Post

Remember the early days of Covid when people were speculating on N95 masks and hand sanitizer by buying up the scarce supply and selling it for inflated prices; but then we made so many masks and so much hand sanitizer that you could get them super cheap? We could do that for housing if we wanted.

87 reposts643 likes

Its because housing is location-bound, meaning a given unit of housing is less useful if it's farther away from a given economic center. Data centers are much less location-bound, so it's much easier for them to ship around for friendly jurisdictions.

Somewhat true-but also DC’s follow the rules of physics-not all of them are being built out in the desert..if this was a national priority-and CEO’s/oligarchs were determined to win-we’d be building housing-and it’s associated infrastructure like we were cooking flapjacks

Oh yeah, if the federal government were to pass laws preempting local zoning restrictions (i.e. forbidding cities from making zoning codes that restrict housing density), then yes, we'd definitely be cooking flapjacks and it would be awesome!!!

We need to fight the financialization of masks or something I’m not against affordable masks but is this the place for it? Surely there are other areas better suited to masking We need comprehensive consultation to ensure neighbourhood input Inclusive mask factory zoning is a must, naturally

Remember during Covid days when auto makers responded to a shortage of electronics by continuing to produce high priced cars and cutting back on production of low priced cars?

I live in a country with tens of thousands of vacant properties for a population of 600,000ish and no slowdown to housing construction. This has done nothing to lower housing costs. I think this idea is naive.

outlawing cheap housing isn't leftist just bc not doing that is a freer market. like what are we doing here. you can make this same argument for outlawing marijuana or immigration.

No it doesn't. The premise of trickle-down economics was to give rich people tax cuts with the idea that this would grow the economy. The premise of building more housing is we let developers spend *their* money to build housing. It's not costing the government anything.

Would banning new grocery stores be a good idea because "trickle-down groceries won't help people afford food"? Obviously not. Let people spend their money to provide the goods we need, and subsidize people who still can't afford them.

If you actually value class diversity, the evidence suggests that building lots of market rate homes and giving poor people vouchers to rent them is a much more effective strategy for preserving it than imposing an unfunded inclusionary zoning mandate.

I mean, there is the obvious difference about building homes where people want to live. Just like in 2008, developers are building shitloads of houses... in places like the exurbs of Phoenix, for packaging into loan derivatives. Not houses where people want them to be.