Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 23 2020 23:17 Simberto wrote: And even the "ma and pa" landlords are still quite often really greedy and inflate their rent as far as legally possible. Rents are generally rising very quickly in all major cities, which is something that really attacks the lifelyhood of those people who didn't have the foresight to be rich enough to be a part of the owner class.
I don’t know how much I blame the landlords for that, though. Rents are a market-driven factor, and the problem is the rise in housing prices in the desirable markets. I’d be more inclined to blame the consistently loose finance market for housing than the landlords for those prices; they’re just charging what the prices allow them to.
The landlords are the cause of the supply problems that drive the increased prices. Housing supply hasn't been able to keep pace with growth for decades now. If we wanted to solve the problem we'd look at a country like Japan, but the shortage is intentional because it serves the interests of the owners.
But this really ties to back to bad financial policy in this country. Invest in a house for retirement was the lie sold for decades. You can either vote NIMBY to secure that future you were sold or you can vote to have adequate supply, not have your investments pay off, and be less secure in the future. People have no problem looking out for themselves in this country.
I am almost fine with me paying part of the mortgage. However, I have no idea if the house I live in is mortgaged at all and I have never heard of someone getting a lower rent because the mortgage is finally paid off.
I'm really glad that there is a new sense of community in this crisis but I can't see it take hold afterwards.
On March 23 2020 23:17 Simberto wrote: And even the "ma and pa" landlords are still quite often really greedy and inflate their rent as far as legally possible. Rents are generally rising very quickly in all major cities, which is something that really attacks the lifelyhood of those people who didn't have the foresight to be rich enough to be a part of the owner class.
I don’t know how much I blame the landlords for that, though. Rents are a market-driven factor, and the problem is the rise in housing prices in the desirable markets. I’d be more inclined to blame the consistently loose finance market for housing than the landlords for those prices; they’re just charging what the prices allow them to.
The landlords are the cause of the supply problems that drive the increased prices. Housing supply hasn't been able to keep pace with growth for decades now.
Just wanted to zero-in on this. The first sentence is 100% correct imo, the second isn't. Every report I've seen says there is ample housing (several times more housing than houseless people). So the lack of supply in affordable housing is a direct result of hoarding and gouging by landlords, not a physical shortage.
Based on currently available numbers, there are about 31 vacant housing units for every homeless person in the U.S.
On March 23 2020 23:17 Simberto wrote: And even the "ma and pa" landlords are still quite often really greedy and inflate their rent as far as legally possible. Rents are generally rising very quickly in all major cities, which is something that really attacks the lifelyhood of those people who didn't have the foresight to be rich enough to be a part of the owner class.
I don’t know how much I blame the landlords for that, though. Rents are a market-driven factor, and the problem is the rise in housing prices in the desirable markets. I’d be more inclined to blame the consistently loose finance market for housing than the landlords for those prices; they’re just charging what the prices allow them to.
The landlords are the cause of the supply problems that drive the increased prices. Housing supply hasn't been able to keep pace with growth for decades now.
Just wanted to zero-in on this. The first sentence is 100% correct imo, the second isn't. Every report I've seen says there is ample housing (several times more housing than houseless people). So the lack of supply in affordable housing is a direct result of hoarding and gouging by landlords, not a physical shortage.
Sure. Let us just transport all the homeless to random locations throughout the entire United States to a house they have no desire or means to maintain. Your facts are meaningless.
When people talk about housing shortages, they're talking about major cities because that is where people want to live and work.
On March 23 2020 23:17 Simberto wrote: And even the "ma and pa" landlords are still quite often really greedy and inflate their rent as far as legally possible. Rents are generally rising very quickly in all major cities, which is something that really attacks the lifelyhood of those people who didn't have the foresight to be rich enough to be a part of the owner class.
I don’t know how much I blame the landlords for that, though. Rents are a market-driven factor, and the problem is the rise in housing prices in the desirable markets. I’d be more inclined to blame the consistently loose finance market for housing than the landlords for those prices; they’re just charging what the prices allow them to.
The landlords are the cause of the supply problems that drive the increased prices. Housing supply hasn't been able to keep pace with growth for decades now.
Just wanted to zero-in on this. The first sentence is 100% correct imo, the second isn't. Every report I've seen says there is ample housing (several times more housing than houseless people). So the lack of supply in affordable housing is a direct result of hoarding and gouging by landlords, not a physical shortage.
Sure. Let us just transport all the homeless to random locations throughout the entire United States to a house they have no desire or means to maintain. Your facts are meaningless.
It isn't true that they would have to move away from where they live either. The crashing of the air bnb market and desperation of the city/desirable property hoarders is laying that bare imo.
Austin Mao, who hosts 2,000 guests a month in his Las Vegas network of mansions, has slashed prices on the properties by 10 percent and plans to keep cutting as visitors dwindle.
And Tracey Northcott and her husband, who manage 12 vacation apartments in Tokyo, said the occupancy rate had gone from 80 percent to zero since January.
On March 23 2020 23:17 Simberto wrote: And even the "ma and pa" landlords are still quite often really greedy and inflate their rent as far as legally possible. Rents are generally rising very quickly in all major cities, which is something that really attacks the lifelyhood of those people who didn't have the foresight to be rich enough to be a part of the owner class.
I don’t know how much I blame the landlords for that, though. Rents are a market-driven factor, and the problem is the rise in housing prices in the desirable markets. I’d be more inclined to blame the consistently loose finance market for housing than the landlords for those prices; they’re just charging what the prices allow them to.
The landlords are the cause of the supply problems that drive the increased prices. Housing supply hasn't been able to keep pace with growth for decades now.
Just wanted to zero-in on this. The first sentence is 100% correct imo, the second isn't. Every report I've seen says there is ample housing (several times more housing than houseless people). So the lack of supply in affordable housing is a direct result of hoarding and gouging by landlords, not a physical shortage.
Sure. Let us just transport all the homeless to random locations throughout the entire United States to a house they have no desire or means to maintain. Your facts are meaningless.
It isn't true that they would have to move away from where they live either. The crashing of the air bnb market and desperation of the city/desirable property hoarders is laying that bare imo.
Austin Mao, who hosts 2,000 guests a month in his Las Vegas network of mansions, has slashed prices on the properties by 10 percent and plans to keep cutting as visitors dwindle.
And Tracey Northcott and her husband, who manage 12 vacation apartments in Tokyo, said the occupancy rate had gone from 80 percent to zero since January.
On March 23 2020 23:17 Simberto wrote: And even the "ma and pa" landlords are still quite often really greedy and inflate their rent as far as legally possible. Rents are generally rising very quickly in all major cities, which is something that really attacks the lifelyhood of those people who didn't have the foresight to be rich enough to be a part of the owner class.
I don’t know how much I blame the landlords for that, though. Rents are a market-driven factor, and the problem is the rise in housing prices in the desirable markets. I’d be more inclined to blame the consistently loose finance market for housing than the landlords for those prices; they’re just charging what the prices allow them to.
The landlords are the cause of the supply problems that drive the increased prices. Housing supply hasn't been able to keep pace with growth for decades now.
Just wanted to zero-in on this. The first sentence is 100% correct imo, the second isn't. Every report I've seen says there is ample housing (several times more housing than houseless people). So the lack of supply in affordable housing is a direct result of hoarding and gouging by landlords, not a physical shortage.
Sure. Let us just transport all the homeless to random locations throughout the entire United States to a house they have no desire or means to maintain. Your facts are meaningless.
It isn't true that they would have to move away from where they live either. The crashing of the air bnb market and desperation of the city/desirable property hoarders is laying that bare imo.
Austin Mao, who hosts 2,000 guests a month in his Las Vegas network of mansions, has slashed prices on the properties by 10 percent and plans to keep cutting as visitors dwindle.
And Tracey Northcott and her husband, who manage 12 vacation apartments in Tokyo, said the occupancy rate had gone from 80 percent to zero since January.
An anecdote about a couple people being over leveraged during a market crash isn't very convincing either.
The anecdote is an example, airbnb is imploding because its revenue comes from property hoarders renting desirable locations (cities being a major one) to luxury tourists. It speaks to a larger trend of people hoarding vacant luxury housing while it supplants affordable housing for the people that actually live/work in the city.
Approximately half of the luxury-condo units in Manhattan that have come onto the market in the past five years are still unsold.
On March 23 2020 23:17 Simberto wrote: And even the "ma and pa" landlords are still quite often really greedy and inflate their rent as far as legally possible. Rents are generally rising very quickly in all major cities, which is something that really attacks the lifelyhood of those people who didn't have the foresight to be rich enough to be a part of the owner class.
I don’t know how much I blame the landlords for that, though. Rents are a market-driven factor, and the problem is the rise in housing prices in the desirable markets. I’d be more inclined to blame the consistently loose finance market for housing than the landlords for those prices; they’re just charging what the prices allow them to.
I understand your resistance to appropriating surplus goods (in this case housing) but I'm just curious if there are any distinguishing features in your alternative prescription that differ significantly from how it was before these people needed government help/money to maintain ownership of those surplus goods (as is the case now or in the near future for those hoarding housing in this emergency).
There’s a difference between asking for government aid under normal conditions and being just generally squeezed out of property by government by one-sided protection. I wouldn’t expect government assistance to landlords if evictions weren’t suspended, but if said protection is desirable - that’s the government squeezing one side arbitrarily. I’m sure they would make do in a “pay or be evicted” scenario even now.
On March 23 2020 23:54 Simberto wrote: Yeah, but they could also not do that. They already own a property which gives them lots of money for basically zero work. They could charge less than the absolute maximum they can drain from some poor sob who wasn't lucky enough to buy a house 50 years ago when they were affordable.
Sounds like painting with broad strokes. Implies owning for five decades, in a region that’s highly desirable and growing, and also assuming it takes zero work. I’m sure those exist, but you’re generalizing far too much to be giving any useful suggestions.
On March 23 2020 23:17 Simberto wrote: And even the "ma and pa" landlords are still quite often really greedy and inflate their rent as far as legally possible. Rents are generally rising very quickly in all major cities, which is something that really attacks the lifelyhood of those people who didn't have the foresight to be rich enough to be a part of the owner class.
I don’t know how much I blame the landlords for that, though. Rents are a market-driven factor, and the problem is the rise in housing prices in the desirable markets. I’d be more inclined to blame the consistently loose finance market for housing than the landlords for those prices; they’re just charging what the prices allow them to.
The landlords are the cause of the supply problems that drive the increased prices. Housing supply hasn't been able to keep pace with growth for decades now.
Just wanted to zero-in on this. The first sentence is 100% correct imo, the second isn't. Every report I've seen says there is ample housing (several times more housing than houseless people). So the lack of supply in affordable housing is a direct result of hoarding and gouging by landlords, not a physical shortage.
Sure. Let us just transport all the homeless to random locations throughout the entire United States to a house they have no desire or means to maintain. Your facts are meaningless.
It isn't true that they would have to move away from where they live either. The crashing of the air bnb market and desperation of the city/desirable property hoarders is laying that bare imo.
Austin Mao, who hosts 2,000 guests a month in his Las Vegas network of mansions, has slashed prices on the properties by 10 percent and plans to keep cutting as visitors dwindle.
And Tracey Northcott and her husband, who manage 12 vacation apartments in Tokyo, said the occupancy rate had gone from 80 percent to zero since January.
An anecdote about a couple people being over leveraged during a market crash isn't very convincing either.
The anecdote is an example, airbnb is imploding because its revenue comes from property hoarders renting desirable locations (cities being a major one) to luxury tourists. It speaks to a larger trend of people hoarding vacant luxury housing while it supplants affordable housing for the people that actually live/work in the city.
Your article says that the housing was built for foreigners to park their oil money or hide it from the Chinese government. Those economies hit a speed bump and the housing has gone vacant. That's hardly the airbnb collapse you're trying to support.
I will support your desire to end money laundering and foreign wasted ownership, but that doesn't involve giving the homeless houses like you've started with.
Okay, my Irony Gauge is officially maxed out for 2020. The only way this could get any more Trumpian is if Trump renames Obamacare as "Trumpcare" and tries to take credit for- oh man, you know he's going to do that too, within a few months...
Trump officials weigh reopening Obamacare enrollment over coronavirus
The Trump administration is considering whether to create a special enrollment period for Obamacare coverage because of the coronavirus emergency, a CMS spokesperson confirmed.
A number of Democratic-leaning states that run their own health insurance marketplaces have recently reopened enrollment, encouraging uninsured residents to get covered amid the pandemic. Most states, however, use the federal marketplace overseen by the Trump administration, HealthCare.gov.
Major health insurance lobbies on Friday said they would support reopening enrollment in Obamacare markets if the government covered anticipated losses, despite some initial reluctance. Some insurers feared getting saddled with huge costs if many coronavirus patients signed up for coverage.
The insurer lobbies, America's Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, called on Congress this week to include funding in the upcoming coronavirus stimulus package to offset potential losses from covering more people.
The Wall Street Journal first reported the administration was weighing a special enrollment period.
A spokesperson for CMS, which oversees the insurance marketplaces, said people should also check HealthCare.gov to see if they already qualify for a special enrollment period because they lost their job or other circumstances.
On March 23 2020 23:17 Simberto wrote: And even the "ma and pa" landlords are still quite often really greedy and inflate their rent as far as legally possible. Rents are generally rising very quickly in all major cities, which is something that really attacks the lifelyhood of those people who didn't have the foresight to be rich enough to be a part of the owner class.
I don’t know how much I blame the landlords for that, though. Rents are a market-driven factor, and the problem is the rise in housing prices in the desirable markets. I’d be more inclined to blame the consistently loose finance market for housing than the landlords for those prices; they’re just charging what the prices allow them to.
The landlords are the cause of the supply problems that drive the increased prices. Housing supply hasn't been able to keep pace with growth for decades now.
Just wanted to zero-in on this. The first sentence is 100% correct imo, the second isn't. Every report I've seen says there is ample housing (several times more housing than houseless people). So the lack of supply in affordable housing is a direct result of hoarding and gouging by landlords, not a physical shortage.
Sure. Let us just transport all the homeless to random locations throughout the entire United States to a house they have no desire or means to maintain. Your facts are meaningless.
It isn't true that they would have to move away from where they live either. The crashing of the air bnb market and desperation of the city/desirable property hoarders is laying that bare imo.
Austin Mao, who hosts 2,000 guests a month in his Las Vegas network of mansions, has slashed prices on the properties by 10 percent and plans to keep cutting as visitors dwindle.
And Tracey Northcott and her husband, who manage 12 vacation apartments in Tokyo, said the occupancy rate had gone from 80 percent to zero since January.
An anecdote about a couple people being over leveraged during a market crash isn't very convincing either.
The anecdote is an example, airbnb is imploding because its revenue comes from property hoarders renting desirable locations (cities being a major one) to luxury tourists. It speaks to a larger trend of people hoarding vacant luxury housing while it supplants affordable housing for the people that actually live/work in the city.
Approximately half of the luxury-condo units in Manhattan that have come onto the market in the past five years are still unsold.
Your article says that the housing was built for foreigners to park their oil money or hide it from the Chinese government. Those economies hit a speed bump and the housing has gone vacant.
Yes, my argument is that property hoarders are supplanting affordable housing in populous areas to serve industries like airbnb as well as act as tokens of value for the ultra wealthy. Also that your position that the lack of housing is a physical issue is unsupported by the available information.
As another example we have San Francisco and the Bay Area:
the best available public figures, variable though they may be, do support the four-to-one claim. In fact, the entire Bay Area has far more empty houses than people without homes in 2019.
On March 24 2020 01:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Okay, my Irony Gauge is officially maxed out for 2020. The only way this could get any more Trumpian is if Trump renames Obamacare as "Trumpcare" and tries to take credit for- oh man, you know he's going to do that too, within a few months...
Trump officials weigh reopening Obamacare enrollment over coronavirus
The Trump administration is considering whether to create a special enrollment period for Obamacare coverage because of the coronavirus emergency, a CMS spokesperson confirmed.
A number of Democratic-leaning states that run their own health insurance marketplaces have recently reopened enrollment, encouraging uninsured residents to get covered amid the pandemic. Most states, however, use the federal marketplace overseen by the Trump administration, HealthCare.gov.
Major health insurance lobbies on Friday said they would support reopening enrollment in Obamacare markets if the government covered anticipated losses, despite some initial reluctance. Some insurers feared getting saddled with huge costs if many coronavirus patients signed up for coverage.
The insurer lobbies, America's Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, called on Congress this week to include funding in the upcoming coronavirus stimulus package to offset potential losses from covering more people.
The Wall Street Journal first reported the administration was weighing a special enrollment period.
A spokesperson for CMS, which oversees the insurance marketplaces, said people should also check HealthCare.gov to see if they already qualify for a special enrollment period because they lost their job or other circumstances.
Biden has started his "shadow" briefings. Seems pretty short, but I'm not sure if there's a need for a very long one if he's doing them daily. I think this is really the only main takeaway from it :
“Trump keeps saying that he’s a wartime president. Well, start to act like one,” Biden said. “To paraphrase a frustrated President Lincoln, writing to an inactive General McClellan during the Civil War, ‘If you don’t want to use the army, may I borrow it?'”
On March 24 2020 01:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Okay, my Irony Gauge is officially maxed out for 2020. The only way this could get any more Trumpian is if Trump renames Obamacare as "Trumpcare" and tries to take credit for- oh man, you know he's going to do that too, within a few months...
Trump officials weigh reopening Obamacare enrollment over coronavirus
The Trump administration is considering whether to create a special enrollment period for Obamacare coverage because of the coronavirus emergency, a CMS spokesperson confirmed.
A number of Democratic-leaning states that run their own health insurance marketplaces have recently reopened enrollment, encouraging uninsured residents to get covered amid the pandemic. Most states, however, use the federal marketplace overseen by the Trump administration, HealthCare.gov.
Major health insurance lobbies on Friday said they would support reopening enrollment in Obamacare markets if the government covered anticipated losses, despite some initial reluctance. Some insurers feared getting saddled with huge costs if many coronavirus patients signed up for coverage.
The insurer lobbies, America's Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, called on Congress this week to include funding in the upcoming coronavirus stimulus package to offset potential losses from covering more people.
The Wall Street Journal first reported the administration was weighing a special enrollment period.
A spokesperson for CMS, which oversees the insurance marketplaces, said people should also check HealthCare.gov to see if they already qualify for a special enrollment period because they lost their job or other circumstances.
Change the title add a couple new things and call it the best thing ever and we've done it. Essentially NAFTA -> USMCA all over.
In before Donald Trump invents, all by himself, a new, brilliant idea called the Affordable Care Act.
On March 24 2020 01:55 Nevuk wrote: Biden has started his "shadow" briefings. Seems pretty short, but I'm not sure if there's a need for a very long one if he's doing them daily. I think this is really the only main takeaway from it :
“Trump keeps saying that he’s a wartime president. Well, start to act like one,” Biden said. “To paraphrase a frustrated President Lincoln, writing to an inactive General McClellan during the Civil War, ‘If you don’t want to use the army, may I borrow it?'”
I appreciate his empathetic, measured, reassuring tone in this video (as opposed to Donald Trump's unhinged belligerence), but I think Biden also comes across as really tired and possibly even frail here.
On March 23 2020 23:17 Simberto wrote: And even the "ma and pa" landlords are still quite often really greedy and inflate their rent as far as legally possible. Rents are generally rising very quickly in all major cities, which is something that really attacks the lifelyhood of those people who didn't have the foresight to be rich enough to be a part of the owner class.
I don’t know how much I blame the landlords for that, though. Rents are a market-driven factor, and the problem is the rise in housing prices in the desirable markets. I’d be more inclined to blame the consistently loose finance market for housing than the landlords for those prices; they’re just charging what the prices allow them to.
The landlords are the cause of the supply problems that drive the increased prices. Housing supply hasn't been able to keep pace with growth for decades now.
Just wanted to zero-in on this. The first sentence is 100% correct imo, the second isn't. Every report I've seen says there is ample housing (several times more housing than houseless people). So the lack of supply in affordable housing is a direct result of hoarding and gouging by landlords, not a physical shortage.
Sure. Let us just transport all the homeless to random locations throughout the entire United States to a house they have no desire or means to maintain. Your facts are meaningless.
It isn't true that they would have to move away from where they live either. The crashing of the air bnb market and desperation of the city/desirable property hoarders is laying that bare imo.
Austin Mao, who hosts 2,000 guests a month in his Las Vegas network of mansions, has slashed prices on the properties by 10 percent and plans to keep cutting as visitors dwindle.
And Tracey Northcott and her husband, who manage 12 vacation apartments in Tokyo, said the occupancy rate had gone from 80 percent to zero since January.
An anecdote about a couple people being over leveraged during a market crash isn't very convincing either.
The anecdote is an example, airbnb is imploding because its revenue comes from property hoarders renting desirable locations (cities being a major one) to luxury tourists. It speaks to a larger trend of people hoarding vacant luxury housing while it supplants affordable housing for the people that actually live/work in the city.
Approximately half of the luxury-condo units in Manhattan that have come onto the market in the past five years are still unsold.
Your article says that the housing was built for foreigners to park their oil money or hide it from the Chinese government. Those economies hit a speed bump and the housing has gone vacant.
Yes, my argument is that property hoarders are supplanting affordable housing in populous areas to serve industries like airbnb as well as act as tokens of value for the ultra wealthy. Also that your position that the lack of housing is a physical issue is unsupported by the available information.
As another example we have San Francisco and the Bay Area:
the best available public figures, variable though they may be, do support the four-to-one claim. In fact, the entire Bay Area has far more empty houses than people without homes in 2019.
What makes you so confident that there isn't enough housing rather than people hoarding it?
I'd draw more attention to my desire/ability to maintain part of my statement. I can agree that there are more vacant houses than homeless, but I'd still consider it a meaningless fact until you can substantiate it in some way.
I do like you quoting the absolute worst statement possible in every article you post though. It makes reading them far more interesting please continue with your hyperbole as you do.
On March 23 2020 23:42 LegalLord wrote: [quote] I don’t know how much I blame the landlords for that, though. Rents are a market-driven factor, and the problem is the rise in housing prices in the desirable markets. I’d be more inclined to blame the consistently loose finance market for housing than the landlords for those prices; they’re just charging what the prices allow them to.
The landlords are the cause of the supply problems that drive the increased prices. Housing supply hasn't been able to keep pace with growth for decades now.
Just wanted to zero-in on this. The first sentence is 100% correct imo, the second isn't. Every report I've seen says there is ample housing (several times more housing than houseless people). So the lack of supply in affordable housing is a direct result of hoarding and gouging by landlords, not a physical shortage.
Sure. Let us just transport all the homeless to random locations throughout the entire United States to a house they have no desire or means to maintain. Your facts are meaningless.
It isn't true that they would have to move away from where they live either. The crashing of the air bnb market and desperation of the city/desirable property hoarders is laying that bare imo.
Austin Mao, who hosts 2,000 guests a month in his Las Vegas network of mansions, has slashed prices on the properties by 10 percent and plans to keep cutting as visitors dwindle.
And Tracey Northcott and her husband, who manage 12 vacation apartments in Tokyo, said the occupancy rate had gone from 80 percent to zero since January.
An anecdote about a couple people being over leveraged during a market crash isn't very convincing either.
The anecdote is an example, airbnb is imploding because its revenue comes from property hoarders renting desirable locations (cities being a major one) to luxury tourists. It speaks to a larger trend of people hoarding vacant luxury housing while it supplants affordable housing for the people that actually live/work in the city.
Approximately half of the luxury-condo units in Manhattan that have come onto the market in the past five years are still unsold.
Your article says that the housing was built for foreigners to park their oil money or hide it from the Chinese government. Those economies hit a speed bump and the housing has gone vacant.
Yes, my argument is that property hoarders are supplanting affordable housing in populous areas to serve industries like airbnb as well as act as tokens of value for the ultra wealthy. Also that your position that the lack of housing is a physical issue is unsupported by the available information.
As another example we have San Francisco and the Bay Area:
the best available public figures, variable though they may be, do support the four-to-one claim. In fact, the entire Bay Area has far more empty houses than people without homes in 2019.
What makes you so confident that there isn't enough housing rather than people hoarding it?
I'd draw more attention to my desire/ability to maintain part of my statement. I can agree that there are more vacant houses than homeless, but I'd still consider it a meaningless fact until you can substantiate it in some way.
I do like you quoting the absolute worst statement possible in every article you post though. It makes reading them far more interesting please continue with your hyperbole as you do.
My question is/was what data do you use to substantiate your position that there aren't more vacancies than homeless where the homeless are as originally stated:
Let us just transport all the homeless to random locations throughout the entire United States to a house they have no desire or means to maintain. Your facts are meaningless.
Or am I misunderstanding your position?
My Main point is that the 'housing shortage' is driven by property hoarders, not a lack of physical properties to house people where they live. People don't have to be priced out of affordable city housing by property hoarders is what I'm getting at, it's not that there aren't properties for people to live in.
Health officials in Nigeria have issued a warning over chloroquine after they said three people in the country overdosed on the drug, in the wake of President Trump's comments about using it to treat coronavirus.
A Lagos state official told CNN that three people were hospitalized in the city after taking the drug. Officials later issued a statement cautioning against using chloroquine for Covid-19 treatment.
US President Donald Trump claimed at a White House briefing last week that the Food and Drug Administration had approved the "very powerful" drug chloroquine to treat coronavirus.
Trump's endorsement of the drug led to a surge of interest among Nigerians keen to stock up on the medication, which has led to inevitable price hikes in the megacity of around 20 million inhabitants.
One man told CNN that in a pharmacy near his home on the Lagos mainland, he witnessed the price rise by more than 400% in a matter of minutes.
Kayode Fabunmi, a Lagos-based lawyer, said: "The pharmacist knew the market and was saying to every incoming customer, 'You know Donald Trump has said this thing cures coronavirus,' and the price kept changing.
The landlords are the cause of the supply problems that drive the increased prices. Housing supply hasn't been able to keep pace with growth for decades now.
Just wanted to zero-in on this. The first sentence is 100% correct imo, the second isn't. Every report I've seen says there is ample housing (several times more housing than houseless people). So the lack of supply in affordable housing is a direct result of hoarding and gouging by landlords, not a physical shortage.
Sure. Let us just transport all the homeless to random locations throughout the entire United States to a house they have no desire or means to maintain. Your facts are meaningless.
It isn't true that they would have to move away from where they live either. The crashing of the air bnb market and desperation of the city/desirable property hoarders is laying that bare imo.
Austin Mao, who hosts 2,000 guests a month in his Las Vegas network of mansions, has slashed prices on the properties by 10 percent and plans to keep cutting as visitors dwindle.
And Tracey Northcott and her husband, who manage 12 vacation apartments in Tokyo, said the occupancy rate had gone from 80 percent to zero since January.
An anecdote about a couple people being over leveraged during a market crash isn't very convincing either.
The anecdote is an example, airbnb is imploding because its revenue comes from property hoarders renting desirable locations (cities being a major one) to luxury tourists. It speaks to a larger trend of people hoarding vacant luxury housing while it supplants affordable housing for the people that actually live/work in the city.
Approximately half of the luxury-condo units in Manhattan that have come onto the market in the past five years are still unsold.
Your article says that the housing was built for foreigners to park their oil money or hide it from the Chinese government. Those economies hit a speed bump and the housing has gone vacant.
Yes, my argument is that property hoarders are supplanting affordable housing in populous areas to serve industries like airbnb as well as act as tokens of value for the ultra wealthy. Also that your position that the lack of housing is a physical issue is unsupported by the available information.
As another example we have San Francisco and the Bay Area:
the best available public figures, variable though they may be, do support the four-to-one claim. In fact, the entire Bay Area has far more empty houses than people without homes in 2019.
What makes you so confident that there isn't enough housing rather than people hoarding it?
I'd draw more attention to my desire/ability to maintain part of my statement. I can agree that there are more vacant houses than homeless, but I'd still consider it a meaningless fact until you can substantiate it in some way.
I do like you quoting the absolute worst statement possible in every article you post though. It makes reading them far more interesting please continue with your hyperbole as you do.
My question is/was what data do you use to substantiate your position that there aren't more vacancies than homeless where the homeless are as originally stated:
Let us just transport all the homeless to random locations throughout the entire United States to a house they have no desire or means to maintain. Your facts are meaningless.
Or am I misunderstanding your position?
My Main point is that the 'housing shortage' is driven by property hoarders, not a lack of physical properties to house people where they live. People don't have to be priced out of affordable city housing by property hoarders is what I'm getting at, it's not that there aren't properties for people to live in.
I cited Japan's situation originally which doesn't seem to be that different from what you're talking about. Of course you deleted it to score some points that there are in fact more homeless people than houses. Congrats.
EPT
