U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-14-2016, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Nebraska
3,280 posts, read 1,663,605 times
Reputation: 2925

Advertisements

I think it is interesting how so many cities subsidized housing policy is tilted towards large families and not single people.

The case for housing subsidies should be to meet labor needs for jobs in the service sector.

I know Denver has a massive affordable housing shortage and it seems like the cities policy is mainly to combine federal, state and local subsidies and credits for apartments that are 2-4 bedrooms.

Denver housing policy makes no sense as I don't understand what building subsidized housing for families does to make the labor shortage better amongst lower paid workers. Those lower paid workers will have subsidized child care that exceeds their wages in many cases.

It seems as though the easiest way to ensure worker housing to meet labor needs in a city would be to do what San Diego does and have a large supply of remodeled single-room occupancy buildings.

I lived in North Dakota and they had many buildings at the time that people would pay about 20% of their income in housing and it was mainly studio and 1 bedroom apartments for those who made less then $20,000 a year.

This was a win-win situation that ensured that workers were more productive in lower-wage jobs and that labor needs were met as employees didn't have to leave the community.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-14-2016, 02:33 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,471 posts, read 25,568,535 times
Reputation: 8945
Families need it more than single adults who have more options such as having roommates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2016, 02:33 PM
 
Location: The Windy City
5,300 posts, read 3,368,653 times
Reputation: 4524
It's because kids cost money and do not contribute anything monetarily to a family.

If you make $20,000/year as a single person, you can probably scrape by with a roommate and riding a bike. But kids complicate everything. They get sick, have to go to the doctor, need clothes, need diapers, special food, etc.

That being said, it's my opinion that if you cannot afford kids, you shouldn't have them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2016, 03:53 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
3,808 posts, read 3,897,956 times
Reputation: 3623
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecrowds View Post
I think it is interesting how so many cities subsidized housing policy is tilted towards large families and not single people.

The case for housing subsidies should be to meet labor needs for jobs in the service sector.
Kids are the future labor force. When you invest in kids the economy gets future ~45 years of labor out of them. They are needed to support all the sick, disabled, and elderly of the future.

You will see pro-natalist policies in all of the countries that are at or below replacement fertility level. FYI the United States is below natural replacement level, so without mass immigration or increase in births, the ratio of elderly to working people (tax burden) will increase substantially.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2016, 04:11 PM
 
Location: The Windy City
5,300 posts, read 3,368,653 times
Reputation: 4524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz View Post
Kids are the future labor force. When you invest in kids the economy gets future ~45 years of labor out of them. They are needed to support all the sick, disabled, and elderly of the future.

You will see pro-natalist policies in all of the countries that are at or below replacement fertility level. FYI the United States is below natural replacement level, so without mass immigration or increase in births, the ratio of elderly to working people (tax burden) will increase substantially.
We can thank the boomers for this!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2016, 04:42 PM
 
13,411 posts, read 17,973,250 times
Reputation: 20244
Quote:
Originally Posted by lepoisson View Post
We can thank the boomers for this!
OT - you may have to thank The Boomers for you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2016, 05:43 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,993 posts, read 42,339,459 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecrowds View Post
Denver housing policy makes no sense as I don't understand what building subsidized housing for families does to make the labor shortage better amongst lower paid workers. Those lower paid workers will have subsidized child care that exceeds their wages in many cases.
It's not meant to help a labor shortage; it's meant to help the neediest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2016, 09:36 PM
 
473 posts, read 364,304 times
Reputation: 1030
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
It's not meant to help a labor shortage; it's meant to help the neediest.
Exactly. It's because as a society we aren't comfortable with children sleeping on the streets or in shelters. Of course, it happens, and of course, in a utopia, no one--man, woman or child--would be homeless, but as far as targeted policies go, not helping children first would be abhorrent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2016, 08:47 AM
 
Location: A Yankee in northeast TN
10,686 posts, read 14,483,596 times
Reputation: 23914
Quote:
Originally Posted by lepoisson View Post
We can thank the boomers for this!
For what? The large numbers of elderly, as if they decided when they would be born? Or because they decided not to breed like rabbits out of concern over waning natural resources? Or just because it's fun to jump on the bandwagon and blame the boomers for pretty much everything that isn't perfect?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2016, 09:08 AM
 
Location: The Windy City
5,300 posts, read 3,368,653 times
Reputation: 4524
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubbleT View Post
For what? The large numbers of elderly, as if they decided when they would be born? Or because they decided not to breed like rabbits out of concern over waning natural resources? Or just because it's fun to jump on the bandwagon and blame the boomers for pretty much everything that isn't perfect?
It's not the boomers fault they were born into a time of high population, but the mass numbers of them are overloading social security because there aren't enough people paying into the system to support the number of people needing benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top