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

Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

oecdecoscope.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 660 posts

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#391

Post by broadsidepicnic »

cousin_it wrote: post #106

I think governments should offer free housing to everyone who asks, in their city of choice. "But why should taxpayers pay for that? It's expensive!" Yes, it would be very expensive. But you know what's even more expensive? The sum of everybody's lowered wages, bad bosses, fear for the future, fear of having kids and so on, due to the threat of homelessness. Yes, building housing is expensive, but the removal of fear…

I agree up to a point, and I pay nearly 50% income tax.

In my opinion this free housing should be built within an acceptable commute ride from city centers, maybe up to 30' ride? And scattered all around, not creating any slums. Hard problem to solve, I'm sure.

Nowadays there are years long waiting lists for city housing because they have flats available in expensive areas, which I feel is not the best bang for buck from taxpayers perspective.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#392

Post by cyberax »

tacitusarc wrote: post #380
cyberax wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a natural experiment: Minneapolis vs. Madison. Minneapolis abolished the single-family zoning and parking requirements in 2018. And it worked, developers swarmed the city like vultures attracted to carrion. Madison did no such nonsense. Can you guess the impact of these policies on housing costs? The house price growth in Minneapolis _accelerated_, just like in the nearby Madison. Here are the price growth ch…

I defy the data [1]. There is too much complexity in that single example and the law of supply/demand has been proven too frequently for it to not make sense that increasing demand to meet supply would reduce cost. 1. For clarity, this phrasing is from here https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vrHRcEDMjZcx5Yfru/i-defy-the...

> I defy the data.

Sorry. The reality doesn't care about your defiance.

Upzoning does not lead to lower housing prices. Even the most extreme urbanists admit that: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might...

> and the law of supply/demand has been proven too frequently

Ah, here it is. Have you considered that there, you know, might be "too much complexity" for "Economy 101" to fully explain the situation?

The _only_ way to decrease the housing prices is to BUILD MORE SUBURBS. Or even new cities entirely.

You don't have any other options. Sorry again.

Well, maybe one more: the Detroit route. Reduce the city population and the prices will go down.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#393

Post by lostlogin »

epistasis wrote: post #328
lostlogin wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context was that immigration was being encouraged, while not having enough housing. Immigration being used to fuel growth. Housing the people is great, but encouraging immigration while being unable to house the current population is not.

That's at best a less-than-complete view of immigration. For immigrants themselves, it is usually an issue of self-determination and freedom. I can't say I'm fully privy to the immigration debate in Canada, but framing it as an issue of "growth" could not be a complete view of the advocates of immigration. Especially with the level of acceptance of refugees in Canada. The not enough housing aspect is completely incid…

Are we both arguing against the growth we see at this time?

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#394

Post by saagarjha »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #360
wpm wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most liberal democracies have provision within their founding documents and case law to allow for central governments at all levels to provide for the general welfare. You are asking highly vague implementation details about a small hypothetical. It comes off as incredibly rude and like you're fishing for some answer you already mentally dunked on.

Why does your opinion matter more than anyone else’s opinion here? Even if you believe my previous questions were too opinionated, responding with even more can only be detrimental, and it is not going to lead anywhere productive. For example, try making a substantive argument as to how a credible enforcement system would come into existence. Otherwise the default assumption is that it will not turn out any better th…

I'll add a second opinion to that. Still feeling smug about it?

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#395

Post by cudgy »

wat10000 wrote: post #348
verelo wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fifty years ago Montreal was the business centre of Canada, now that’s Toronto. That $800 rate might actually be more affordable in a less business oriented city, or even Montreal itself since it’s seen a lot of decline in that time. Having said that, there’s zero debate rents are out of control. I own a triplex and every time a unit turns over and i do my research on rent i get a bit shocked. I’ve found myself legit…

A business center doesn't have to be expensive. That’s made to happen because housing isn’t allowed to be built in sufficient quantity, not a necessary consequence of success.

And yet most large cities have sections of it that are in total blight with abandoned homes, with windows blown out or plywood covering access holes to prevent intruders.

Much of the problem is that the bourgeois class wants to live in the popular neighborhood, bidding up rents and values in isolated sections of large cities. Meanwhile, large chunks of cities have relatively affordable, but not as attractive neighborhoods with homes that could be converted to house the homeless for a fraction of what it would cost to build new housing.

Just the other day, I heard a news report in my area where they allocated money for homeless at $100,000 per bed in order to add more beds to an existing shelter in the downtown area. Yet this city has neighborhoods with cheap and unoccupied homes that could be bought to house these homeless for much less than 100,000 per bed.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#396

Post by SequoiaHope »

friend_Fernando wrote: post #368
SequoiaHope wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think quantity is a valid concern but I also think treating housing as a speculative asset is an issue. Housing serves as a valuable speculative asset precisely because quantity is restricted by a variety of factors, but actually using it as a speculative asset raises prices significantly.

Relative scarcity is the necessary and sufficient condition. Either there's enough housing or there isn't (there's a bit of slack with relocations, house sharing and spare bedrooms but it's largely inconsequential.) That means that supply (i.e. quantity) is enough. It's true that if it was impossible to speculate on housing, there would be less incentive to create artificial scarcity by e.g. lobbying for restrictive…

> Relative scarcity is the necessary and sufficient condition. Either there's enough housing or there isn't

This seems like an oversimplification. Speculation affects demand, so the amount of speculation is hidden within “relative scarcity”. If there is no speculation then demand is directly related to the needs and finances of potential occupants. If there is speculation then demand becomes connected to the buying power of the wealthy, and thus demand and prices are likely to be higher.

In particular, the wealthy investing class collectively have way, way more money than the renting class, so the finances of the wealthy class distort housing prices upward in ways which dwarf the supply and demand effects from actual renters moving in and out of an area.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#397

Post by cudgy »

Qwertious wrote: post #358
mrkstu wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In a functioning economy" is doing a lot of work here. Here in reality the parent comment is 100% correct.

My point is that immigration is a distraction from the nonfunctioning economy .

And yet the non-functioning economy might be a result of the excessive immigration. Which one is easiest to address?

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#398

Post by tacitusarc »

cyberax wrote: post #392
tacitusarc wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I defy the data [1]. There is too much complexity in that single example and the law of supply/demand has been proven too frequently for it to not make sense that increasing demand to meet supply would reduce cost. 1. For clarity, this phrasing is from here https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vrHRcEDMjZcx5Yfru/i-defy-the...

> I defy the data. Sorry. The reality doesn't care about your defiance. Upzoning does not lead to lower housing prices. Even the most extreme urbanists admit that: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might... > and the law of supply/demand has been proven too frequently Ah, here it is. Have you considered that there, you know, might be "too much complexity" for "Economy 101" to fully explain the si…

Firstly, your link is focused on zoning changes, specifically how they are insufficient to prompt addition supply to be built.

From your linked blog post:

> Freemark finds extremely mixed and uncertain evidence for the effects of upzoning, and one of several reasons he identifies is that the link between upzoning and actual housing production is tenuous. In other words, “Are they allowed to build it?” is a different question from, “Are they building it?”

Secondly, building more suburbs and more cities increases the supply… which indicates agreement that the price problem is one of insufficient supply.

EDIT: To be perfectly clear, the data I disagree with is that increasing supply in Minneapolis failed to impact price. This is the contention of the comment I responded to, and it is fundamentally different from the claim that zoning changes fail to increase supply.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#400

Post by goodpoint »

jas39 wrote: post #45
philip1209 wrote: post #4

Worth pointing out that Finland is one of the most ethnically homogeneous societies in Europe - only ~10% of the population is of foreign origin and background [1]. So, like Japan, it's easier to have a high-trust society if you eschew immigration. Edit: Just to be clear, I'm very pro-immigration. I just think that studying rich homogeneous societies doesn't result in many useful takeaways for countries like the USA.…

This is extremely relevant. Finland is basically Sweden without mass migration. The cracks in our society that the multi-culti ideology has opened up is difficult for an American to comprehend, because you never experienced the benefits of a true monoculture.

citation needed
Post reply on HN