basically by tying it to federal funding to force states to allow more housing to be built, which is how the federal government got the states to all raise their minimum drinking age to 21 in the 1980s.

    • I mean, it’s both. The capitalism is definitely a problem but ultimately the vacancy rates in most of the US, especially major cities, are too low. There isn’t enough housing in the places it’s needed.

      Just comparing US cities, which all have the capitalism problem, cities with higher vacancy rates have lower rents and lower rates of homelessness.

      • DragonBallZinn [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Fr. Capitalism incentivizes homeowners to block new housing because they want to “protect their investment” and that’s how we got high rents.

        • lemming934@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          That is not an example of market capitalism. It’s an example of regulatory capture by homeowners: capitalist developers would like to build more housing, but homeowners cause the local government to block this.

          With housing, we are in an unusual circumstance where both less government intervention (let people build more housing) and more government intervention (build public housing) would be better than the status quo.

  • Infamousblt [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    We probably couldn’t use this method anymore because these days the courts absolutely do not allow the US government to do anything that could possibly be good. They would shut it down

  • dukedevin [they/them, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    something like 15,000 empty houses right now further more building brand new single family homes doesn’t empower the working class, it empowers landlords

    • lemming934@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      something like 15,000 empty houses right now

      This statistic is meaningless because many of the cities with excess housing are in places with no jobs

      building brand new single family homes doesn’t empower the working class, it empowers landlords

      This is incorrect. The important statistic to look at is vacancy rate In almost all the major cities in the US vacency rates are well below the tenant empowering 8% and many are below the 5% rate where tenant have a fighting chance. We absolutely need more housing. I’d prefer duplexes, triplexes, row houses and apartments for urbanist reasons, but the idea that building more houses empowers landlords over the proletariat is ridiculous.