Eh … There are literally millions of people who work and don’t get to choose any of those things, and are forced into a small apartment and/or a roommate scenario.
I mean, there’s no reason we can’t go the way of Japanese micro home in construction. Everything you need packed into an efficient little area you can still call home.
Hell… if I wasn’t married with kids and pets, I’d almost prefer that.
I wouldn’t call the masses all living in tiny boxes so that the wealthy can add a few more zeroes to their bank accounts progress. Japan has a lack of available land that most places don’t have. If people need to live in micro-homes to get by in places with plenty of space, then there’s still a very serious unresolved issue.
Oh, no argument here at all. I’m simply saying that a perfectly livable micro home could be the answer for those who would bitch about “I’m paying for my home and theirs is nicer” or similar.
Make a home that is adequate, but most would want to improve their lives and move out of.
Of course I’m more a supporter of UBI, which would likely solve this issue among many others if properly implemented. But that’s a different topic completely.
You definitely don’t need to (and shouldn’t!) go as far as Japan, but even in places with abundant space like America or Australia, there are huge advantages to keeping homes relatively smaller in terms of land-area per-person. (Floor space can stay higher by: building multi-storey row houses, building apartments, reducing private lawn areas, etc.)
Keeping things less spread out is much, much more affordable. Fewer roads to maintain, fewer ks of electricity, sewerage, and Internet infrastructure, etc. It makes public transport run much more efficiently, which reduces the cost of operating it, which means you get more of it. This makes it a better service, which means people use it, which takes cars off the road, which makes congestion less of a problem, which makes getting around faster. Ditto the cost and usability of bike paths and nice pedestrian footpaths, which become more usable as a result of things being literally closer together, resulting in a store you might once have had to drive to get to being possible to walk to now. This in turn makes things more affordable for individuals, because they might not need to pay the huge prices associated with cars (buying the thing, maintenance, insurance, petrol) if they can get around by bike and public transport. Or at the very least, a family can drop down from 2 or 3 cars to just 1 being enough.
It makes housing more affordable, since instead of paying for 300 sq m of land per 100 sq m of floor space, you might now be paying 50 sq m or less of land per 100 sq m floor space. And because things a denser, your commute can drop from potentially over an hour to something reasonable like less than 30 minutes.
Oh I know that all too well lol I currently rent an “apartment” that is the upstairs of a dilapidated garage and I work full time as a psudo-supervisor in a factory (whatever im considered idk lol we don’t use titles so we can’t determine our value properly)
For us, that “free housing” would probably be equivalent to what we have now lol
Yeah? Well if someone decided to build affordable housing near my McMansion, then my precious house’s market value will decrease. Also something about crime because of the poors
Crime is a legitimate concern, especially for people raising a family. I get where you’re coming from, but you shouldn’t trivialize legitimate issues. I’m someone who grew up in a violent, crime infested area, and it fucking sucked.
It is a concern, but crime is a symptom of a larger issue, that being poverty and desparation (for the most part). We need to put out the fire from the base, otherwise it will continue to grow.
The vast majority of theft is done through the wealthy via time card fraud / theft from employees, and then police through asset forfeiture. Crime and morality have nothing to do with poverty, and associating them with poor people (when the rich do the most of it) is classist propaganda.
And what’s the problem? So what if a whole bunch of single people moved into tiny government houses? Housing is a human right. And it sure would bring rents down.
Maybe your opinion is that housing is a human right but I’m not sure where you are drawing that definitive conclusion from. Are you saying it’s a legal right somewhere or that it’s your emotional stance? In my experience, housing, or even just shelter, is a human responsibility not a right.
Don’t get me wrong, it’d sure be nice if it was a legal right for folks to have a safe shelter of sorts. Men are commonly turned away from the limited shelters that exist due to comfort and safety concerns for women and children. I don’t see how that happens if it’s a human right.
Maybe your opinion is that housing is a human right but I’m not sure where you are drawing that definitive conclusion from. Are you saying it’s a legal right somewhere or that it’s your emotional stance?
The right to housing is a fundamental human right, according to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many international treaties and agreements since. As the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights puts it:
Adequate housing was recognized as part of the right to an adequate standard of living in article 25 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in article 11.1 of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Other international human rights treaties have since recognized or referred to the right to adequate housing or some elements of it, such as the protection of one’s home and privacy.
Your personal experience has given you an incorrect belief regarding the human right to housing. I’m sorry to call you out so directly, but sometimes people need to hear hard truths. Facts don’t care about your feelings.
I don’t feel like you called me out at all but that doesn’t seem to establish any kind of legal human right to any specific area of interest that I have seen discussed here. Are you able to clarify how I’m missing that part of it?
Perhaps we’re talking past each other. Human rights are not defined by laws. Human rights come before laws. Laws, in decent nations, are written in such a way as to protect human rights.
The text of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, enacted by the UN in the hope that never again would the world see such widespread and horrific violations of human rights as it did during World War II, is an excellent starting point to understand how the modern world sees human rights. It is linked in the post I linked above.
And, just to circle back around to the topic, the laws of the United States are clearly failing to protect the fundamental human right to adequate housing for all persons resident in the United States.
There are major problems with income based limits. In theory they work, but they often break down over time locking people into the poverty they are trying to escape. It creates a grey area where they lose more than they gain by improving their income. Sometimes as much as an hour of extra work can lose them their benefits.
Income limit would lead to people ‘gaming’ the system. Either just misreporting what they actually make or purposefully not making enough to qualify.
Or it will go just like current systems do - you make one cent over their arbitrarily decided number and you don’t qualify even if you cant actually afford to live.
It would also screw over people who might have a ‘good’ income, but made honest mistakes and are upside down in debt or similar situations.
Income limit fosters a ‘you deserve this, you don’t’ attitude which is what we are trying to get away from.
I just see a time limit system (with exceptions for those who are sick/unable to fully care for themselves) doing a better job of providing a basic human right to anyone who needs it while avoiding a bunch of bullshit an income limit would bring to the table.
I just see a time limit system (with exceptions for those who are sick/unable to fully care for themselves)
Are we putting a time limit on processing who gets that designation? Because federal disability claims are a shitshow that take roughly six months just to get your first denial. And then can take years to go through appeals.
It’s all just different takes on who “deserves” to live and for how long.
Its not like its just one small system that is broken - we have multiple broken systems that need to be torn down and rebuilt because the rot is in the bones.
BuT I HaVe To WoRk FoR mY HoUsE!!
…yeah? And you get to choose how nice that house is and where it is. You aren’t “forced” to only have a small apartment…
America: land of the greedy, cold, asshole.
I wish I was “cold”, I’m friggin’ hot all the time. I need a personal AC suit.
I really wish I was cold too. I have to work in an open air factory and long island summers succcccckkkkkkk lol
Do they really call it “iced tea” there? Also that might explain why you feel hot all the time…
Ahhh, Lonnng Island… I was born at Bayshore. Flew the coop while still in diapers.
Eh … There are literally millions of people who work and don’t get to choose any of those things, and are forced into a small apartment and/or a roommate scenario.
I mean, there’s no reason we can’t go the way of Japanese micro home in construction. Everything you need packed into an efficient little area you can still call home.
Hell… if I wasn’t married with kids and pets, I’d almost prefer that.
I wouldn’t call the masses all living in tiny boxes so that the wealthy can add a few more zeroes to their bank accounts progress. Japan has a lack of available land that most places don’t have. If people need to live in micro-homes to get by in places with plenty of space, then there’s still a very serious unresolved issue.
Oh, no argument here at all. I’m simply saying that a perfectly livable micro home could be the answer for those who would bitch about “I’m paying for my home and theirs is nicer” or similar.
Make a home that is adequate, but most would want to improve their lives and move out of.
Of course I’m more a supporter of UBI, which would likely solve this issue among many others if properly implemented. But that’s a different topic completely.
You definitely don’t need to (and shouldn’t!) go as far as Japan, but even in places with abundant space like America or Australia, there are huge advantages to keeping homes relatively smaller in terms of land-area per-person. (Floor space can stay higher by: building multi-storey row houses, building apartments, reducing private lawn areas, etc.)
Keeping things less spread out is much, much more affordable. Fewer roads to maintain, fewer ks of electricity, sewerage, and Internet infrastructure, etc. It makes public transport run much more efficiently, which reduces the cost of operating it, which means you get more of it. This makes it a better service, which means people use it, which takes cars off the road, which makes congestion less of a problem, which makes getting around faster. Ditto the cost and usability of bike paths and nice pedestrian footpaths, which become more usable as a result of things being literally closer together, resulting in a store you might once have had to drive to get to being possible to walk to now. This in turn makes things more affordable for individuals, because they might not need to pay the huge prices associated with cars (buying the thing, maintenance, insurance, petrol) if they can get around by bike and public transport. Or at the very least, a family can drop down from 2 or 3 cars to just 1 being enough.
It makes housing more affordable, since instead of paying for 300 sq m of land per 100 sq m of floor space, you might now be paying 50 sq m or less of land per 100 sq m floor space. And because things a denser, your commute can drop from potentially over an hour to something reasonable like less than 30 minutes.
Oh I know that all too well lol I currently rent an “apartment” that is the upstairs of a dilapidated garage and I work full time as a psudo-supervisor in a factory (whatever im considered idk lol we don’t use titles so we can’t determine our value properly)
For us, that “free housing” would probably be equivalent to what we have now lol
Yeah? Well if someone decided to build affordable housing near my McMansion, then my precious house’s market value will decrease. Also something about crime because of the poors
Crime is a legitimate concern, especially for people raising a family. I get where you’re coming from, but you shouldn’t trivialize legitimate issues. I’m someone who grew up in a violent, crime infested area, and it fucking sucked.
It is a concern, but crime is a symptom of a larger issue, that being poverty and desparation (for the most part). We need to put out the fire from the base, otherwise it will continue to grow.
The vast majority of theft is done through the wealthy via time card fraud / theft from employees, and then police through asset forfeiture. Crime and morality have nothing to do with poverty, and associating them with poor people (when the rich do the most of it) is classist propaganda.
Noooooo my white flight suburb
I think the issue is that if the government offered tiny houses or apartments for anyone that everyone would want one.
The value of “free shit” is somehow larger than the value of owning a large mansion or something.
And what’s the problem? So what if a whole bunch of single people moved into tiny government houses? Housing is a human right. And it sure would bring rents down.
Maybe your opinion is that housing is a human right but I’m not sure where you are drawing that definitive conclusion from. Are you saying it’s a legal right somewhere or that it’s your emotional stance? In my experience, housing, or even just shelter, is a human responsibility not a right.
Don’t get me wrong, it’d sure be nice if it was a legal right for folks to have a safe shelter of sorts. Men are commonly turned away from the limited shelters that exist due to comfort and safety concerns for women and children. I don’t see how that happens if it’s a human right.
The right to housing is a fundamental human right, according to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many international treaties and agreements since. As the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights puts it:
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-housing/human-right-adequate-housing
Your personal experience has given you an incorrect belief regarding the human right to housing. I’m sorry to call you out so directly, but sometimes people need to hear hard truths. Facts don’t care about your feelings.
I don’t feel like you called me out at all but that doesn’t seem to establish any kind of legal human right to any specific area of interest that I have seen discussed here. Are you able to clarify how I’m missing that part of it?
Perhaps we’re talking past each other. Human rights are not defined by laws. Human rights come before laws. Laws, in decent nations, are written in such a way as to protect human rights.
The text of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, enacted by the UN in the hope that never again would the world see such widespread and horrific violations of human rights as it did during World War II, is an excellent starting point to understand how the modern world sees human rights. It is linked in the post I linked above.
And, just to circle back around to the topic, the laws of the United States are clearly failing to protect the fundamental human right to adequate housing for all persons resident in the United States.
That makes sense, thank you for clarifying.
There is no problem, they create the problem to justify their lack of empathy.
‘Simple’ solution to that would be to put a time limit on how long you can stay.
Say maybe 2 years unless you have a medical condition or something. That should be plenty of time for people experiencing hardship to get past it.
I think it’d be better with an income limit if that’s possible to check.
Where I live, the only involuntarily homeless people are generally those who experience longer than 2 year medical or psychological issues.
There are major problems with income based limits. In theory they work, but they often break down over time locking people into the poverty they are trying to escape. It creates a grey area where they lose more than they gain by improving their income. Sometimes as much as an hour of extra work can lose them their benefits.
Income limit would lead to people ‘gaming’ the system. Either just misreporting what they actually make or purposefully not making enough to qualify.
Or it will go just like current systems do - you make one cent over their arbitrarily decided number and you don’t qualify even if you cant actually afford to live.
It would also screw over people who might have a ‘good’ income, but made honest mistakes and are upside down in debt or similar situations.
Income limit fosters a ‘you deserve this, you don’t’ attitude which is what we are trying to get away from.
I just see a time limit system (with exceptions for those who are sick/unable to fully care for themselves) doing a better job of providing a basic human right to anyone who needs it while avoiding a bunch of bullshit an income limit would bring to the table.
Are we putting a time limit on processing who gets that designation? Because federal disability claims are a shitshow that take roughly six months just to get your first denial. And then can take years to go through appeals.
It’s all just different takes on who “deserves” to live and for how long.
Right - but thats a whole other can of worms.
There is no quick fix or Simple solution.
Its not like its just one small system that is broken - we have multiple broken systems that need to be torn down and rebuilt because the rot is in the bones.