why is rent expensive?

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Radium, Apr 7, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Feme Sole

    Feme Sole Mrs. _Evil

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2002
    Messages:
    37,722
    You really keep the people waiting.

    I actually think I understand your thought process, but it seems to me like you're trying to make material goods, and even people, "a dime a dozen." That would be disastrous.
    test
  2. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    yes i know sorry but i have been playing my psp a lot lately
    test
  3. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    please explaion
    test
  4. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,149
    The fact is that there is a limited amount of housing, and an even more limited amount of quality housing and/or housing in desired locations. Whenever there is a significant amount of scarcity, economics comes into play.

    Even leaving aside the value of real estate - if you're renting an apartment, there is maintenance and repair, utilities, and security. There is also the quality of the structure itself, and the cost of building it. For example, most people want insulation, a comfortable amount of living space, and secure locks for night-time.

    For those who can't compete economically, there are shanty towns and the like, most notably the favelas of brazil. People there squat on hillsides near cities, living in homes cobbled together out of scrap materials, siphoning water and electricity from the city. So you can in fact live a rent-free existence off the grid, but without most of the amenities that are desired. Favelas are highly crowded and dangerous, and without proper utilities and services.

    Brazil is a large country with plenty of empty land. Since land itself is not scarce there, these huge communities are possible. But there are places where every acre of land is valuable, such as in Japan. There they have "capsule hotels" where you can rent a "capsule" or small cell to sleep in. You have a bed, a TV, wireless internet, and other services. Even there, you have to pay rent, although I'd assume its for the accommodations rather than the space... and it is cheaper.

    I'd support more cheap housing of decent quality, like the capsule hotels. But I don't see free/socialized housing as a realistic possibility.

    Favela - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Capsule hotel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Public housing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    test
  5. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    yeah i think thats a great idea. thanks for contributing this. New Orleans represents a case of infrastructural failure (because of katrina) but i think this would also be an interesting thing to implement into places in america that specifically were hit hardest by the outsourcing trend that started in the 90's w NAFTA; places that never really recovered from that blow and are basically non functioning at this point as a result. these places represent a pure example of the american infrastructure failing. this would suggest that changes to the infrastructure are needed.

    i think to explain what i want to say next about this its necessary 1rst to understand america as an entity starting somewhere post ww2 that split into two distinct systems

    The Great Divergence In Pictures: A visual guide to income inequality.

    [​IMG]

    im going to use the income chart for america because its essentially a bellwether for everything in society. the great compression represents a time when the income distribution compressed into the middle class creating the most wealth for the average american person. this had great impacts on the american infrastructure. there was a huge shift in ideology, culture, birth rates, the economy

    i think it had a extremely large impact by creating the belief in consumerism; capitalism works, america works, god is good and loving and w hard work and determination nothing is ever out of your reach.

    this was the dominant ideological theme of this period i think

    and for this time in america that was mostly true presuming those conditions that allowed this ideology to surface; the great compression was a time of immense prosperity. nobody could ever really argue that this type of infrastructure didn't work.

    then came the great divergence. i wont get into the things that caused this but whats important for this thread i guess is to just say that it happened and many of the underlying conditions that allowed the ideology of the great compression to exist are no longer present.

    for this thread specifically, housing in the great compression had its own type of infrastructure. specifically, property owners would build/purchase homes and apartments around the country. since this was a time of prosperity, this only made sense as it fits with the capitalistic/consumerist theme. people had jobs and could afford the prices that they asked for rent. there was no real argument then to make housing free. and so this system was allowed and the property owner had a perfect niche in society. this became the way we handled housing in this society.

    but now the infrastructure on the whole today is completely different than it was back then. yet we are still operating w the same ideology for everything. we are still handling everything the same despite the tremendous infrastructural changes that underlay and support everything. at some point i believe that the way we specifically handle housing had morphed into a cancer on society instead of a symbiotic relationship between renter and property owner; where before it once made sense but now has just become extra weight.

    i believe that we are now largely just living in the past ideologically; where previous systems that onced worked no longer do, but we fail to be creative and keep the same ideology for everything. this of course doesn't reflect the reality of whats been happening to us.
    test
  6. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    ah ok i m glad you agree w me for my premise that rent isn't necessary for shelter. that was the big thing. my whole thinking is based on that one thing and i believe that if you can agree to that as your premise starting out, you then must adjust your thinking on how we handle the task of shelter in this society going forward!

    what i mean is, i think this must lead you to believe that the current model handles it ineffectively. this is what i want people to admit. if you can at least admit this then that can open up a whole new plane of thoughts going forward next.

    as for livable clear space:

    i think livable clear space is limited - but not everywhere. for example livable clear space is probably limited in mid town manhattan where property owners have seeped in, took control over everything, and entrenched a certain kind of system. this does not mean that this stays true across the whole country; theres actually a whole lot of livable clear spaace in america.

    heres just one quick example of something that we can do:

    lets say the gov builds a few apartment complexes for recent college grads in a small college town. they let them live here for free. the college grads who occupy these apartments pay for everything that demands production and thus human effort ex: things like electricity, water, gas, security

    the rent is the only thing that is free

    i pick college grads because at this time in our society its EXTREMELY hard for them to start out their adult lives. the infrastructure is so stacked to difficulity for any young adult living today; its so hard for us to even get one foot forward i this current system.

    this would really help them to have time to pay back their loans, look for work for extended periods without having so much stress, and increase their purchasing power so that they can afford to actually buy things now

    that last part specifically would have a great impact on the lo9cal economy!
    test
  7. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    re: scarcity

    i think what ive been trying to propose in this thread is part of a larger trend towards sustainability in the future. eventually, human society must start to trend away from this malthusian premise of resource scarcity.

    scarcity is a problem that can be addressed by novel technology and better (more creative) infrastructure to support it.

    i support capitalism because i view it as being the transitory stage (like a bridge sort of) that ultimately creates this type of sustainable society of the future. no other system could do this, i think. for this, i think capitalism is a very good thing. but i dont see it as an ultimate end thing. its really just a middling stage towards something greater. we need to start thinking about the future of society and what sorts of technology and infrastructure might exist in it to get a better grasp of where we stand now and what we should probably be doing to set the stage for it.

    an ultimate end thing, so to speak, would obviously be a perfectly sustainable society. we arent near at this stage yet technologically but there are some things from that society which i feel can be feasibly implemented now.

    for example, i think the way they handle housing in that society would ultimately be free and not rent based. where housing would be seen in the same light like the building of roads or bridges or parks.

    heres an examlpe of a way i think we might be able to implement it now so that we set a precedent that allows that society in the future to follow out. tell me what you think:

    reggie posted a really good idea about new orleans and free housing. i dont think any of you stopped and gave it the thought it really deserved when he posted it and pretty much glossed over it in your hastes. new orleans is unique because of the way the devastations that katrina caused had cleared out so much land, leaving many many people without livable homes. basically, another way of saying it is that it had wiped out a lot of the previous infrastructure.

    this presents an opportunity to try out a new type of infrastructure in its place.

    lets say the gov builds a series of apartment complexes in new orleans over the cleared space caused by katrina. lets say that the construction of each apartment complex costs roughly 900k. renters are brought in and pay a monthly rent back to the gov over a certain period of time until the full costs of construction are covered. then after the costs are fully paid, the renters are no longer expected to pay anything to the gov. since housing is a physical structure (like a bridge, or a road) its self supporting and, presuming it was built correctly, won't need any further money or human effort to preform its task.

    the renters at this point are free to live in these apartments which presumably should still be standing 100+ years from now. as renters move or pass on, new tenants can be brought in constantly. after the costs of construction are covered these structures potentially can exist through several generations and support an innumerable amount of human lives.

    this is an example of a sustainable housing model

    i believe this model is creative and makes sense. it doesnt burden the tax payer or the government to test out as the costs for the construction are fully covered by the first wave of tenants. so there is very low risk to try this new system out.


    (the latter part of your post talks about shanty towns and japanese capsule hotels which i dont understand the way they relate to this conversation)
    test
  8. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    ok i guess this thread has naturally reached its end. i started this thread out jokingly but it later became something important to me. i really think i might have weirdly stumbled onto something.

    i was listening to this song a lot in the days that i was thinking about this subject. so maybe that was boosting my sense of idealism over this. please click play.. .



    shout out to anybody that posted something in here. shout out 2 teq; i wish teq posted more because i think he represented a very important ideology to this. his was probably the most important but everybody in their own way represented some kind of ideology in society, so by posting you really showed how the ideology that you currently represent interacts with this

    everybody seemed to be saying that this was really too idealistic to work. i actually think its the most realistic (major) change that can be attempted by this society in an attempt to restore some wealth to the working class and create some more jobs for everybody. every other change that has been suggested involves in some way a big compromise from the wealth holders of this society. whether that meant taxing the wealthy for more money for different entitlement programs, reducing military spending, ending the fed, stopping the outsourcing trend.. . whatever you can think of...

    i think the bulk of these types of suggestions required that the wealth holders of this society compromise themselves in some way. though doing some of these things might have a healing impact on the society that they live in on the whole, by trying these things out, they ultimately represent a sacrifice in some way for this group too. since this group has by far the most power in this society, its not realistic to ultimately ask them to do things that go against and compromise their desires. i dont think its anywhere near feasible to ask them to do that. their ideology prevents them from wanting to agree to do these things. so, fair enough i guess...

    what i suggested was unique in that we could work around them instead of having to go directly through them. by building apartments and renting them out to a first wave of tenants until all costs for constructions were fully paid back, we could create a new free housing infrastructure w/o having to tax the wealthy for any money or even ask for anything from them. in fact its actually very beneficial for the wealthy to support this as they ultimately represent the bourgeoisie (the group of people who control the productions of products in society) and by us having more buying power (because we no longer are rent slaves) we would thus have more money to buy more of their products! so by supporting this system, they actually can make even more money for themselves as one of the many results (i go over what some of those results are more on th first page)

    there was only 1 group that i could think of who could ever possibly be against such a thing in society: property owners. they belong to the bourgeoisie too, but they are lower in the chain of power. that is, they are wealth holders too but they ultimately have less say in things as those who control production of products. they have less say because they have less wealth. property owners are just the guys who you directly pay your rent out to every month (you might even know them personally) vs controllers of production (guys who you literally bought everything you own in your house from)

    if somehow they could be convinced that by letting us use this new housing infrastructure we would increase our buying power and buy more of their products, we wouldnt have to worry about property owners having the power to lobby against this. we could actually use the top end of the bourgeoisie to protect us from them. imagine that11!

    so what else... i guess i think thats it

    the next step woould be me creating up some kind of really good dissertation and presenting it to city hall or something. i would probably get laughed out of the building though - even though i think i make a good argument for this. maybe i can show this idea to some community groups and let them take it and run with it. maybe i would get laughed at by them too, at least if this thread and its reactions r any indicator for that...

    but i do think i am onto something...

    everybody thanks for listening to me endlessly using this thread asx a emo-esque ass temp blog. one big thing i want people to understand is that infrastructure and ideology are related. and that changes to one end result in a snap back response to the other. if we can alter the infrastructure to represent the theme of sustainability, we might also start to alter the ideology in society towards that theme too. people might start to wake up and realize that we dont have to just be stagnant and slaves to fate, and that we can make positive changes to the way things are if we want to.
    test
  9. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,149
    excuse my lateness, I've been busy.

    word. infrastructure and technology are the main factors of how we'll live in the world. I've always said that Malthus' Law of Population Growth did not take technology into account. Skyscraper greenhouses could feed the agricultural needs of a much larger population. More advanced/efficient housing could in turn bring us closer to your rent-free ideal, especially if they're created by the government as you said. Private interests tend to look for profits without taking a long-term view.

    I brought up favelas and capsule hotels because they are examples of living off the grid (favelas), and a way of maximizing efficiency of housing space (capsule hotels).

    This ultimately ties into my ideal of space colonization. O'neill cylinders or Stanford Torus' could provide housing/living space for many more people. This will become viable once we have a space-based economy. Mining and industry in space will also take pressure off the earth, but this is going off on a tangent.

    the challenge is getting society on the same page to achieve long term goals or changes. We have a current tendency to be very short-sighted, and not think ahead to future decades or generations.

    When the industrial revolution was underway, it was strongly opposed by Luddites and others who had to "make sacrifices" for the new order. And there were many sacrifices, but it turned out to be one of the greatest revolutions in history.

    Creating sustainable housing as you see it is a fine long-term goal, but it's difficult to make long term sacrifices and changes to accomplish a larger plan. My space ideal faces the same issue - we could achieve greatness by going to space, but it takes large investments to actually get there. Getting to orbit economically would be a big improvement for example, but that would involve a huge project such as a maglev launch loop.
    test
  10. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,149
    also, virtual insanity is a glorious music video.
    test
  11. Carpe Noctem

    Carpe Noctem Neos Helios

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    5,202
    lmao.

    My boy Jamiroquai.
    test
  12. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    LOL yeah
    test
  13. miscreant

    miscreant 1996 was the shit

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,856
    it would never be effected

    it flies in the face of capitalism

    your arguments about the positive effects on society and the economy might be true, however for it to happen on any sort of scale, the government would face a pretty big expense in order to effect it, which would most likely mean more taxes for the people

    the property market already generates a lot of revenue for the government. so this idea of free housing would create a defecit in revenue, which also means more taxes

    given that free housing couldn't be given to everyone, it would create animosity in society, more social classes

    land itself is a very valuable commodity, and it's price fluctuates according to location, this poses problems itself

    also, housing does require maintenance. whose expense should this be? again the governments or the residents? some people/families would cause the property to deteroriate quicker than others, so if the governments expense, how would this be mediated?

    generally those that seek free housing would probably be in a lower income brakect so how much more would they contribute to the economy with free housing than with the current situation anyway?

    i'm a home owner. i know how much my mortgage costs me, there's no way i could deliver free housing to my tenants, i'd lose the properties. it would have to be a government funded project. given how poor they are with finances already, i couldn't see them managing such a policy. in the end it would just be another tax burden for us
    test
  14. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    these points you make were brought up more on page 2.

    i think this actually greatly fits into the theme of capitalism; since it really accelerates the relationship between producer and consumer by streamlining it so that the consumer can have a greater disposable income and freely re-divert more of this money to the producers in society. presumably, this is a way to fix and/or lessen the effects of a recession.

    capitalism on growth hormones, i guess

    and i propose a way that the government can implement this w/o any tax on page 2

    this is not some kind of socialist theory

    i think this is wrong. renters at any apartment complex now currently pay out a land tax to the gov indirectly through rent payment. there is no displacement by having tenants at a free apartment paying only a land tax to the gov directly vs tenants at a rented apartment that are paying a rent x a land tax too

    the gov can have it both ways; they don't become displaced in any way.

    this next part of your post is actually very easy. i think the way to handle this is by creating a basic raffle system. entrants must pass a background check to make sure they can be expected to pay back the costs of construction during the re-payment phase and have a respectable previous history of rent payments. any tenant who fails to make a payment during the re-payment phase can be given a warning and then later replaced by a new tenant in the raffle system. any tenant who creates damages to the property must pay back the costs of damages or be replaced by a new tenant as selected by the raffle system who is then expected to pay the costs of those damages.

    entry into this type of system would be highly desirable to most anyone in society (except probably the higher income brackets) so it would likely attract everyone who could qualify into wanting to enter into the raffle system. therefore there is a limitless supply of people who could pay back the costs of construction and any damages incurred by a previous tenant.

    the more successful this system turns out, i imagine the more people would try to vote to have more projects like this built. the more that happens, the more the economy improves. starting w only a few apartments like this can eventually snowball into a much larger entity w much greater effects on much larger scales.

    um hit me back
    test
  15. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    oh yeah i m going to try to start this up in 2012. for th rest of this year i m going to try to get more hard data since i need to know costs, where there is clear space, and things like that. then in 2012 i m going to try to get backing from some community groups and (most importantly) small businesses who might want to support this too (since they benefit directly) and (hopefully) big businesses who might want to sponsor this too.

    LOL the whole thing is extremely unlikely though. but this is the ideal... .
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)