The NY Post is right leaning, the editorial seems to be a conservative piece. Here is something similar from Ben Carson.
Housing First Does Nothing to Solve the Homelessness Crisis The evidence is somewhat scant and my brief foray into the topic found it very complicated with an ongoing debate and varying evidence as the the causes and cures of homelessness.
Really? Most research into the "Unverisal Basic Income" seems to show that UBI is essentially, a silver dagger in the cold dracula heart of homelessness.
Rents do affect homelessness, but homeless prevention programs and rent subsidies very widely and results seem to be uneven.
I haven't seen anything to suggest they've been anything other than helpful. With the increasing trend in the cost of houses and rents (due to a SHARP increase in the number of single family homes bought by equity firms (44% in 2023...that's messed up), middle and poor classes in the US are about to experience SIGNIFICANT pain because their government SUCKS....and their government SUCKS not because they need a freer market but because your markets are being exploited by the people with money to make MORE money. But, that money they make comes from poorer people.
From my living in the less developed world, the USA excessive regulations on building and land use seem to be a place where compromise would grant many a home, though somewhat of a deficient one, depending on what regulations are targeted.
Prove it please. I know people have said that but honestly, I don't think that is necessarily the biggest problem. Regulations are OFTEN necessary and this idea that getting rid of regulations is a good thing is absurd. We have train disasters in the last couple calendar years that show that.
I am not sure greater redistribution of income would solve debt for long.
National debt? I'm inclined to agree. Personal debt? Well...I mean...of COURSE it will affect it.
It would reduce future incentives to business owners and at the same time the government would squander it on programs that might do very little to help the homeless.
How would it reduce incentives to businesses? We can't sit there massaging business owners and giving the money directly to them. That has been proven, I can't say how many times.
Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich | LSE Research
I mean that makes 0 sense, really. If you give the money to people who have needs, then a) They can filll those needs (like housing, food, clothing shelter) AND b) The owners get increased income into their businesses.
Complaining about "redustributing wealth" while completely ignoring the ineffectiveness of every.single.Republican.(and a HUUUUUUUUGe number of Democrat measures) efforts to enrich the middle class, seems to be misguided.
I certainly know too that putting the responsibility on landlords can backfire as many have reduced their investment in rentals because evictions and squatting are serious problems for them.
1) The new landowners are private equity firms with tremendously expensive lawyers.
The same might be said for rent controls though they too might help in the short run. I'd like to see the government subsidize faith based housing programs more, offer more immigration for low wage workers in the housing industry and reduce regulations and costs in building. Anyway, thanks for your analysis and thoughts on homelessness.
But our crony capitalist government keeps funneling money to corporations for 40 years. NAFTA is when I saw a lot of my family members get laid off by shipping jobs and wages to China and abroad. In these years I watched homelessness get worse in LA to what it is today.
"back in the day" I attended plenty of "antiglobalization" protests for THAT EXACT reason. I didn't like hte idea of jobs moving overseas. There is this STRAAAANGE irony that now right wingers are antiglobalization and lefties are a bit ambivalent on it.
Government policies have created this mess but I think when we start re-shoring manufacturing jobs they will have to compete for workers which is good for wages, sort of like what happened after COVID.
Taking hard-earned money from someone else is wrong. We the people have to educate ourselves about the economy and know what the FED monetary and government fiscal policies are doing to Americans.
But don't you understand....those things the government is doing sin't enriching the goverment....it's enriching people ALREADY rich. You can argue that "taking hard earned money from someone else is wrong" (I'd argue a) that isn't taxes b)I'm not convinced a billionaire ACTUALLY is that hard working. sorry. ) It's not that tax policy is killing the middle and lower classes....that's the capitalist system that gets practiced in the US. Policies that allow rich people to get richer while the poor people get nothing.
Lots of fund managers on youtube talk about this very thing. Once we are educated we can direct our politicians to do what benefits Americans. After the GFC the fed monetary policy has created the homlessness we have now.
There is no policy (that I can tell) that created hte problem we now see....well, mostly. Lastly, and I mean no disrespect but I am NOT going to listen to fund managers and economists when they tell me "what's wrong with America's economy" because they RARELY give solutions that help.
It's like asking a rapist to investigate themselves. The rich have a system that allows them to invent money out of thin air that poor people can't meaningfully take part in. And not only that, the poor people keep giving rich people THEIR money that they can use to put into that magiic system that generates imaginary money for them.
As I said, HUUUUUGE SWATHS of housing are being bought up by NOT families. Let's not pretend that isn't a problem. Between that and the algorithm that is being employed across cities in the US by these equity firms to control and dictate rent prices, poor people literally don't stand a chance.
Rise in asset prices is forcing people to the streets because of rising property taxes and insurance. Especially for those who have borrowed irresponsibly. Peace
It's not the property taxes or insurance that are forcing people onto the street....MULTIPLE double digit percent rent increases? I'm sorry, that's not organic growth. That's greed...and I'm confused by folks would think otherwise. There are a LOT of people whose rent increased by 400$ IN A MONTH.
Which reasonable person thinks that kind of increase is NOT greed? I see it as greedy people trying to exploit and enlarge organic growth through their own personal inflation.
