> You do not have a basic human right to the labor of the people who build and maintain these houses.

Correct! However, a significant portion of housing costs is not due to the stuff that's built on them -- something produced by labor -- but by the LAND that lies underneath it. Nobody built the land, it was already there. Someone just acquired it one day, and as it exchanges hands the prices have been progressively bid up, sucking money out of the productive economy and redirecting it towards those that own land.

Land is a really big deal, and we need to stop conflating land with capital if we want to fix the problems with the housing market:

http://gameofrent.com/content/is-land-a-big-deal

In other parts of this thread people are arguing that a land value tax wouldn't increase rental prices because landlords are price takers. How does land trading hands drive up rents if landlords are price takers?

I have a sense of overdramatization here. Nobody is holding anyone at gunpoint, we just want to have a safer future with regards to our basic needs.

Let's agree that there is a cost to building a house and someone has to pay for it, that's fair. What's not fair is making more and more, larger and larger luxury homes, turning other into AirBnBs and even keeping some empty (since it's "an investment") effectively making it harder for common people to have a place to live.

I don't want to be scared that if I get sick for a week I won't be able to pay my rent and will have to move... who knows where. I know there are people living in such fear while a multitude of homes stay empty.

In principle this boils down to private property rights and conservative way of thinking about society vs. making policies that would drive the standard of living up starting from the ones most in need. Both approaches are valid, they differ in the amount of suffering for the bottom 50%.

Remove zoning restrictions. I will build multi unit housing in my lifetime. I would do it sooner but it is expensive and permitting is hard. There are so many barriers that protect single family homes.

The actual cost of construction/materials of the house itself makes a negligible part of real estate speculation. A huge chunk of properties are bought with the expectation that they will not last more than a few decades.

We already face the scenario where people have to commute for over an hour each way to work in a city where they cannot afford to live. Let's not pretend that cost of constructing that shitty house a hundred years ago factors into the conversation. Should rich people be able to buy up land (and mineral rights underneath it) all over the country? What happens when there is none of it left?

> Should rich people be able to buy up land (and mineral rights underneath it) all over the country?

TFA is literally about giving people who don’t have the capital to outright buy a house the ability to invest in real estate. Like, you think real estate is a good place to put your money but you only have $5000 you can afford to invest. Or you want to spread out your investment across different markets but can’t afford to buy 20 homes.

I think if TFA was posted without the highly biased editorializing this discussion would be a lot different.

"The actual cost of construction/materials of the house itself makes a negligible part of real estate speculation"

We may have different definitions of "negligible"...

>The actual cost of construction/materials of the house itself makes a negligible part of real estate speculation.

$250/sqft, want to loan me 3 million? It will last more than a few decades.

Do you think humans have a right to own a peace of land on planet earth? (Not the labor just the land)

I find it very unjust being forced to buy land from someone else that the only thing they did was being born before.

Being born earlier is not nearly the only thing they did. They also (almost always) bought that land, (almost always) paid continual rent to the local government for the use of that land, improved and maintained that land, and finally, reached a decision that they needed to sell that land and improvements to someone else.

How do you feel about rent control? That gives someone who was there earlier a market distorting deal just because they were there first.

> You do not have a basic human right to the labor of the people who build and maintain these houses.

But you should have the right to live under a government who provide this for you.

It's like saying that you don't have a basic human right to have that doctor help you – no you don't, but you do have a right to have a doctor help you.

Safe housing is a human right, as is healthcare, as is food and water, because these things are essential for life.

Why do you have a right to having a doctor help you? What if he doesn’t want to help you? Can the government force him to?

You clearly didn't read my answer. No individual is forced to help you, you don't know their situation, but you have a right to have society in general help you.

Also using "he" to refer to a hypothetical doctor is somewhat exclusionary, I suggest "they" instead to be more neutral.

Society is composed of individuals. There is no such thing as societal help sans individual help.

You also forget, that society has rarely been consistent in who deserves help and on what terms.

If you don't want to treat all the sorts of people in a population, don't go into a field of public service. Period.

I don't care if you don't want to help someone because you think being trans is wrong. You still have to treat them if you are working in an ER, if you are a dermatologist, if you are basically any doctor. In a few cases, you might be able to refer the person to another doctor, if it is reasonable (as readily understood by laypeople), not urgent, and you (personally) pay any additional costs the patient might incur, including lost wages if they need to take another day off work, differences in insurance cost, and travel costs.

If you don't want to treat everyone, find another line of work. And yes, I think the same about other folks in public facing jobs. If you cannot help folks that are different than you, don't work retail. Don't be an accountant or lawyer the general public can hire. Policework, firefighting, and government jobs that deal with the general public would be off limits.

And yes, I think the government should force you to do this. They already do this in a lesser manner, though fair housing laws and fair labour acts and things like this. No, these aren't perfect, but nothing is - an imperfect fix that improves things is better than none at all, after all.

Doctors voluntarily take an oath to that effect. No government needed. Perhaps we need a, “Hestian” oath for home builders.

> > You do not have a basic human right to the labor of the people who build and maintain these houses.

> But you should have the right to live under a government who provide this for you.

Um... how do you think the government is going to do that? They're going to have to spend money to do it, that's how. And how are they going to get the money? They're either going to get it by raising taxes, or by borrowing it. The effect is the same, but with taxes it's more directly obvious. The government is providing you a house by taking taxes from the rest of us.

So... where do you get this "should"? And how should the government provide housing, without it giving you a right to the labor of the rest of us? (Not just those who build and maintain houses, but those who pay taxes to pay for it.)

> This entire discussion is absurd to me. You’ve got politicians burning money, some people talking about housing as if they have a “right” to a house (that is: a right to force people like me to build them a house at gunpoint), and still surging homelessness.

Isn't US homelessness mostly an issue of drug addiction and lack of mental health care? What percentage of US homeless do not fall into one of those categories?

For the visible homeless the percentage is high, but there are a lot of people living in their cars or on a friend's couch who just can't afford housing.

> You do not have a basic human right to the labor of the people who build and maintain these houses.

Food and security also require other peoples labour.

And are also not basic human rights.

A basic human right that is a corollary to security is the right to self-defense. You cannot obligate other's labor to provide your security, but you can provide your own security and that is your right.

> This entire discussion is absurd to me.

I wonder why that is.

> some people talking about housing as if they have a “right” to a house (that is: a right to force people like me to build them a house at gunpoint)

This must be the reason you think it's absurd, you've concocted a bizarre strawman that approximately nobody is advocating for.

Well inflation will go up even more thanks to that bill. Incomes will go down. So housing will become even more unaffordable

We need to accelerate this problem. Make it impossible to rent or get a mortgage in any city. Millions on the streets. Most of the cities kids eating from trash cans. Only then will we see change i think.

Oh no! Who will we turn to to solve this problem for us?