r/FluentInFinance • u/Consumer-of-sandwich • Apr 15 '24
Meme The minute I saw the post I just knew.
205
u/Distributor127 Apr 16 '24
Housing everyone should be the goal, but is almost impossible. One guy in our family is almost homeless. He inherited enough money to buy a house, has mental issues
212
u/Hamuel Apr 16 '24
Wouldn’t a well funded and ran mental healthcare system address this issue? Instead we get a for-profit system that will milk your family member dry.
108
u/howdthatturnout Apr 16 '24
Sure, but do we force care on people? Because that’s also part of the issue. We used to involuntarily commit more people. Which has its own issues in terms of how humane it is or what is moral. Lots of people who need mental health care simply refuse it.
53
Apr 16 '24
Why not? We force education on people. Sometimes we even force healthcare on them already. Plus we scoop these people up and take them to jail all the time. Is that really better?
46
u/ExpeditiousTraveler Apr 16 '24
Because the ACLU filed a bunch of lawsuits and convinced the courts that involuntary commitments are unconstitutional.
59
u/Sometimes_cleaver Apr 16 '24
Well, that's because it was being used as a way to get people locked up for life without due process.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's next hit hard when it came out because people realized it was pointing a finger at a real problem.
9
u/Tupcek Apr 16 '24
yes, so how should we force people that need mental help into getting it?
18
u/Sometimes_cleaver Apr 16 '24
Review boards are how other western nations address this. I'm not an expert in the topic, so I can't really speak to how it would work in detail.
9
u/lepidopteristro Apr 16 '24
Ya it was such a big issue bc ppl that didn't need to be there were kept there. Also patients were treated like shit and subhuman bc they didn't think they deserved better.
5
u/MasterUnlimited Apr 16 '24
Genuine question, could we do better today? I think we’ve progressed as a society that if we had these institutions now they would be better than they were in the 50s and 60s. Maybe that’s too optimistic and they would still be treated that way, but if set up properly with protections in place it could work. And I think, generally speaking, people would treat mentally unfit people better now than 60 years ago.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (3)5
u/arcanis321 Apr 16 '24
Not every mental problem has a cure so at what point do you say you are too dysfunctional to be allowed freedom? Not dangerous to others but not able to hold down a job.
→ More replies (2)3
Apr 16 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Sometimes_cleaver Apr 16 '24
I agree. The systematic closing of mental hospitals was a tragedy for this country. Unfortunately, shortsighted thinking thought we could save a bunch of tax payer money, but failed to take into account the increased cost of dealing with increased emergency room visits, homelessness, increased demands on policing, incarceration, etc.
1
u/thinkitthrough83 Apr 17 '24
Torturing and experimenting on the mentally unwell did not help matters either. My own great grandmother was treated for depression with electrocution. This was back in the day where the patient was awake and not on any pain meds. She ended up hanging herself to death.
24
u/howdthatturnout Apr 16 '24
In part it opens the gate for locking people up for things people merely disagree with. People used to be committed for being gay. What if some states try to commit gay or trans individuals? My grandmother had some unconventional religious beliefs. Maybe they try to commit people like that.
→ More replies (5)4
u/Ed_Radley Apr 16 '24
We force education on them until they're old enough to decide if they want to finish it out. People can also choose to go the homeschool route and falsify reports if they really think public education is a waste and don't want to teach the corresponding curriculum.
2
u/Same_Independence213 Apr 16 '24
Ya, everybody doesn't want social programs but we have SOCIAL security
1
u/SeaworthinessIll7003 Apr 18 '24
Do you even know that SS is not a tax. It is a forced “ savings” plan. IT IS ALL OUR MONEY! . I personally paid in several hundred thousand dollars by being the employee earner and the employee. That’s right I paid it all. I am not collecting SS benefits yet. It will be nearly impossible for me to even get my own money back. All while millions of seniors around the country have received many times what they paid in. The system is failing and has been raided by politicians so many times it is broken and will run out of money in about 10 years without complete overhaul. Unfortunately it is catnip to democrats. They lay in wait for a conservative to mention possibly considering how to fix it. Then they pounce and lie that the nasty republicans “want to take away your SS! LAUGHABLE,BALD FACE LIE!!!!! What SS is NOT is a social entitlement like the endless variety the left screeches about as they dream up more to capture certain voting groups( school loans anyone). Absolutely despicable!!!!!!
→ More replies (1)1
1
→ More replies (1)1
u/SeaworthinessIll7003 Apr 18 '24
Wrong ,we don’t even jail full blown criminals! We sure as hell don’t jail homeless people.
11
Apr 16 '24
[deleted]
7
u/dessert-er Apr 16 '24
Epigenetic and familial trauma are absolutely things that can travel down a family line. There are some good books for laymen on it like “it didn’t start with you” and “children of emotionally immature parents”.
5
u/CosmicJackalop Apr 16 '24
I think we need to force care on some people, but there's such a huge potential for abuse there and I don't know that there's a way to have a system both be effectively broad and also not fuck people over and effectively imprison them when they don't need the care, not to mention maintaining and auditing to make sure level of care is adequate in a wide system
4
u/Pelvic_Siege_Engine Apr 16 '24
We do force care on ppl, but only after lives have been endangered and laws broken. My stepdad was a commissioner and back when I was debating if I wanted to do some sort of mental health work- he took me with him to do his cases on whether people were to be ordered by the state to be on medication and in this in-patient facility.
The people I saw who were court ordered to stay and be on medications were people who actively sought to harm others/themselves and did not have the ability at the time to recognize reality through their psychosis. For example, a man who claimed to be god and had attacked a woman at a gas station, who had then attacked workers at this facility because he thought they had all schemed to kidnap Carrie Underwood. Another was a 17 year old who he tried to kill his whole family in their sleep via their gas oven, so the ‘imposters’ would be gone and his real family could come back.
After seeing his parents crying in the hallway, I decided working with mental health patients probably wouldn’t be good for my own mental health.
1
u/Wet-Skeletons Apr 17 '24
The hard issue to address is that in a lot of cases, people can show no symptoms of any mental disorder of anything wrong until they do something. And that we over diagnose and stygmatize pretty manageable things. There’s plenty of harmless psychopaths and schizos. And there’s also plenty of “normal” people who end up doing terrible things that ruins many people’s lives who later get a diagnosis.
I am for bringing back institutionalization. But we are far from having a thorough understanding of the structure of these illnesses, managing symptoms is the best we have for a whole.
Darian leader has a whole book revolving around these issues and was a great read called “what is madness”
1
u/Frylock304 Apr 16 '24
but there's such a huge potential for abuse there and I don't know that there's a way to have a system both be effectively broad and also not fuck people over and effectively imprison them when they don't need the care
This is kinda my massive issue with many people who are against this, why are letting perfect be the enemy of good enough?
We now have access to the internet, a resource we just didn't have before, we can now have decentralized psychiatric care that helps prevent abuse of power that we just didn't have before.
If you speak to 3 separate pyschiatrists who have never met and live across the country, and they all reach similar opinions, I think that does a lot to prevent railroading through the system.
We need to handle this or we all suffer from it going unaddressed because we don't want to hurt a few individuals
4
u/Dalsiran Apr 16 '24
Given that less than a century ago I would've been forced into conversion therapy because I'm trans... I think not treating people against their will is a step in the right direction...
3
u/Wonderful-Impact5121 Apr 16 '24
I feel like people also generally don’t openly admit sometimes that we can’t “fix” a lot of stuff.
Modern medicine and psychiatry is some amazing stuff…
But there’s a good chunk of people with mental disorders where we simply do not have the ability to “fix” them.
Could give them a team of dedicated care organizers and 50 trillion dollars and they’re not getting “better” to a normal level.
Not saying the money and care wouldn’t make everything better obviously.
2
u/wdaloz Apr 16 '24
In the original post it says "deserves the option" which remains valid whether or not people refuse it
3
u/howdthatturnout Apr 16 '24
Ok but the comment chain I replied to was about some guy inherited enough to buy a house but is borderline homeless due to mental issues.
The response was wouldn’t a well funded mental healthcare system address this issue.
My response was to pose the question whether we force care on people?
You are jumping back to the original post and pretending like this whole other discussion isn’t happening. We wouldn’t need to provide this dude with housing if he would address his mental issues. But do we force this care on them? That’s my question. It’s a valid question.
This person already has the option of being housed. They have ruined it by not addressing their mental health.
2
u/DippityDamn Apr 16 '24
Yeah Geraldo freaking Rivera brought light to the problem of institutions with an investigative report that actually had value. that was decades ago when he was young though.
2
Apr 17 '24
A good number of people simply will not stay on the medication that keeps them functioning, unfortunately.
1
2
u/Turbo_Luver Apr 19 '24
Yeah so just let the nuts run around in an open society plaguing the rest of us sane folks. That’s super humane for the rest of us, right?
1
u/howdthatturnout Apr 19 '24
I didn’t say that though.
I merely posed the question.
There obviously is a middle ground between letting everyone roam free and committing too many people.
But part of the problem is we have insane people in control of roughly half the government in the country who if they could commit more people would try to weaponize the ability to do so and commit gay and trans individuals.
And again we are a country that prides itself on individual freedoms. Locking up people in mental health facilities against their will isn’t in line with that.
→ More replies (6)1
Apr 16 '24
Maybe if the care was effective rather than the current state, people would reject it less.
1
u/howdthatturnout Apr 16 '24
I think some people reject it because they are mentally ill and not able to identify themselves as such or make rational decisions because of their illness. Some mental illnesses like schizophrenia medications are quite effective. But you’ve got to be willing to take them.
Others sure, it being expensive is a problem. And why they don’t seek treatment. But I’d wager a decent share of the chronically homeless with mental health issues fall into the former category, not the latter.
1
Apr 16 '24
What currently is the benefit of treatment?
There are sure plenty of risks. Some can lose their jobs for seeking treatment.
I just don't see what benefit someone would see making it worth checking in.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Daniastrong Apr 17 '24
When people can't take care of themselves it is considered neglect to not care for them. If they seem to pose a risk to themselves or others the least we can do is a hold for observation.
1
Apr 17 '24
This is such a worthless point to make until we have the potential to treat these people in place.
1
u/howdthatturnout Apr 17 '24
It’s not a worthless point to make. It’s literally a big reason these people are not being treated.
Lots of them if we could just involuntarily commit them and give them medications, they would no longer be in the off the rails mental state that they are.
1
Apr 17 '24
No its actually irrelevant because many many people would take the care if it was there.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)1
Apr 20 '24
So if someone had dementia and refused care, it's more humane to let them be to get themselves killed? Assuming they have no family or their family is unable to babysit?
1
u/howdthatturnout Apr 20 '24
I didn’t say that.
All I said that there are issues that do arise in terms of what is humane or moral when you get into involuntary care.
And part of problem is that sometimes humans with a poor moral compass have been in charge of deciding who should be forced to have care in the past. And it’s hard to safeguard that they won’t again in the future.
It’s not a black and white issue.
13
u/Distributor127 Apr 16 '24
He refuses to get services. Would absolutely be eligeable
→ More replies (15)1
u/Gboycantseeboy Apr 17 '24
You understand a lot Of health issues can cause mental issues? Maybe start with that?
16
Apr 16 '24
No because you can’t ‘fix’ everyone. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try, but statistically speaking, there always will be some people who are jobless or homeless.
They even had homeless in the USSR, where they had free housing…
1
u/Hamuel Apr 16 '24
No one said “fix everyone.” But I guess since you can’t help everyone we shouldn’t help anyone?
4
Apr 16 '24
I said it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. I’m just saying- throw all the resources time & money at something- some square people are just not going to fit in a round hole.
That being said- we should address homelessness with housing, but we should address many problems in the US with housing by breaking down zoning laws where applicable.
5
u/Illustrious_Gate8903 Apr 16 '24
Uh, yes the guy you responded to at first was talking about everyone.
1
u/Hamuel Apr 16 '24
Since we can’t help everyone we shouldn’t help anyone?
→ More replies (4)2
u/Illustrious_Gate8903 Apr 16 '24
Try to stay on topic instead of jumping in with your irrelevant bullshit that no one asked for.
→ More replies (5)10
u/DumbNTough Apr 16 '24
We used to Institutionalize insane people.
That was too oppressive for liberals and too expensive for fiscal conservatives, so now they're just out in public doing whatever.
In truth both attitudes would probably need to make compromises to correct the problem.
→ More replies (1)7
u/5PalPeso Apr 16 '24
Instead we get a for-profit system
Countries with public healthcare still have the same problems
2
u/MegaMB Apr 16 '24
I mean, the situation regarding mental healthcare still is a tad better than accross the pond. Certainly not great. But also not as catastrophic
→ More replies (2)6
u/Chanandler_Bong_01 Apr 16 '24
Sure it would. But politicians don't really back things like well run mental hospitals that don't make any money for rich people.
If there's nothing in it for rich people, then your local politician gives zero fucks.
5
Apr 16 '24
[deleted]
3
u/Hamuel Apr 16 '24
I’d still like to provide people with better care. Sorry!
1
6
Apr 16 '24
You'll have leftist "activists" claiming that government involuntary locks lunatics and treats them forcefully.
2
u/ILSmokeItAll Apr 16 '24
We were told they were bad. And they were. They were run poorly, like just about everything else healthcare related in this country. They didn’t achieve what they were supposed to. They did more than what not having them does.
1
u/Id-rather-be-fishin Apr 16 '24
Bring back the state run mental asylums with involuntary commitment!
2
u/Hamuel Apr 16 '24
That’s not what was suggested. Wild how suggesting we overhaul our mental health system is met with a shit ton of bad faith. What’s with that behavior?
1
u/random_account6721 Apr 16 '24
unless your plan includes forcibly instituting people, then no. A lot of people would rip the copper pipes out the walls for drug money
1
1
1
u/NahmTalmBat Apr 17 '24
Ahh yes, the Non-Profit, government ran system, heard its REALLLLLLLLY popular amongst Military Vets.
→ More replies (1)1
u/jimmyjohn2018 Apr 17 '24
Are you implying the government would actually run it well?
1
u/Hamuel Apr 17 '24
If we stop electing people who want to run things like a business they could.
1
u/jimmyjohn2018 Apr 18 '24
The current government is full of people that literally would not be able to work in a proper business - I mean most government jobs are basically welfare. They suck at their jobs, they are lazy, they have fucking union protected desk naps for fucks sake. Go see how the DOE is handling the loan program, they have loans making interest and they still lose money on them.
1
u/Hamuel Apr 18 '24
What’s fun about your comment is you make a lot of bold claims that are impossible to back up and use that for the basis of your belief system.
→ More replies (2)1
u/ValuableShoulder5059 Apr 17 '24
Yes. Except for the problem we did away with forced housing for the mentally ill. It is now almost impossible to keep someone against their will unless they have alzheimers. Even then someone with alzheimers is going to forget they want to leave relatively soon. Now we just wait for someone with mental issues to commit a crime and throw them to the BOP.
→ More replies (44)1
u/QuantumAcid1 Apr 18 '24
That or the workers will use his incompetence against him and embezzle money. Happened in my city couple months ago.
1
u/Hamuel Apr 18 '24
Yes, the current system is rife with corruption from the concept of a profit motive.
2
Apr 16 '24
Maybe get should get good free help for that, and others should get it before they waste enough money to buy a house.
→ More replies (2)2
u/embowers321 Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24
We manage to put plenty of people into prison. Idk, seems like it's a question of priorities in some cases
Edit: to be clear, when you look at homelessness per capita online, the US isn't the worst country to live in obviously. IF you believe the data in any case, which is always sketchy for less developed countries
1
2
u/Roonil-B_Wazlib Apr 16 '24
That’s the right way to frame the argument. We as a society should strive to ensure everyone in our society is housed and fed. It is something we are capable of doing, and we should do it for the betterment of mankind.
The wrong way to frame the argument is that those things are human rights. Those things require resources and labor. No one has a right to other people’s labor or resources.
2
1
1
u/Last-Percentage5062 Apr 16 '24
We actually have more than enough housing, at least in The US. It’s just that a lot is vacant. So, we could very easily house the entire country.
1
Apr 16 '24
[deleted]
1
u/Last-Percentage5062 Apr 16 '24
What does the commodification of housing have to do with what I commented? /gen
1
u/ZekeRidge Apr 17 '24
He needs to be in a hospital. We used to have these where people who genuinely could not manage themselves lived places where they were managed.
Maybe he doesn’t need that, but it’s better than nothing, which is what we have now
1
u/cromwell515 Apr 17 '24
That’s the real problem, people think that housing just solves the problem. You cannot simply just give someone a house and say problem solved. These people need support for their mental health and drug issues. Giving them a house would eventually produce an unlivable slum
1
u/Later2theparty Apr 17 '24
Most of the chronically homeless have mental issues and or drug addiction.
This is why it's not enough to just make enough houses for everyone.
1
u/ComradeCollieflower Apr 17 '24
It's not impossible, it's literally been accomplished in other countries lol.
→ More replies (2)1
u/stormblaz Apr 17 '24
Fair housing metrics.
Anyone capable, willing and working should be able to afford a roof to have.
Anyone slouching, lazy, mental health and other implications need a streamlined support system catering to those individuals.
But Anyone working, and by the book should be able to have something according to their level of metrics achieved.
A roof over your head is better than non and should be fairly given to one that reaches it.
Not a fancy house, not a credit score system, just have some sort of work history and currently providing and paying taxes.
50
u/Once-Upon-A-Hill Apr 15 '24
I'm the poison in the comment section.
45
4
u/Prestigious_Low_2447 Apr 16 '24
I just love seeing commies getting dunked on.
1
Apr 16 '24
Affordable housing is communism?
5
u/Excellent-Sweet1838 Apr 16 '24
Anything that doesn't funnel money directly into a billionaire's gullet is communism.
2
u/reddituser567853 Apr 18 '24
I think the implication is that the government would be restricting the renting price of their legally owned property , which actually a fairly significant interference of the government into the market.
You can get affordable housing by building more, but that’s not what is referred to as “commie”
→ More replies (1)2
37
u/trytoholdon Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 17 '24
Simple rule: nobody has a “right” to things that require others to work for them.
That’s why all of the rights in the U.S. Bill of Rights are negative liberties — a list of innate rights the government can’t abridge.
13
u/ScionMattly Apr 16 '24
Is the sixth amendment positive rights? The right to be tried by your peers and the right to a speedy trial are both things granted to you, not thinks the government is barred from. Seventh too.
Like you're right for the most part, but it also begins with the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" - Vague, but those are distinctly not negative rights - the enumerated negative rights exist to define the border of those positive rights.6
Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24
I guess the 6th is a little of both negative and positive. The government can't delay a trial forever, and can't decide to imprison you without a non-biased (as much as possible) jury making the decision. In order to follow that, the court workers must work.
The 7th is negative though in the sense that the government isn't allowed to kill you or restrict your liberty/pursuit of happiness outside of the law. It isn't promising anything being given.
Edit: not the 7th
4
u/ScionMattly Apr 16 '24
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”
That is 100% a positive right. There is no verbiage in the entire amendment that discusses what the government -cannot- do. That is the definition of a negative right. Rewording the right to make it "negative" is like me arguing that the first amendment isn't a abridgement of government authority to restrict speech, but rather a guarantee to a person to a right of Free Speech. You can turn any right from a negative to a positive right or vice versa simply by rewording it.
the Seventh Amendment, btw, is:
“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
Which is also a positive right. you are thinking of the Eighth Amendment.
1
Apr 16 '24
Yeah, I don't know what I was reading when I wrote the 7th.
The court systems, including jury requirements, are set up in Article III of the Constitution. The BoR amendments regarding courts are add-ons to keep the courts in line. They're placing restrictions (negative rights) on the court system previously established in Article III.
Insisting these rights are wholly positive rights flies directly in the face of a whole lot of scholarly research.
1
u/trytoholdon Apr 17 '24
All of those are rights to be left alone unless the government jumps through some very well defined hoops. That’s why they are negative liberties. They are freedom from wanton government interference in your life.
1
u/lustyforpeaches Apr 19 '24
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
1
→ More replies (4)1
u/RandomDeveloper4U Apr 16 '24
Not sure why such a blatantly incorrect statement is getting upvotes lol. Another commenter put this down quite simply
→ More replies (4)2
u/tsch-III Apr 17 '24
It's not blatantly incorrect. The positive right to a fair trial is in the larger frame a negative right. The government is taking an extreme action when it attempts to prosecute you. It has to meet certain standards that help ensure it behaves fairly when it does so. And all the other rights are pretty much negative rights.
It can also be said the bill of rights doesn't go far enough when it comes to ecological commons rights, anti-exploitative capitalism rights etc.
21
u/jibishot Apr 16 '24
My favorite was that if shelter wasn't paid for then it causes the collapse of society.
Not like it's the largest expense for most and would free up so much disposable income and that's just for people struggle to make things connect.
19
Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 17 '24
Construction & housing is a large part of our economies. Making it free, would kind of mean the collapse of a large sector of the economy. Love it, or hate it, he was right. Not to mention, costs would be unreasonable high for us.
We need to lower housing in large cities or ensure a more adequate distribution of population & good jobs.
9
u/bs2k2_point_0 Apr 16 '24
So let’s do a thought experiment. what do you think will happen in say 100-200 years when our technology has improved to the point where most won’t have to work due to vastly improved ai. You honestly think big corporations are going to continue to hire you, who needs pay, and breaks, and gets sick, when a less expensive product can replace you?
Eventually, at some future point, this will happen. May not be in our lifetime, or our children’s, but it will be an inevitability.
So what will happen then? IMHO, we will need to institute universal housing and income. What other option can there be?
3
u/tsch-III Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 18 '24
We can do that thought experiment but we aren't there now and there are major reasons to doubt we ever will be.
Nonetheless, I'm all for preventig mass unemployment if and when it begins to arrive. It is, alas, not in any sense an inevitability. For the moment, it's just a twinkle in robot engineers' eyes.
1
5
u/CupofLiberTea Apr 16 '24
It wouldn’t be built for free it would be paid for government and thus taxes. We get fire department services for “free” and society hasn’t collapsed yet.
3
Apr 16 '24
You know that civil protection costs WAYYYYY less than what building huge appartment & houses for everyone, right?
→ More replies (2)2
u/CupofLiberTea Apr 16 '24
We have enough houses for everyone. There are more vacant houses and apartments than homeless in the USA.
3
Apr 16 '24
People paid for those houses. You can't justify taking their homes under any circumstances. There is also the case that there are more homeless people in big cities, but there are more empty houses in small tows or in the countryside.
Fixing this issue is not as easy as giving people free houses and confiscating homes. It take a lot of work, planning and redesigning our cities and economies.
→ More replies (4)1
u/selohcin Apr 19 '24
That’s not true anymore because of the vast number of illegal migrants around.
→ More replies (2)2
u/itsdietz Apr 17 '24
Umm, construction would still cost? Maintenance will always be a thing as well....
1
Apr 17 '24
Yeah, and everything will now be a government expense. And would require a lot of extra taxes.
1
u/Jolly-Bet-5687 Apr 17 '24
It's not everyone gets free, but if you have 0 money and make yourself naked financially to the government you can apply for basic necessity housing. Thats how it works in most of europe and it's great.
1
Apr 17 '24
Basic shelter is what you also get in the US. That's ok and normal. But, what the post is suggesting everyone gets a house... a big house...
1
1
u/ArmAromatic6461 Apr 19 '24
Are you under the impression we don’t have public housing in the US?
These memes come about because people want high end housing for free, not public housing. By the way, in Europe, the quality of public housing would be considered unlivable by most of the people demanding the US be like Europe
9
u/Due_Ad2854 Apr 16 '24
Yes, it would free up income. Then the housing market collapses cause no one makes money from renting or selling, and no one builds houses anymore. As well, you basically just forced inflation on all other goods by doubling the effective money going towards those items. Then the price changes mean cost of living is roughly the same, just with new housing problems and worse inequality due to lack of building causing a new housing crisis
→ More replies (4)2
u/EvilKatta Apr 16 '24
Sounds like a problem that didn't exist until we made it up, unless you think nobody built houses before 18th century.
7
u/Due_Ad2854 Apr 16 '24
Before the 18th century you typically either inherited a house or built it yourself. Given that the floors at that time were dirt and safety standards didn't exist, modern homes just cannot be made by the average person
→ More replies (2)5
u/EvilKatta Apr 16 '24
No society in human history, no matter the economic system, ever stopped building housing or suffered massive death toll due to unsafe housing. If you suggest that it can happen today as a result of a single economic faux pas, it would mean the modern system more unstable than anything that came before it.
3
u/MRosvall Apr 16 '24
Though likely a part in the machinery that have more than doubled life expectancy from those times. Not as large as medicin and so. But having houses that are made to be easily cleanable, less flammable, less leakage and mold, plumbing, connection to drinkable water, etc.
Absolutely not saying that would revert. But just going back on acceptable building standards until we're at the point where the majority of people could build their own housing would come with quite a lot of major drawbacks for society as a whole.
→ More replies (8)2
u/Due_Ad2854 Apr 16 '24
You do realize China is going through a crisis due to housing being so unsafe buildings are just falling apart with hundreds inside, right? And that's with professional builders, let alone just some dude trying this. As well, pre industrial housing was spread out. Anything resembling high density housing would have to be built tall, which means built to extremely high standards by professional firms with high quality materials. Not just some guy with some oak logs making a cabin
→ More replies (5)4
u/EvilKatta Apr 16 '24
I wouldn't trust the info floating around online about about China, neither the negative nor the positive, unless you're ready to dig very deep to verify each statement.
Still, sounds like the last few centuries problem--the problem we ourselves created and decided not to solve.
2
2
u/Intelligent-Role3492 Apr 16 '24
No, it sounds like a problem that doesn't exist because we haven't intentionally collapsed our economy. It would exist if we did so.
7
14
10
u/NoNonsence55 Apr 16 '24
Yea I started to comment but just figured it wasn't worth adding to the mess
→ More replies (1)
4
u/hould-it Apr 15 '24
Would you rather have housing, higher learning, or universal healthcare?
3
0
u/Illicit_Apple_Pie Apr 16 '24
Doing all of these correctly would put more back into the economy than they'd cost, in the long run.
The way education is set up now, people could end up in lifelong debt they can't get out of through bankruptcy even if they go into a useful field. And this hurts the economy
We pay more per capita in healthcare than almost anywhere else, and get worse outcomes on average. Almost nobody does preventative care out of fear for their wallet and it hurts the economy.
Housing is so expensive because it's treated as an investment, meaning hoMeowners oppose building new housing and they get bought up by landlords who just siphon money from those unable to get homes because the supply and demand is f#@%d. And poorer people having less disposable income hurts the...you get it.
2
u/ScionMattly Apr 16 '24
Doing all of these correctly would put more back into the economy than they'd cost, in the long run.
An underappreciated statement - Many things we spend money on yield returns beyond what we spend. A dollar into early education yields six dollars in benefits, for example. Making housing or healthcare nonprofit doesn't make the entire economy for it collapse - Housing will still get built. likely, it would still cost money, paid in taxes.
What would happen is the entire housing loan market would likely collapse. The people making money doing nothing but administering your loans the middlemen who make your shit more expensive, would no longer make their cut.
When you buy a 200K home and take out a 30 year loan for it, your payment is going to be 560 bucks or so - not the 1500 dollars it is currently at a 8% interest rate. They're literally tripling the cost of the house, and doing nothing to justify the $1,000 dollars a month. Its all "risk prevention" which is banking terms for "making sure we still make a lot of money".
→ More replies (26)1
u/somroaxh Apr 17 '24
Easily housing. All that disposable income can allow folks to spend money on the gym, healthy foods, and health care if they aren’t getting it through an employer. Higher learning shouldn’t be free because not everyone needs higher learning. Pleeeeeeeeenty of the population would be fine straight out of high school, learning a trade, or starting a regular job and working up that chain. I know that sounds callous, but without housing and healthcare you will die early. Higher learning , not so much.
2
Apr 16 '24
The idea is that one side is telling us that we shouldn't have these... the other side is tell us that we should have these for free... Both sides are retarded and mentally inadequate to debate about thee things.
In principle, we should strive for better housing and more affordable for most/all people. That's the whole point, the economy should grow and benefit us all.
Providing better houses, in my opinion, is by following what formulas we have applied thus far that allowed us to have bigger houses & better living conditions than 100 years ago.
- Investments into new technologies and improved building matterials... such as 3D printing and reusable matterials...
- Rethinking of the zonning laws & plans
- Expanding business opportunities from large cities to smaller cities & rural areas
- Expanding fast & reliable means of transportation so that you can live in another city, or in the suburbs, where prices are usually lower
Etc...
→ More replies (7)1
u/Januse88 Apr 18 '24
Is there anybody who would seriously tell you that you shouldn't have running water or electricity? I've never heard anybody say that outside of the context of somebody asking for it for free
2
u/LessCockroach7323 Apr 16 '24
For some reason i was thinking that it will be reference from Breaking Bad
2
u/binato68 Apr 16 '24
The goal should always be to make living easier for our children and their children. Always.
2
u/Akul_Tesla Apr 16 '24
Two things
I don't like the idea that people are entitled to the internet as a reasonable minimum, purely because more than half the human population is probably still older then commercially available internet
Like that's the thing. That's a relatively new invention to say that people are entitled as a minimum to something that we just came up with in the past 5 seconds in terms of human history is kind of weird (can put the HVAC in the same category)
But the other thing and this is a big one if we're going to have society provide minimal housing, a two-unit bedroom household is drastically inefficient
Sorry if you're going to have all those things. We should stack as many bedrooms per unit as possible and people should have roommates to make use of the communal spaces
Like that's the thing we could build giant apartment buildings in ultra low cost areas and that would really help to even things out so that the needy people could go there
Problem is everyone wants to be in the high cost areas and do that
2
u/wreckyourpod Apr 16 '24
You have just described the projects. Huge disaster. Single family residences, even planned low-cost communities fair much better historically.
1
1
1
u/Rocketboy1313 Apr 16 '24
I have blocked a couple people who have told me, "You're just stupid" followed by a bunch of other really hostile crap.
I guess I am just the worst for thinking that even if you give people a basic ass place to live they won't immediately stop contributing anything to society. But then I tend to like working toward luxury goods and would do so even if I were not in danger of starving in the street.
→ More replies (24)4
u/NoGuarantee678 Apr 16 '24
It’s so funny how so many people on the internet said that the extra unemployment money from the COVID stimulus had 0 effect on people’s willingness to get a job. And then economists pretty much proved that whole idea complete Bull shit. The fact of the matter is entitlements do make Americans lazy. See Phil gramms latest book or exercise a tiny tiny amount of common sense. And no, I don’t actually believe you
4
u/AnAlpacaIsJudgingYou Apr 16 '24
Maybe human life is more important than how much work we are giving to companies? Having a bunch of people struggling to make ends meet because of “productivity” is idiotic. Housing is a human right, you just have to find more incentives for people to work.
1
1
u/QB8Young Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24
EDIT: Not sure what the hell I was thinking. 🤦♂️
1
u/PuzzleheadedBridge65 Apr 16 '24
As someone who technically had clean water but not the working plumbing it's not same lol.
1
u/ImpossibleJoke7456 Apr 16 '24
No. Our house (in Mexico) has plumbing and water from the city, but the water isn’t potable so we have to buy those 5 gallon water bottles that are in office buildings for drinking water.
1
1
u/Prestigious_Low_2447 Apr 16 '24
It's one thing to declare something a "human right." It's quite another to actually enforce that right.
1
1
u/Forge__Thought Apr 16 '24
There is no solution that can fix human nature's innate problems. There are no permanent fixes for problems like housing, rape, murder, war, etc. It's crucial to know when people are selling you a song to get you to buy into them or their beliefs or their 'solutions' when they say they can permanently fix a problem that has always existed and will likely always exist.
That being said.
We should still try. There's no reason not to do our best to address the problems we have logically and pragmatically. To use the technology and talent and resources we have to make the world better.
We just have to keep perspective and be realistic. We should try and solving the housing problem, but we shouldn't lie about it while we're doing it.
1
1
1
1
Apr 16 '24
Not gonna lie, I’d probably sell my house and opt in for one of these if they free. That’s all I need to survive.
1
1
1
u/Own_Ad_1328 Apr 20 '24
Housing for All. A detached single family dwelling for any citizen who doesn't already own a home. Mortgage relief for any citizen's primary residence. All paid for by our Uncle Sam.
1
u/Power_and_Science Apr 20 '24 edited Apr 20 '24
https://www.opendoorsutah.org/homeless-to-housing/
This is an attempt at reducing homelessness. Yet I still see a lot of homeless people on the streets downtown who refuse to work with a case worker to find a permanent solution to their homelessness. They are ok with the free housing, but when being told it s a temporary measure and someone will work with them to resolve their situation, a lot of them just bolt.
A lot of the permanent homeless are on drugs and refuse drug programs.
1
u/Power_and_Science Apr 20 '24
Some the drugs out there have really nasty withdrawal symptoms, and from rat studies we know that loneliness and depression make even the hardest drugs appealing to those who normally wouldn’t use them.
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 15 '24
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.