Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jach | Hacker News Reader

> a single childless person cannot live on $1000/month in many places.

Is this really the demographic that should be optimized for? Seems there's a nice financial incentive to find a partner and split the cost of rent. As a single childless person myself (who has shared rental houses with a friend for several years now to lower costs of rent and keep it "affordable") I've been led to believe that the cost of having children amortizes (especially as you add more children) with incentives, and really pays off as you get into old age. If it were up to me I'd rather optimize for the family unit rather than singles.

View on HN

We have been optimizing for the nuclear family since the 1950s. Meanwhile, our demographics have diverged from that. This is part of the problem.

We have more singles, more childless couples and more single parents. Their housing needs are not being met. We expect young single people to rent an apartment designed for a family and get roommates.

If that works for you, that's already available. The assumption that someone with basic income should get a roommate is an assumption that they really aren't allowed to aspire to the same things as middle class people, like a space of their own.

A lot of women currently de facto use a romantic partner as a means to cover rent and it causes all kinds of problems. Expecting people to pair off to have a decent place is essentially expecting a polite form of prostitution.

I apologise for all the child comments but I find your posts compelling. However, your 3rd paragraph above seems a bit at odds with your idea in an earlier comment to rebuild SROs. In any case, I think the same sorts of housing opportunities should be available to all, which is why I brought up the fact that the USA has ample unused housing, it's mostly just an issue of policy/assholes in power.

I don't see how it is at odds at all. Perhaps you could explain that to me.

> Expecting people to pair off to have a decent place is essentially expecting a polite form of prostitution.

What it really boils down to is that an average middle class family in the past had a full-time housekeeper. Typically, those housekeepers were single women. Nowadays, that same demographic group has kids of their own. I wouldn’t call it prostitution so much as pragmatism.

>Seems there's a nice financial incentive to find a partner and split the cost of rent.

Which then puts you into a situation where your financial and housing security is dependent on a relationship working.

No thanks. That's not a nice incentive.

This demographic also includes senior citizens on fixed income. Many who are finding it very difficult to pay rent, to the point where some forego eating in order to pay bills.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com