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.
The answer is in your name, but we have to remove government out and let it stabilize to achieve such. Once that happens, opportunities will be abundant.
The problem is that we have not had a real free market in over a 100 years.
I have worked all levels of employment and one thing I can say with absolute certainty is that "most" people are where they are by choice. They have the power to change their situation, but they refuse to. Those who try to change and excel usually do not stay at the bottom.
Specifically, we will never have a free market in housing and land use, because incumbent homeowners have vested financial and lifestyle interests in minimizing the proximate supply of neighbors of economic means inferior to their own. Zoning (density and supply control) is the easiest and most efficient tool to this end.
I'm presuming these people are already living with umpteen roommates; I live in an overcrowded small (3BR, 1
BA, no basement) house with 11 people.
There are also common zoning restrictions which make living with multiple unrelated roommates unlawful.
Raising the minimum wage won't solve the issue.
Seriously, this not a difficult concept. If you raise the costs on an economy, the economy will adjust to compensate and that will result in increased costs, making the raise irrelevant.
The only way you could stop what I am saying is by dictating to businesses (taking over the business) that they can not raise prices, that they must absorb the costs themselves. This would stop the cost of living from equalizing to compensate for the wage increase. This however is pure stupidity.
If you want an example of what happens when you do this, go look at Venezuela because that is exactly what they did. They started dictating various regulations, and when the economy compensated to a reality that was not in their fantasy resolution, they took over the businesses to force their result.
Socialism's eventual progression is misery and death.
Specifically, we will never have a free market in housing and land use, because incumbent homeowners have vested financial and lifestyle interests in minimizing the proximate supply of neighbors of economic means inferior to their own. Zoning (density and supply control) is the easiest and most efficient tool to this end.
The problem with your position is that you call freedom slavery (a common progressive manipulation). An individual who owns their property is not infringing on another who does not own such, it is the communist/socialist who views the haves as being oppressors of the have not's simply by their very ownership.
Your argument is invalid based on this principal because you argue "Freedom" by claiming the need to not have freedom to stop people who are free.
Housing supply is kept low intentionally to maximize profits for real estate companies. There should technically never be a housing supply issue since 50 floor buildings can be built in like a year.
By whom & where?
And what type of "housing supply" & for whom? Low income? Section 8?
Quote:
They would rather build a 5 story apartment building and charge 2,000.00 a month for rent instead of a 10 story apt building and charge 1,000.00 a month.
LOL! That's not how it works.
Who is "they"?
The market dictates rent. Technically.
Simpletons who have no clue when it comes down to how a business is run? They technically need to
Most people I know are happy with the increase and my fiance was on both ends since she has two jobs. First one she was at $9.50/hr before the increase, while she was already at $10/hr at the other job before. So she got the 50cent bump at the first job, stayed the same at the other job, and she isn't complaining
What do those people who are happy about it do to make ends meet? Why are they in such low paying jobs? Are they HS drop outs? Got knocked up at 16 & had 3 by 3 by 25 years old?
All about your fiance...what do you do to make ends meet & contribute?
The problem with your position is that you call freedom slavery (a common progressive manipulation). An individual who owns their property is not infringing on another who does not own such, it is the communist/socialist who views the haves as being oppressors of the have not's simply by their very ownership.
Your argument is invalid based on this principal because you argue "Freedom" by claiming the need to not have freedom to stop people who are free.
It is invalid logic.
??? ??? I never called freedom slavery. As an individual with NO hope of ever owning a home, I understand that people without property NECESSARILY depend on the property rights of owners if they are to have ANY access to property. So I want owners to have the economic freedom to sell property in an increment I can afford. The vast majority of homeowners will laugh, but, in a free market, all I need is ONE willing seller.
An individual who owns their property IS infringing on another when they vote for NIMBY zoning rules and "minimum lot size" requirements - they are interfering with the property rights of other property owners.
And funny enough, you keep putting yourself in the same situation & have the same complaints - for years.
And you never change a thing.
Always someone else's fault.
whose fault is it that the drunk from whom I previously rented is a drunk? whose fault is it that he has umpteen DUI convictions and a domestic violence conviction? whose fault is it he has a gun although his DV conviction makes him a prohibited possessor?
whose fault is it that renting is where you pay a premium to enjoy temporary, impaired use of property - that i do not have the right to pursue a home business here?
if i could do a home business here i'd have a lot more money, which would allow me to change a lot of things.
And what type of "housing supply" & for whom? Low income? Section 8?
LOL! That's not how it works.
Who is "they"?
The market dictates rent. Technically.
Simpletons who have no clue when it comes down to how a business is run? They technically need to
By wealthy investors and REITs, in pretty much any community willing to embrace new development. Major REITs are pouring millions into this area; right now.
Because the type of housing supply is dictated by municipalities and/or developers, all of the new construction in this area is high-end, and not at all affordable to anyone below median income. (Developers prefer to build $4,000/mo apartments than to build $1,000/mo apartments.)
However, the new construction IS allowing upper income renters to move into high-end new construction, which is enabling some opportunities for lower income people.
ZONING dictates the market!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Depending on whom you ask, between two-thirds and three-fourths of this city is zoned to prohibit multifamily housing. That is why there is a huge shortage of housing here today. Because so little land is available for new multifamily construction, that land is very expensive, making acquisition and construction costs prohibitive, which helps explain the new $4,000 apartments.
Housing markets operate under the constraints of zoning - the private sector cannot build to a level above what zoning allows, no matter how profitable.
They don't care, their response will be "If they can't afford the pay raise, they don't deserve to be in business".
Which in many places they won't be.
In places like NY & SF with sky-high rents, as long as the phase-in period is slow enough not being able to make as much money reduces the rent the commercial space can support so the hit is passed on to landlords and businesses are okay (too quick and a wave will go under).
In places with reasonable commercial real estate costs, there are no rentier profits to absorb the hit and prices will simply hike up -- thereby driving away volume, which some businesses will survive and others won't.
To use the restaurant example, higher prices = less eating out = rent decline in prime areas and there simply being less restaurants everywhere else. Can't always take policy from high-income, dense cities and expect it to have the same result in poorer and/or more rural areas, and vice-versa.
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.
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.
