Hacker News Reader

Comment by deevolution | Hacker News Reader

So far, the COVID-19 pandemic is showing us that People, rather than Consumption, matter most.

We need consumption to support people, yes, but Economic expansion and increasing consumption can't go on infinitely.

Most people shouldn't be able to afford a car - they should be taking public transit - but they can obtain one because they take out loans.

The american fracking industry shouldn't exist, but it can because it has access to cheap, infinite lines of credit.

Our health suffers for it.

So many people and businesses are able to live beyond their means because of access to credit. If we eliminate the ability to create credit, then consumption would drop to a sustainable level and pollution would also drop and we would see an end to wasteful businesses, products, processes, and ways of life.

View on HN

Drawing conclusions from this temporary pause in economic activity seems premature.

I draw the opposite conclusion -- public transit makes pandemics worse and everyone who owns a car is very happy they have one.

> So many people and businesses are able to live beyond their means because of access to credit. If we eliminate the ability to create credit, then consumption would drop to a sustainable level and pollution would also drop and we would see an end to wasteful businesses, products, processes, and ways of life.

What about housing? A mortgage is going to be the only way for a lot of people to ever afford their own home.

Well, to question your premise - Why is universal home ownership desirable or necessary?

It's either (near) universal or communal. Anything in between gives elites so much power over the less advantaged that you see a stratification of society similar to, well, what we're seeing now. Here's a quarantine project for you: build a model that lets you push around the %age of renters vs land owners. Virtually any model that contains a significant number of renters will eventually have one land owner and many renters, unless you see significant economic disasters in the model.

At least in the current system, a home is the best hope that for many people if they wish to have an 'asset' that is concrete and tangible. The practicality of it (i.e. basic human need for shelter) also makes it one of the best 'assets' to pass to your children.

Remember: unless the house was seriously overvalued, as long as you held onto/maintained your house through the 2008 housing crash, it's still worth more than it was pre crash.

Because tenants rights are poor? The difference in safety felt between owning and renting is related to perception of tenants rights. I think they (the difference and the rights) vary accordingly worldwide.

What are the shortfalls of tenant rights in your area? and how would you answer the previous question in a world with "ideal" tenant rights?

> How could tenant rights be improved, and how would you answer that question in a world with "ideal" tenant rights?

It's difficult isn't it? You need to somehow reconcile the fact that it's not the tenant's home with their desire to treat it like it is.

I've had to fight to get basic repairs and redecoration work done. In some of these cases I've still had a battle despite funding them myself!

I think something you could probably address is the lack of security with tenancies. In the UK, after the initial fixed period of an AST, it's very easy for either party to terminate the lease. I'd prefer for this to be tipped in favour of the tenant, so that they can be flexible and leave if necessary - but they're not also in danger of homelessness at very short notice.

Because I want to be able to install shelves in the garage or put a new oven in the kitchen without having to negotiate with a landlord.

How many people does your situation apply to? Personally, I prefer having a landlord take care of appliances over the freedom to make my own changes.

Probably a lot. I've never seen an apartment that lets you make any changes beyond putting in your own furniture. No painting walls, no hanging pictures, changing carpets, etc. You're stuck with whatever bargain bin ammenities the landlord picked, unless you feel like packing up and moving. Plus, your rent will probably go up at a similar rate to inflation, whereas a mortgage payment will stay the same as long as you didn't sign up for an adjustable rate mortgage.

Every long-term homeowner I know has done at least that much. Many have done larger home improvement and remodeling projects.

Yes, I'd assume home owners modify their house... but that doesn't really answer the question.

The US home ownership rate is 64%. So to answer your original question, that situation applies to nearly 64% of people.

Or education? Especially in the US, it's unreasonable to pay for most universities without loans.

>Most people shouldn't be able to afford a car - they should be taking public transit - but they can obtain one because they take out loans.

A car isn't a "want" for most people outside of major US cities. It's a need. Public transport has never been effective in most of the US. Hell, I'd have to cross an interstate on foot in order to reach work. How many weeks do you estimate it'd take me to get killed? Should I be taking that risk because some politician decided my life was less valuable than their golfing buddy getting to work 5 minutes quicker?

> A car isn't a "want" for most people outside of major US cities. It's a need.

It doesn't have to stay this way. Smaller cities and towns can invest in public transportation. Activities which must be in person could be decentralized to more local sites.

It seems likely there will be a lot less interest in public transit investment after the pandemic. Not more.

I think you're probably right. It'll be cycling's time to shine.

Seattle/King County metro diesel buses gets 50 passenger-miles per gallon of diesel. Better than average, but not enough for preventing climate change. They're also still running nearly all buses empty these past weeks, so that's 0 mpg.

Buses don't have to run on diesel

Traffic infrastructure can be changed. It takes a couple of decades, but it has happened in other cities before.

I would really like for this to happen, but I'm skeptical this is really possible in the US, at least outside the NE corridor and a couple other dense regions. are there any examples of this transformation occurring in a place as sprawled out as a typical american city+suburbs?

I can believe the poor state of public transit in the older east coast cities is largely a failure of policy, but as you go further west, you see many more settlements built around cars from the ground up.

Density is a function of taxes, zoning, jobs, commute costs and probably much more. It can be changed given enough time.

sure, anything can change in enough time. but for some places, we might be talking about decades.

I visited a friend at her parents place once in prescott, arizona. maybe places like these don't matter so much for emissions (population 40k within the city limits), but I was struck by how totally dependent we were on having a car, even more than being in an east coast suburb. iirc, the closest place to go for a quick bite was seven miles away, the closest shopping center 10+ miles. her parents weren't particularly wealthy, but their house was built on a multiple acre lot just like all their middle-class neighbors. her father drove forty or fifty miles each way to work in the middle of nowhere. whenever both of her parents were out, there was nowhere we could go. literally nothing but private homes anywhere within walking distance. in this kind of place, you would almost have to tear everything down and start from scratch to make public transit viable.

Of course we're talking about decades. It took three decades for Amsterdam to become as bike friendly as it is today and they're still far from done.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com