Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 662 posts

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#71

Post by sofixa »

ecshafer wrote: post #24
bugglebeetle wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet Vienna is one of the most beautiful, livable cities in the world, with its masses of public housing, while major U.S. cities have homelessness crises and TV shows about house flipping for profit. Perhaps we should stop debating things based on the hokum of Econ 101 textbooks and look at what in the real world has actually worked (e.g. abolishing most forms of zoning, massive investments in public housing, rob…

The US also has a per capita GDP 50% higher than Austria ($52,131 vs $76,399). At $52,131 a year per capita GDP, Austria would be neatly in second to last place as the poorest state in the Union, as it would beat Mississippi at $47,190 but be beaten by West Virginia at $53,852. So perhaps the US policy is doing something correctly.

How is GDP per capita relevant, especially not adjusted for purchasing power parity? For Austria the GDP per capita PPP is at $67-69k depending on the estimate, which would put it somewhere between 27 and 33 place of US states, so roughly in the middle.

If you compare the Quality of Life Index, Austria is 9th, USA is 15th. Freedom Index - Austria is 93, USA is 83. HDI USA is 20th with 0.927, Austria is 22nd with 0.926. Another fun one is Cost of Living index which shows that Austria is significantly cheaper to live in compared to the US (66.8 vs 72.9 out of NYC).

I can go on, but it's frankly ridiculous that you think GDP per capita is relevant, or somehow directly impacts the lives of Austrians and invalidates the good choices Austria and Vienna have made.

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#72

Post by bko »

dangus wrote: post #22
bko wrote: post #4

The problem with charging below market prices for anything is that it necessarily leads to a mismatch of supply and demand. So the question is how do you allocate that supply? One way is to have hidden costs. This could range from straight up bribes, to paid consultants to fill out a lot of forms or talk to the right people, to just knowing someone Another way is a lottery which benefits a tiny percentage of people.…

Basically, you’re assuming that this system is going to be like the underfunded and scarce public housing in the United States where a difficult to win lottery will be necessary to secure an apartment. In that sort of market of scarce supply, slumlords can overcharge for low quality rentals. But they couldn’t do that in a market where the government is offering a real alternative that you can actually get into. From…

Not Paris but NYC:

> For many New Yorkers, the most desirable jackpot is not the New York Lotto, but to be selected in the city’s extraordinarily competitive affordable-housing lottery. Tens of thousands of people, and sometimes many more, vie for the handful of units available at a time. Since 2013, there have been more than 25 million applications submitted for roughly 40,000 units.

Central planning has been tried over and over and has failed and led to more scarcity. It's like fitting climate change by regulating thermometers. Maybe this time is different?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/nyregion/nyc-affordable-h...

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#73

Post by penetrarthur »

bboygravity wrote: post #52
bedobi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think like you but no longer do. A city NEEDS to have people of all ages, backgrounds, income levels etc in it to not die. Yes those people who live in that most central subsidized housing are in some ways winning a lottery ticket, and the real policy is to build a lot more housing as close to the city as possible. But Paris are doing that! AND adding new public transit etc etc. This multifaceted approach i…

Why does everybody need to concentrate in huge cities? If Romans where able to relatively evenly spread their towns and population all over the place in the analogue age, then why aren't we able to do so in the digital age?

While being "huge", good European cities are quite homogenous throughout most of the area with 4-6 floor apartment buildings, small businesses in almost every building, parks, schools, good public transport system. They don't feel exactly "huge".

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#74

Post by rmbyrro »

wheybags wrote: post #28
ketzo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People always say this like a gotcha, but aren’t politicians supposed to do stuff that they think people will vote for?

No, I want my politicians to declare what they want to do, and then I choose which one I agree with. I do not want them to get elected, then try to do what people want. That's backwards.

Haven't they advocated for public housing and people voted them because of it?

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#75

Post by TimPC »

bko wrote: post #63
Ragnarork wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the question is how do you allocate that supply? To adress this specific question for Paris, they put an upper limit on your income to rent specific housing with lower rent. I'll scale down your caricature of an example though, the offers you can see are usually 15% to 20% under market price, not 75% like you seem to imply. Not exactly sure what is your point otherwise, the difference in terms of giving someone…

> This is not equivalent because giving someone that money doesn't mean they'll chose to live inside Paris, and this is a measure that goes beyond financial support.It's also a city policy aimed at achieving a specific population distribution. I don't know, I would prefer the autonomy to choose where I live and how I spend my money. Why don't we afford the same respect to people that are less well off? Why do we want…

I think it's totally fair that a program designed to support people of a certain income living in Paris requires those people to live in Paris. If you want autonomy you can have it, just don't take the money/apartment. This feels like a cake and eat it to attitude. Government is totally allowed to have aims and reasons behind programs. Having low income people live in Paris ensures there are people available who can do work that can't afford to pay high wages. This is important to having a vibrant city and something reasonable for a government to aim for. If people could just take the money and screw off to anywhere in the country, then we'd effectively see people take a $30,000/year subsidy and go somewhere they could live entirely on that without working, which would accomplish very much the opposite of what the whole program was trying to do.

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#76

Post by Ragnarork »

bko wrote: post #63
Ragnarork wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the question is how do you allocate that supply? To adress this specific question for Paris, they put an upper limit on your income to rent specific housing with lower rent. I'll scale down your caricature of an example though, the offers you can see are usually 15% to 20% under market price, not 75% like you seem to imply. Not exactly sure what is your point otherwise, the difference in terms of giving someone…

> This is not equivalent because giving someone that money doesn't mean they'll chose to live inside Paris, and this is a measure that goes beyond financial support.It's also a city policy aimed at achieving a specific population distribution. I don't know, I would prefer the autonomy to choose where I live and how I spend my money. Why don't we afford the same respect to people that are less well off? Why do we want…

This doesn't force anyone's hand. If people don't want to live in Paris, that's their choice. No one is kidnapping them and shoving them in these apartments.

On the other hand, if they want to, they have an avenue to do this (and it's still going to be difficult, supply isn't nearly as plenty as the private market), even if they don't have the income needed to find housing in the same area otherwise.

> They're not some pawn you can use to feel good about yourself

That's not the reason Paris is doing this. There are benefits to encouraging diversity, among which fighting against getthoisation/communitarianism and prejudices, things that France has quite a poor records with in the last 50 years, and that had direct consequences on society cohesion.

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#78

Post by detourdog »

Deprogrammer9 wrote: post #40

If the USA didn't endlessly fund war then maybe they could invest in their cities & infrastructure more. Probably not going to happen anytime soon by the looks of things.

What is interesting is that after WW2 Europe had to rebuild and the USA was left with a great industrial machine that had a capacity that outstripped demand.

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#79

Post by amanda99 »

bko wrote: post #72
dangus wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically, you’re assuming that this system is going to be like the underfunded and scarce public housing in the United States where a difficult to win lottery will be necessary to secure an apartment. In that sort of market of scarce supply, slumlords can overcharge for low quality rentals. But they couldn’t do that in a market where the government is offering a real alternative that you can actually get into. From…

Not Paris but NYC: > For many New Yorkers, the most desirable jackpot is not the New York Lotto, but to be selected in the city’s extraordinarily competitive affordable-housing lottery. Tens of thousands of people, and sometimes many more, vie for the handful of units available at a time. Since 2013, there have been more than 25 million applications submitted for roughly 40,000 units. Central planning has been tried…

Your top comment sounded pretty sensible and fair but in your responses to comments you now just sound like a troll.

Central planning works very well: that's how every corporation, city, and state works. It works well as long as you apply it to a small enough market and e.g. don't try to plan the whole economy.

The problem in NYC is that there is not enough affordable housing. 40k units is nothing in the housing supply, and the rent inflation has been way too high lately.

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#80

Post by ilikehurdles »

dangus wrote: post #11

This article reminded me of a thought I’ve often had: that the USA is a great place to live for the upper middle class and above, but it’s one of the worst wealthy countries to live in when you’re poor. From the context of the USA it seems downright amazing to see a society where public housing isn’t automatically assumed to be a number of bad things: taxpayer waste, crime haven, and antiquated disrepair. The benefit…

Boutique shops and artisinal fares aren’t what poor immigrants to the USA are looking for. Being poor in the USA already means you’re better off than you’d be in most of those “wealthy countries’” in income. The bottom 10% in the US have a life index on par with or better than the top 10% in most European countries. The lowest 20% in America consume like an average person in a wealthy European country. Meanwhile my cousin is a third generation German and still gets called Ausländer by her teachers (who get to decide for her which academic future she’s allowed to have).

Every poor immigrant family I know from around the early 2000s, ourselves included, now _owns_ at least one house. Their kids went to college, people started businesses.

Also if you haven’t seen chains in pay less attention to McDonald’s and more attention to luxury clothing brands. Trust me, unlike Subways, you won’t be seeing Europe’s poor in any of these places. And for what it’s worth, Paris is swarming with homelessness, including that of small children. The fact you see the opposite written in the New York Times should be a clue that they’ve got a reason to skew that reality otherwise.

Post reply on HN