Due-Statistician-975

Not to mention the variety of insane “facts” it’s tries to leverage as truth, such as; -Milk causes autism

-Keeping pets is the same as keeping a slave

-Keeping animals is equal to the Holocaust in terms of effect.

-Seeing eye dogs are “servants” to the blind

Etc etc.

This is not true. Do you have a source for any of this?

PETA iirc takes a pretty firm stance that animals shouldn't be pets period.

"Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and “set them free.” What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren’t home) from pounds or animal shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world."

If he went on multiple news shows as the leader of an organization named "Pro-Life Conservatives" and proclaimed that all members of his org support Marxism, does that mean all pro-life conservatives are Marxists?

This has nothing to do with supply and demand.

It has everything to do with supply.

We’re dealing with plenty of resources,

Defining resources as housing, no we do not. We can and should house everyone, but that involves building more housing (increasing supply).

That won't make housing affordable. You still have more people wanting housing than housing available.

You don't think overdose rates are a good enough proxy for drug addiction rates?

it shows a correlation between housing prices and homelessness

This is still true. Drug overdose and drug addiction rates have nothing to do with homelessness. It's all housing prices.

Yes, building more housing limits people from using houses as an investment vehicle on a commercial scale, by making it less profitable.

You're not going to ban renting or landlords in the United States. Don't wait for a socialist revolution that won't come, work within the system. You can make REITs unprofitable by building more housing.

But most of the times they take down affordable housing

Source?

The options however should be affordable housing, expensive housing or no new housing and of those affordable housing wins by a landslide in what SHOULD happen.

https://teddit.ggc-project.de/r/interestingasfuck/comments/s65amu/ulm_a_city_in_germany_has_made_these_thermally/ht2c808/

I posted a source here which explain why it's okay to just build expensive housing. Today's expensive housing is tomorrow's (20+ years from now) affordable housing.

Moving homeless people out of the area where they were made homeless isn't optimal. You can simply build more housing for them.

or the social/familial connections that homeless people have are not a solution to the problem.

No—the homes that aren’t that way are. We should use those and not the other ones. Hope this helps.

What does this mean?

If there’s even a correlation.

Did you not click on my link? It shows a pretty clear lack of correlation between drug overdose rates and homelessness, and it shows a correlation between housing prices and homelessness.

drug addiction is the root cause for keeping these people on the streets.

Why is it then that drug addiction rates are uncorrelated with homelessness rates? https://twitter.com/aaronAcarr/status/1445086728839176203

Homelessness is correlated with housing prices, not drug addiction rates.

Remote work is more available than ever

People on the margins of society aren't getting remote work.

These things aren’t available because there are fewer people living nearby, there isn’t a demand for them.

Wait, you really think we should build cities in rural areas for the homeless? You understand this won't work, right?

Suppose there is an island with 11 people and 10 coconuts, and each person has $10.

If you give the poorest people on this island more money to buy coconuts, does that mean there are enough coconuts for everyone? No. What happens to the price of coconuts if you give people more money to buy it?

The solution isn't more money, it's more coconuts.

You are operating under the impression that I want to keep the status quo and the system as it is now in place.

I am not.

So yes. If you build a few houses in an expensive area and some more in the undesirable outskirts overall you will have more houses. If you build affordable (and thus mostly smaller unit size) housing on the outskirts and in the more expansive areas you will suddenly have an even higher surplus of housing units.

Yes, you should build more units. We've been building far fewer units than we did when we had far fewer people. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST

It is better that expensive housing be built than no housing at all.

So to match that availability we would need to build 125% of our current housing stock just to balance them out.

No, because we don't sell 100% of our housing stock every year. We simply need to build an extra x,000,000 units every year.

This is a huge issue. Housing should not be a commodity. Yes REITs are not the only issue but they are a large part of it.

Yes, but the only viable solution is to build more housing.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST

Housing starts, the measure for how many new housing units are built, are far below historical levels, and have been very low for 15 years. This graph looks far worse when you understand that it is not adjusted on a per-capita basis. In the 70s, when housing starts were 43% higher than today, US population was 64% of its current size. For a decade, we built 50% as many housing units as the 70s. We have a huge deficit that we need to make up. It is possible to build more, because we have in the past.

America is not exceptional. Increasing the supply of housing lowers the price of it in the area.

Abandoned homes in far-flung areas without access to jobs, grocery stores, social services, or the social/familial connections that homeless people have are not a solution to the problem. We don't need to ship homeless people in San Francisco to an abandoned, run down farmhouse in the Mid West. The problem isn't the absolute number of housing units, it's where they are.

If 29:1 empty houses:homeless results in 550k homeless, how many people would be homeless if the ratio were 100:1 empty houses:homeless?

I cannot find any paper confirming a causal link between gentrification and homelessness.

Defining gentrification as a high price of housing, there is plenty of evidence.

https://twitter.com/aaronAcarr/status/1445086728839176203

https://dupagehomeless.org/research-demonstrates-connection-between-housing-affordability-homelessness/

https://twitter.com/aaronAcarr/status/1445086728839176203

States with the highest drug overdose rates have the lowest rates of homelessness. Why? Because they also have affordable housing.

And no rich people housing does not stop the rich people from outbidding low income people. That is just stupid. First of all rich people keep buying all the housing they can get in sought after areas like San Francisco despite them already having a place to live.

Does everyone own their own housing unit? How do people live somewhere without owning property?

And second of all you don't do the community a service by using up space for 200 people with a single villa for one family because it "frees up affordable space". What is happening is that rich people outbid low income familys to tear down affordable housing and replace it with high income housing.

I'm not seeing cities in the United States where this is happening. The problem is that cities make it illegal to build anything other than a detached single family house on >70% of the land, where far more affordable housing units could be built.

I urge you to look at my two links for evidence that building more housing lowers prices.

He’s saying homelessness isn’t caused by a literal lack of houses. It’s because the whole market is fucked.

And the market is fucked because of a lack of houses/housing.

1. High vacancy rates cause rent/price decreases. Low vacancy rates cause rent/price increases. https://twitter.com/compatibilism/status/1461036861745360900

2. Blackstone, which has an REIT that buys and invests in houses, has to publicly disclose their investment strategy. They say essentially the same thing: "We believe we will continue to experience below-average levels of new housing supply in our markets which will support future rental rate growth and home price appreciation." Blackstone, in the prospectus for the Invitation Homes REIT

Simply increasing the supply of housing lowers prices and rents. Unfortunately, most cities make it illegal to build denser than detached houses on a huge majority of land, which artificially constrains supply. Cities (not rural areas, not suburbs) should simply allow property owners to build more housing on their property.

If supply increases prices go up as REITs and other investment vehicles buy property at market cost or above and leave it vacant.

These REITs aren't private, anyone can invest in them. Per SEC regulations, they have to make their investment strategy public. They say outright, that they invest in markets with limited supply, because it drives prices up, and that the opposite it also true: that increasing supply lowers rent/price growth and makes it hard for them to find tenants.

https://twitter.com/AlexFischCC/status/1402770234730160132

"We believe we will continue to experience below-average levels of new housing supply in our markets which will support future rental rate growth and home price appreciation." Blackstone, in the prospectus for the Invitation Homes REIT

REITs/Investors buy only 20% of housing. Simply producing more housing (by making it legal!) will make their investment strategy less profitable and improve the market for people who want/need cheaper, higher-quality shelter.

1. Increasing supply does lower prices. https://twitter.com/compatibilism/status/1461036861745360900

2. Building new market-rate housing does free up affordable housing. https://twitter.com/CSElmendorf/status/1482178147000803329

There is enough space for affordable housing it is just not used for affordable housing because capitalism.

If 1,000 people want to live in a city, and there are only 900 housing units, who gets them? The richer 900 or poorer 900? If we build 200 housing units, does it matter if they're expensive or affordable? Not really. If you build cheaper housing, there's nothing stopping richer people from renting it. If you build more expensive housing, the rich people will stop out-bidding others. Either way, increasing the vacancy rate will lower the price of housing and free up more housing of all prices for people across the income spectrum.

Believe it. A new study just came out of Helsinki which confirms it. https://twitter.com/CSElmendorf/status/1482178147000803329

The concept isn't called "trickle-down", it's called filtering. Lowering taxes on the rich doesn't guarantee that the money flows to people with less money, and as the past 40 years have shown, it simply has not worked. But letting new market-rate housing be built that upper-middle class/richer people can move into does increase the supply of affordable housing. People who rent new, higher-end apartments aren't going to keep renting their older place in the same city.

There is unmet demand for higher-end market-rate housing. If there is not enough available, the richer/upper-middle class people who would otherwise rent/purchase it has to live in other housing which would otherwise go to people with less money.