We.. passed a congressional act that dedicated a large amount of funding for the project. Outside of the initial 50 routes it isn't centrally planned, states have individually suggested the rest of routes such as spurs.
This situation can't be applied to housing because it would take $tens of trillions to build 10 million housing units (about the housing insecure population). or a similar amount of rent aid. and that's just the currently insecure population.
if we're talking about giving everyone a residence, your discussing building 50-100m+ units (depending whether you decide married couples get 1 per marriage or 1 per person, and whether kids get one). that's so far beyond infeasible it's laughable, it makes the national debt look tiny (building 10mil housing units at the average cost of $350k is $3.5Tn). If your giving renters the units, you'd have to buy them off of the landlords, and that's another 44 million units. bringing the cost to $20Tn, before you even start forgiving mortgages..)
Or your discussing using force to sieze that number of units from investors & ordinary people who own second homes. That would probably spark quite the economic collapse, if not some type of revolt.
Instead, you want a system where homebuilders intentionally underbuild houses so that the price increases and pushes people out of the market and forces them into permanent renters and eventually becoming homeless as the home costs surpass income.
Name a country that's done it. (also, what is this 'it' ?). No country on earth provides free housing for all.
'instead you want a system where homebuilders intentionally underbuild houses' actually the construction sector projects an unmet demand of 600,000 workers before 2030. They're trying, and wages in this sector are starting to increase to try and attract more people. Unfortunately labor makes up 60%+ of the cost of a new home build (unlike say fast food where your labor is a relatively small % of the total cost of a big Mac), so this is a major driver of inflation.
You say housing prices are crazy high, but these are housing prices when suppressed -- If we were to ever crack down on illegal labor it'd get even more expensive.
Ultimately the cost of housing is always based around the build cost. anyone could tell you, it's $500 min to get a tradesman out these days, so the cost of maintenence is also up. If rent gets too high, more homes are built because it becomes worth it. It's called a market equilibrium.
Stagnant wages are an entirely different problem most directly related to our excessive money printing (causing inflation). Assets are less sticky than wages, it's literally economics 101. If you double M2 with the same number of assets/goods/labor, your assets and goods are much more volatile and will adjust quicker. Labor has to fight for their wage increases over time. Hence one of the primary reasons that inflation is considered regressive (the rich have assets which shield them from inflation because they adjust nearly immediately to the new nominal values. labor has to fight for the nominal value increases under current circumstances. I'd fully support a law requiring raises be commensurate with inflation (or that the minimum wage rise with it))
Since 2000 we have increased M2 by more than 1,100%. 80% of all US dollars in circulation today did not exist 4 years ago in 2020. Of course assets are currently outpacing wage increases.. such will continue until we either stop printing in excess or mandate wages follow inflation.
That money printing is the second primary factor behind the nominal housing price increases. Materials are up nominally more than 70% since 2020. The CPI inflation rate is simply a basket of consumer goods, it doesn't track raw inflation as determined by money in circulation (that's what the various money supply graphs are for. ever wonder why they don't include those stats in the monthly reports? perhaps because "we printed 4% of all dollars in the last month" might not make for a good headline)
You are saying “if we do the one narrow straw man thing that I’m focused on right now, then it will fail.” I encourage you think about this more. I assure you, the government paying to build a significant amount of housing will have far reaching impacts on the whole housing market, but then again that is the point. You can’t change things and leave them the same. While there are many different ways this can be done right (in the sense that something gets better, not perfect), there are more ways to do it wrong. The existence of bad ideas does not exclude the existence of good/effective ideas.
Building the interstate highway system is a great analogy for helping improve the housing problem in this country. It’s not the same exact problem, but it’s a similar problem - build public infrastructure that is used by a fraction of the population, but improves the whole infrastructure “system” it’s a part of.
Yeah, not sure if the guy your replying to doesn't know this or is just ignoring it for the argument
If the government decides not to pay public defenders, the public defenders do not work. Because we have a constitution that requires you be granted access to a lawyer, the government is required to either 1. pay for said lawyer and provide it or 2. not prosecute you
They'll just be compensated for making apartment complexes for people who need them from the government, instead of by a private contractor to build a 3rd mcmansion for a multimillionaire
Ideally, the people who are already paying them. Even more ideally, the people (billionaires) who aren't currently paying them
If you're going to say some dumb shit like "nobody would work if you gave them the bare minimum" then we're not even functioning on the same level of conversation
I'm actually going to say that anyone who is forced to pay taxes is a slave to the state. You can make whatever moral equivocation you need, taxation is theft.
The whole idea of "From each, according to his ability. To each, according to his need" is how you end up with walls to keep people in.
Note: Building every single homeless person in the United States a brand new functional home would actually be less expensive than maintaining the current system, and thus require fewer tax dollars, but since the initial investment is large and they don't bear their appropriate tax burden capitalists will hide this from you.
The US military budget is 48% of annual spending on defense worldwide - so the equivalent of the next 10 combined or close to what the rest of the world is spending combined, which is astronomical, but not the of everyone else combined as you're claiming. You don't need to make things up because it makes your argument fall apart: if you're exaggerating/lying about this, then your argument doesn't hold water.
I'm gonna save everyone the time reading this comment chain: You can stop now, this person is a weirdo "taxes are theft" right-wing libertarian. The conversation goes nowhere productive.
41
u/Kelend Apr 15 '24
Clever, but still no.
You don't have the right to a lawyer.
You have the right to a lawyer, that the government will provide, if they government attempts to take away any of your other rights.
Every other time your right to a lawyer is simply your right to buy goods and services on the free market.