Please don't take HN threads into flamewar, please stop posting flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments, and please don't use HN for ideological battle. All of that is against the site guidelines.
Edit: you've unfortunately been doing this repeatedly. We ban that sort of account, so if you'd please fix this, we'd be grateful.
In some countries with absurdly high house prices, I think some level of nationalisation of housing is an eventual inevitability. Much like Seoul, places like Sydney are so expensive that unless you already own a house, or are eventually going to inherit one, no amount of hard work or education can reliably get you into the market.
Entry level prices within 25 miles of the city are around A$1.5m for a detached house, and apartments are predominantly 1 or 2 bedrooms and poorly built, so not really suitable for families. Many people suggest ‘moving west’ to the new suburbs being built, but even 30-40 miles out the prices are still around a million dollars. Given an average full time wage in the range of $50k, saving a deposit after rent is almost impossible. Not totally impossible, but very close to…
And places like Sydney are expensive in no small part because of issues like negative gearing and zoning controls, all in direct control of the government. Also the government is under no incentive to change the status quo because like any good mafia they take their cut of every transaction with stamp duty "oh you two want to trade, where's mine?".
You’re not wrong, but I would hope that by the time we work ourselves into a situation where there is no unskilled labour within commuting distance of where the work is, the government might finally realise that lack of workers is bad for business, which seems to be the main concern. I’m still wondering if we will reach a point where normal people don’t have any disposable money to spend in shops because it’s all going to landlords and utilities/basics, and if at that point they might go ‘oh wait that’s bad’
I can't really see politicians allowing the inflated housing market to deflate. So many people will lose years/decades worth of saving this way - that would mean a lot of angry voters, not to mention another potential banking crash, as mortgages would no longer be backed by houses of enough value. I think high housing prices in developed world are going to stay with us for a long time.
I find it very funny that right wing libertarians think the government is some all powerful force hell bent on taking their daddy’s tax money, when no politician dare cross a $10,000 dollar donor.
The weather must truly be perfect in their fantasy world, they don’t even peek out of it.
Please stop posting flamebait/or unsubstantive comments to HN, and please stop using the site for ideological battle. You've been doing this repeatedly lately, and we ban that sort of account—regardless of what they're battling for or against—because it destroys what HN is supposed to be for.
Breaking the site guidelines like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. You may not feel you owe them better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
Please can you illuminate me on what rule I actually broke, the OP was implying something about me that was unsubstantiated and in my view clearly nonsense?
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
"Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine."
"Be kind. Don't be snarky."
Note that if we go to your GP comment and take out the parts that break those guidelines, there's nothing left of it. That's a good clue, actually - it means you probably shouldn't have replied. The parent comment was obviously breaking the site guidelines and should have been flagged and left alone. That's another guideline in fact:
"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."
And yet Tokyo does not have this problem despite growing 50% in population over the last two decades. If you make building housing illegal prices rise. Demand and supply are going to meet somewhere and if you restrict supply prices will rise. If you restrict it more they'll rise more or faster. Compare San Francisco, Seattle and Houston in a US context. The more you restrict supply the more prices rise.
I completely agree, but Tokyo also has sensible tax policies to encourage providing housing, and a government that aims for zero unemployment. I really like their model of ensuring jobs are available so people have money to consume private sector housing, and that there is always such housing available because there is always someone to consume it. There’s about 50 seperate policies places like Sydney and Seoul would need to change to head down that path, but the interests of those in power are largely in keeping prices high it seems…
If there is demand for housing and you do not make supplying that demand illegal someone will supply it. People live in dormitories in Hong Kong right now. Perfectly safe but middle class busybodies don't like flophouses, SROs or dormitories so they make it illegal.
If it was legal to provide housing in San Francisco in dorms it would be done. If it was legal to build residential skyscrapers in New York Queens would look like Brooklyn if not Manhattan.
Make building housing legal and the market will provide.
When you build more apartments you get more density and more inward migration and more concentration of opportunity, until the marginal migrant can't afford or doesn't want to live there. The same sort of people are miserable when there's more density as when there was less, except there's more of them.
[NOTE: I mostly agree with you and this comment is a bit of a non-sequitur but I hadn't thought about the idea that the problem might actually be "moloch" (in slate star codex terms)].
Not building roads/apartments is not a solution, unless you really want to cosplay middle ages in your country.
So you will have to build something, somewhere.
Actually, roads and apartments are in counter-balance. More resedential high-rises in semi-walkable distance from business districts and public transit = less roads are needed (but there is still congestion due to bottlenecks). More spread-out houses - more traffic as people will drive tens of miles to work.
Korea is not sufficiently large that you could stick people so far they're not able to come to megapolis and congest it.
I am wondering if a super super block model would work. You take a 3x3 block of houses and label it a super block. Then you build a 5x5 block of super blocks and then put commercial zoning in the middle.
It's not about building it.It's about having a plan what to do with it.Koreans are incredible and efficient builders.
Korean culture favors one time hit wonders instead of gradual development and continuous improvements.It's the nature of korean culture to just try new things because that is deemed to be better than trying to go with existing ones.
So you build a city and just because you built it you expect everyone to just go there.And it has to succeed or it is deemed to be an irrepairable failure.
Koreans dream of grandiose big projects that will put them on the world stage like Chaebols once did and they dont see the local opportunities or challenges.
It's not that.It's the korean approach of doing things.The "bbali bbali" culture where korean ingenuity gets pushed back by their impatience and the need to re-invent themselves very quick.
They like to designate certain areas to specific industries and then wonder why it's not such a good approach.
Look at Songdo or Pangyo Techno Valley.Both rushed and without much thought.
As soon as the gov subsidies ran out the companies wanted to move back because it was both as expensive as in Seoul downtown with little of other benefit.
Also 99% of the companies there were korean anyway.
Because roads are practically free to drivers. If you gave me a bigger house for free I would live in it alone even though it was designed for a family of 6.
If you charged a sufficient toll on congested roads the congestion would be gone.
One wonderful thing about Japan is that houses are as much of an investment as toothbrushes. The minute someone uses it, its value drops immensely.
10 years is old but still somewhat livable and generally cheap. Once you get past 20 years, locals basically see the house as scrap. It's really easy to buy cheap houses or apartments over 20 years old. Some clueless foreigners new to Japan see these prices and think they can flip them and resell to get rich, and they're always disappointed to find out it doesn't work that way.
40-50 year old houses can be bought for around car prices if you're willing to live 30 minutes from a smallish city. You're basically just paying for the land at that point.
That doesn't quite make sense. You're basically paying for the land in many European cities, too, so how is the price of the building an important factor? It's the land that's very expensive.
Random land outside of the middle of urban centers isn't that valuable, especially when population isn't growing. What is someone going to do, hold onto it for decades and hope someone buys it from them at a 10x markup and be enough to offset the taxes they paid?
In some places (or at least the US), old houses generally gain value. Of course, land is valuable in and of itself, but there's no shame in buying a 100 year old house in the US. There's no worry of earthquake damage, generally no risk of extensive mold due to a drier climate than East Asia, nobody really worries about ghosts infesting the home, etc. Plus, 100 year old American houses are quite honestly probably better than the cardboard and paper mache houses that have been common recently. In my experience, 1920s apartments were much nicer than the post 1970s places I lived in.
> apartments are predominantly 1 or 2 bedrooms and poorly built
It is just amazing that Australia does not good regulations for building apartments. You work hard, you save money, buy an apartment and then you find out there are some major structural issues in the building.
Housing is expensive because there is a lot of demand. By nationalizing or similar policy forcing people to sell cheaper all you achieve is creation of a class of preferential buyers (who are allowed to buy cheaply or get housing for free from the government) while excluding others from the market altogether. Those policies just hide the demand it won't magically disappear.
Things you can do are:
-increasing supply by changing laws around zoning, allow building more/higher etc.
-introduce policies that makes it more attractive to live in less populated areas where land is cheaper (hard to say what works but maybe better/faster public transportation, more wfh, preferential tax treatment for companies that move to other areas, if enough of that happens new business/population hubs might start)
Why can't people move to some other city if the current one is to expensive? How would nationalization actually deal with situation when there's much more people who want to live in Seoul than houses? A 15 years long waiting list?
This usually boils down the the chicken and egg problem of infrastructure and jobs. In Korea, the majority of the population is within the Seoul area, so most of the jobs are there and all the infrastructure to support them is concentrated there. Sydney and Melbourne are much the same in Australia, and the results are the same, where as soon as you leave these centres, there are no jobs or infrastructure available. As mentioned by another commenter above, Tokyo did this right with central planning and a more decentralised business district, where ‘Tokyo’ is basically 4 or 5 cities around each other, and there is infrastructure and transport there to support the intended population.
> Tokyo did this right with central planning and a more decentralised business district
What central planning? A more decentralised business district is what happens if you don't make it illegal. People will buy up residential property and turn it into commercial or office if it's not illegal to do so. It's not about planning. It would be more accurate to call it not planning.
> there is infrastructure and transport there to support the intended population.
Again, no one intended this. They didn't decide to make Tokyo this size. They just didn't actively get in the way. They built the infrastructure and transport that they had good reason to believe there was demand for. In contrast the NYC subway system is basically teh same as when it was taken over by the government and public transport is significantly worse than 1940 insofar as there are no street cars.
Then you will just have different classes: "people who have the public apartment" and "people who don't, and have to stay out of opportunities". The inequality: still there.
99 year lease, you don’t own it. Can’t get one unless you’re married or over 35. Most people live with their parents until they move out. Lottery system and severely oversubscribed (can take multiple tries to get allocated a place) and once you “win” up to 5 year wait while it’s built (govt isn’t interested in overbuilding again). Lucky folks get one of the super desirable locations and after owning for 5 years sell it for big profit.
And yet Singapore has low taxes (by some considered even a tax haven) and is not a welfare state. That is by design, LKY having been a big supporter of personal responsibility.
Singapore has low income taxes but high CPF (forced savings for retirement, health, housing, etc) requirements - 20% of gross income on top income taxes. The total take isn’t that low.
And Singapore is most definitely a welfare state - just not a super generous one. Housing, healthcare, education are all heavily subsidized but also very strongly means tested. If you’re truly destitute in Singapore you will have a place to live, free healthcare and lots of government support.
> Singapore has low income taxes but high CPF (forced savings for retirement, health, housing, etc) requirements - 20% of gross income on top income taxes. The total take isn’t that low.
Which, compared to western states, isn't taken away from you. It's your own private pool of money, just with a restricted use.
The government is just aware, people are not great at saving for their future, so they have to be forced to do it properly.
Housing is not really subsidised, it's just build and sold without markup. Singapore's healthcare is also one of the "cheapest" and most efficient in the world.
Why? Some forms of this work pretty well in lots of countries, it doesn't in others. As with all its in the details but straight out saying no is just ignorant.
I'm not aware of anywhere that attempts to socialise housing has worked well. As a teacher and someone who has been a student I'm also extremely hesitant to say that the way education is usually provided [1] counts as working well, whether you're looking at purely economic returns on investment or human flourishing.
[1] Not a knock on government provision in this case as demand for education with any real freedom seems to be extremely limited
> I'm not aware of anywhere that attempts to socialise housing has worked well.
In Vienna about 25% of the total housing stock is public housing[1]. It's the main reason why rental prices are significantly below other European capitals[2].
Not really. The main reason Vienna have rental prices below other European capitals is because it was one of the few cities that actually lost a significant part of its population multiple times. It was the capital of a big empire that was destroyed and they incorporated to a different Empire that also was destroyed.
Lots of people left to other cities that were not as bureaucratic looking for opportunities an oversized capital without Empire could not sustain.
BTW, It was not pretty. Lots of families that used to live in Vienna now live in Israel for a reason.
You could say the same thing about Detroit in the US.
Vienna's population was at it's lowest in 1951, it has grown by almost a quarter since then, whereas Detroit's current population is a fraction of what it was in the 50's. While admittedly Vienna has been growing slower than most other major cities in Europe your explanation is ~80-100 years outdated..
Population size isn't as important as you make it out to be, to be honest. What you need to figure out is sqm usage, which has gone up significantly. In the big empire back then you had 12 people on 30 sqm, now you have 75 year old widows living alone in an 80sqm flat, not moving out as they did 30 or 40 years ago.
Your [1] does not imply your [2]. If 200,000 refugees show up in Vienna tomorrow and are allowed to work and be economically productive they'll look for and find housing, bidding up prices. Housing supply does not automatically increase with demand. If the private sector provides 100,000 new dwelling places it'll have a very similar effect to the public sector doing so. Who owns the provider has limited economic effect.
Seems very ambitious for such a modest union, 1/36 of the working age population is a bit small if you're going to demand nationalisation. I guess this is one of these framing devices to make their real objective seem more palatable?
Don't keep your hopes up, in the US military spending will keep eating most of all surplus, but on the upside you'll have the most genocidal nuclear weapons of all countries on Earth!
>and 0% of the multiple trillions in stimulus that was funded with debt.
Yes? What does that have to do with anything? Did you think that the pandemic-related stimulus package should have gone to defense spending? If yes, please do motivate that - if no, why mention it at all?
Do you have some history of technology sources to back up this claim?
Because even radar was first developed for the civilian setting before the military boosted its development tremendously to solve their WW2 related needs.
I think a much better theory of technological development is that the military mainly funds engineering development of existing technology and doesn't stumble into truly new inventions faster than anyone else.
A corollary to this is that most tech is not related to military spending because most spending is not military spending.
Its was only in the late 1970s that wallstreet got their money into silicon valley.
Given the channel I did not do any fact checking and just assume the presentation is historically correct.
If we are to take that loose an interpretation of military funding (they invested in companies that did things for others later), I will also accept that because the military defines the state, everything that happens in a state can be counted as happening by military funding.
NASA advances (including CPU chips) were from the Cold War
I love private development such as SpaceX, but we'd be nowhere w/o developments we gained from warfare. Turns out you can really put your mind to something if it's life or death.
Turing published his paper in 1936, so well before the war. The idea of a computer itself is usually set at the analytical engine by Babbage, whose main motivation was to aid with nautical navigation (a mainly civilian use).
Even more fundamentally: the military picked up Turing after the war started, so they had a good idea of what he could so because of work he'd done for others than them.
Granted, without the military we wouldn't have had the specific computers the military built, but in this context that is about as interesting as saying that without the military we wouldn't have had the innovation of the 150 mm high explosive shell.
Likewise, Tsiolkovsky did his theoretical work in a log cabin because he wanted to reason about space travel. Robert H. Goddard invented the liquid fuelled rocket in the interwar years working largely alone and in any case without any military support. Again the military shows up after stuff is very clearly moving.
Like, how is it surprising that an organisation that needs to pay for guns and the training of the people to use them would mostly invest in already existing prototypes?
Maybe spend more on civilian research then. Wouldn't it be cool if the government would spend trillions on researching cool new tech for improving society rather than destroying it?
fully automated luxury communism is the ideal of a post- or late-scarcity society where goods are distributed equally (or universally accessible, a la Star Trek).
You're thinking of Marxism-Leninism, which is just a dictatorship with extra steps.
Yes, ignore Marx, there is absolutely nothing to be learned from him. Just solve the work piling prisoners dilemma and you get the "utopia" part of communism (fair involvement of workers) for free.
Marx only provided the critique of capitalism and said that historical materialism (the analysis of history as being contingent on material conditions, ie resource allocation) led him to believe capitalism would inevitably collapse into socialism and then communism through the proletariat winning class conflict. All the USSR shit is mostly Lenin, AFAIK.
Not even Lenin. Lenin ran the USSR as a mixed economy with heavy market involvement. It's Stalin that really defined the dysfunction of the later USSR.
I agree this would be a bad turn. In the US, it is frustrating to see the poor results produced by the public education system and teacher unions, particularly for K-12 education. The lack of competition and union power has led to an empty incentive structure, where teacher unions regularly oppose having their outcomes measured and don't fear needing to compete with better teachers or schools. Beyond that, organizations like the NEA (the largest teacher union and also largest union in the US) are increasingly political and inject their (far left) activism into the schooling system as a means to indoctrinate the next generation. Choice is critical in things like education, and being forced to pay taxes to prop up a one-size-fits-all government-mandated choice is unethical because it is plainly bad for students and society.
Public education work in a lot of country (see for example most European country). Teacher also tend to be heavily unionised in other country, as well as having a tendency to be more left-leaning (but that is a veeeryyy big generalization).
The issue is not the public education, teacher or union, it's the U.S government(s?) lack of incentive to actually care about those services.
It's the property taxes funding education. Like, if you wanted to reinforce pre-existing class/income divides someplace, you'd fund education with local property taxes.
Of course it is way better to have decent education available to people with boatloads of money while the rest works 3 low paid jobs to make the ends meet without any hope to ever have anything resembling normal life.
Yeah, hopefully they don't achieve this.