101–110 of 212 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean isn't that twice the size of a dorm room? It could not have been that bad.
I don't know what US dorms are like, but I'd guess they have some shared space to stretch out in. Maybe a kitchen or lounge. But what we're talking about is the room, and nothing else. That's not a great way to live.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good video. I disagree that the government should do anything about it though. What's the alternative, make them homeless? If there is both supply and demand, let people do what they want. If San Francisco allowed this, there would be far fewer homeless people, but the only options they give them are $2,000 a month apartments or living in the streets. So lots of people live in the streets.
No, the alternative is to have the government build subsidized housing and then enact strict price controls so that even poor families can afford to live reasonably. That's how it was done in Singapore for example and is why they can live in "spacious" 30-70 m^2 apartments despite having a higher population density than Hong Kong. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore .
I think the reason is that HK does have bigger area than SG but actually far less land is being used in HK (many hills), so practically speaking, the density is higher in HK :)
I find it odd that whoever build those houses decided to make tiny apartments instead of larger shared ones. For cooking, having a shared kitchen - even if used by many families - would probably help a lot, specially since it's cheaper and easier to make a big communal meal than having to cook for each family.
You don't understand. These apartments are shared (in most cases). Communal houses are a complete disaster if you don't choose who gets to live in there with you (theft, fights, -God forbid- rape, parties, bullying, ...)
A friend of mine purchased a duplex house so she could live downstairs and rent out the upper floor by individual rooms. The only way she found that it worked was to have new tenants vetted by the existing ones. The 4 rooms were rented individually with shared kitchen and bathroom, but by letting the tenants have a say in who they shared the space with, turnover was very low and people tended to get along better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that really how it works in SG? I've been told housing prices are outrageous there and if you're too poor to afford public housing you get shipped off to the poor house and are not allowed to leave unless you can find someone to take responsibility for you. Note: I've only visited SG so this is 2nd hand info through my friends in SG.
That's sort of how it works here. The Singaporean housing market is divided into HDB (public housing) and Condo (private housing). Condo's nowadays start at around SGD 1m for something small and basic, but aren't such a bad deal with banks charging interest of just 1.8% on a 40 year loan. Most Singaporeans can't afford this with an average monthly wage of just SGD 2,000 per month. Public housing on the other hand is…
1,000,000 SGD is about 800,000 USD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If San Francisco allowed the sale of contaminated food there would be demand for it from people who have no choice. This is really a consumer rights issue. The landlords should provide a basic standard of safety for such high rents. The scope for exploitation is huge and the government should protect people from that. The size issue is less important.
If landlords are exploiting people and providing unsafe places to live, then that should be dealt with. I haven't seen anybody other than you mention those things though. People are just appalled by how small and ugly the rooms/cages are and they feel sorry for the people who choose to live there. The government shouldn't tell people who want to pay to live there that they cannot do so.
I live in apartment. Not a micro-one. But I imagine you can find solace in just having only the things you need. Why do you need a ranch size home and 20 acres?
Actually I'd rather have 20 acres, or 100, but within the constraints we set, this is what we could (barely) afford. I like my own space and I consider it one of the things I "need." In fact, it's way up there in terms of priority. Your "needs" may be different. I've lived in large, medium, and small cities and I simply prefer to live in a low-density area.
Now, about the house itself, it's too big: I'd prefer something about 1/3 the size. Unfortunately, it's impossible to find a small house on a large acreage unless you want to commute over an hour to work and no bank will lend the money to build one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That works once, then it stops working in the future and backfires because people would no longer be motivated to create wealth in that jurisdiction. Which means no jobs and no tax revenue.
How long does it take to stop working? I'm living in Copenhagen, and it seems to have been working here for quite a while now. And it makes the city much nicer for everyone. As a middle-class professional, I don't need the social welfare system myself (at least, not currently), but I still do benefit from the quality of life that comes from living in a city with very low crime, relatively low poverty, and reasonably…
For Denmark, about another 7 years. Why do you think the government is acting the way it does? (For those not familiar with the situation, pursuing a reform strategy in straight opposition of explicit pre-election promises). By then, the baby-boomers will have retired and the smallest generation in modern history is left to pay for everything.
As for crime, there is no evidence that low inequality causes low crime rates, or the opposite. Significantly more inequal Switzerland and Singapore has lower homicide rates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That works once, then it stops working in the future and backfires because people would no longer be motivated to create wealth in that jurisdiction. Which means no jobs and no tax revenue.
Do you honestly believe the ultra-rich work for money? Imagine, if you were a multi-millionaire, would you go to a job you hated for 60 hours a week?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good video. I disagree that the government should do anything about it though. What's the alternative, make them homeless? If there is both supply and demand, let people do what they want. If San Francisco allowed this, there would be far fewer homeless people, but the only options they give them are $2,000 a month apartments or living in the streets. So lots of people live in the streets.
No, the alternative is to have the government build subsidized housing and then enact strict price controls so that even poor families can afford to live reasonably. That's how it was done in Singapore for example and is why they can live in "spacious" 30-70 m^2 apartments despite having a higher population density than Hong Kong. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore .