Hacker News Reader

Comment by lukas099 | Hacker News Reader

I don't think ever. If the rich and poor could afford the same things, money would have lost all meaning.

Rich people can still stand out with their fancy watches & flashy sun glasses. Shelter shouldn't be a status symbol.

And I'd even add that shelter is also one of those things we shouldn't just let the free market sort out (as it has been, and we all see how that's been going).

Except the problem is we haven't been letting the free market sort it out. The market is highly distorted by laws which prevent development, which is why prices are so high.

Exactly. In the developed world the least free market is the real estate market. Free market extremists show up as NIMBYs at local council meetings. Progressives are no better, placing all sorts of rules on development in the name of fairness that only result in even higher prices and less development.

Zoning rules like height restrictions, floor area ratio, lot coverage, setbacks, parking minimums, square footage minimums, lot size minimums, and other zoning restrictions place extreme limits what can be built before we even mention exclusive single family zoning.

Wholly agree. Basic necessities Food, Water, Shelter, HealthCare etc should not be left to the whims of the free market. It isn't even hard to fix in the US where land is still plenty but artificially controlled by regulations as opposed to heavily population density places like Japan.

It's interesting that you decry the free market, but explicitly agree that regulations (market distortions) are what's preventing abundant housing.

We've tried public housing in the past, and it hasn't gone so well, so I'm not sure that's a great solution, either.

It only took a few generations, but we've gone from America, land of the free and home of the brave, to America: we tried it once in the past and there were problems, so we should give up now and never try again.

Or maybe your solution is just bad, and that's why the market doesn't prefer it?

There are lots of places all over the US, that have some forms of public housing.

And yet most people prefer private housing.

By all means, the government should compete in the housing market like everyone else.

And then the consumer should decided.

But, my feelings are that most people are currently choosing private housing markets for a reason.

Public housing can be amazing, especially when the people involved actually want it to succeed.

Besides - even if there weren't many success stories to draw from, which there are - things can be improved on. Just because the first bicycles kinda sucked, doesn't mean that modern e-bikes aren't amazing. There are similar examples everywhere.

What's going on right now is a horror show. It's stupid, economically and morally.

It's a pipe dream to expect public housing to meet the demand for shelter in a political climate like that of the USA. That said, I'll still take as much public housing as I can get in my city.

Maybe the rich can show off by having especially fancy houses, instead of just by having a roof at all?

Welcome to one of the main ideas of communism - a futuristic moneyless society.

How is the allocation of resources determined? If I want 30 pairs of underwear and only 2 pairs of socks, how do I make that happen?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com