Am I out of control for wanting a Housing Bureau?

[DaveJ]

:rant:

There are two things that make life a burden and those are the costs of health-care and housing. Regarding housing, WHY do we allow the rich to buy up all the homes and inflate the prices? This should not be allowed. Seriously, if any entity wanted to destroy America that's the sure fire way of doing it -- buy all our valuable property legally -- then we've become a nation of serfs. I really do not understand why this is so hard for government to comprehend. Even those who are lucky enough to afford to get a loan on a home usually never pay it off. It's utterly ridiculous.

I know people on both ends of the political spectrum who rent in order to make money... but I'm sorry, I just don't think it's right to use others to pay your mortgage and have no equity to show for it in return -- it's flat on its face wrong, IMO. There should be stiff regulations on the way homes are bought and sold so that people do not have to spend every waking moment worrying about becoming homeless.

Until then we are nothing but serfs.

[The2ndWheel]

1. An economy wouldn't exist

"so that people do not have to spend every waking moment worrying about becoming homeless"

if we didn't have that. Not saying it wouldn't be the way to go, but nobody would wake up at 5am to go to a job they didn't like.

[Jim Warren]

3. bollucks

Sounds like a republican talking point.

[The2ndWheel]

7. You would wake up at 5am

to go to a job you didn't like if you didn't have to worry about having a home to sleep in?

[smirkymonkey]

5. "Nobody would wake up at 5am to go to a job they didn't like..."

And why should we?

There should be limits as to how much renters can charge. They should be able to cover their costs and maintenance, since the renters are paying their mortgages and expenses and the owner is the one who gets equity and reaps the profits.

[The2ndWheel]

8. "why should we?"

More people need to ask that question.

[DaveJ]

6. I tackle that idea a lot

Personally I would be more productive if I could stay at home and work on developing a product to get my own business going. Since I have to stay at work all the time it will take at least about 3-5 more years before I can work for myself.

But I'm not talking about flatout giving people free housing, just making it more of a minor expense instead of the sole reason for working. Someone working at Taco Bell for instance should be able to pay for a home, not considered a low class serf that nobody cares about enough to provide them basic shelter.

In comparison, America has done fairly well at providing food. Food is considered relatively easy to obtain. I don't think people are quitting their jobs because food is cheap. Why can't housing be as easily obtained?

I really don't think we'd have a huge problem with slackers if housing was cheap, but if so, that issue could be handled separately. They should not ruin it for the rest of us.

[The2ndWheel]

Cheap crap that makes us fat, that you can get

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm right there with you, except that a large scale economy isn't going to work like that. To ask questions about that, now we're getting somewhere.

[DaveJ]

11. Supply and demand

I know this is a generic sort of catch all response, and sort of bland too, but the fact is everything would balance out. We would not necessarily be able to afford 'more' if housing were affordable because as the cost of housing were to go down demand would cause prices on other things to go up. But at least people would know they are working to buy frills like cell phones and video games, and not working just to survive. Then I'm sure the question arise, 'what if people didn't want to buy anything?' which is another issue that could be dealt with separately.

Edit: I reread you post and now I'm not sure if I directly addressed your point. I don't think there is any way of knowing whether affordable housing would make us work less or more. I talked about that in other posts below.

[The2ndWheel]

13. The more we do/have, the more we work

because we can't let go. As soon as we stop, we will have less. That doesn't have to be a bad thing, but that's not what we do.

People will work more to buy frills? Since we're expendable consumers, that may be true. I like to think if people want to "work", they would like their time(another topic) to be worth a little more than frills. There is less and less meaningful work in a mass produced society though. Everything is the same, any improvements are more and more likely to be needless complication, simply for the sake of being more complex, thus more "advanced".

I'm not saying we shouldn't have affordable housing. I would certainly benefit from that too. However at some point, on the mass societal level, it won't be enough to just have affordable housing. Our entire existence today is based on endless growth. More people, with more choices. Everyone can have everything. That's not just for America, but every human being.

It's a great topic though. It shows the diminishing returns of increased complexity.

[Jim Warren]

2. HEW

health, education and welfare......IE fair housing.

Pretty simple ain't it and it oughtta be a right with predatory profit motives removed.

[Crankie Avalon]

4. That's just the way American is: "The Free Enterprise System"...

...where it is considered perfectly all right to squeeze as big a profit as you can out of anything...and I mean anything.

The only important consideration of a nation's health care ought to be to create a self-sustaining system that can keep all well-serviced. But that's not the objective here is it? Here, our decision makers are more concerned with creating a system that creates as much profit as possible for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

I don't say people shouldn't be free to make a buck, but there are certain of life's necessities that should be beyond the gussied up price gouging that we are pleased to call "free enterprise." Luxury items ought to be made by companies only looking to extract as much profit as they can out of consumers, but things like health, old age pensions, and probably housing ought to be managed as systems that exist first and foremost to make sure all are covered and that the coverage is financially self-sustainable. There's no need to profiteer off of people's necessities. There's plenty of opportunity to get obscenely rich off of their tastes for luxuries.

However, I don't see this happening all that soon in this country. It would require a monumental shift in priorities and a real concern for real values, rather than the phony values rightwingers like to trumpet.

[DaveJ]

9. Being too un-creative to get rich in other ways

Another good point you make. It bothers me that when people have some money to invest, they can't think of anything more creative than to buy a home and rent it to poor people for more than the mortgage they pay. There are other ways of using that money which would be more progressive.

And another point regarding the 'slacker issue.' I actually think people may work harder knowing that their money isn't all going to housing. If they know they can buy things with the money they make (hopefully environmentally friendly things) I think a lot of people would enjoy the idea of working more!

I'm sorry if I am offending landlord types here, but this is an issue that crosses party lines. It's a social problem that will not change soon, probably not in our lifetimes, but it is something that I wish people were more sensitive to.

[Jed Dilligan]

10. Adam Smith believed in abolishing real estate

He didn't think any wealth should be unproductive.

[DaveJ]

12. Thank you!

Working just to survive is unproductive wealth. I will remember that.