The market did solve the problem and then we blew it by undermining the family unit so we have people dependent on the state with no significant family support.
> Believe it or not, its not impossible to manufacture a living space in a factory and assemble it on site in a day, to provide extremely well made and affordable housing structures.
The soviets tried this approach it doesn't work because you end up with a shitload of crappy communist housing blocks. The correct approach is to develop as much high end housing as possible which pushes all other houses down the depth chart. We want the poor living in houses that the rich used to own - not shittier houses.
At some point we have to realize that the issue isn't wealth or even inequality. The harsh reality is a significant number of the population has a several hundred dollar a day drug addiction and no means of taking care of themselves even if they were handed a blank check.
Good point. In my birth country you must support your elderly parents by law. Even without the law 99% of families would.
The idea that the government should do it seems crazy.
The government only needs to step in where the elderly have no family, are unable to work, and private charity is not enough.
This means the government only deals with a tiny percentage of people.
In short, childhood trauma and lack of family support. Often the trauma comes from abuse from their family. These are not problems you can just throw money at.
> I question how much experience you actually have with either the poor or drug addicts.
If you must know my experience I did youth work for inner city kids from 1999-2006 in Langley BC. I then lived and worked in the Vancouver DTES from 2006-2017. I have several close friends and family members who work at Insite Injection Clinic, Portland Hotel Society, HIV/Aids Clinic at St. Paul Hospital, and the Odyssey and Nexus programs in downtown Vancouver.
Perhaps you are unaware what life on the streets is like.
Edit: also, I never said I was a "majority" that has an expensive addiction. I said the number of people is significant - which it undoubtedly is.
Here most elderly either gets support in their own home by professionals (by the local government) or at a home with professional care (run by the local government).
I'd rather spend time with my family on our own terms and not because I have to support them.
This entire statement just blows my mind.
Getting people to build enough expensive homes for rich people seems to be an already solved problems. People already build homes as expensive as the market will bear and and the rich buy not one but 2 of them or even more and rent them out to others less rich than themselves. The only way to get people to build a glut such as to devalue their own product would be to provide tax incentives or kickbacks effectively funding rich peoples houses with tax money from the middle class.
Supposing you decided to do this building a glut of "top end" housing enough to move the needle as far as price would be an insanely expensive endeavor. Millions of dollars per unit.
There are 74 million single family homes in the US building out 10% more all at the top end at 2 million per would cost 148 trillion dollars. This is actually more than the 25 trillion it would cost just to give every household their own free 200k house.
Building 1% of the present housing supply would only cost a laughable 14.8 trillion and would barely move anyone up much beyond making it easier for the upper middle class to move from nice house to awesome.
The truly funny thing is that no matter how much top end housing we build the poor would never live in the houses the wealthy used to live in because we would literally let it rot to the ground before the rich would sell it to them for anything like they could afford not because they have a several hundred dollar a day drug addition but because they don't have enough wealth to pay for what it actually costs to build and maintain a nice large rich persons house.
Ultimately if we want there to be a bigger supply of affordable housing then we will build more for 100-200k not mansions for 2-5million because poor people can afford the first and you can build 10-50 of one for the cost of the other. It's simple math.
As a final note if we charitably say several hundred is 3-400 a several hundred dollar a day drug habit is between 109k and 146k per year.
The only people that have several hundred dollar a day drug habits for very long are drug lords and CEOs that are fueled by cocaine.
That’s common as well if they can mostly look after themselves and only need say a weekly visit from a nurse.
I think the only difference is the children are expected to pay.
It’s maybe half live with their kids and the rest live independently.
> or at a home with professional care
This is common when they need full time care. But this is usually only a small % and not for long.
And again the kids pay.
> I'd rather spend time with my family on our own terms and not because I have to support them.
That’s one way to think about it.
My perspective is my parents supported me for 16 years and so I have a duty to support them.
I think it is good for character, helps people to appreciate life, and helps build meaningful relationships. It also means grandparents get to spend lots of time with their grandchildren.
Speaking as an Asian, I grew up in a culture where parents, and elders in general, are super-important. Things are changing now, but many of us are still very close to our parents.
In old-school thought, taking care of one's parents is seen not as an obligation, but as an opportunity to serve them, and to repay them (in some small measure) for the love and care we have received from them in our childhood.
When my grandfather passed away suddenly and unexpectedly in his 60s, my father was distraught that he did not get an opportunity to serve him.
My point is, many of us view the situation differently - not as a burden, but as an opportunity.
However, it is undeniable that sometimes it can be a burden, and for those situations, it would have been excellent to have the government take care of the elderly, as it is done in your country.
Edit: A typo.
Think of it like a hockey team. If your 4th line Center isn't good enough (or you don't have one) you're better off to add a player that is better than your BEST Center because that improves your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th line. Improving your worst Center only improves your 4th line. Its like that but houses instead of players.
The math says you fix housing affordability by building more mansions. Poor people can't afford them and the actual price change is so small for the massive investment that its insane.
Building enough to push 250k houses to 200k would cost more money than the entire GDP and poor people still couldn't make the down payment.
Increasing the housing supply by 1% once again would imply building 7 million homes. Your top end homes cost 2-5 million. This is once again trillions of dollars.
Your post is like saying that in order to ensure everyone can afford groceries we ought to build more 5 star restaurants instead of giving out food stamps.
"scarcity" being supply, and "wealth" being supply of money which translates to demand for housing. "demand" is people's willingness to purchase something.
> Building enough to push 250k houses to 200k would cost more money than the entire GDP and poor people still couldn't make the down payment.
You have it exactly backwards. Like I say, you're too focused on the literal cost. 250k vs 200k is entirely based on supply and demand.
Lets say we want low income people to be able to afford 2 bedroom 1k sq/ft apartments. To achieve that we need to build more 3-5 bedroom 2k sq/ft places. The wealthy will want the nicer apartments which reduces demand for the 2 bedroom place and that's how they become affordable.
"Mansion" is entirely subjective. Its just a way to refer to the nicest homes available.
Well-being is based on production and production is not a zero-sum game. We can have low-income people living in high-end housing. All we have to do is keep building nice homes.