Thinking about the principles laid down in the article:
a) Do not require significant initial funds for buying
b) Do not have other people profit of the housing
A simple solution congruent with these principles could be:
Selling the house should be restricted to yield the amount of money you put in. This excludes money spend on repairs, etc., and is to be adjusted for inflation.
You can keep living in the house as long as you are alive. Once you are dead, you lose the house and the inheritance will be the same money you would get from selling the house/apartment under the regulated terms.
The next renter of the regulated public housing apartment would just pay rent again
until they have enough in their portfolio and then stop to have to pay rent.
> Once you are dead, you lose the house and the inheritance will be the same money you would get from selling the house/apartment under the regulated terms.
Where would this money come from, though? You only make money on the property when you sell it to someone else, so who is buying it? Not the next renter, because they are supposed to be buying into equity, not paying someone else's profit.
there in lies the problem - the payment in lieu of rent in the proposal is not meant to be equity, but is treated like that.
I think there's some cognitive dissonance in the proposal. The idea that you can live for free is just not possible in the modern, capitalist world. Rent is something that every entity has to pay - including owners (which is the imputed rent, or the opportunity cost of the capital placed into the building/land, or the interest payment).
If the gov't fronts the capital to build, but don't receive rent, then it's the same as tax payers footing the interest cost of that capital. So those who would be in this public-ownership housing is effectively receiving an interest free loan for the house, and their payment represents equity, and that's such a good deal that there'd be unlimited demand for this sort of housing.
Yeah, this would be even worse than the debacle that led to the housing bubble in 07. This is basically letting people 'invest' in housing with zero risk. You get all the upside of housing prices increasing with no risk if house prices decrease. This means there is zero downward pressure on housing prices, which is going to lead to even worse housing prices in the future.
You can't solve skyrocketing housing prices by simply increasing access to capital... that is just going to exacerbate the problem
The interesting problems in a price cap system are about allocation. You’ve torn down one way of deciding who gets the house next. What do you replace it with?
Do the neighbors vote on their next neighbor? The city council? An impersonal bureaucracy? What factors does it consider? Are there priority quotas for people meeting certain criteria? What criteria? How many people? Who decides? Who decides if an individual meets the criteria? How do we keep them honest? Can their decisions be appealed, can normal people afford to appeal them?
I don’t think it’s impossible to come up with good answers here, but that’s the work. The mechanism design here is extremely important, and it’s not “simple.”
There are a lot of self employed that have freedom on how to do their work. We could see it as self-employed contribution to the future of society. Also raising new citizens with a diverse set of values & beliefs is exactly what I would want to see. It would be horrible if their was some kind of institution that would dictate the same kind of upbringing for every child. However, in the end parenting is really not a job even though it provides value to society. That doesn't mean it doesn't have to be financially supported just because it is not like the kind of work that typically gets paid.
Self employed people aren't disconnected from society though, they don't "work for themselves", they still need to offer something that others consider to have value. I don't think we want parenting to be judged in that regard, it does very much change the relationship between the individual and the state (and not in a good way imho).
I've seen it but it seems to be mostly idle. And they are defining a new server-to-server API instead of using Web Push which seems like unnecessary duplicated work and requires new server-side client libraries and server implementations. Furthermore they don't support e2e encryption yet.
No. Web Push Notifications are basically a protocol. They define three main things 1. A JavaScript API for retrieving a notification endpoint and configuration 2. A JavaScript API for receiving notifications 3. An HTTP API for sending notifications.
Notably absent is a method for connecting that HTTP API to the JavaScript receiver. This is independent of the Web Push protocol and how it is implemented will affect the performance. For example Chrome on Android will use Google's regular push infrastructure (or at least a wrapper around it) and will have the same performance. You could implement this part via polling but the performance will be terrible.
So to make a replacement for Google's push system on Android you would need to rewrite 1 and 2 (possibly just translating the JavaScript browser API to Java) and you would need a push server implementation as well as a client to run on the phone. This client is where you take care. But as long as you run one client per device it should perform similarly to Google's solution. The main problem would be if every app ran their own client, but that isn't what is expected. The phone should provide the push server information to the app (which hands it over to the server) so that all apps on the device use the same server.
Sure, you are still implementing a lot, but the thing is that websites and services already have ways to store these push endpoints in the DB as well as encrypting the messages and sending them. It would be a lot less work to get them to do a little client-side work so that they app uses the same codepath as their webapp than making changes to their whole stack to support a new protocol.
It's not thaaat clunky. With my phone I click the download link, it downloads the apk, asks me if I want to allow to installing apps from the browser and then asks me to install the app. Installing a program in Windows is more complicated 95% of the time.
On top of that, if you have a rooted phone, you can use F-Droid to automatically install updates. For me updating apps from F-Droid is actually more convenient than updating apps from the play store, which I have to manually install.
There absolutely could be phone vendors selling LineageOS phones with F-Droid as the default app store. The only really important thing that would be missing for a lot of people would be WhatsApp.
I come from a German town with ~25.000 People, far away from any major city and there definitely are homeless people. It's not a lot in comparison to big cities like Berlin, but they do exist.
Not allowing homosexual people the right to marry is very much not "live and let live". There is a whole lot of married heterosexual people who do not and will not have kids, for all kinds of reason. If the US would like to encourage/support people getting kids they could legislate support for that.
What remains is not allowing homosexual couples the same treatment as heterosexual couples, because heterosexual couples are "special" for religious and traditionalist reasons. This is very strong identity politics, but from conservative side and very much contrary to the spirit of "live and let live". It strikes me how many conservatives do not realize that they very much support identity politics and then go raging against it the next moment.
Treating people equally should be the default and is the result of not caring about identity in the first place. There are some good arguments that can be made for identity politics after that, but the case against equal treatment should have to be a really strong one. Traditions and religious feelings do not suffice for that in my opinions.
Even when the absolute numbers of homosexual marriages is very small that doesn't justify not caring about unequal treatment. Imagine if we would tax all identical twins 5% more than everybody else. This nonsensical unequal treatment would clearly be unacceptable injustice while the percentage of people that are affected is still very small.
On top of that there are social explanations why homosexual people would be less likely to marry. Marriage has long been a religious and traditionalist institution and has been used to discriminate against them. It can be hard to identify with such an institution and I know queer people who would not like get married because of that. If marriage had been available to everybody since as long as they can remember considering marriage would perhaps come more natural.
the "childless" het couple was a good argument that caused no end of trouble. To be honest it was a darker sign I think, that heterosexual couples themselves had internalized cultural norms and the institution itself was no longer special so much to be worth protecting.
I think there were conservatives who realized this, and this was the reason why "the state should get out of marriage entirely" was pushed as a solution. That too was shot down harshly. At that point I personally gave up I think. It's like abortion...the issue is not "should a woman have a right to it," the issue is that now we live in a society where premarital sex is the norm and abortion is just restoring equity to the new norm.
The real numbers..look, it was literally hilarious to me that the same people who were arguing "marriage was only a piece of paper" in their own lives suddenly turned around and became strict advocates of it in the lives of a small minority of people. If religious people had said "okay, we accept gay people, but they need to follow the same teachings we do-be the husband of one husband, no premarital sex, and no sex outside marriage" everyone here would have railed against marriage as a tool of straight fascism or something.
I'm not meaning the low numbers means its should be revoked though. If anything it's the reverse. We did all that trouble, all that hate and strife...can you all please use it at least? When you fight desperately for the right for something, and in reality barely anyone seems to use it, what was the fighting done for?
> it was literally hilarious to me that the same people who were arguing "marriage was only a piece of paper" in their own lives suddenly turned around and became strict advocates of it in the lives of a small minority of people
Empathy. What you're describing your shocked reaction to is empathy in others. This says a lot about you.
I think inconvenience of activism plays a role here. I don't have to endanger my life by stopping a murderer. I should however at least call an ambulance if I see somebody bleeding to death on the street.
Of course I didn't support the bleeding by not taking action to stop it, but I did have a responsibility to act. I think this responsibility to act is the issue here. If I was supporting anything or staying neutral are semantics that I don't see central to this issue.
Are you sure about that?
I was testing some web app earlier this year and everytime I opened a new icognito window I was able to log in again as an other user. Opening another tab in the same window shared the state of the window.
https://demo.hedgedoc.org/slide-example?both