No you don’t, lol.
I think his idea is a hybrid. Everyone has a home but new homes are handled via a lottery.
I could be mistaken.
It could work as a transition. But i still don’t see how it builds enough new homes.
There’s nothing hybrid about it. It trades one system with arguable flaws for a system that is nothing but flaws.
I watched his YouTube movie as well, and it was adorable. I guess this just must be what the uber-lefties think of me and why I keep getting accused of being a troll. They think I’m off my rocker, and I am 100% certain that Sabo is.
I’d write a few paragraphs about why raffling off existing housing would be a monumental disaster, but it will only serve to entertain me and I have other, more productive things I can do to suit that end.
I’ll just point out that I’d love to hear his non-violent solution to the inevitable outcome of people with nice houses that they’ve already paid for being asked to give them up to lottery winners. I’m sure everyone will leave willingly.
If not, maybe we can lower their credit score a few points. That’ll teach 'em.
What if the people that are currently living in the super nice homes, don’t like that the lottery put them in a not so nice home. How do we make them leave when they just say no?
Well, let’s do some maths. Let’s say, in a typical year, these hypothetical peeps need to replace 1% of the existing housing stock. Let’s further say, that a replacement house costs $250k materials and labor. That’s $209/month paid into a sinking fund, or equivalent (leaving aside inflation, any interest that might accrue to the sinking fund, and etc/etc/etc). So… any community which has the ability to consistently pay into such a sinking fund is, in this sense, sustainable.
Of course, there’s still maintenance, insurance, the legitimate parts of property management, and in certain jurisdictions property tax and etc/etc/etc that needs to be paid on a recurring basis to remain sustainable too. The sinking fund, or equivalent, is in addition to these ordinary expenses.
Comparing apples to airplanes perhaps, but a very quick google shows in the US the above average construction cost ($250k), and the average rent at $1200. If ordinary expenses comprise 30% of the rent, well these hypothetical people in our hypothetical community would need to pay $568 to remain sustainable.
And here is where this BS so-called argument that landlordism “creates” urban planning falls apart.
Our sustainable community has $632 more dollars available every single month to fund the growth of their housing stock. For example, let’s say while suffering under that $1200 rent, our hypothetical community can only fund $500 towards the growth of their housing stock… while, if they are relieved of that $1200 burden, they could fund $1132 instead.
So, using my WAG numbers, our sustainable community would have the ability to fund 1132/500 = 2.29 times more of such growth.
More, significantly more… not less.
I’m not following your math. How do you get $209/month from $250k?
250000/(100*12)
Lol
Do we have any idea if a 1% replacement rate is realistic?
I don’t hate this idea. I think it’s interesting. It has shades of savings account lotteries which I think are genius.
I’m still waiting for evidence that rental pricing is generally a rip off.
The sheriff evicts them.
That’s what I was trying to get at when I spewed along the lines of “it’d be hypothetically legislated, enforced, and adjudicated just like reality is now”. My bad – for not being clearer.
In Sabo’s world, real estate operating expenses are 50% lower than reality and inflation isn’t a thing. For instance, a $250k house in 1919 would cost roughly $3.7M today.
These buildings also don’t require any sort of utilities, it seems.
This boy is absolutely new at life.
I thought one of the issues with the current system was the violence? replacing violence, with difference violence doesn’t seem like the optimum solution.
Well, 100 years is low for standard quality housing built today. But 100 years is a common WAG, and it’s a nice round number. Anecdotally, I’m the steward of two houses, a tract home 63 years old, and a kit home 93 years old. Both are as structurally sound as the day they were built or assembled.
Maybe this is what is confusing you: I’m not advocating for this “lotto” system I just invented right now as a goof.
I just got tired of certain fools whining that they got no “specifics” to “argue” against, so I made some “specifics” up for them.
The really funny thing is this… this hypothetical “lotto” system is objectively “better”, measured under any relevant metric I can imagine, than reality’s pre-pandemic status-quo.
go on…
I’m making fun of some fools.
Maybe I’m not understanding something, but this sounds pretty violent to me.
Admittedly, I’m not really following this whole thread that closely.
Well, it’s all about “creating” incentives, right? Avoiding execution is a powerful incentive. Orders of magnitude more powerful than the incentive of avoiding eviction. And… the random nature of how the “winners”, so to speak, are chosen for execution would make buying housing lotto tickets a “we’re all in it together” activity.
I’d imagine the each month’s housing budget would be counted down like a pledge target on a telethon. I’d imagine the pledge would be met mid month. If not, I’d imagine a hypothetical alternate Bill Gates buying a buncha housing lotto tickets at the last moment.
Buy housing lotto tickets… the life you save could be your own !!!1!