Live data from Hacker News

Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

bbc.com

41–50 of 101 posts

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that he is trying to imply that society imposes men the burden to endure things. We cannot complain nor show suffering. If we do so, we are discriminated. I see this behavoiur a lot.

There is no way I can get away with it on HN, but in my mind, I call it Neoliberal Personality Disorder (not because it is a personality disorder, I mean it as a pun on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which in turn is a placeholder for itself plus related disorders). A set of soundbites and rationalizations that lead people to talk and behave (about and towards not directly present people) as if they were devoid o…

> it's the pathology of a "system", not (just) that of the people in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#42

While food, clothing, tech, even a lot of services have gone way down as a portion of median income, housing has gone disproportionally up. The only thing to compare it to is healthcare costs. Various government intervention that collude together to make this happen - mortgage interest tax deduction, building ordinances for areas, housing bubble bailouts. That is, it's mostly artificial. Innovation in this area seems…

The basic issue is that food, clothing, and technology are treated as consumer goods, if sometimes durable consumer goods. Housing is treated as an investment asset, and the economy currently runs on asset bubbles . Housing won't become affordable until we shift the growth-engine of the economy back to sustainable, wage-driven consumption.

Housing is only an investment asset in certain disfunctional housing markets (e.g., NYC, SF). The problem in these markets is that it's illegal to sell only housing - you can usually only sell housing + weird quasi-property rights (rent control/stabilization, landlord isn't allowed to easily get rid of tenants, etc).

In a market of renters who have leases that don't need to be renewed except via mutual consent of both parties, housing is very strictly a consumer good - you are buying X months of housing at a specific location for $Y.

Houston has a very functional housing market. Their secrets? No exclusionary zoning, no NIMBYs (Houston issued 64k housing permits in 2014, California issued 83k), no rent control, just build what people want and then sell it under mutually agreeable terms.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#43
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people say "homeless" they generally refer to something akin to "not having a place with a roof to sleep in and don't have a choice to have one". If you are staying at a hotel or if you have a home you can go back to abroad you're not considered homeless in that sense.

Who said I had a home abroad? And the hotel was just my longest stay, mostly for medical reasons. My primary accommodation was youth hostels and PGs, which are (materially) more or less homeless shelters. (Of course they are much higher status. Is this discussion really just about status?) The premise of gloves' comment (which I'm accepting for the purpose of my comment) is that the person described in the article is…

It's at least partly about status. But in the UK one of the possible outcomes of the housing system is a family being accomodated by the council in B&B or hotel accomodation on a "temporary" basis. This is for the very sensible reason that having children sleep on the streets or in homeless shelters is especially bad for their safety and future development. But it can still produce some very weird outcomes, especially when extended for weeks or months.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#44

While food, clothing, tech, even a lot of services have gone way down as a portion of median income, housing has gone disproportionally up. The only thing to compare it to is healthcare costs. Various government intervention that collude together to make this happen - mortgage interest tax deduction, building ordinances for areas, housing bubble bailouts. That is, it's mostly artificial. Innovation in this area seems…

I believe the biggest disconnect is that working requires government authorization but owning real estate does not. Ordinary citizens not only compete with locals for real estate, they compete with the world's millionaires who are looking for (relatively) safe investments.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#45

That are just shocking pictures to me. Well educated (as it seams) and hard working people, that can not afford at least a small regular spot of living. With the last big real estate deal in NY, the problem will be rising. The federal poverty line does not consider the greed of investment companies. It also does not help, to count the number of breads you can (theoretically) buy. Lets face it: Human labor is losing i…

But isn't most people's response to high rent in NY to commute from NJ and not live on a roof? I can't help but think that this man's choice to live on a roof isn't the one that most people would make.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#46
Another issue at play here is that male models make a lot less than their female counterparts.

See this article in Forbes about the problem: http://www.forbes.com/sites/vannale/2013/10/08/the-worlds-hi...

Sadly, when our President and others talk about income inequality, they really don't want equality. They just want even more wealth funneled to women.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The basic issue is that food, clothing, and technology are treated as consumer goods, if sometimes durable consumer goods. Housing is treated as an investment asset, and the economy currently runs on asset bubbles . Housing won't become affordable until we shift the growth-engine of the economy back to sustainable, wage-driven consumption.

Housing is only an investment asset in certain disfunctional housing markets (e.g., NYC, SF). The problem in these markets is that it's illegal to sell only housing - you can usually only sell housing + weird quasi-property rights (rent control/stabilization, landlord isn't allowed to easily get rid of tenants, etc). In a market of renters who have leases that don't need to be renewed except via mutual consent of bot…

Yet ask people where they would prefer to live and more want to live in New York than Houston. A city is more than just a sprawl of houses. Much of the attraction of cities comes from other things.

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The basic issue is that food, clothing, and technology are treated as consumer goods, if sometimes durable consumer goods. Housing is treated as an investment asset, and the economy currently runs on asset bubbles . Housing won't become affordable until we shift the growth-engine of the economy back to sustainable, wage-driven consumption.

Housing is only an investment asset in certain disfunctional housing markets (e.g., NYC, SF). The problem in these markets is that it's illegal to sell only housing - you can usually only sell housing + weird quasi-property rights (rent control/stabilization, landlord isn't allowed to easily get rid of tenants, etc). In a market of renters who have leases that don't need to be renewed except via mutual consent of bot…

> "Housing is only an investment asset in certain disfunctional housing markets (e.g., NYC, SF). The problem in these markets is that it's illegal to sell only housing"

What's the reason for dysfunction in the UK housing market then? It's perfectly legal to sell only housing over here (note that this graph is adjusted for inflation, people are spending roughly 4x the amount for a house compared to 1952 after correcting for inflation):

http://www.jackpeppercampbell.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07...

Re: Homeless model: New York's hidden homeless

#50

While food, clothing, tech, even a lot of services have gone way down as a portion of median income, housing has gone disproportionally up. The only thing to compare it to is healthcare costs. Various government intervention that collude together to make this happen - mortgage interest tax deduction, building ordinances for areas, housing bubble bailouts. That is, it's mostly artificial. Innovation in this area seems…

Buckminster Fuller was a pioneer of affordable and efficient housing engineering who began his career shortly after the Great Depression. In his 1980 book Grunch of Giants, he makes the prescient observations of the cyclical failure and subsequent bailouts of the US real estate and automotive industries and the high barriers to entry for innovators in this area:

>The first Beech-produced Fuller House was widely publicized. Soon 36,000 unsolicited orders, many with checks attached, were received for the Fuller House. At this point it was discovered that no distributing industry existed. The general building contractors had none of the complex tools for several-in-one-day deliveries of the dwelling machines. None of the building codes would permit their erection. The severest blow of all was that both the national electricians and plumber's organizations said they would have to be paid to take apart all the prefabricated and pre-installed wiring and plumbing, and put it together again, else they would not connect the otherwise "ready to live in" house to the town's or city's electrical lines and water mains. They held exclusively the official license to do this by long-time politically enacted laws. No banks were willing to provide mortgages to cover the sale of the Fuller Houses.

>Fortune made the mistake of assuming that "the industry industry missed" had at last come of age. But evolution's inauguration of the "livingry" industry had to wait until capitalism had graduated, from its forcenturies-held assumption that physical land property constituted capitalism itself, to the startling realization that the strictly metaphysical, technological "know-how" had become the most profitable property as the key to exploitation of the invisible industries of chemistry, metallurgy, electromagnetics, and atomics.

>Reorganizing all its strategies, capitalism has now unloaded its real estate property onto the people by refusing to rent and forcing people to buy their condo or coop homes. Evolution had to wait upon the government guaranteed, forty-year mortgage-financing of housing's costs to exceed humans' financial capability to acquire. Evolution had to wait until the U.S. mass-production of automobiles exclusively as a money-making business had been made obsolete by the technological felicity of manufacturing by other countries' producers, thus leaving U.S. productivity to reorient itself to the necessity of rehousing all humanity in mass-produced, aerospace-level-of-technology livingry.

>Evolution was clearly intent on postponing the inception of the livingry service industry until humanity had graduated from its pre-twentieth century condition as a planet of remote nations to an integrated global society, all of which waited upon completion of a world-around network of highways, airlines, and telephones, and automobiles and jumbo jet airplanes. All these evolutionary events (requisite to the livingry industry) have now taken place or are about to take place in the very near future. If the political systems do not eliminate humanity with their weapons, the half-century-gestating, world-around livingry service-industry will soon be born.

Post reply on HN