What do CAFers think about housing policy, particularly affordable housing for the working class?

[RCIAGraduate]

Not necessarily, why can’t the state act like a kindly nurse, a compassionate social worker or like a chaplain who strives to emulate the spirit of the Good Shepard and establish programs and models that provide hope for those in need like helping break and shatter the cycle that many unfortunates fall into through no fault of their own like being born in the “wrong” home or zip code? People stuck in desolation and near despair, how can one blame one such person afflicted in misfortune and hopelessness?

 

[Bon_Croix]

I think housing would be much more affordable if they backed off of building codes.

People could build their own houses without pulling their hair out trying to meet codes, inspections, etc…

Of course, it’s the insurance industry that pushes for codes, and they are the result of the mortgage industry, which is probably all totally unnecessary for life.

No problem with shanty towns on my end.

 

[exnihilo]

The state can’t becuase the state doesn’t work like that. The state is pure force. It is coercion. It isn’t in its nature to act as a kindly nurse. You are asking something to behave contrary to its nature. That doesn’t work out very well.

 

[DarkLight]

The concern about the free market: especially when there is a limited quantity, who needs it isn’t necessarily who can pay for it. If one well-off person can pay more for housing than 2 or 3 poor people can pay for the same space, then they’re going to build luxury housing rather than affordable housing. Which of course then drives up the other costs poorer people have - car and gas costs, obviously, plus time commuting is time you can’t be doing anything else.

A lot of Americans also work a lot of hours to not get much out of them. Medical bills are one of the biggest ruiners, especially given how bad the insurance given to those at the lower end is. (Health problems also have the difficult side effect that really nothing between “totally can’t work ever” and “able to hold down full-time employment with no issues” is recognized.) Going to school is often difficult to work around a regular job, especially if you’re not aiming for computer-based fields. I’ve seen car accidents cause a lot of issues too, even if the person wasn’t at fault.

I think housing would be much more affordable if they backed off of building codes.

I think you might be surprised. I like having a working shower and toilet. (And yes, I’ve lived without those for about a month because I was afraid if I said anything I’d be evicted.) There’s already a lot of problems with unhealthy or even dangerous conditions in low income housing, simply because poor people figure if they complain they’ll be homeless.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

I think you have a point there, particularly in respect to NIMBYism that could hurt low-income and working-class folks just trying to find a roof over their heads (and ideally a safe community with a good school)?

That said, there does seem to be a need for basic health and safety regulations in building codes. For example, retrofitting for earthquakes, reinforcements and access to underground shelters in tornado alley, preferences to build outside of flood plains (when feasible and possible as an ideal) among others.

I know you were quoting in check about the shantytowns but wasn’t there sanitory and health concerns with places like slums and shantytowns. Also, to be honestly, I wouldn’t want to live in an ugly neighborhood, I’d like to live in a place where the houses were beautiful or at least where it looked good.

 

[Bon_Croix]

Oh, I’m sure much of the housing in Federally subsidized areas is substandard. But, so are many commercial buildings, equipment used in commerce, etc…

 

[exnihilo]

The concern about the free market: especially when there is a limited quantity, who needs it isn’t necessarily who can pay for it.

The only reason for a free market is becuase all material things are limited. If we had an unlimited supply of things then there would be no need for a system to regulate their distribution whether that be the free market or brute force like the state.

I think you might be surprised. I like having a working shower and toilet. (And yes, I’ve lived without those for about a month because I was afraid if I said anything I’d be evicted.)

During a time when building codes and renter protections from the state existed you still went without. So the government can’t help the problem after all.

 

[DarkLight]

During a time when building codes and renter protections from the state existed you still went without. So the government can’t help the problem after all.

I suspect if the government was actually looking and if it weren’t so easy to kick someone out, it wouldn’t have happened.

It’s not like leaving it to the free market would have resulted in anything but possibly not having it fixed at all.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

The only reason for a free market is becuase all material things are limited. If we had an unlimited supply of things then there would be no need for a system to regulate their distribution whether that be the free market or brute force like the state.

But what about the innocent and kind people who try and try but it’s not enough. Good and meek poor and working class simply trying to make their way through life that can be a struggle?

 

[exnihilo]

I suspect if the government was actually looking and if it weren’t so easy to kick someone out, it wouldn’t have happened.

It’s not like leaving it to the free market would have resulted in anything but possibly not having it fixed at all.

I don’t know where you live but where I do it is incredibly difficult to kick someone out. Most apostates are like mine I believe.

You are right. In a free market it may never be fixed, just like in a not free market. The difference in a free market is that over time bad business owners lose.

But what about the innocent and kind people who try and try but it’s not enough. Good and meek poor and working class simply trying to make their way through life that can be a struggle?

What about them? That is life. That may sound harsh but it is the same answer to why are some people born with horrible deformities. Or why do some people get paralyzed. Or why do some children die. These things do allow for others to show compassion and grow in virtue. If the compassion is imposed by the state then opportunities are lost.

 

[IWantGod]

Why do you assume people get ‘left behind’ because they don’t have ‘support’? Most folks I see reap what they sow.

This response, in my opinion, represents a cultural prejudice towards the poor. If your whole point of view is that people in poverty deserve to be in poverty, then it’s easier to close ones wallet and let them suffer. I disagree, if somebody is in poverty, then they require support, much like a sick person requires medication and care. It’s not for me to judge how they got there.

 

[exnihilo]

So if a person spent all his money on drugs and prostitutes you aren’t supposed to judge that? You are supposed to chalk that up to bad luck?

It isn’t a cultural prejudice, whatever that is, that forms my opinion. It is observation of actual poor people. The problem with most poor people isn’t that they don’t get material wealth. The problem is they can’t keep it. So giving them more will never solve the problem. I have family members like that. You can give them all you want and they will squander it.

 

[IWantGod]

People make mistakes, and you can judge that until your hearts content. But if somebody is in dire need and they are homeless, if you can help, it would only be an act of God to do so. Their moral failings are between them and God. And this idea that people in poverty refuse to help themselves, while that may be true of a small portion of individuals, it would be a fallacy to tarnish everyone with the same brush.

If everyone had this attitude toward the poor, one things for certain, they would all die from starvation and we would no-longer have a poverty problem. Problem solved.

 

[Augustinian]

If everyone had this attitude toward the poor, one things for certain, they would all die from starvation and we would no-longer have a poverty problem. Problem solved.

I think you are taking a bit of license here. America didn’t have very much starvation at all, even before we established our massive welfare state.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

What if some if not many of the poor didn’t know/learn better or have issues due to their tough and difficult background and roots like growing up in a dysfunctional or broken home, or not going to the right school, or living in a desolate community?

Also, if you’re in a low-paying job and have high fixed cost of living (think housing, insurance, transportation, etc), it could be difficult to move up. It’s understandable, why someone in that situation could get discouraged.

 

[IWantGod]

I think you are taking a bit of license here. America didn’t have very much starvation at all, even before we established our massive welfare state.

So i guess your reasoning is that everybody thought yes lets live in poverty!!! Do you really believe that most people in that situation really want that life? The welfare state came into being to solve a problem that you seem reluctant to solve. If there were jobs for life for everybody with reasonable pay and affordable housing for those who don’t do so well in the market place, then i guess the only homeless people would be people with either psychological problems or people that just like living in poverty. Personally any person who willingly accepts poverty when there is a clear and reasonably achievable alternative more than likely has psychological problems.

I’m sure there are wealthy people out there who give a sizable portion of their wealth to help people in poverty. I don’t judge them. But there is a real prejudice towards poor people.

 

[DarkLight]

I don’t know where you live but where I do it is incredibly difficult to kick someone out. Most apostates are like mine I believe.

Where I am, like most of the u.s., you can just tell someone they have a month to find new housing and that’s it. They don’t have to give any reason either, which is why it’s so easy to retaliate against someone for complaining.

There might be difficulties if people decide to not care about leaving when they’re evicted, which is a separate issue, and usually what landlords complain about. Basically if someone decides to wait until they’re physically forced out by the police, that can be hard. But legally getting someone evicted isn’t hard, especially if they’re a law-abiding citizen who’s not wanting to overstay past when they have a legal right to be there.

You are right. In a free market it may never be fixed, just like in a not free market. The difference in a free market is that over time bad business owners lose.

The trouble is that often it’s people who can’t afford anything better who lose, while bad business owners get rich off of those who can’t afford anything else.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Called ‘workcampers,’ semi-retirees are living in RVs at Amazon’s warehouse in Reno Nevada for holiday work.

 

[Augustinian]

Called ‘workcampers,’ semi-retirees are living in RVs at Amazon’s warehouse in Reno Nevada for holiday work

The packages need moved, and there are a lot more packages needing moved during the Christmas season.

I don’t see where this is substantially different that harvest time on the farm, where migrant workers are brought in for a short period and often stay in a camp.

Do you think this is wrong?

 

[RCIAGraduate]

Perhaps @MonteRCMS, was simply trying to show the working conditions at Amazon? The woman in the thumbnail looks rather old though, jobs like migrant workers seem to be a better fit for the younger and more robust, and ideally, the older and more frail can be taken care of or have opportunities for lighter work.