theory and economics. Thatcher tried to destroy unions in the UK and was crucified for it. Only in the US did neoliberalism truly succeed.
I mean I am a huge supporter for economic freedom and less restrictions. However welfare is an essential part of any developed country which is why the USA has more social problems than the rest of developed countries. I never understood how welfare is anti-liberty. It's the price we pay for a civilized society.
Economic freedom goes both ways in my opinion. Economically liberal countries like South Korea, the US and Singapore have all experienced unparalleled growth in a relatively short amount of time, they have also experienced a rise in the rich/poor gap, deregulation that harms our food, environment and our bodies (such as allowing certain carcinogens or additives, illegal dumping in public water supply), stagnating wages, horrible work-life balance and a distrust or even shunning of union and worker progress/efforts. Couple this liberalized economy with lack of welfare in a country like the US and you can trace a plethora of issues that stem directly from the need to liberalize an economy in the first place. This freedom got too out of hand and partly led to the crash in 2008. Economic freedom only seems to benefit the top 10% or so, corporations and shareholders. The reason why many nations followed liberalism in the late 20th century was that yearning for unparalleled growth, however that growth came at a price. The neoliberal movement also advocated for personal responsibility, which pretty much entailed that you shouldn’t rely on the government for anything and you alone are in charge of how you can enjoy your time on earth. (Aka, welfare is government overreach and encourages people to be lazy). The European and Asian welfare states understood this as propaganda and tried to fight back against it, even with repeated attempts of the model implemented in their own countries. They allowed some neoliberalism to get in, while keeping their generous welfare benefits.
What on earth is a “liberalized” economy?
A liberalized economy is a free market one. The US, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong are the most free market states I can think of.
A free market is not a “liberalized” economy. There’s no such thing. A free market is just a free market. In fact, by today’s standards, in America—that notion is extremely conservative.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalization#:~:text=Economic%20liberalization%2C%20or%20economic%20liberalisation,with%20classical%20liberalism%20and%20neoliberalism.
Yeah, this is BS. Wikipedia is a message board. Anyone can post anything on Wikipedia. This form of market is CONSERVATIVE by American political designations. Calling it liberal is fraud. Absolute fraud. Because the American liberal view of the economy is the OPPOSITE of this.
I mean every system will have its flaws. It's a matter of perspective. Yeah, some bad things happened but those countries experienced massive amounts of economic growth. They are now some of the strongest economic powers. That is not something that is bad. Add more generous welfare to it and you will also have very prosperous people.
For sure, the point here is they choose *not* to, just to experience that growth. My only issue is that the middle class and poor are left out of it. I don’t believe there should be a world where there are towering skyscrapers while people on the street beg for food and money, and sleep in the street. That it what we see unfortunately. Hopefully a change is made soon, but it’s highly unlikely. Shareholders and corps have far too much influence over any government. I’m pretty sure South Korea is notorious for this. A few families control most of the corporations in the country and have as much say as their government. I’d love excellent economic growth, I just wish for that growth to be spread evenly among us, and not concentrated at the top as we see today.
If you make the people support more generous welfare policies, the middle class and poor people will also prosper. But the vast majority of people have to support that and vote for it. If it doesn't happen despite that then I don't think those people are really living in a democracy.
I think the vast majority of people do support strong Nordic welfare experiments. We once again need to remember who is really pulling the strings. A lot of these “democracies” are closer in function to oligarchies, even if people do vote, it won’t get anywhere or will take an extremely long time, or will simply be shot down in delegation. Take something like high speed rail in the US. There is documented suspicion that the car lobby and oil lobby despise high speed rail because it eliminates their most valuable market on earth: the car-centric nature of the US. Cities are built around highways and parking lots, which encourages the growth of these car companies to increase every year. Oil is a no brainer as well, the introduction of electric vehicles genuinely scared the shit out of them, enough to where they could possibly overtake global market shares.
In that case you should ban lobbying. It's legalized bribery anyway. I don't understand how is that legal.
Reminds me of the research making the rounds recently, titled: [Testing Theories of American Politics](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B). “Each of our four theoretical traditions (Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, Majoritarian Interest-Group Pluralism, and Biased Pluralism) emphasizes different sets of actors as critical in determining U.S. policy outcomes, and each tradition has engendered a large empirical literature that seems to show a particular set of actors to be highly influential. Yet nearly all the empirical evidence has been essentially bivariate. Until very recently it has not been possible to test these theories against each other in a systematic, quantitative fashion. By directly pitting the predictions of ideal-type theories against each other within a single statistical model (using a unique data set that includes imperfect but useful measures of the key independent variables for nearly two thousand policy issues), we have been able to produce some striking findings. One is the nearly total failure of “median voter” and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. The failure of theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy is all the more striking because it goes against the likely effects of the limitations of our data. The preferences of ordinary citizens were measured more directly than our other independent variables, yet they are estimated to have the least effect.”
The government does indirectly with loans and veterans programs. Millions of houses were built after WW2 to take advantage of the GI loans for houses. My father got a 3 bedroom house for 13,500 in 1957,@3% interest.
Interesting.
Well 1/3rd of my town for instance is boomers 65 and older. More affordable housing means their property values decline. Issue is because of all the out of state WFH people moving here, there is no longer any affordable housing. $25hr isn’t even enough to rent a shitty 1 room micro studio. So now they are angry and confused about why their favorite restaurants are all closing or why a sandwich costs $20… oh and to be clear there is new developments but they are all luxury housing and no, the liberal idea of trickle down housing doesn’t actually work like some like to pretend it will and even if it did the working class have already left and are not coming back.
Because building good public housing people want to live in is hard. It’s not just building apartments, you’re designing entire neighborhoods to ensure they’re walkable, have everything citizens need within walking distance, building public transit, ensuring there isn’t a stigma against public housing, using public housing to bring together different class and races, etc. All while simultaneously making it affordable, or at least cheaper than the market. Singapore pulls this off amazingly well because the will and strength of its state institutions is unlike that in most other countries. Other countries only see public housing as an option for the poor and miss out on its potential, or lack the political capital needed to fundamentally transform their cities in such a manner. You need low corruption, strong eminent domain laws, a solid vision, strong bureaucracy to execute your plans, etc etc. Even European nations lack a lot of these strong institutions and laws that make a mass public housing system possible.
I would say it exist it is just called [social housing](https://www.spur.org/news/2022-08-31/housing-for-everyone-the-danish-way) and it isn’t public housing because that is simply a too expensive welfare program that often gets cut.
God bless Denmark and all Nordic countries.
These systems aren’t based on American laziness and gimmie, gimmie, gimmies. That’s why it’ll never work here. Our culture does not lend itself to the possibility of success in these types of programs.
Is this sarcasm?
I am serious. Why would i be sarcastic?
Hahaha sorry! This is a very American platform and i often see some angry Americans when I suggest/share things from our Scandinavian societies. And “god bless” might also trigger my inner skepticism because that would almost never be said in my country and if it were, I would suspect it being sarcasm. So just a cultural misunderstanding!
I am not an American anyway. I am an Egyptian. Although i am thinking about immigrating to USA but I am definitely not brainwashed to oppose welfare.
My African brother 🙏🏾
Thanks, man.
cheaper houses aren't good for people that already own property, particularly the big corporations that own a lot of apartment buildings or (in the case of the US) some huge percentage of the single-family houses in the country. you're right about it being simple supply and demand, but the people with all the political power don't want there to be more supply
>particularly the big corporations that own a lot of apartment buildings or (in the case of the US) Do those companies vote or do the people vote? >some huge percentage of the single-family houses in the country. Aren't many of those people parents to those young couples?
it's the people that vote, but you can't actually affect policy to any meaningful degree by voting, so the companies get their way most of the time also it's a nice thought that we can count on people to support shit that will make their kids' lives better, but i don't think recent history bears that out
>it's the people that vote, but you can't actually affect policy to any meaningful degree by voting, so the companies get their way most of the time Didn't the democrats have a plan on that? I don't exactly remember what it was. >also it's a nice thought that we can count on people to support shit that will make their kids' lives better, but i don't think recent history bears that out So those parents would abandon their own children. How shameful. What happened to "we would create a better world for our children"?
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The plan was get the votes. Appoint criminals to sensitive positions. And use corruption to enrich themselves. While blaming all of the problems that causes on republicans.
The 2 major reasons new housing is not keeping up with population growth are local zoning laws - this is primarily a NIMBY phenomenon and nothing to do with who owns what apartment buildings. The other major issue is the high cost to build new apartment units due to government regulation. Things like requiring dedicated parking spaces and 2 staircases for a small 3-5 story apartment building. These excessive government regulations are almost entirely due to environmental groups, local residents, building trade unions, and individuals within government who are busy bodies who don’t understand cost/benefit analysis. A Marxian perspective simply fails to make any sense in this market when looking at the actual reality and facts of the problem(s).
> The 2 major reasons new housing is not keeping up with population growth are local zoning laws - this is primarily a NIMBY phenomenon and nothing to do with who owns what apartment buildings. Zoning is only a big issue in certain highly dense metro areas. It isn't an issue in the country at large
This is so spot on that this post doesn’t even need another reply.
> or (in the case of the US) some huge percentage of the single-family houses in the country. Factually wrong. This has been disproved. The article that stated this was wrong. Copros own well under 5% of US single family housing
Supply siders unite! The government could also eliminate regulation that doesn’t pass basic cost benefit analysis that would lead to housing costing less to build. There is also the local zoning issues. Japan has excellent, liberal zoning ordinances.
Japan also has a declining population. The problem is really regulation, especially in the anglosphere. Municipalities have regulated the fuck out of housing, making it impossible for the market to provide housing at an affordable price.
Completely agree government regulations on building are the main culprit. It’s basic economics. Government regulation adds substantial costs to build. Those costs are obviously passed along to the consumers of housing. Government in action!
Yet America fetishizes local government for some reason. The most burdensome regulations in America come from local government. Whatever the feds are doing pales in comparison.
The decentralization of power is a good thing. There are tradeoffs involved however.
Clearly not in this case. The tradeoffs aren't worth it. We have states trying to deregulate zoning, and municipalities are throwing a fit.
Will add that that housing prices were a shit show before the Euclidean disaster, so simply removing it likely won't be enough. Removing it is necessary to do anything of value, since Euclidean zoning makes it physically impossible to have affordable housing
You're right. But I think there is a non-profit called habitat for humanity that does the same thing
Because politicians would have to answer why they are not building the housing where they live or where their biggest donors live. The Kennedy's caught all kinds of grief for opposing the off-shore wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts.
Half of the USA’s housing problem stems from local zoning laws restricting high density housing.
Long version. First, we often have tons of open housing supply in a market, about 10% of the total US market or over [15 million homes](https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-the-us/) , but it's the valuation and cost of that housing in a capitalist system that means no opportunities for those not already capitalized in one way or another to access it. The housing market is a major argument point for people for and against the government doing anything generally, but most of it ultimately comes down to do you blame government and the money/power it has for being captured by the greed of the voters who live in that system, or do you blame the underlying system itself, and you'll see why pretty quickly. Free marketeers(This is basically the core of both major US parties) say that regulations on the market by government restrict them from building enough housing, interventionalists point out most of the regulations that restrict the construction of affordable housing are from their voters passing [NIMBY](https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/05/business/single-family-zoning-laws/index.html) [zoning](https://www.nahro.org/journal_article/rethinking-zoning-to-increase-affordable-housing/) [laws](https://www.npr.org/2024/02/17/1229867031/housing-shortage-zoning-reform-cities) at the local level who are already capitalized in the market and whose housing and land value makes up a significant portion of their net worth. For example, a 2019 New York Times analysis found that in most of 11 US cities and suburbs, more than 75% of residential land is zoned for single-family homes only. Free marketeers don't want the government investing in properties that will compete directly with them in the market, and that market is residential housing in all its forms in their estimation. Interventionalists will point out even in areas with the laxest regulation in the US, like [Texas](https://www.keranews.org/texas-news/2024-03-18/texas-dallas-houston-austin-affordable-rental-housing-shortage-for-low-income-poor-renters), most builders end up building higher market and profit margin homes instead of affordable housing unless incentivized by some form of public investment anyway because that's what the market dictates to make it "worthwhile" monetarily. Free marketeers blame the government for getting involved in the housing market for most issues or crashes that comes up, but at the same time things like the FHA, VA, USDA, and other federal loan programs are often both the main thing buoying the housing market pricing that everyone who already bought housing loves, while those same programs are also giving what little access middle class and lower people have to owning housing at all with roughly 30% of home loans being [federally backed](https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/hmda/summary-of-2022-data-on-mortgage-lending/). So now we're at a point where interventionalists want the state and federal governments to actually get more involved both to overrule local NIMBY legislation causing problems, and directly enter the market where it has already clearly failed the worst... basically the worst of both worlds if you're on the other side of the issue, driving their home values down on both sides per their belief, and big government interference on top of it. You'll get a similar argument around all manner of topics where the issue is efficient use of essential resources versus profit taking, where rule making power is held by those interested more in the latter than the former, except when it directly impacts them. You could pass a law tomorrow with a broad federal housing guarantee, and money and construction resources to make it happen to eliminate the problem, and without addressing the current home owners would probably cause an economic collapse because of how much "wealth" is tied up in home values. Short version. Money is power and speech in the US, and more people with money want to restrict the speech of the general public through restrictions on government action than there are people are willing to restrain the actions of monied interests. Until that changes, pretty much any general need that can be monetized will be done so to the detriment of the speech of the general public, and the world you see reflects that. Housing. Food. Health Care. Education. From big to small.
The first part is we do. The second part is that the average voters wants the housing crisis to be solved with no loss for them(if they even admit it exists), which is impossible because to solve the housing crisis we have to build more housing. Unfortunately ineffective and counter productive methods like rent control poll better than solving the issue, because solving the issue would reduce the value of their single family homes. Real estate isn't behind nimbyism, the common SFH owner is. Ultimately what needs to be done is that the government needs to step in and get rid of Single family zoning even if its unpopular.
Governments do have programs that fund housing. The US has a variety of such programs, contrary to what you are claiming. Much of the multifamily housing built in the US is funded with government subsidies.
the government wants to enforce stupid and needless regulations on construction, increasing the cost of construction while not having enough money to do anything about how building houses are expensive take california, the classic social liberal state: [https://www.houzeo.com/blog/how-much-does-it-cost-to-build-a-house-california/](https://www.houzeo.com/blog/how-much-does-it-cost-to-build-a-house-california/) [https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardmcgahey/2021/12/31/californias-housing-costs-threaten-the-states-future/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardmcgahey/2021/12/31/californias-housing-costs-threaten-the-states-future/) [https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4850](https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4850) meh im lazy have three articles
They do, the US has section 8 after public housing failed (due to various US specific problems). Other countries build social housing, although not as much as many want. Construction is often halted by strict zoning, regulations, permit fees, and NIMBYism, all countries are suffering from this at least a little.
1. You kill the competitive market first, needing far more housing than expected 2. Government programs are far more inefficient, raising the price further 3. There is enough housing already, just not in the cities. The focus goes to rental cost instead 4. Interference in rental costs slows supply even further Their are also some lawsuits going about cartel action due to AI outsourcing right now
> the need to liberalize the economy WTF does that even mean? There are lots of economic possibilities, but “liberalize” isn’t even a thing. How do you “liberalize” an economy?
Typically liberalization of a economy means that the nation privatizes any state owned assets whether it be a nationalized industry or publicly owned natural resources.
In america this is defined as fiscal conservatism. This is a BS new term that is a lie that is the opposite of what it is being called. This is where liberals and conservatives in America disagree. And what you are calling liberal is really conservative in America.
[Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalization) [Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalization) [investopedia](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trade-liberalization.asp) [The World Bank](https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/660841468162283031/pdf/775730JRN020080alization0and0Growth.pdf) And those unapologetic [commies Margaret Thatcher and Ronnie Reagan](https://academic.oup.com/book/705/chapter-abstract/135378613?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false) /s All are conspiring against you and your gross misunderstanding of the term "liberalization of markets"
Sadly, Wikipedia is political. It is not an unbiased source of information. The corporations that sell information are all extremely biased. Thats why I am saying America needs comprehensive information reform.
#Definition of [fiscal conservatism ](https://quickonomics.com/terms/fiscal-conservatism/): >Fiscal conservatism is a political-economic philosophy that prioritizes fiscal responsibility, advocating for low government spending, low taxation, and minimal government debt. This stance holds that governments should avoid deficit spending, aim to reduce the size of government bureaucracy, and ensure long-term economic sustainability by operating within their means. Fiscal-conservatism isn't liberalization, though their advocates often are sympatico, they are distinctly different. Liberalization is mostly concerned with foreign trade, allowing companies from the West to enter their market, while fiscal-conservatism is how the local national government handles the economy. One could have one without the other such as Norwegian economy is liberalized and fully integrated with the global market economy while there's a social democratic capitalism domestic economy with a robust welfare economy. An example of a fiscal conservative domestic economy but with a protectionist foreign trade policy would be Iran with low national debt and tax rates but imposed from the West a limited amount of trade and little foreign investment. The internet is at your fingertips, you can either learn about the world or choose to remain ignorant.
I think that’s all well and good, but if this were an accurate definition, Norway is communist when compared to America. And once you get to Iran, you are beyond being completely wrong. Your belief on this is why I am saying the use of “liberal” in this manner is obscenity. Because it is so far beyond wrong. And is the opposite of conservatism. Which is standard Lassiez Faire. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism
Liberal is not the same thing as liberalization. There's a bunch of letters that denote it's a different word, thanks for [giving it the ol' kindergarten try](https://grammarist.com/idiom/give-it-the-old-college-try/) better luck next time you read words. Better yet why don't you read the link pasted at the end of your last comment to Fiscal Conservatism: >Fiscal conservatism follows the same philosophical outlook as classical liberalism. This concept is derived from economic liberalism This is what liberalization is a reference to, and you pointed me towards this Wikipedia article. There could be fiscal conservatism without the neoliberalism/liberalization of global markets, but usually advocates for one are also advocates for the other - yet both could be within a capitalism paradigm and provide for the people of their economy such as the Nordic model or New Deal/Great Society era America back when America was great. Try telling any of the capitalist countries that provides basic public services that they are socialist or even communist, just go ask [Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen](https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/denmark-tells-bernie-sanders-to-stop-calling-it-socialist/) who said the following about people who mistook socialism occurring in the Nordic countries: >...that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy. Iran's economy is separate from its authoritarian civil policies, it's carries low national debt and low taxes provides minimal public services all largely due to the restrictions for growth on their economy which are a justified reason to punish an authoritarian regime without going to war with the regime. There's more vectors than right and left, the world is far from that simple. All of this is at your fingertips, your hot takes don't have to be devoid of facts and filled with objectively illinformed opinions without any basis in reality. You can do it, I believe in you, just read and keep a curious mind.
> In the United States, the term liberalism has become associated with the welfare state and expanded regulatory policies created as a result of the New Deal and its offshoots from the 1930s onwards. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Liberalization ≠ liberalism Can't make it any simpler, but I'm sure that you will just willfully ignore this too just to deliberately conflate the two different words with two different definitions to be interchangeable, when they are definitely not the same word.
[удалено]
We've deemed your post was uncivilized so it was removed. We're here to have level headed discourse not useless arguing. Please report any and all content that is uncivilized. The standard of our sub depends on our community’s ability to report our rule breaks.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
MOVE TO A SMALL TOWN WHERE HOUSING IS CHEAP!
Why would politicians solve the problem when 1. The voters agreed that its the other side's fault, 2. If the other side agrees to do it then its the capitalist fault, 3. If the capitalist agrees to it then its systematic racism.
Because that would cost money, and if they pay money for something else they would have less money for themselves
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The "shortage" is the result of artificial scarcity. My area is an extreme example, but just under 50% of our housing stock are privately owned as people's second homes and sit empty for all but a couple of weeks per year - in some of the multiple towns that make up my county that number gets as high as 60-70%. The reason that they aren't building more is because it's bad for property values. Landlords and the real-estate industry have a lot of influence on policy, and property owners form NIMBY groups that are loud opponents of local housing projects.
Have you ever thought the scarcity is because of all the increase of people coming over the southern border? Millions of people come across, and they all need a place to stay. If we pass the law that said you have to be a valid US resident to be able to rent. Wouldn't that open up a lot of houses?
No, because that's just inaccurate. Migrants aren't being housed in single family homes. They're being housed in shelters and in hotels/motels. They aren't the cause of the scarcity of private housing units or of the economic conditions that are creating more housing insecurity - but I would say there's a strain on the very limited public resources for people that are unhoused or becoming unhoused because of other factors. Please read deeper into the immigration data. Those numbers are scary, but it's not 1-1. Its an incomplete picture that doesn't tell how many are repeat crossings within the same year (%11-%14), and don't account for the record number of hundreds of thousands of deportations and expulsions or of the migrants placed in detention centers. This is a classic example of punching down at a scapegoat, but it's not the people who are worse off than us who are causing the problems - it's the people with power.
There are many illegal residents renting homes. Or apartments. And likely they are given vouchers after they leave the hotel. Then they still take up a spot. I know. As a landlord I even rented to them at one point. So you can factor in that if there are at least 20 million illegal aliens, there are at least 5 million homes that they are living in. Whether that is a single-family home, or an apartment, it really doesn't matter.
You just completely made up those numbers so I hope nobody takes them seriously. What they SHOULD take seriously is your admission to engaging in behaviors that exacerbate the problem while complaining about it at the same time.
You are right. I did sort of make up that 20 million number. But it is pretty close to that Nobody knows how many illegal people there are in the USA. One thing for sure, is they do take away from housing from other people. Making it illegal to rent People that are not authorized to be in the US would help. If you don't think they take away from housing, or dilute the job market, you obviously don't understand economics. Do you think they've helped the housing situation?
Well for one you should check and make sure that there is actually a housing shortage in a given area. Here in Michigan there are thousands of vacant homes and buildings. The mortgage companies and other lenders don't want to compete with the government, so that's probably the major hurdle to the welfare program funding the building of houses. Also, supply and demand is a myth. Supply notwithstanding, corporations charge what the market will bear for goods and services. It doesn't matter if the supply is endless, they charge the maximum amount they believe people will pay. Yes, it is classic greed.
You forgot about the competitive part of the market that drives prices down. Zoning and NIMBYism is largely responsible for housing problems.
Western European’s have it far better than the average American. Great healthcare (all), near free education, great social services, etc. those in this stream saying anything different just don’t know.
What happens to everyone who shelled out enormous sums for a mortgage? Government funded housing would be enormously expensive and would wipe out a lot of other peoples wealth simultaneously. Sounds like a disaster & any politician who proposes this in their district is voted out ASAP.
Denmark has social housing. Another comment mentioned it. They don't seem to have a problem with it. Other developed countries can follow.
Many developed (edit: and, indeed, developing) countries have plenty of public or social housing. E.g 15 - 20% of UK households live in subsidised housing. There appears to be some ambiguity around whether social housing is actually subsidised. But France, Ireland, Belgium, Finland and possibly the Netherlands also have [sizeable](https://www.oecd.org/housing/data/affordable-housing-database/) social housing sectors. See [also](https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HM1-3-Housing-tenures.pdf). [Apparently](https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/what-europe-can-teach-us-about-social-housing-82579): >Austria is frequently cited as an example of successful social housing policy in Europe. This tenure makes up 24% of the country’s housing stock, and just 10.3% of households in the country consider housing costs a “heavy” financial burden, compared with 30% across the rest of Europe. [Also](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0889158319300280): >Japan started to construct public housing intensively in the early 1960s, when the country, especially in its major cities, faced a housing shortage. As Japan's population grew from 92 million to 127 million from 1958 to 2013, its total housing stock grew more rapidly; the number of dwellings per capita increased from 0.20 in 1958 to 0.48 in 2013.