Submitted by [deleted] t3_y214hb in providence
dionidium t1_is0qioq wrote
Reply to comment by big_whistler in why is our government so ignorant in Rhode Island? just because the weather is warm during the summer does not mean that the homeless go away. why do they wait until the cold weather to go and fix the problem? they never gets fixed?! we obviously need more shelters unless bike path. by [deleted]
> Not sure individual states can fix what is essentially a product of capitalism.
There's "capitalism" all around the world and differing rates of homelessness.
There's been capitalism in the United States for 200+ years and for most of those years there were fewer regulations and safety nets than there are today, and yet homelessness is increasing, not decreasing.
In most of our country's history we built a lot more housing than we do today and that was during times when "capitalism" was more or less unfettered. Today, the primary barrier to building more housing is regulatory. Exclusionary zoning laws prevent the construction of new apartment buildings. That's literally the opposite of "capitalism." That's the state preventing housing.
You can't lay everything at the feet of capitalism.
BOKEH_BALLS t1_is0y176 wrote
You don't think local contractors and landlords will lobby our regulators to keep housing supply low so they can inflate housing prices? Capitalism is all around the world but we are one of the few Capitalist countries where every facet of our government has been seized by capital interests.
dionidium t1_is0zf08 wrote
If you could flip a switch and tomorrow we became a fully communist country with no private property where nobody owned their own home and nobody could profit financially from land, do you really think people would suddenly be just fine with a whole bunch of new buildings in their neighborhood? Of course not! Even in that communist utopia local residents are going to oppose a bunch of new apartment buildings in their neighborhood and they're going to oppose it for all the same reasons people oppose it today, which is just to say it's not primarily a "capitalist" position.
That's not to say that there aren't people who oppose supply for purely capitalist motivations, but for every landlord and developer there are 100 ordinary Americans who don't want to see changes in their neighborhood for reasons that have nothing to do with "capitalism."
People who live in suburbs today aren’t going to shrug their shoulders and say, “well, I guess I have absolutely no reason to oppose the densification of my neighborhood now that the profit motive has been removed.” Get real! They have tons of other reasons.
BOKEH_BALLS t1_is11fv8 wrote
No you cannot flip a switch to communism lmao. You would need a transitory stage of socialism in order to reach communism without total catastrophe.
"Local residents will oppose a bunch of new apartment buildings." Why in the world would they do that if the state regulated the supply and pricing of those apartments? How does building new apartments affect someone whose life doesn't revolve around property value? I think any rational person would want a society where affordable housing is plentiful. You're only able to imagine what an American would think if new property encroached on their networth and you believe this to be true for all societies lmao.
[deleted] OP t1_is14c48 wrote
[deleted]
dionidium t1_is16s22 wrote
Yes, I don't know if people maybe have the impression that I'm defending the opinions of homeowners, but I am not. I am an urbanist. I like living in cities and I would like to see a lot more building around me.
But most people are not me! Most people oppose new construction in their neighborhood and the notion that the only reason they do this is the "profit motive" is the opinion of someone who has never been to a community meeting. It boggles the mind, actually. It's a completely absurd proposition. People don't want density around them and they don't want noise and they don't want traffic and they don't want crime and they associate all this stuff with cities. It's just totally absurd to say that it's entirely the "profit motive."
The people who live in suburbs aren’t going to be like, “well I guess now I have no reason not to allow a bunch of new housing in my neighborhood” if you take away the profit motive. Get real!
BOKEH_BALLS t1_is17dyx wrote
Yeah I guess I don't understand the "I paid this money to be isolated" mentality which often naturally coincides with the "I can't stand seeing homeless people everywhere!!" mentality. If you don't want homeless, provide more affordable housing lmao.
dionidium t1_is18r5z wrote
Newsflash: people are selfish and irrational. And selfishness is just as likely to take the form of, “I don’t want a bunch of people living around me” as it is “I want to make a profit on my home.”
dionidium t1_is15qp6 wrote
> How does building new apartments affect someone whose life doesn't revolve around property value? I think any rational person would want a society where affordable housing is plentiful.
If you don't know the answers to these questions, then I'm not sure what I can do for you. People don't only oppose construction in their neighborhood because of "property values." "Property values" is a proxy for all kinds of things that make a neighborhood more or less desirable and people care also about all those things.
Again, I think this isn't merely true, it's extraordinarily obvious, so I'm not sure what I could say to someone who doesn't believe it.
BOKEH_BALLS t1_is16rh5 wrote
I guess I've lived in countries where entire communities live next to each other in mega high rises vs the US where people want to live isolated. In Singapore for example the government strictly regulates housing ratios based on ethnicity to ensure everyone lives next to everyone else. They try to minimize the "I'm not living here bc the <insert minorities> are moving in next to me" attitude like you find in the US.
dionidium t1_is178e6 wrote
I feel like we're talking across each other here. Of course the government could literally mandate desegregation and the government could literally force people to allow a bunch of new construction in their neighborhood. Of course that's something that could happen.
The point is that at this exact moment in time the vast majority of Americans oppose that and they don't oppose it only because of the "profit motive." They oppose it because they fear crime, because they don't want more traffic or noise in their neighborhood, maybe because some of them are racist. They have lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of reasons to oppose it that have nothing to do with capitalism. Not all of those reasons are good. It's just that a lot of them have nothing to do with capitalism.
So, I'm sorry, but it's just extremely naive and unserious to say that it's all about capitalism.
BOKEH_BALLS t1_is2p48g wrote
I'd agree if the attitudes and personal feelings of Americans in general weren't completely shaped first by nascent capitalism a la chattel slavery and then afterwards by unfettered and unregulated hyper capitalism lol. Peoples attitudes in this country are inextricably linked to Capitalism bc Capitalism has been allowed to seize and commodify every single facet of society. Americans have never lived to experience any other system.
Greed, selfishness, and entitlement are behaviors enhanced and rewarded in Capitalist countries. To say that one has nothing to do with the other is real naivety imo.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_is16bt0 wrote
I'd agree the supply issue is a huge, huge part of the problem but I do think it's a very fair statement that capitalism was a driving factor in eroding so many of the safety nets, particularly in mental health that lead to the homeless population more than tripling during the Reagan years. And I also think that the "bottom-line" thinking that's the lifeblood of capitalism is a big roadblock towards more comprehensive solutions.
I'd never be someone who'd argue for full on communism or anything but it's hard to pretend that this problem exists because our status quo lets it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments