Housing & Homeless Problem

[Ernie]

60% of the work force is professionals.
The assumption here is that people should always be climbing higher on the economic and vocational ladders. There is nothing wrong with choosing or accepting a low-wage, low-skill job.

Sure, as long as it is a choice.
But we are a wealthy society. People shouldn't have to choose between pursuing their desired profession and putting a roof over their family's head. Other societies don't force that choice on people.

Should people be forced to subsidize the ability of another person to pursue any desired profession, then?

Yes, Ken's assumption is that professionals should get paid more than non-professionals.

[ken_sylvania]

Except that's not really true. Low-wage and low-skilled jobs, perhaps. But not the professional jobs that most Americans actually train for and do in our economy. Which is a large reason why people leave small towns in the first place.

60% of the work force is professionals.
The assumption here is that people should always be climbing higher on the economic and vocational ladders. There is nothing wrong with choosing or accepting a low-wage, low-skill job.

Sure, as long as it is a choice.

But we are a wealthy society. People shouldn't have to choose between pursuing their desired profession and putting a roof over their family's head. Other societies don't force that choice on people.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. Suppose 50% of the population wants to be doctors. Are you saying society has an obligation to ensure that everyone who wants to be a doctor can make a living wage as a doctor?

[Ken]

60% of the work force is professionals.
The assumption here is that people should always be climbing higher on the economic and vocational ladders. There is nothing wrong with choosing or accepting a low-wage, low-skill job.

Sure, as long as it is a choice.

But we are a wealthy society. People shouldn't have to choose between pursuing their desired profession and putting a roof over their family's head. Other societies don't force that choice on people.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. Suppose 50% of the population wants to be doctors. Are you saying society has an obligation to ensure that everyone who wants to be a doctor can make a living wage as a doctor?

I am saying no such thing. What I am saying is the following.

First, the diversity of professions and employment opportunities is far higher in cities than rural areas. This is basic economics and has always been the case. A small town of 5,000 people simply cannot support all of the vast variety of economic activity that occurs in cities. In fact, in our modern economy it is the case that the majority of jobs probably require a medium or larger city. If you are any kind of specialist at all your employment is most likely in larger population centers.

Second, the housing crisis in this country is hitting cities the hardest. Not just big coastal cities like NYC and LA but also increasingly cities in more central parts of the country. There are a lot of reasons for that but basically very few cities in this country are managing to increase their housing stock at the same rate as population growth. Often this is very deliberate due to restrictive zoning requirements, environmental review requirements, and so forth. And some cities like those in Silicon Valley would prefer to attract industry rather than housing because it makes them more money.

What I am actually saying is that people shouldn't have to make a choice between choosing the type of profession they want to pursue and housing their family. It should be possible to do both. That doesn't mean everyone or anyone is owed a living. If you major in art history or Elizabethan poetry and it turns out there are no jobs anywhere then you just made a career mistake and should find something else to do. Wages are largely market driven except for minimum wages. On the other hand, if you do everything right and get a solid middle class job like say, a nurse or teacher, diesel mechanic, skilled welder, software engineer, CAD machine operator, long haul trucker, etc. etc. Then you should be able to put a roof over your head and feed your family. Your own government shouldn't be making it impossible to do that simply to protect the sensibilities of fussy rich people who don't want any apartments in their neighborhoods. It shouldn't just only be the neurosurgeons, corporate attorneys, and corporate executives who can afford to live in the city in which they work.

To tell people sorry, this city is full. You need to move to Nebraska is no real answer.

[Soloist]

I think there is a serious disconnect between those who have been raised in stable homes with Godly family teaching, strong work ethic, prudent financial teaching, working for family or some within community job, and often a leg up in the game with a starter house.
Compared to
Divorced parents, no property to work on, first job fast food, no route to home ownership, college to get a higher education aka higher paying job often goes in two routes
Fails out of college, continues working fast food, now paying off school loans and generally sinking into worse poverty.
Succeeds at college, has large school debt, still little quality work ethic, no wise financial base and generally continues without really learning until some serious problem strikes leaving them in serious struggles.

What I'm getting at is that some of us have been given much and to look down on those who have not been given these things as being lazy or unmotivated... There is more to success in our world then good up bringing sure, but it helps quite a lot.

[mike]

Second, the housing crisis in this country is hitting cities the hardest. Not just big coastal cities like NYC and LA but also increasingly cities in more central parts of the country. There are a lot of reasons for that but basically very few cities in this country are managing to increase their housing stock at the same rate as population growth. Often this is very deliberate due to restrictive zoning requirements, environmental review requirements, and so forth. And some cities like those in Silicon Valley would prefer to attract industry rather than housing because it makes them more money.

Doesn't the market work this kind of stuff out eventually? Wages eventually have to rise in order to attract talent to the area with its higher cost of living. Businesses eventually end up moving elsewhere with less regulation and housing restrictions for its workforce. If it's profitable enough, somebody will eventually build the housing units.

Does this simply not get fixed without government intervention in your opinion - or are you suggesting the government needs to get out of the way in terms of relaxing zoning & environmental rules and such things?

[mike]

I think there is a serious disconnect between those who have been raised in stable homes with Godly family teaching, strong work ethic, prudent financial teaching, working for family or some within community job, and often a leg up in the game with a starter house.
Compared to
Divorced parents, no property to work on, first job fast food, no route to home ownership, college to get a higher education aka higher paying job often goes in two routes
Fails out of college, continues working fast food, now paying off school loans and generally sinking into worse poverty.
Succeeds at college, has large school debt, still little quality work ethic, no wise financial base and generally continues without really learning until some serious problem strikes leaving them in serious struggles.

What I'm getting at is that some of us have been given much and to look down on those who have not been given these things as being lazy or unmotivated... There is more to success in our world then good up bringing sure, but it helps quite a lot.

This is true. And it is very hard for someone raised in a stable social environment with all the socio-economic benefits that provides to understand where others are coming from. And most crucially, to know what to do to help. We can give people jobs. We can assist in finding housing for them. We can provide the social environment for them. But even with all that it seems our efforts often fail. It can feel like a very hopeless cycle. And yet there are the success stories.

[Josh]

Actually, lots of those high end jobs have gone work from home and now wealthy people are moving all over the country. (Which does drive up property costs in formerly cheap small towns, by the way.)

There’s no reason for everyone to be crammed in a few giant cities. But the main driver of “population growth” is immigration. If you want affordable housing, stop letting immigration continue unchecked.

[Sliceitup]

Second, the housing crisis in this country is hitting cities the hardest. Not just big coastal cities like NYC and LA but also increasingly cities in more central parts of the country. There are a lot of reasons for that but basically very few cities in this country are managing to increase their housing stock at the same rate as population growth. Often this is very deliberate due to restrictive zoning requirements, environmental review requirements, and so forth. And some cities like those in Silicon Valley would prefer to attract industry rather than housing because it makes them more money.

Doesn't the market work this kind of stuff out eventually? Wages eventually have to rise in order to attract talent to the area with its higher cost of living. Businesses eventually end up moving elsewhere with less regulation and housing restrictions for its workforce. If it's profitable enough, somebody will eventually build the housing units.

Does this simply not get fixed without government intervention in your opinion - or are you suggesting the government needs to get out of the way in terms of relaxing zoning & environmental rules and such things?

Local governments fight tooth and nail to keep dense housing out of the area. The Oregon Village proposal has been dealing with this for years now.

[Josh]

Dense housing causes lots of problems, and in a city places demands on infrastructure and means people in residential neighbourhoods suddenly have to deal with a crushing influx of people, undesirable businesses like liquor stores and an increase in crime.

Nonetheless, if you wish to build your dense housing paradise, why not head over to my part of Ohio? As I documented earlier, lots of good hospitals are nearby. There is no zoning and land can be had as cheap as $8,000 an acre. You can build anything you want!

Nearby jobs are abundant too, factories, stores, or if you’re willing to commute there are major cities an hour’s drive away and a second tier city a half hour away.

No zoning, no building permits needed… only thing you’ll have to deal with is septic, and with modern systems you can easily put in many dwelling units on a single acre.

[mike]

I do a lot of business travel through the Shippensburg, Pennsylvania area, a college town that is an hour or so from a number of cities like Harrisburg, PA, Hagerstown, MD, Frederick, MD, Carlisle, PA, and is less than 2 hours from Washington D.C. and Baltimore. I see large middle-class housing units (single dwellings, duplexes, and multiple housing units) being constructed adjacent to the city on former farming ground. In this area, there is access within an hour or so to a huge variety of professional and non-professional jobs. Land is very expensive compared to what it was decades ago, and is becoming less and less affordable for local, rural folks, many of whom are moving out of the area to other states, or their children are. However, land and housing are much cheaper for folks who are relocating from the big cities and suburbs into what feels like a rural area to them. It's an inevitable shift as conditions in the cities are what Ken is describing. People move around to where it works better for them. The free market kind of takes care of the problem. Yes, we don't like change, and we don't like having to move. But what choice do we or our kids really have? People and groups of people have been moving around due to economic conditions for as long as time has existed. Are we really able to change this? I doubt it. Mennonites in this area have been moving out for many years to Kentucky, Ohio, and Missouri, where land and farms are more affordable. It's just life.