Hacker News Reader

Comment by mywittyname | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, entertainment options are great if you're poor. This might keep them somewhat complacent. But how about the quality of housing and transportation?

People absolutely will raise pitchforks when they no longer have housing or food. There are many Americans in this situation right now, but they suffer in near-silence. As their numbers swell, we will reach a point where they can no longer be ignored.

The food itself is cheap, but obtaining the food isn't. Consider the poor rural people that need to drive 30+ miles to the grocery store.

View on HN

>"There are many Americans in this situation right now, but they suffer in near-silence. As their numbers swell, we will reach a point where they can no longer be ignored."

Honest question...how are you defining this silence? Social media and the internet have seemingly given a voice to everyone who wants it. The challenge is standing out from the crowd and making sure you have a way to do so when what you say is against the best interests of the platforms you are saying it on or the people who have vested interests in those platforms.

There are many Americans in this situation right now,

Do you have sources for this? Bonus points if it's something updated regularly that I can bookmark.

Great question. The USDA tracks this information. https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=849...

A snippet from the summary:

> The prevalence of food insecurity varied considerably from State to State, ranging from 8.7 percent in Hawaii to 18.7 percent in Mississippi in 2014-16. (Data for 3 years were combined to provide more reliable State-level statistics.

In other words, almost 1 in 5 Mississippi households lacked enough food to feed the entire family at some point in 2016. For the nation as a whole, it's still 1 in 8 household.

>People absolutely will raise pitchforks when they no longer have housing or food.

No they won't, they'll sell the pitchforks so they can buy their next meal and a particularly roomy cardboard box.

Modern history suggests there will be riots. See: Arab Spring, Mexican Tortilla Riots, the current and ongoing riots in Venezuela, etc. Since 2007, some dozen or more countries have suffered from riots caused by famine and rising food prices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%9308_world_food_pri...

The US is lucky enough to be somewhat insulated from these by virtue of being rich. But we can't guarantee that will always be the case.

Housing and transportation are both localized issues that are almost entirely concentrated in urban areas. They are problems, but are only indirectly related to wealth inequality anyway. Bigger problems are NIMBYs, excessive regulations protecting skylines / ocean views, etc. Transportation sucks for the wealthy, too.

It is not the case that we have a growing epidemic of people without housing or food as a result of income inequality.

We do have a growing number of people unable to find housing they can afford in the place they want to live, but that's not the same thing.

36% of households rent, and rent has been increasing in most places. What happens when there's a big job-killing recession?

The same thing people with a mortgage payment do.

And we do have public housing for those that can't.

When was the last time you applied for public housing? It isn't just a "fallback" for society when the economic structure falters. Even people in public housing struggle to keep eligible by showing certain proofs of PT income.

We're getting a little off-track here.

The parent claim was that a high percentage of renters implies an increase in unemployment would leave many homeless, which might increase civil unrest toward rioting aimed at the wealthy.

I'm saying the vast majority of renters would be in the same boat as mortgagers, which is that they won't lose their jobs. Of the minority that do, they may miss or be late on some payments, but ultimately recover and continue living there as they find another job or make other arrangements. The number who would legitimately become penniless and forced to move is small, and we have public housing available for those affected.

You understand there's a huge backlog for public housing right? You don't just show up asking for an apartment

I don't doubt it in certain areas.

Still we're getting pretty derailed. I'm responding to your comment which was a speculative question.

Peak unemployment rate during the 2008 recession was 10%. So that's 3.6% of Americans renting and out of work. Many will miss payments and then resume after finding a new one. Or maybe there are two earners living there and they can cut in other areas until a new job is found.

Some will find cheaper apartments, and some will move in with family.

So, no, I don't think that'll be the spark for the next revolution.

The average American who "owns a home" moves every 7 years last time I checked. We are a nation of itinerants. Equity investments give better returns apart from political windfalls.

Rent decreases because the demand curve shift?

"We do have a growing number of people unable to find housing they can afford in the place they want to live, but that's not the same thing."

Correct - it is not the same thing at all.

Housing that you can easily afford in places that you would prefer to live (aesthetic, convenience, life-script, etc.) is a fantastic luxury that has no place in a discussion of "rights".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com