Support NeoGAF

[DunDunDunpachi]

A fierce contradiction in the USA right now is that many of our biggest, most affluent cities also suffer from the highest rates of poverty and crime. Opportunists and well-meaning folks alike have tried to make things better by offering cheap housing but this almost always turns into "The Projects".

Seems like Vienna has benefitted greatly by offering its citizens affordable subsidized housing. Do you think this sort of idea would work in the USA's bigger cities or not?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/vienna-affordable-housing-paradise_us_5b4e0b12e4b0b15aba88c7b0

Personally, I am a fan of public housing for the same reason I'm a fan of unemployment, food stamps, and welfare: when the poor are taken care of they tend to not break into your house, mug you while you walk the block, or peddle drugs on your street corner. I do believe that it should be subsidized, not free ("free" is always abused and mistreated, without exception) but that's really my only caveat.

 

[Roni]

I believe you meant to create this thread in Off-topic? This is under the Gaming Discussion right now. Which I guess is why no one replied to you yet.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

Public housing is very important for sure, be it assisted/subsidized or free for those who truly need it and can't work (disability etc.).

The key is to have it more integrated into normal communities. Having big public housing complexes, whole areas that are almost all public housing, section 8 housing etc. is a terrible idea as that's just concentrating disadvantage and leads to long term crime and other social problems. There's a mountain of research on the long term, ill effects of concentrated disadvantage.

It works best when it's mixed in with middle class and above homes so kids from those families are going to good schools, making friends from a variety of backgrounds and so on. Public housing all in one area is essentially creating a modern ghetto where kids all grow up poor, go to terrible schools, live in areas with gangs, crime and drugs and have few opportunities to get out and better their life. And then we wonder why some areas of cities stay "bad" for decades....

 

[lil puff]

My thoughts on this subject are quite extreme, so I'll just say I am more a fan of education and employment programs and just read the discussion.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I believe you meant to create this thread in Off-topic? This is under the Gaming Discussion right now. Which I guess is why no one replied to you yet.

Thanks! I reported my post which should bring it to a mod's attention.
EDIT: Nevermind, it was already moved.

 

[Azzurri]

Public housing is very important for sure, be it assisted/subsidized or free for those who truly need it and can't work (disability etc.).

The key is to have it more integrated into normal communities. Having big public housing complexes, whole areas that are almost all public housing, section 8 housing etc. is a terrible idea as that's just concentrating disadvantage and leads to long term crime and other social problems. There's a mountain of research on the long term, ill effects of concentrated disadvantage.

It works best when it's mixed in with middle class and above homes so kids from those families are going to good schools, making friends from a variety of backgrounds and so on. Public housing all in one area is essentially creating a modern ghetto where kids all grow up poor, go to terrible schools, live in areas with gangs, crime and drugs and have few opportunities to get out and better their life. And then we wonder why some areas of cities stay "bad" for decades....

Yea, I agree with this. I lived in Chicago for a bit when Cabrini Greens was still a thing and that area was scary as hell. Then about early 2000s they started tearing it down and mixing in the low income people with middle/middle upper and it seemed to work much better this way.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

My thoughts on this subject are quite extreme, so I'll just say I am more a fan of education and employment programs and just read the discussion.

Nothing wrong with that view. With the exception of people unable to work (disabilities), I think most would agree that public housing/assistance should be coupled with education/training and job placement programs. The problem is many people don't want to pay for it and view it as cheaper to just give people assistance than to pay for the training and job placement programs on top of the housing and food assistance.

Truth is we need to get over that and pay for both. People need a roof over their heads and food for them and their dependents while getting educated/trained and placed in jobs, and in the long run getting more people self sufficient and off public assistance is cheaper.

A lot of people just have a hard time accepting poor people (especially poor minorities for some segments of the population) getting access to free education/training/job placement programs that they can't as someone making more money. Similar arguments are made against a lot of prison education and job placement upon release programs. It's just a stupid view as it ignores the harms to society that come from not taking care of the poorest, blocking opportunities for ex-cons to get back on their feet vs. falling back into crime as they can't find jobs due to their record and having not gotten education/training/job assistance while in/after release and so on.

People have a hard time seeing the greater good when it's something that doesn't directly benefit them, but rather benefits them indirectly through fewer homeless people, lower crime and disorder rates, fewer people on public assistance in the long run and so on.

 

[TheShadowLord]

If 3d printed houses becomes mainstream, that could solve a lot of issues as it will be cheaper to develop. Regardless if you are poor or not.

 

[BANGS]

Personally, I am a fan of public housing for the same reason I'm a fan of unemployment, food stamps, and welfare: when the poor are taken care of they tend to not break into your house, mug you while you walk the block, or peddle drugs on your street corner.

Funny, these are the exact same reasons I'm a fan of prisons...

People need to earn their living, not "be taken care of". All that does is multiply the problem as those people... literally multiply. We need to help them help themselves since apparent good parents and personal responsibility no longer exist in America...

A combination of public housing WITH education programs, job finding assistance, etc with the end goal of eventually phasing out the public housing at the expense of the taxpayers would be awesome. We need to create responsible citizens, not leeches IMO... The statistics are clear that very few people living off government assistance eventually become self sustaining and that needs to change...

 

[tanooki27]

Everyone should get a housing voucher. $600 a month. You can only spend it on housing. Anything over that, and you're on your own.

You'd have to construct some massive new beauracuracy to make it work and tax the billionaires, but it'd make landlords happy.

It'll happen eventually.

 

[Rentahamster]

Finland also has a successful housing initiative.

Funny, these are the exact same reasons I'm a fan of prisons...

People need to earn their living, not "be taken care of". All that does is multiply the problem as those people... literally multiply. We need to help them help themselves

Prisons tend to not help people help themselves. American prisons, anyway. Would you favor an enhanced emphasis on rehabilitation rather than punishment as a goal of our criminal just E system?

 

[BANGS]

Prisons tend to not help people help themselves. American prisons, anyway. Would you favor an enhanced emphasis on rehabilitation rather than punishment as a goal of our criminal just E system?

I wasn't implying prisons help people, I was implying it keeps said people from fucking up my neighborhood...

But absolutely I am in favor of prisons that DO help people help themselves... just punishing people for years and sending them back out into the world a weaker person isn't good for anyone...

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Funny, these are the exact same reasons I'm a fan of prisons...

People need to earn their living, not "be taken care of". All that does is multiply the problem as those people... literally multiply. We need to help them help themselves since apparent good parents and personal responsibility no longer exist in America...

A combination of public housing WITH education programs, job finding assistance, etc with the end goal of eventually phasing out the public housing at the expense of the taxpayers would be awesome. We need to create responsible citizens, not leeches IMO... The statistics are clear that very few people living off government assistance eventually become self sustaining and that needs to change...

Prisons contain those who breach the law. Welfare helps reduce the number of people who are pushed in that direction. I think they are two facets of addressing the same problem.

Welfare should have a limited lifespan. Subsidies should have a clear "exit strategy". Food stamps should be constrained to certain food types. And so forth. I am opposed to open welfare systems where there is no limit, but I view welfare itself as a form of "social insurance". My taxes are meant to pay for social issues anyway. Suddenly, if a big chunk of a town becomes unemployed, I'd rather pay for their bread than pay to clean up the break-in when they come to my house to steal it. But someday that "safety net" must end and they must seek new employment.

The rise of "leeches" is a cultural one, not a Government one. People used to feel shame when they took welfare, and I do not think it was a good idea to normalize the social stigma against welfare. It should be a stigma, something that a person is expected to get through barring those extreme circumstances that I'm sure we could dig for. We will never be able to successfully bureaucratize a fair system for handouts that avoids all leeches while providing for all those who are needy. The problem is when you have (using an easy example) generations of children being told by their single-mothers to get on welfare and then they're set for life. This happens in poor black and poor white communities in Red states and in Blue states, so it clearly isn't the fault of a race or a political party. People cherish the story of James Braddock ('Cinderella Man') because he gave back what he'd used from welfare. That's the desired attitude. I cannot imagine anyone -- Right or Left -- who objects to paying for fellow Americans with that sort of attitude. But at a certain point, people get sick of paying someone else's way when it is assumed or worse yet, it is "owed" due to "privilege".

 

[Gander]

It's probably something I believe should be expanded on, forget oil subsides and any other industries we are propping up right now. Make it so people can live in decent locations and not be homeless. You know some places flat out won't hire you unless you have an address so it's catch 22, you can't get a job you want cause you are struggling right now. Then some good people are forced to live in rough areas and raise their kids. It would be so much relief and a boon to the economy if we can cut down peoples rent.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

Prisons contain those who breach the law. Welfare helps reduce the number of people who are pushed in that direction. I think they are two facets of addressing the same problem.

Yep, and it's way cheaper to provide people services to keep the housed and fed while trying to get them skills and employment that it is to incarcerate them. Even if one lacks empathy and only cares about the tax dollars, social services that keep people out of jail/prison are far cheaper than mass incarceration as it costs as lot per month/year to keeps someone locked up (especially with prison crowding, private prisons jacking up rates etc.).

 

[BANGS]

forget oil subsides and any other industries we are propping up right now.

Yeah, who needs job when we can lower rent?

 

[Gander]

Yeah, who needs job when we can lower rent?

That makes no sense you probably want to to restate that, I'll give you time to do so.

 

[BANGS]

That makes no sense you probably want to to restate that, I'll give you time to do so.

You implied we should be subsidizing housing instead of companies that give people jobs to pay for housing by earning it. Makes plenty of sense, where's the disconnect?

 

[Gander]

You implied we should be subsidizing housing instead of companies that give people jobs to pay for housing by earning it. Makes plenty of sense, where's the disconnect?

Maybe it's a case by case basis but I certainly feel no sympathy for the oil, meat or pharmaceutical industry. They make enough money

 

[BANGS]

Maybe it's a case by case basis but I certainly feel no sympathy for the oil, meat or pharmaceutical industry. They make enough money

So again, "Who needs job when we can lower rent?"... gotcha...

 

[Deleted member 752119]

You implied we should be subsidizing housing instead of companies that give people jobs to pay for housing by earning it. Makes plenty of sense, where's the disconnect?

There's going to be a huge job supply problem down the road (maybe not during our lifetimes) once more and more stuff gets automated. Something is going to have to give as there just aren't going to be enough jobs for low-skilled/educated people to have full employment.

Some type of universal basic income/housing subsidies will probably be needed as that's way cheaper than paying for everyone to become skilled (i.e. advanced trades, college degrees etc. being the new high school in terms of the end point of publicly funded education).

 

[Gander]

So again, "Who needs job when we can lower rent?"... gotcha...

It's Economy 101, when people have more money to spend they usually buy more goods, the more goods they buy the more sales, packers, distributors, and customer service are needed. People feed the economy.

 

[BANGS]

Some type of universal basic income/housing subsidies will probably be needed as that's way cheaper than paying for everyone to become skilled (i.e. advanced trades, college degrees etc. being the new high school in terms of the end point of publicly funded education).

Why would we subsidize the income and housing when we could just subsidize the education?

It's Economy 101, when people have more money to spend they usually buy more goods, the more goods they buy the more sales, packers, distributors, and customer service are needed. People feed the economy.

They need jobs to do all those things tho sooooo...

 

[Deleted member 752119]

Why would we subsidize the income and housing when we could just subsidize the education?

I covered that briefly in the post you quoted, but to expand. Everything I've seen (google it, I've got to run and can't look for links right now) suggests 1) it's more expensive to subsidize advanced education for everyone than to provide UBI and 2) with automation there just won't be enough jobs for everyone period. A large majority of jobs are unskilled/low skilled labor. Cut a lot of those and there just aren't enough jobs (at any skill level) for every adult (or even one per household) to be employed.

As more things are automated, society will just have to change from the norm of everyone being expected to work for money as we'll simply get to a point where there's not enough demand/need for labor to employ people at the rates we're historically used to. Again, probably not in our lifetime though.

 

[BANGS]

I covered that briefly in the post you quoted, but to expand. Everything I've seen (google it, I've got to run and can't look for links right now) suggests 1) it's more expensive to subsidize advanced education for everyone than to provide UBI and 2) with automation there just won't be enough jobs for everyone period. A large majority of jobs are unskilled/low skilled labor. Cut a lot of those and there just aren't enough jobs (at any skill level) for every adult (or even one per household) to be employed.

As more things are automated, society will just have to change from the norm of everyone being expected to work for money as we'll simply get to a point where there's not enough demand/need for labor to employ people at the rates we're historically used to. Again, probably not in our lifetime though.

I gotta disagree with that notion. While it may very well be the case that automation will make it hard to have a job for everyone, there is no reason why one guy has to work and the other gets to sit back. Instead, both guys should work less hours for a living wage. This will be hard to achieve for sure, but I'd imagine a lot easier than trying to convince the public that half of them have to bust ass to support the other half...