The tariffs would be a huge problem. So much is imported and we don’t make much here anymore. Not do we have the capacity to just turn it on. The tariffs were a big reason why the Depression went as it did.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Printable View
The tariffs would be a huge problem. So much is imported and we don’t make much here anymore. Not do we have the capacity to just turn it on. The tariffs were a big reason why the Depression went as it did.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
So there really is a housing shortage some places and there isn't much solution to that except build more housing (unless you massively redistribute where the population lives so that housing distribution near perfectly matches people distribution. I mean there may not be a nationwide shortage but if the houses and people are in different places, it obviously does no good. And the population has chosen where to live based on existing incentives, whether it's jobs or whatever).
But we mostly need multi-family housing not more single family houses. So this agenda doesn't sell me at all. If they give out incentives for anything let it be density and multi-family housing.
Indeed. Imagine if we even remotely held both candidates to the same standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
If we’re going to discuss Kamala’s economic proposals let’s also discuss the moronic economic plans trump is proposing.
Why is building more housing not the answer to the cost of housing? Economics 101 says it is. And most construction today uses sustainably managed forests. The old growth wood has already been used up.
My humble solution is to let the laws of supply and demand find parity pricing. There are actually large areas of the country where housing is quite reasonable, but a lack of industry to support robust employment and a strong local tax base. I put the $25,000 incentive in the same boat as student loan forgiveness. It may buy votes, but it's not something I agree with. But like they say, it's better than the Trump/Vance alternatives.
I think incentivizing builders to build scads of new housing irrespective of the true demand is not the answer. I say let the market dictate housing development.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
And as far as old-growth forests, there are pockets of old-growth forest left in the US (6% of all the forested areas), and those pockets are constantly under attack by private enterprise and local stewards of the forests who find themselves willing to sell out to the developers. In my state of Vermont for instance, I am part of a group that is fighting the sale of a portion of the Green Mountains to loggers because there is old-growth forest in that area. Nothing can replace old-growth forests for maintaining the integrity of the eco-system and sequestering carbon.
It is imperative to protect those trees; it is even part of the national agenda. But you and I know that money wins the day so people need to pay attention to the corporate entities that see only dollar signs and have the political clout to rape the land with no consideration to what we lose in the process.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...rowth-forests/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...-system-lands/
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...tation-logging
Ah, such a capitalist!Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
in my tiny town here we have a tremendous need for housing. That is because all the wealthy capitalists swoop in and buy any modest home and turn it into an Airbnb. And then there is very very little in the way of apartment complexes.
Down the hill from me is a giant ugly industrial abandoned building that city fathers foolishly allowed to be built in the mid-50s in the middle of my residential neighborhood. My God it is ugly. Someone has put forth a plan to turn it into loft Apartments. Perhaps that plan will be successful, but it’s hard for me to see how it can be a viable plan economically. But I hope he succeeds.
haha yes, in this case I'm more market directed than government-intervention-directed. I think that inflation has caused the housing crisis, as has the wealthy investor "swoop-in" as you said, and also baby boomers stuck in their McMansions and unwilling to move, and also the high expectations for "starter homes" by young people etc. etc. It's a very complex issue. I don't think just spilling out new houses paid for in part by the government is the most creative and best solution we can find. I like your neighborhood's solution of turning the industrial building into lofts... there is a similar apartment building in the town outside Burlington in the town that use to be a textile manufacturing town. They turned one of the factories into a really nice apartment complex called..fittingly...The Woolen Mill. That is a creative use of existing resources.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
in my old city neighborhood there were several industrial buildings, quite large ones, that have eventually been converted to loft apartments. at this point I think there’s maybe one or two industrial buildings left, abandoned, of course, but they are tucked away in the neighborhood and are not eyesores.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
I think Rogar is correct. The problem won't be solved building housing where no one is going to buy them because there are no jobs. And hopefully the homebuilders are savvy enough to pick and choose where to build.
In San Francisco there's an odd coalition of anti new housing advocates. First the people who already own housing and don't want to see the astronomical value of it erode. Second minorities that don't want to see their neighborhoods change as non-minority people move in to new upscale housing in those neighborhoods. And the beyond absurd permitting process that includes strong power for people who want to oppose everything enables them to be quite successful in their NIMBYism. But we definitely need more housing across the bay area. We have school teachers and and bus drivers and fire fighters driving from Stockton and beyond because they can't afford housing closer in.
A flat $25,000 for new home buyers seems less than ideal. More logical would be a certain percentage of the price of the house. Unless the goal is to get people to move to places that currently aren't popular.