Real estate prices

I do not agree with that.

For a broad range of reasons there are people who need help of various shapes and durations.

We are better off if we help.

We might hope these people go "away". But, there is no "away". Plus, getting people up and contributing is a net positive for everyone.

 

I agree with the post of Pollycy.

I also agree, to a degree, with your post "For a broad range of reasons there are people who need help of various shapes and durations."

In some cases we may benefit from helping another, but in all cases it is quite dependent on how those being helped put that help to use.

"Away" most definitely does exist. Look at the number of persons who emigrate on a daily basis in search of a better life. We are at a point where the population has grown greater than the productive needs of many, if not most, communities. Just like the products/services we consume, supply and demand come into play and the effect is most noticeable on prices and wages. Subsidizing a growing number of non-productive members of a population to simply consume, while helping to keep prices from falling dramatically, does nothing to drive wages higher except in the form of inflation which does NOT help to create jobs for the unemployed.

 

No, there is no "away" here in the USA. There isn't an exodus of US citizens going to Mexico because they can't make enough to live in the US.

Plus, you're making a gigantic assumption with your "non-productive members of a population" theory.

Here in Seattle many of the homeless are employed. And, the work they do is important.

And, there are those who are unemployed. But, that doesn't mean they aren't both able and desirous of working.

And, there are those who are really pretty much failing to live independently - a condition that is not resolved by moving them somewhere else.

 

1. Then you must agree that the population supply has exceeded the demand of a productive free market in the U.S.A. Nonetheless there are locations within the U.S. where the cost of living is less and income possibilities are greater relative to that of Seattle. When I left the military and returned home there were no jobs available in my home town, so I ended up having to move several hundred miles away to find work, and my employer made me move multiple times over the 30 years I worked.

2. What "gigantic assumption" is it that you are implying I'm making?

3. I'm sure they are being paid relative to the importance of the work they are doing.

4. Able and desirous only counts where employment opportunities exist.

5. I'm not sure what people you are referring to, but perhaps they should remain with their parents until which time they become capable of living independently, or at a minimum pool their resources with others until they become capable.

 

Those who are at or below the poverty line are not some single category. There are all sorts of factors involved. The result is that there is no single solution. Also, there are those who are homeless by choice - industriously saving their income or maybe they have enough income for an apartment, but just don't accept the responsibilities of being a resident in an apartment.

In the US, employers pay employees the least they can legally pay and still get the result they want. It's free market capitalism.

Sure. But, the point is that not everyone is both able and desirous.

It's a broad spectrum in multiple dimensions - all combinations of age, physical ability, mental capacity, experience, number of kids, ability to negotiate life, temporary setback vs. long term issues, etc., etc.

The result is that it isn't a problem for which there is a single solution.

 

1. I disagree, "at or below poverty level" is the category. I do however agree that there is no single cause or solution.

2. There should be no 'legal' minimum or maximum on pay. I often perform labour for free, and if someone is willing to work for free without force being imposed upon them they should be allowed to do so.

3. Those who are physically or mentally able overrules desirous.

4. Yes, and such issues are much more recognizable and able to be taken into account at their source than by a centralized controlled agency.

5. I agree.

 

Yours is, I suppose, the classic viewpoint of the American Socialist. All I can say is that the Constitution of the United States does not describe, include, or endorse any language that promotes Socialism of the kind you evidently espouse, and I know from years spent in this kind of debate 'trench-warfare' that nothing I say can make a dent in your socialist mindset.

Cut to the chase: if a person won't take responsibility for himself, pursuing his own destiny and goals, AND PROVIDING FOR HIS OWN HOUSING, why is GOVERNMENT supposed to do it with TAXPAYER money? Parasites have never been a benefit to anything -- except to those political factions that take power by leveraging the VOTES that those parasites will willingly provide them....

"Political factions"? American Socialists, and their 21st-century Democrat Party....

 

Helping others is Biblical, not socialist.

People end up unable to support themselves for many reasons.

Suggesting we allow people to die in the street over that is pure ignorance.

 

Yeah, I hear this kind of over-wrought nonsense from the Left a lot, frankly. But, to be REAL about it, if they are really about to "die in the street", all they have to do is go to any hospital emergency room -- for FREE (ultimately paid for by other patients and their insurance companies, which aren't moochers). And if they need a place to crash, and get free grub, they can always go to the 'community shelters', the 'soup kitchens', etc. But, if they prefer to "die in the street" then that is their choice. They certainly don't have to. They can always go and suck on somebody's 'welfare teat', because there are plenty of them!

Wouldn't it actually make a hell of a lot more sense to simply go somewhere where the cost of living is less than, say, SEATTLE...?!
Think: The median home value in Seattle, Washington is $764,200. By contrast, the median home value in Memphis, Tennessee is $82,800. Is this registering on you at all? Go where you can AFFORD to live!

 

Not all those living on the street have the resources to leave to set up somewhere else.
Not all those living on the street object to living on the street.
Not all those living on the street have the capacity to live totally on their own anywhere, not just where they happen to be.

Etc.

 

OK, I see. We've gone from talking about real estate prices to discussing street bums instead? Well, all I can reply is that so long as the vagrants, homeless, and bums don't break any laws, I don't care what they do or where they go. It's a free country and they are free to do whatever they like -- just like anyone else -- just so long as they comply with the laws.

Of course, the REALITY is that when the bums break the laws (which they do all the time), here comes the ACLU riding to the rescue to make certain that the local law-enforcement authorities have their hands completely tied behind their backs! I've seen it happen day after day here in Colorado, and I don't imagine the situation is any better anywhere else.... What a perfect breeding ground for liberal Democrats to pursue their conversion of our cities and towns into cesspools for drunks, drug addicts, and other human dregs, to puke, piss, vomit, and sh*t all over the streets, the sidewalks, the city creeks and streams, and, themselves. The "new normal" everywhere liberal Democrats congregate and take over the government....

HOORAY FOR SOCIALISM IN AMERICA!

. "Hell, I think I'll run for Governor of Colorado on the Democrat ticket!"

 

It's just plain stupid to consider as "socialism" everything our nation does for any particular segment in order to resolve a problem.

 

Oh? And when that "problem" is a personal one, it is a PERSON who should fix it themselves. That's what living in an independent, free country is all about....

Thus, a person CHOOSES where he/she wants to live, and goes there. What is complicated about that?

 

Humans don't all have that capacity.

I'm sure you know that.

Besides, lots of people make bad choices or have bad luck and end up in serious need.

For example, Republicans want people to pretend like they have enough money to pay for illnesses and accidents. After all, someone who CHOOSES to have a serious health care setback should just, well, go away, I guess.

 

In terms of assets likely to maintain their value over time, vacant land is a pretty good idea. There will be more people, the average sqkm per individual globally will get smaller and so naturally prices will go up.

All sorts of issues with flash city property like an apartment in Vancouver, Canada or Sydney, Australia - but not all land is alike.

I'm not that keen to invest in it at the moment, but I will be in the next 2 decades or so. I'll stick to shares, options and commodities for now.

I tend to think people are too pessimistic about recessions. That's where smart people make money. Have a diverse portfolio and think about a recession before it happens. Physical metals, options and healthcare are all pretty good bets. Have risky investments occasionally, not as the majority of your portfolio.

 

OK, a moment of clarity (even though it doesn't have anything to do with 'real estate', per se).

Sure, I'm the right-winger who thinks that people should take responsibility for themselves, and support themselves in a nation of free, independent people.

That said, I have always said that when people have suffered horrible diseases, debilitating injuries, or were afflicted from birth with tragic, or are disabled with genuine birth defects, then they should be given welfare benefits for as long as they are truly affected by those situations -- perhaps for life. If they are totally and truly disabled, and they are citizens, they should qualify for almost entirely-free everything! From the government! That's OK with me. Does that surprise you?

Where nearly all of us true Conservatives draw the line is where people have chosen to throw their lives away with "bad choices"... where people have deliberately thrown themselves in harm's way and made colossally stupid decisions on their own. When they do that, they deserve NOTHING from taxpayers. They can schlep around at charity shelters for a place to crash, and free-meal 'soup kitchens' for free meals, but not one bit of any of that should be funded by TAXPAYERS.

Does THAT make a difference? Believe me... it SHOULD.

And I repeat that there are many places in the United States that still offer a comparatively low cost-of-living -- for nearly everything a person needs, including real estate. You still find many such cities and towns throughout the Deep South, but also in so many other parts of the United States. When desperately poor people who won't work at all pile up in places like San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, New York, etc., etc., what do they expect? Really, it completely defies logic and common sense -- but that, too, is not (NOT) the responsibility of American Taxpayers!

 

No, this doesn't surprise me at all.

Your tactic is to simply make gigantic assumptions that you pretend are the way things are.

Then, you claim you meant THOSE people shouldn't get help.

So, you see an alcoholic lying on the sidewalk.

What's your proposed course of action?

 

It's no challenge at all, keeping diversity. People from all parts of the globe and many different cultures and interests make a financial success of themselves and move to/live in expensive cities. The most expensive part of Manhattan (for example), is very diverse. Arabs, Chinese, Israelis, Italians, Koreans, etc. Some are even 'arty' types!

That's beside the point, though. No one is entitled to have their personal preference (in real estate) catered to by tax dollars. That's an outrageous suggestion.

 

As a rookie cop in Detroit in 1958 my first house which was little more than a nice 'starter home' cost $10,500.00. However, my salary was $4,200.00 a year. All things considered the spread is pretty close to being the same.

 

That's racial diversity. That's certainly important, but it's only one aspect.

I don't know what you are referring to on this one.

 

There are studies that show that on average in the US, an apartment is taking a larger and larger percent of a citizen's income.

In NYC, apartment owners insist that renters earn 40X their monthly rent.

That takes a little to compare to your "starter home" situation.

But, you can find single bedroom apartments under $1,500/month within commuting distance of Manhattan.

I'd bet your Detroid home was more than a single bedroom apartment, though. Plus, you could sell that home when you decided to leave!

 

A drunk lying on the sidewalk. What's MY "proposed course of action", you ask? I won't be evasive....

My "proposed course of action" is to mind my own damned business and leave the drunk alone. The cops will find him eventually and haul him off, somewhere. If the cops do anything (ANYTHING) that the drunk finds offensive, the drunk will get the ACLU to sue the cops, sue the city, and sue anybody else they can set their sights on. But... me? A private citizen? Mess with the drunk? Oh, no, no, NO -- I'm not about to set myself up to let those hyperliberal ACLU crudballs clean my bank account out....

There's an old saying -- "When you play with sh*t, some of it will always splatter on YOU." Ergo: I don't play with sh*t....

 

That was a TOTAL dodge.

The minute the police became involved the $$-0-meter started to run.

The point is what is being done while the $$-o-meter is running?

And, what's being done so you don't just restart the $$-o-meter running again?

And, this is just one simple scenario.

 

I didn't dodge anything! You asked a question, and I gave a DIRECT answer. There is no pleasing people like you, and no possibility for meaningful dialogue, either. You're a dyed-in-the-wool socialist. Admit it! Be proud of what you are... I'm proud of what I am!

 

And? What does that have to do with it?