Obviously this is for both, men and women, you know, the song “if I was a rich man” and i saw the meme with…

sigh just answer the question

  • NateNate60@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    The goalpost remains where it was at the beginning of this conversation. I claimed, and maintain, that requisitioning vacant housing units is not a good solution to the housing shortage.

    What you’re describing is not the goalposts moving; it’s that you are attacking very specific peripheral claims without realising that if any of them are true then the overall conclusion is true. So when you attack one and I point out that another exists, you accuse me of moving the goalpost.

    In order to be useful towards alleviating a housing shortage, housing units must be habitable, located where housing is needed, legally available, and in significant quantity, among other things that I can’t think of immediately. If any one of these is false, the solution doesn’t work. it is absolutely not useful in the slightest to suggest that pointing out holes in a solution one at a time is “moving the goalposts” and use that as a pretext to dismiss criticism of that solution.

    It should not require explanation that for a chain of reasoning to be sound, you do not need to link to someone else saying it. I can adequately use your own sources to attack your conclusion.

    Vacant housing that is for let or for sale is already on the market and will eventually be let or sold. Nobody wants to have an empty house earning no money but still have to pay tax and utility bills for it. If it really is priced too high, then nobody will rent or buy it and they will decrease the price until someone does. If you want units to become cheaper, you can’t do it by mandate with rent control ordinances or by requisition (at least not the US without paying compensation out the ass). This would be like trying to swim upstream. The only viable solution to bring down the price in this market is to create more supply (by building more units) or to depress demand (by driving people out of the city).

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      15 days ago

      it’s that you are attacking very specific peripheral claims

      I’m countering the claims you’re making. I’m not going to intuit your arguments. If you want to clearly state your argument in its totality, I’ll address it in its totality.

      Your original claim was:

      The real issue is not that current landlords are exceptionally greedy (the rules of capitalism assume and encourage everyone to be as greedy as possible), it’s that there isn’t enough housing stock to give everyone who wants one a unit.

      The article you linked above did not support this argument, as it said the majority of people in that age range living with their parents are doing so because they don’t make enough money or don’t want to give money to a landlord, not that there isn’t housing available to rent.

      The fact that you’re trying to exclude houses that are available for rent (presumably for prices that people can’t afford) from the above stated numbers is yet another example of moving the goalposts because, based on your original stated argument, those should be included in the discussion.

      If you narrow your argument enough times, you’ll find something that’s not easily countered - obviously. “There’s 20 million people who want to live in Manhattan, but there’s not enough units for them!” would technically be correct, but it’s a worthless argument to make. Yes, some people will end up living outside of their ideal best case scenario, but you know what? I think getting everyone into houses is the first step, and we can work on improving the location of those houses second. Someone who’s unemployed and unhoused in LA could be unemployed and housed in San Diego and their situation would be immensely improved.