What if public housing were for everyone?
1–10 of 93 posts
Re: What if public housing were for everyone?
#2My understanding is that one of the feature's of Singapore's public housing is that there is a range of qualities from basic to luxury. It seems to me that could help make such a program more palatable.
Re: What if public housing were for everyone?
#3My understanding is that one of the feature's of Singapore's public housing is that there is a range of qualities from basic to luxury. It seems to me that could help make such a program more palatable.
One of the other things about Singapore is that they will bring the hammer down on you for abusing the public housing. If you pee in an elevator, the doors will shut and the police will come. Compare that to public housing in America...
Re: What if public housing were for everyone?
#4My understanding is that one of the feature's of Singapore's public housing is that there is a range of qualities from basic to luxury. It seems to me that could help make such a program more palatable.
Much like single payer healthcare (which even a majority of Republicans are in favor of), the program is perfectly palatable to voters.
The problem is that the investors who fund political campaigns and media oligarchs hate HATE HATE public housing, because it reduces the value of their property investments. Extra supply reduces the price of existing supply.
In order to win elections, you almost need those investors on your side more. The public will be swayed one way or another by their media and if you don't have the campaign financing they probably won't even hear about your exciting campaign platform to build lots of housing in the first place - you'll get cut out in an early race.
Re: What if public housing were for everyone?
#5My understanding is that one of the feature's of Singapore's public housing is that there is a range of qualities from basic to luxury. It seems to me that could help make such a program more palatable.
Much like single payer healthcare (which even a majority of Republicans are in favor of), the program is perfectly palatable to voters. The problem is that the investors who fund political campaigns and media oligarchs hate HATE HATE public housing, because it reduces the value of their property investments. Extra supply reduces the price of existing supply. In order to win elections, you almost need those investors…
> In order to win elections, you almost need those investors on your side more than the actual public
…because those few elite investors outnumber the voting public at the voting booth?
This claim doesn’t make any sense. It’s weird conspiratorial thinking.
EDIT: Yes, people. I’m familiar with Fox News and the concept of campaign donations. However, Fox News’ prime time viewership is around 0.5% of the US population and the average size of presidential campaign contributions is well under $100.
Claiming that elections are decided by a shadowy cabal of elite investors who trick unwitting voters into voting against their self interests is the election equivalent of claiming anyone who disagrees with you online is a bot or a shill.
Re: What if public housing were for everyone?
#6Around two thirds of the Viennese population lives in public housing. The City of Vienna is Europe's largest landlord.
On a related note, Vienna has been leading Global Quality of Life rankings for years.
See also this short documentary about what that looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxuACFQBwxs
Re: What if public housing were for everyone?
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much like single payer healthcare (which even a majority of Republicans are in favor of), the program is perfectly palatable to voters. The problem is that the investors who fund political campaigns and media oligarchs hate HATE HATE public housing, because it reduces the value of their property investments. Extra supply reduces the price of existing supply. In order to win elections, you almost need those investors…
> In order to win elections, you almost need those investors on your side more than the actual public …because those few elite investors outnumber the voting public at the voting booth? This claim doesn’t make any sense. It’s weird conspiratorial thinking. EDIT: Yes, people. I’m familiar with Fox News and the concept of campaign donations. However, Fox News’ prime time viewership is around 0.5% of the US population a…
You need immense financial resources to win elections in the US. To get those, you need the support of elite investors.
This is why other countries legally cap election campaign spending.
Re: What if public housing were for everyone?
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much like single payer healthcare (which even a majority of Republicans are in favor of), the program is perfectly palatable to voters. The problem is that the investors who fund political campaigns and media oligarchs hate HATE HATE public housing, because it reduces the value of their property investments. Extra supply reduces the price of existing supply. In order to win elections, you almost need those investors…
> In order to win elections, you almost need those investors on your side more than the actual public …because those few elite investors outnumber the voting public at the voting booth? This claim doesn’t make any sense. It’s weird conspiratorial thinking. EDIT: Yes, people. I’m familiar with Fox News and the concept of campaign donations. However, Fox News’ prime time viewership is around 0.5% of the US population a…
Have you heard of Fox News? It's a TV channel that runs completely fair and balanced news. Anybody who says otherwise is a weird conspiracy theorist. /s
Those elite investors can run large scale propaganda campaigns via the media that they own to sway voters from candidate A to candidate B.
Their preference is to cut candidate C (the kind that likes stuff like public housing, single payer healthcare, reducing military spending) out of the political system at a low level and let voters fight over A and B at the highest levels (e.g. president) safe in the knowledge that A and B both have billionaire best interests at heart and that voters really feel like they're getting a choice.
Which, of course, they are not: https://www.princeton.edu/~davidlee/wp/voterspolicies.pdf
Re: What if public housing were for everyone?
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much like single payer healthcare (which even a majority of Republicans are in favor of), the program is perfectly palatable to voters. The problem is that the investors who fund political campaigns and media oligarchs hate HATE HATE public housing, because it reduces the value of their property investments. Extra supply reduces the price of existing supply. In order to win elections, you almost need those investors…
> In order to win elections, you almost need those investors on your side more than the actual public …because those few elite investors outnumber the voting public at the voting booth? This claim doesn’t make any sense. It’s weird conspiratorial thinking. EDIT: Yes, people. I’m familiar with Fox News and the concept of campaign donations. However, Fox News’ prime time viewership is around 0.5% of the US population a…
Political campaigns today are decided by advertising budgets. It isn’t conspiratorial to think that the people funding these media campaigns would want something in return.
Re: What if public housing were for everyone?
#10My understanding is that one of the feature's of Singapore's public housing is that there is a range of qualities from basic to luxury. It seems to me that could help make such a program more palatable.
Much like single payer healthcare (which even a majority of Republicans are in favor of), the program is perfectly palatable to voters. The problem is that the investors who fund political campaigns and media oligarchs hate HATE HATE public housing, because it reduces the value of their property investments. Extra supply reduces the price of existing supply. In order to win elections, you almost need those investors…
> the program is perfectly palatable to voters. [...] The problem is that the investors who fund political campaigns and media oligarchs hate HATE HATE public housing, because it reduces the value of their property investments.
I'm not sure that's largely true. I suspect that many property-owning voters are okay with the concept of public housing, but are less ken on the actuality that building public housing increases the supply of housing which reduces the value of their property.
There's also the weird conservative thinking that public housing provision somehow amounts to people getting "something for nothing".