You should be forced to sell your house and rent

[JRTurner]

linked you a bunch of jobs that don't require it.

I know, Lol--it's to a for-profit university that also has this on their site:

Is a Two-Year Degree Worth It?​

Completing online degree programs is absolutely worth the time and expense because they can prepare you for a long and successful career. Employers require an associate degree for many sought-after entry-level positions, so earning yours will prepare you to be a competitive candidate. If you weigh the options and evaluate what makes sense for you and your career, you'll likely find that an online associate degree is worth earning.

Online Degrees - USCI

Online Degrees. 100% Online - Study at Home with U.S. Career Institute. Contact U.S. Career Institute to start your new career Today! Request Info or call 866.250.6851.

www.uscareerinstitute.edu

 

[Simpletruther]

You’re literally just denying reality because it makes you uncomfortable.

Homelessness Data & Trends

USICH is the only federal agency with the sole mission of preventing and ending homelessness in America. We coordinate with our 19 federal member agencies, state and local governments, and the private sector to create partnerships, implement evidence-based best practices, and use resources in...

www.usich.gov

Yes, there are people who are homeless because they are mentally ill, chronic drug users, gambling addicts, etc. Everyone has interacted with them on the street.

But it is not only possible to be homeless due to no fault of your own and be completely responsible, but that is a plurality of homeless people.

You think wages haven’t kept up with inflation? Don’t look up wages relative to rent…

We literally have a shortage of affordable housing. In 1970 we had a surplus of affordable housing.

But the idea that someone can do everything right and still have the system fail them makes you uncomfortable. It isn’t very meritocratic. It isn’t very fair. And you believe we live in a fair meritocratic system that rewards people that work hard and do the right thing.

So the fact of half of all homeless people being fully employed and responsible and still being homeless is giving you cognitive dissonance. Because if that’s true then your fundamental beliefs about society are in question. So you have to rationalize why people are homeless, because you don’t believe our system fails hard working responsible people. So they have to all be drug addicts, or lazy, or maybe even want to be homeless.

They can get a few roommates.

 

[Michael Cole]

Yes, I hadn't heard of this before either. Sounds like it definitely needs to be elevated for more rigorous debate. I would like to know the reason they are federal lands for what purpose are they serving the United States citizens of any state that may find it vital to expand. That's a question I think that would deserve a thorough answer.

Or I'm completely off base in what I read into your post. As I said, this is news to me and I wish it wasn't.

I'm not aware of the history, so thanks. Be right back.

There are many search results. This NPR article doesn't really answer the question.



KIRK SIEGLER, BYLINE: Sure. Well, Kelly, answering this involves literally a tangle of treaties, land swaps, backdoor business deals that go back more than a century. A lot of the territory in this region was once part of Mexico. It then later ended up under U.S. government control. And unlike in a lot of the East, the federal government retained control of most of the public lands out here.

It's complex but appears to be simply a decision by the government to retain control of the land.

If it wasn't for growth, western states wouldn't have these problems. The population of this state in 1980 was 810,215. It's now 3,210,931. The reason Las Vegas has been able to grow so quickly was because of the previous land bills passed, beginning in 1998. They need another one because the growth hasn't stopped. Here up north, the land is just gone. Senator Rosen has worked on a bill for years. It's an amazing bill, IMO. A collaborative effort between federal, state and local governments, native tribes and conservationists. It's sitting on Schumer's desk.

Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act

www.landsbill.org

Nevada senators call for senate hearing to advance Washoe County lands bill

Nevada's Democratic senators recently called on the leadership of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to hold a legislative hearing for the Trucke

mynews4.com

 

[Maidenrules29]

So, what do you think?

I think this is the dumbest thing I've heard all month.

 

[Maidenrules29]

The government would own all the land

Please move to Cuba. Better yet, North Korea.

 

[Maidenrules29]

Instead, we give seniors tax breaks and freeze property taxes so they don’t have to contribute their “fair share” to local schools, municipalities, etc…while hoarding prime real estate.





(Hint: I’m not arguing we should force seniors out of their houses…I’m just showing the glaring hypocrisy of the MAGA mindset on this topic)

Yeah! Why not chip away at those damn seniors' nest eggs!! Why, they're living too comfortably I say!!!!!

 

[Maidenrules29]

Listen, it isn't ideal. But we can't have millions of working age Americans running around owning homes and having housing stability. They might have enough of a safety net to turn down jobs or not put in extra hour at work. The problem with welfare is it makes people lazy because people aren't being motivated by the threat of homelessness. I agree, but we need to start looking at the largest group of Americans with housing stability. I

It would help solve social security too and old people would still need to work after 65 instead of retiring in the house they own. Think about it. GDP would be through the roof and debt would be way down.


What about people that inherit homes then. We should at least get those right?

It took me a second but now I see what you're doing......

 

[anatta]

You’re literally just denying reality because it makes you uncomfortable.

Homelessness Data & Trends

USICH is the only federal agency with the sole mission of preventing and ending homelessness in America. We coordinate with our 19 federal member agencies, state and local governments, and the private sector to create partnerships, implement evidence-based best practices, and use resources in...

www.usich.gov

Yes, there are people who are homeless because they are mentally ill, chronic drug users, gambling addicts, etc. Everyone has interacted with them on the street.

But it is not only possible to be homeless due to no fault of your own and be completely responsible, but that is a plurality of homeless people.

You think wages haven’t kept up with inflation? Don’t look up wages relative to rent…

We literally have a shortage of affordable housing. In 1970 we had a surplus of affordable housing.

But the idea that someone can do everything right and still have the system fail them makes you uncomfortable. It isn’t very meritocratic. It isn’t very fair. And you believe we live in a fair meritocratic system that rewards people that work hard and do the right thing.

So the fact of half of all homeless people being fully employed and responsible and still being homeless is giving you cognitive dissonance. Because if that’s true then your fundamental beliefs about society are in question. So you have to rationalize why people are homeless, because you don’t believe our system fails hard working responsible people. So they have to all be drug addicts, or lazy, or maybe even want to be homeless.

I dont think all the housing in the world could help most of the homeless. The cost of rent and housing is a real problem. Interest rates have to come down.. But increasing population density makes everyone miserable
Giving housing to people who cant/wont take care of it is also bad

Im not an expert here. I just got my brick 2 bedroom - it's my biggest investment by far.
I've been hearing a lot about "investor caused "shortages,, Apparently they buy up a lot of stock just for the return
Which will cause shortages and raise prices. Maybe you might want to look into that (suggestion) and see if it true and what can be done.

Kicking old people out of their homes, or building commercial apts. in residential zoning sure isnt an answer

 

[Geoist]

I'm saying it is community property and if you get the house I want, I don't see any legal reason I can't just take it. Why do you deserve the nice house?

Just because things work a certain way in your head doesn't mean that's how they would work in reality.

People can't just intrude on your private space. Doesn't matter if the space is leased/rented from the government, landlord, institution, etc.

Hell, a landlord can't just walk the unit you're renting even though he owns it. If you even think for a second about your argument you'll realize how ridiculous it is.

 

[Geoist]

But increasing population density makes everyone miserable

That's not true.

People can be (and are) quite happy in densely populated spaces so long as they're well-designed and needs are met.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Just because things work a certain way in your head doesn't mean that's how they would work in reality.

People can't just intrude on your private space. Doesn't matter if the space is leased/rented from the government, landlord, institution, etc.

Hell, a landlord can't just walk the unit you're renting even though he owns it. If you even think for a second about your argument you'll realize how ridiculous it is.

You haven't thought about my argument. Who gets the nice houses? Who gets stuck in the shitty studio apartments?

 

[Hypothetical]

And if they can't pay the rent them the government will evict them and they will be back to homeless again.


Wake me when the government seizes the means of production - in the name of productivity - and tells people where they will work as well as where they will live.

Seems like we tried this before in a few places. Didn't work out well as I recall.

AS I recall, a lot more people starved in those places than at ANY time over here.

 

[Hypothetical]

Nah, it’s a boomer thing. They’re hyper competitive and would sell their own children for a nickel.

I'm not a boomer and I agree with the earned it opinion.

 

[Geoist]

You haven't thought about my argument. Who gets the nice houses? Who gets stuck in the shitty studio apartments?

Nicer dwellings would have a high leasing price, much like they do now. Difference is the money goes to the government coffers to be used to benefit the community, not pad a landlord's bank account.

 

[ralfy]

One of the main arguments against programs like giving housing to homeless people or the government funded housing is that, without the constant threat of homelessness, people will be less productive or possibly not work at all. This logic is also often applied to other welfare programs that provide some kind of social safety net.

So if providing people with housing for free is bad because it makes people lazy, it makes sense to me that forcing homeowners to sell their houses is good because it makes people more productive and competitive. After all, those home owners with paid off mortgages or low mortgage payments have had it too good for too long. With their lower costs than renting and economic stability gained from owing their home there just isn't a fire under their ass anymore like their is for renters.

So, what do you think? Is it time we put and end to what no doubt must be one of the laziest demographics who might be able to do horrible unproductive things like turn down shitty jobs because they have a place to live?

I think we could increase GDP by at least 20% with my radical plan.

FWIW, the views that you raise are non-libertarian ones, and the idea of making people more productive is a right-wing view.

 

[Geoist]

FWIW, the views that you raise are non-libertarian ones,

@Nomad4Ever is a left libertarian and most left libertarians believe land and natural resources should not be private property.

and the idea of making people more productive is a right-wing view.

That comment was snark.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Nicer dwellings would have a high leasing price, much like they do now. Difference is the money goes to the government coffers to be used to benefit the community, not pad a landlord's bank account.

Oh, it would benefit the community? Like it does in China? Cuba?

Who are these angels that will run this place? Why aren't they in government now?

 

[ttwtt78640]

No. We need the immigrants. Someone has to pay taxes to fund the socialism being received by the Boomers and older generations and do the labor to keep the economy chugging along. The next generations of Americans aren't as big as the older ones were because most Americans don't care to have (nor can they afford) 4, 5, 6+ kids.

No it is socialism.

Still socialism. Even if you don't want to accept that reality.

Simply because something is government (taxpayer) funded doesn’t make it socialism (or socialist). Do you consider having public roadways, courts, police or animal control to be socialism (or socialist)?

 

[BirdinHand]

Simply because something is government (taxpayer) funded doesn’t make it socialism (or socialist). Do you consider having public roadways, courts, police or animal control to be socialism (or socialist)?

Public roads are very much socialist. The govt owns the property the roads sit on, they are responsible for the maintenance and repair and upkeep of those roads.

Heck, sometimes they even take private property via eminent domain to build the roads.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Then why are you asking younger generations to work past 65 before they get benefits?

That’s how our congress critters decided to reduce (cut) SS benefit costs. Folks can still get (reduced) SS benefits at age 62.

 

[jpevans]

One of the main arguments against programs like giving housing to homeless people or the government funded housing is that, without the constant threat of homelessness, people will be less productive or possibly not work at all. This logic is also often applied to other welfare programs that provide some kind of social safety net.

So if providing people with housing for free is bad because it makes people lazy, it makes sense to me that forcing homeowners to sell their houses is good because it makes people more productive and competitive. After all, those home owners with paid off mortgages or low mortgage payments have had it too good for too long. With their lower costs than renting and economic stability gained from owing their home there just isn't a fire under their ass anymore like their is for renters.

So, what do you think? Is it time we put and end to what no doubt must be one of the laziest demographics who might be able to do horrible unproductive things like turn down shitty jobs because they have a place to live?

I think we could increase GDP by at least 20% with my radical plan.

Maybe pot ain't for you.

 

[BirdinHand]

Maybe pot ain't for you.

Neither is the window to throw it out of, right?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Public roads are very much socialist. The govt owns the property the roads sit on, they are responsible for the maintenance and repair and upkeep of those roads.

Heck, sometimes they even take private property via eminent domain to build the roads.

You seem to consider any public service to be socialism (or socialist). Socialism is defined as government (public) ownership or control of the means of production. What, exactly, do public roadways, schools, courts or police departments produce? Most see having government (publicly) funded infrastructure as providing necessary public services.

Is it socialism? Or just a service of the government?

One hundred years ago, in my hometown of Rapid City, South Dakota, the state opened a cement manufacturing plant. There was a need for cement for the roads and bridges that were being built back then, but there wasn’t enough private capital to build the plant. So the state did it. The South...

www.wamc.org

BTW, most roadway construction, maintenance and repair is done by private contractors, despite being publicly funded.

 

[jpevans]

You seem to consider any public service to be socialism (or socialist). Socialism is defined as government (public) ownership or control of the means of production. What, exactly, do public roadways, schools, courts or police departments produce? Most see having government (publicly) funded infrastructure as providing necessary public services.

Is it socialism? Or just a service of the government?

One hundred years ago, in my hometown of Rapid City, South Dakota, the state opened a cement manufacturing plant. There was a need for cement for the roads and bridges that were being built back then, but there wasn’t enough private capital to build the plant. So the state did it. The South...

www.wamc.org

BTW, most roadway construction, maintenance and repair is done by private contractors, despite being publicly funded.

Well there was a time when roads, bridges & ferries were private & could be toll access. Also fire departments, there are plenty of stories of negotiating with a homeowner before putting out a fire.
So of course roads & bridges contribute to production. Transporting materials, workers & product over them, while business adds more wear & tear to the infrastructure then family trips. So not only are they paid for with tax money, but business often benefits at an unequal amount.

 

[Geoist]

Oh, it would benefit the community? Like it does in China? Cuba?

Who are these angels that will run this place? Why aren't they in government now?

China and Cuba didn't/don't democratically elect their leaders.