Re:California bill to add more housing in single-family neig...
by magduf on Thursday May 16, 2019 @05:08PM
(#19933237)
No, because there's nothing requiring people to live in the Bay Area. They can live in other, cheaper locales. You do realize there's an entire continent out there, don't you?
If lesser-paid people would just leave the area, leaving that area without service workers (or having to pay ridiculous wages for them, driving prices way up for the wealthy homeowners there), the problem will solve itself.
Re:California bill to add more housing in single-family neig...
by anon1m0us on Thursday May 16, 2019 @06:25PM
(#19934046)
That's not actually what happens though. Ask someone trying to staff a restaurant how easy it is to find employees.
Basically the service industry just ... evaporates. I've seen it happen in areas with a lot of foreign ownership.
Re:California bill to add more housing in single-family neig...
by magduf on Friday May 17, 2019 @10:49AM
(#19940105)
What are you getting at? Are you saying that restaurants won't pay their staff very high wages to entice them to commute for several hours, and that the restaurant will go out of business?
How exactly is this a problem?
Too bad for the restaurant owner, but he can re-open in a place where he can hire staff more easily.
Why does the Bay Area need restaurants? If the wealthy homeowners there don't want any lowly restaurant staff living around them, then why should they have any restaurants?
Re:California bill to add more housing in single-family neig...
by dgzl on Thursday May 16, 2019 @05:24PM
(#19933422)
> I think access to shelter is a human right.
Products and services can't be human rights.
Re:California bill to add more housing in single-family neig...
by qwsxyh on Thursday May 16, 2019 @06:52PM
(#19934260)
This is truly one of the most Hacker News comments I have ever seen, calling a home a product and service.
Re:California bill to add more housing in single-family neig...
by dgzl on Thursday May 16, 2019 @08:12PM
(#19934809)
I guess I'm flattered, but you understand the point, right? If you have 'rights' to a product or service (i.e. something that requires another person to work for you in order to satisfy) then you effectively have 'rights' to their labor and goods, also known as slavery.
If your family sits down for dinner and one person gobbles up all the food before anyone else eats, were they within their rights? Will the rest of the family ever invite that person to dinner again?
No. We implement these controls on consumption in all areas of life. "Limit 2" when there's a coupon, for example. "All you can eat" restaurants don't allow take home and sometimes charge you for what you do not actually eat.
We must limit the wealthy's ability to consume all the goods so there are goods left over for people who need to live in them.
How does this not make sense? Why do you think it's better that someone owns 2 houses leaving 1 without a home, than two families owning 2 homes (one each).
Isn't that a better world?