Wealth inequality doesn't have anything to do with homelessness

Overall it's better than the alternatives. However, "fine" is pushing it. Which is why there are issues like homelessness, poverty and medical bankruptcy.
There will always be relative poverty by definition. When you don't let people sleep on the streets homelessness is solved, people will then move. Most visible "homelessness" is about mental health and drugs though. Bankruptcy is a solution.
Uh - not sure you get the point of the ADU law. Apartment owners can't build ADU's. People in high density areas can't build ADU's. Only people with land, generally in the suburbs, can build them. You're not going to create an "urban high density mess" in a suburb that started out zoned for half acre lots.
Yes, you are and most are quarter acre lots. People move to the suburbs for a reason.
 
In my case it was a "he" and he looked worried, and seemed to be looking at the adults for reassurance that this was OK. It's a natural reaction when a child sees someone unusual.
A child looks "worried". You assume it's because he's afraid of someone who looks unusual. But how does that someone look unusual? In your example, by being damaged. Can the child not look worried that the other person is in distress, in pain, in need of help? Might he not be looking at the adults by way of asking them to help the injured person? What did the kid actually say or do?
Adults leap to a lot of conclusions about juvenile behaviour and communication, based on their own preconceptions, rather than observing and listening.
 


Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by greed. Plus algorithms.

Millions of rents across the United States may now be set using one company’s algorithmic software, according to a federal lawsuit and a Washington Post analysis.

RealPage, a property management software company, uses a trove of data to suggest rental prices to landlords. The software has been widely adopted by property managers — and is now facing strenuous legal pushback.

Over the past three years, the company has been sued by the federal government, which alleged in August that it unlawfully decreases competition among landlords; by several individuals; and by the governments of Arizona and D.C., which have accused RealPage and dozens of property management companies of colluding to raise prices.
 
There will always be relative poverty by definition.
Absolutely. It is worthwhile, IMO, to try to reduce it.

When you don't let people sleep on the streets homelessness is solved, people will then move.

By defintion, yes. But that's about as useful as saying "if you don't let people get sick, the healthcare problem is solved."

Yes, you are and most are quarter acre lots. People move to the suburbs for a reason.

Right - more space. That's why they are not at risk of becoming an "urban high density mess."
 
Companies are there to make a profit. Greed has nothing to do with it. It doesn't apply.
I would say that greed has everything to do with it when the profit motive is taken to the point where people genuinely suffer. It doesn't have to be illegal for this to apply, it just needs to be a broken system, one that allows such greed to cause suffering.
 
Companies are there to make a profit. Greed has nothing to do with it. It doesn't apply.
Greed is how capitalism works. Without greed, you lose most of the driving force behind capitalism.

Why invest only in companies that will make you money, if greed is not a factor?
Why ask for a raise, if greed is not a factor?
Why look for the best deals on goods/real estate, if greed is not a factor?
 
My friend was a prominent surgeon, we went to school together and he had the same humble upbringing as myself in Manchester.

I did ok, he did a lot better. He bought himself a property in a highly desirable area and he goes there regularly.

That area has residents that have no chance of buying houses there because the average wage there is not as per a surgeon, or banker, lawyer etc.

Tourism, hospitality and perhaps some industry but not much.

What is the solution in this case?

Does my friend not acquire property there? The natives cannot afford it so he should spend his money elsewhere?
Who then acquires those properties?
These are not isolated cases the UK.
Should preference be given to residents but at with achievable mortgage rates?
Is that like saying, buy a BMW in Manchester and that will be 60K but if you were born and bred in the manufacturing town? 6K?
 
Property value is nothing to do with whether you are born in area, you are just born there.
Anyway I will follow up with him on that.

Millionaires acquiring multiple properties then renting, "buy to let" has to be regulated. I agree with that.
 
Absolutely. It is worthwhile, IMO, to try to reduce it.
It is being reduced in absolute terms all the time. It's only relative poverty that we have and there will always be relative poverty by definition.
By defintion, yes. But that's about as useful as saying "if you don't let people get sick, the healthcare problem is solved."
It's useful to say that if you want the drug addicts and the mentally ill off the streets, move them off the streets.
Right - more space. That's why they are not at risk of becoming an "urban high density mess."
That's not the rule everywhere. They just put 4 houses on one lot in Vancouver BC, for instance. They do put 2 houses with this trend on quarter lots.
 
I would say that greed has everything to do with it when the profit motive is taken to the point where people genuinely suffer. It doesn't have to be illegal for this to apply, it just needs to be a broken system, one that allows such greed to cause suffering.
I would disagree. Profit motive and people suffering have nothing to do with each other. If I sell a house and make a profit and you suffer in some way, it has nothing to do with me. Maybe you bought my house, really couldn't afford it, you suffered, so what?
 
Greed is how capitalism works. Without greed, you lose most of the driving force behind capitalism.

Why invest only in companies that will make you money, if greed is not a factor?
Why ask for a raise, if greed is not a factor?
Why look for the best deals on goods/real estate, if greed is not a factor?
You live in an alternative universe, what can I say?

Profit and greed are distinct concepts. Profit is a measure of success and efficiency, while greed involves an excessive desire for more, often without consideration for the consequences.

Greed is probably when someone has more than you. It's subjective and you can make it whatever you want it to be. You live in a nice house in San Diego. Why are you so greedy?
 
Last edited:
Property value is nothing to do with whether you are born in area, you are just born there.
Anyway I will follow up with him on that.

Millionaires acquiring multiple properties then renting, "buy to let" has to be regulated. I agree with that.
Why? Should there not be houses that are available to rent?
 
It's useful to say that if you want the drug addicts and the mentally ill off the streets, move them off the streets.
Perhaps you could put them in a boxcar.

That's not the rule everywhere. They just put 4 houses on one lot in Vancouver BC, for instance. They do put 2 houses with this trend on quarter lots.

That's great, and will help with housing shortages. They are doing the same thing in Del Mar CA BTW; a friend of mine just bought a house built in someone else's back yard.

Profit and greed are distinct concepts.

Of course they are. Profit is a numeric representation of the difference between cost and income. Greed is the desire to get more than you need. It's what drives you to ask for a raise - or get another job that pays more - even if your current income covers your needs. It is what drives capitalism.
 
Perhaps you could put them in a boxcar.
That would be greedy to need that much space.
That's great, and will help with housing shortages. They are doing the same thing in Del Mar CA BTW; a friend of mine just bought a house built in someone else's back yard.



Of course they are. Profit is a numeric representation of the difference between cost and income. Greed is the desire to get more than you need. It's what drives you to ask for a raise - or get another job that pays more - even if your current income covers your needs. It is what drives capitalism.
Profit is why capitalism is efficient. Don't you like efficiency? Is it greedy to start a company even if you already live in an efficiency apartment and have food in your kitchen?

Why spend money skydiving when there are homeless on the streets? That money could be going to pay the rent for at least one homeless person. Why be so greedy? Polluting the earth with unnecessary flight, spending money on the equipment, wasting all that time in pursuit of excitement! Are you decadent too? Greedy and decadent?
 
Profit is why capitalism is efficient. Don't you like efficiency? Is it greedy to start a company even if you already live in an efficiency apartment and have food in your kitchen?
?? "Wanting to start a company" is unrelated to where you live and what you eat.

However, it is greedy to want a house instead of an efficiency apartment. Is that bad? Not if it doesn't hurt anyone else. It is greedy to want expensive fancy food rather than basic food. Is that bad? Not if it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Why spend money skydiving when there are homeless on the streets?

Because it's fun. Yes, it is a selfish pursuit, as is most recreation.
 
?? "Wanting to start a company" is unrelated to where you live and what you eat.

However, it is greedy to want a house instead of an efficiency apartment. Is that bad? Not if it doesn't hurt anyone else. It is greedy to want expensive fancy food rather than basic food. Is that bad? Not if it doesn't hurt anyone else.



Because it's fun. Yes, it is a selfish pursuit, as is most recreation.
OK, so you are selective in your use of "greedy". If greedy is good, it's not the usual definition of greed.

Inequality of wealth and income isn't hurting anyone either.
 
Wealth inequality doesn't have anything to do with homelessness. Mental illness, drug addiction, not having a job has a lot to do with homelessness.

Research from the Pew Charitable Trust↱ would disagree:

… analysis of rent prices and homelessness in American cities demonstrates the strong connection between the two: homelessness is high in urban areas where rents are high, and homelessness rises when rents rise.

To identify and illustrate the housing market dynamics driving these trends, The Pew Charitable Trusts compared homelessness and rent data in 2017 and 2022. In recent years, many metro areas in the U.S. have seen stark increases in levels of homelessness along with fast-rising rents. At the same time, some other locales that saw slow rent growth experienced declines in homelessness.

Media reports have highlighted increases in homelessness and the emergence of encampments in numerous cities, including Austin, Texas; Fresno, California; Phoenix, Arizona; Raleigh, North Carolina; Sacramento, California; and Tucson, Arizona. But other urban areas where homelessness declined over the same period—such as in Chicago, Houston, Minneapolis, and Philadelphia—recorded slower growth in rents than in the U.S. overall.

A large body of academic research has consistently found that homelessness in an area is driven by housing costs, whether expressed in terms of rents, rent-to-income ratios, price-to-income ratios, or home prices. Further, changes in rents precipitate changes in rates of homelessness: homelessness increases when rents rise by amounts that low-income households cannot afford. Similarly, interventions to address housing costs by providing housing directly or through subsidies have been effective in reducing homelessness. That makes sense if housing costs are the main driver of homelessness, but not if other reasons are to blame. Studies show that other factors have a much smaller impact on homelessness.

Yeah, they kind of nailed you, there, like, a year and a half in advance.

That gruff, declarative method of argument by which someone just says something and expects it to carry reads like one of those Boomer holdovers that probably worked better back before people could look stuff up on the internet. You know, the kind of thing that worked back when Reganistas complained that everyone who disagreed with them was a communist or a welfare queen.

Bottom line, you were wrong before you even uttered.
____________________

Notes:

Horowitz, Alex, Chase Hatchett, and Adam Staveski. "How Housing Costs Drive Levels of Homelessness". Pew Charitable Trusts. 22 August 2023. PewTrusts.org. 9 January 2025. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...ow-housing-costs-drive-levels-of-homelessness
 
I would disagree. Profit motive and people suffering have nothing to do with each other. If I sell a house and make a profit and you suffer in some way, it has nothing to do with me. Maybe you bought my house, really couldn't afford it, you suffered, so what?
I'm talking more in general. When profit drives a company policy that directly leads to people suffering, that is where it becomes greed. In the headlines at the moment is the behaviour of Health Insurance companies, for example. And in such instances they very much do have things to do with each other. Causal, even.

With houses, your scenario is not where it would manifest. I feel it would be more likely to be found among rented property and landlord behaviour.
 
I'm talking more in general. When profit drives a company policy that directly leads to people suffering, that is where it becomes greed. In the headlines at the moment is the behaviour of Health Insurance companies, for example. And in such instances they very much do have things to do with each other. Causal, even.

With houses, your scenario is not where it would manifest. I feel it would be more likely to be found among rented property and landlord behaviour.
So if you buy a house and rent it out to make a profit, you are causing suffering and therefore you shouldn't make a profit? In that case you wouldn't buy the house and it wouldn't be available for rent.

What exactly is the mechanism so organize the economy if it isn't the profit motive. Is it to buy a house, determine what is "fair" for a particular renter and maybe lose money if they began to suffer?
 
Back
Top