it fails everyone except the very rich
The New York Times
October 10 at 11:25am ·
One in every 10 public school students was homeless at some point during the 2016-17 school year.
One in 10 New York City Public School Students Were Homeless Last Year
Newly released state data shows that more than 111,500 students in the city’s public schools were homeless at some point during the last school year.
NYTIMES.COM
yeah i'm sure you're concerned. you're probably thinking about how much better off they would be without govt housing.Our Govt. ya'll
I'm not assuming "better" yet, but I am curious as to how things would have gone without govt. assistance in light of its complete failure here.
the failure is that there is more demand than supply, not that the govt is in the supply business.
We'll never know though.
One of the most common critiques of govt.(vs the private sector) is its difficulty handling supply/demand.
well the private sector will provide housing at market rates and in new york city that's not affordable for some.
then that means you don't really care about the plight of the city's new poor because even with your preferred private sector solutions there would be even more of them left out in the cold. you're using this situation as an opportunity to knock govt efforts but your own preferred option is if you cant afford it tough shyt.Agreed.
that's why i responded to you because i was sort of shocked that you cared that there isn't enough affordable housing. if the govt can only help some and not all then it's a failure because the private sector wouldn't even give the false hope that they want to help anyone right?
Increasing the supply will lower cost... but you are correct, not enough for many of these families... and yes if people(taxpayers) are going to be left out in the cold, I'd prefer if it wasnt at the govt.'s hand.then that means you don't really care about the plight of the city's new poor because even with your preferred private sector solutions there would be even more of them left out in the cold. you're using this situation as an opportunity to knock govt efforts but your own preferred option is if you cant afford it tough shyt.
a question because i know you and these other right wing types like to talk about relaxing housing standards and increase the market rate inventory. do you all believe that cures the affordable housing problem in a city? i think it just increases a city's population. the current people who can't afford homes don't just magically get new affordable apartments. what happens is the people who had more money than them but were priced out and moved to the outskirts will then move back to the city limits and those who can't afford it will still be assed out because the developers aren't in the charity business
cold I know, but I dont see why we should subsidize those with little to nothing living in the most expensive city in the country simply cause they want to. If anything I'd like to subsidize their relocation to a lower cost environment with better job outlooks.
Any clue as to what is interfering with basic supply in demand? Overwhelming demand? Unnecessary regulations?
