So apartments shouldn't exist? Or...?

I understand your perspective; there's a reason the term "rent-seeking" has a negative connotation. But I don't really see an alternative that wouldn't be worse. Different tax rates for primary residences sounds like a potentially okay compromise (though it would make renting more expensive, by design).

No. Build more condos. We generally still need the density.

> So apartments shouldn't exist? Or...?

The state/county/city/whatever entity could provide those and make it a +/-0 thing for their books. They don't need to make money by doing that. "Social housing" is a concept that has been pretty much lost, I think.

It hasn't been lost. Some of us are just old enough to remember what the projects were like, and we're glad they're gone.

Nope, you're just old enough to remember the propaganda. Social housing (in the US) has always been underfunded to make it look bad. It was a worst-of-both-worlds compromise which served to undermine confidence in government and promote racism.

There is literally no reason a municipal government can't run high quality social housing. That's why it happens, outside of the US.

> has always been underfunded to make it look bad. I

Yes, the "secret capitalists hiding in the woodpile" theory of why communism sucks.

You, of course, are immune to the other side's propaganda, and your own brain is a perfect simulator of the real world so you've run mental experiments that prove to you irrefutably how awesome it would be. If only other people paid for it for you.

> That's why it happens, outside of the US.

This is shit throughout all of western civilization. Go check out Ireland, or any place in Europe right now. It's shit everywhere.

> Yes, the "secret capitalists hiding in the woodpile" theory of why communism sucks.

As I specified in my previous post, I was talking about public housing in the US.

> This is shit throughout all of western civilization. Go check out Ireland, or any place in Europe right now. It's shit everywhere.

The poster child counterpoint is Austria, proving it's possible. Hard to do? Mostly on a political front.

Anyway, I apologize for escalating the tone of the conversation.

I've met Austria, and, trust me [America], you're no Austria.

The other day, this happened: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/portland-area-mom-gets-...

That doesn't happen in Austria.

That happens in https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pe4d6aPhbHo

What the hell are you saying?

> Yes, the "secret capitalists hiding in the woodpile" theory of why communism sucks.

Are you saying the United States is secretly ran by communists, and that there is a conspiracy theory that those secret communists are secretly ran by secret capitalists?

He's saying that. His contention was the projects looks bad because "has always been underfunded to make it look bad."

Ignoring, of course, that there are so many other factors that make those look bad, that would continue to make them look bad even if they were properly funded (whatever that absurd number might be).

I just summarized what he was saying.

> So apartments shouldn't exist? Or...?

Not that they shouldn't exist but for profit, rental only apartments shouldn't be the predominant form of apartment. Apartments for purchase are perfectly valid and housing cooperatives are also a solution that should be far more common.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_cooperative

Thank you for pointing this out.

Houses can be cheap, or they can be a good investment. Not both.

I think I read that here on hacker news a few years ago, and it has stuck with me.

I don't think this is true. The investment value of a house is not its appreciation, but rather its ability to generate income in the form of rent.

There's no contradiction. If it's easy to generate rent income from a house then houses will appreciate in price. For example, if I can buy a house and pay off the loan just from rent payments then it's a great investment.

> Houses can be cheap, or they can be a good investment. Not both.

> I think I read that here on hacker news a few years ago, and it has stuck with me.

It's repeated in every HN discussion about housing.

Also, it's too simplistic. It's basically impossible (barring a complete market meltdown like Detroit back then) to not increase your net worth owning a house.

You have to live somewhere. If you buy a house you (very slowly) end up owning it. A house has nonzero value. Now you have some equity, aka wealth. Even if the price depreciates it's not zero, so you built some wealth (vs renting where you could've rented for 60 years and still own nothing).

As a blanket statement, I don't think that makes much sense. You'd be opposed to someone working hard on their own house over the years to improve it so that they can sell it when they're older?

Realistically that doesn't really happen. It's all about land, the building itself is a liability not an asset.

Fair.