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.
I’m coming into this topic with a neutral, to a slightly opposing viewpoint… …but there are still some unanswered concerns. Let’s take tech heavy saturated locations where they grew into becoming high income dwelling, and / or the remaining local inhabitants have a substantial savings / equity. The little-man in these circumstances, who is not in tech, will have a very difficult time making it here.
I -personally- believe all people are responsible for directing their life in a manner that suites them best, and they have to decide what is best for them while realizing that they can have some things but not all things they want. Sometimes that means sacrifices (If the issue is financial: moving to a different location, finding a more affordable housing and commuting, If the don’t want to, then they are actively or subconsciously decided to sacrifice the financial security aspect in leu of convenience) - where as I see some individuals trying to make it in a high CoL without the income means to do so comfortably where it would be more affordable to commute in, although -not- less of a headache. I ‘personally’ would much rather have a stronger financial foundation rather than an easy commute however… that would be my sacrifice in a high CoL location if I did not have the financial means of living there comfortably and I still had to live there. If I didn’t have to live there I would probably just find someplace cheaper to live altogether if I had no hope in increasing my income / salary… …but then you get into the nitty gritty … Is it fair that people in tech get paid substantially more than other fields in let’s say the public/social services industry? When you tell them, they need to make wiser financial choices, can it be justified if you let’s say make 6 figures mid-career level and the person complaining about the CoL is already at the top of their career and cannot make 6 figures?
Now constitutionally speaking, Housing is not an entitlement. I see posters and signs when it comes to protests over housing rights saying everyone has a right to housing, well - yes - but there is a difference between a right and an entitlement… …We are protected fair rights to housing in terms of human / racial equality, but no one is protected from the financial aspects of home ownership in the constitution, even if you already own the home and fail to pay property tax in an area that is gentrifying or increasing in value.. This means we are obliged regardless of where the market value truly is, to pay for housing regardless of how affordable or expensive it truly is, this also goes to strengthen the argument that those who cannot afford housing, should be willing to locate housing within their affordability, even if it puts an inconvenience on them as they are in no way protected in this area.
Even if we did nullify the principals of the matter out and everyone abided by them, If low income earners such as those in the service level industry or low paying roles were to adhere to the principles, some (if not many) would have to leave High CoL cities .. thus creating shortages of workers in the service level industry (which theoretically should be enough in itself to justify increasing their wages, but being realistic $15 Hr isn’t going to do much in a place like LA, SF, Seattle, Boston… ect …So I do see a problem here… although it can be rectified in the short run by roommates and remaining career centric / focused on one’s future…
…which brings me to the next big concern, while there definitely exists parties of entitled people who haven’t had to work for much in their life, there also exists parties of people who have made wise planning choices, worked extra hard, studied after work and progressed in their career until they were able to buy a home, then used the equity of that home to bounce to their dream home later in life. How do you tell the people who have made these kind of choices that you want to tax them more so you can provide more for the rest of society? Why is it really their problem? Why do they owe society?
All in all I see the negative effects of the lack of a financial protection barrier and what it does to lower income classes, but does that justify a need for a gaurunteed standard of living?
The next problem is, even if it does.. ..how do we provide it if say we have an area with hypothetically 10 homes and 100 willing buyers? How do you tell those 100 buyers if let’s say atleast 50 of them were indeed the hard working / wise decision types that despite their efforts, we are going to give these homes to those in less fortunate positions only because they make much less than you do and you will need to find another place to move to?
I’m asking honestly here…
Last edited by Need4Camaro; 12-12-2021 at 03:23 PM..
Have you tried pulling a construction permit in California?
That's a large part of the reason people can't afford housing in California. It's practically impossible to build anything.
Yea I’m aware of the building costs out there and why it’s expensive to live there. I’m more so aiming at the principals of the matter rather than causality if that makes sense.
Re-noting - I’m not for giving housing away, but at the same time I can’t help but notice the problems the lack of housing is causing.
Yea I’m aware of the building costs out there and why it’s expensive to live there. I’m more so aiming at the principals of the matter rather than causality if that makes sense.
Re-noting - I’m not for giving housing away, but at the same time I can’t help but notice the problems the lack of housing is causing.
Government is causing high COL and you want businesses to pick up that slack and pay higher salaries ?
Direct your ire at the governments instead otherwise the sky is the limit with the governments.
Throwing more free money to lower income people and/or building more low-income housing will not solve the problem. Investors (mostly corporate investors) are buying out the homes and flipping them into rentals, thus creating even less 'affordable' housing. Neither middle-class working families nor lower income families on the dole can compete with cash-paying investors.
But we live in a capitalistic society and that is their choice if they want to buy up 10 houses on a city block. We may very well end up like Pottersville one day, though.
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.
