"From an overview basis, it looks like VP Harris' proposal is focusing upon helping the lower and middle classes move forward."

Really?

Can you walk me throught how the government would create more "affordable" housing?

I would start by saying that there is always affordable housing...it might just not be in the area you want to live in.

The government could create more public housing-think the housing projects in major urban areas. That would be the most cost efficient method. There is a reason the former socialist nations did not focus on building single-family homes. Furthermore, it would allow for the construction on facilities closer in to urban areas where residents could get around on foot, bicycle, or public transportation. But the construction of new single-family homes intended for low-income people would be very complex. I think it could be done, but it would be difficult to achieve the intended objective. And I would say that "affordable housing" is not a measurable objective.

KH's proposed price controls are equally silly. Ask Venezuela. Kroger's profit margin for 2023 was 1.4%. Albertson's was the same. Price increases are driven by factors left of retail, whether they be in the supply chain or the commodities markets. If the demand for a commodity exceeds the supply, prices are going to go up. If KH really wanted to address the cost of a gallon of milk, the easiest answer would be having the government purchase milk from another country for sale in the US. That would bring down prices, although it would introduce a host of other issues.

Oh, and $25k for new home buyers? What do you think that is going to do for the cost of affordable housing?

"I saw a documentary on private equity buying specifically targeted senior and other trailer parks, entrapping owners into sometimes twice or more the lot rent."

That only works if the market will bear it. My guess would be that the land had value, and rent increases were a reflection of the real market value of the land. A mobile home has almost no economic value.

"Mandating it for large developments."

What do you mean by "mandating?" Telling the builders what they can build and where? Telling land owners at what price they would be allowed to sell land?

Are you saying the government would tell a builder that the company would be obligated to charge one price for one buyer and another price for another? Even if the model was the same?

"You see people study this stuff and know what drives costs ie location type size etc of the housing"

100%. That's what the real estate industry does for a living. They would be the ones the government should go to when determining where you could most effectively build affordable housing. Likely in places people generally did not want to live. Of course the government could also release land it owned for development and get around the property value thing altogether, although if the land were valuable it would just be a hand-out to the occupant. Think if New York carved out a piece of central park and developed affordable housing on it. You'd have people paying rent at a fraction of the level of their neighbors.

"Governments can offer tax incentives to builders for affordable houses."

I guess it depends on what the final intent is. Sale of the house or keep it as government property. If the house has more market value than what the buyer paid, they may just make a good business decision and turn around and sell it.

"Affordable housing has a specific definition of housing cost relative to medium income"

Medium income? What is that? Is it a hard number?

I pull down a little over $200k a year. If I were to take a job in DC, which was always a threat, I'd be living out in West Virgina somewhere. Would the intent of "affordable" housing be to ensure that people such as myself were able to get something in Georgetown? Because I don't have a few million to put down on a house.

Like I said, I think it could be done, it would just be through government owned property where market value did not play a role in what the tenant paid.

The other thing-affordable housing is basically a handout to employers. If employers cannot afford to operate in an environment where they can pay workers enough to survive at market rate, they don't have a viable business model.

"You realize that urban areas like DC or NYC or Chicago or smaller cities like Jacksonville NEED low and lower middle-income employees, right? They need service workers, clerks, entry level professionals, etc."

If they need them, then they will pay them in accordance with the market rate in that region. If they can't afford to pay it and stay afloat, then it is not a viable business model.

Of course lower and middle income is not fixed. What would be a low income in Manhattan might make on the highest income earner in Possum Pouch, Arkansas.

"These people need places to live."

My bartender last night was living five people people in a house. This is in Vegas. With five people paying $800 a month, a $4k monthly rent payment becomes doable.

My daughter shares her college apartment with three other girls.

Do you think maybe the government should get into the business of placing lower income earners with roommates? It seems to solve the problem.

"It can be done through subsidized housing, where the state or municipality pay for part of the rent/mortgage."

Maybe? But why? You're still just propping up non-viable business models. That still might be preferable to local taxpayers than having to drive out of the city to get a hamburger.

"We should not be providing tax incentives for rich investors and corporations to buy up available housing inventory just to turn around an charge exorbitant rents."

How do you charge exorbitant rents? I want to know because I want to do it.

When I had a rental house, I was resigned to charging what renters were willing to pay. Tho if I had known there was some other way...

"Now, single family homes are scarce, and sky-rocketing in price. According to zillow.com, my house's price nearly doubled in a few years."

A house I once owned in North Dakota is currently for sale. In inflation adjusted dollars, it has declined in value (price) by 25% since I sold it in 2013.

#42

I don't understand your question. What do you mean "apply for an F-16 job?"

I am not a retired F-16 guy, so I don't think I qualify. Additionally, if you're a military retiree you will almost certainly lose your retirement if you go to work for a foreign government.

Still, I think there might be a few people who take the offer up. The chance to go mix it up with the Russians does have its appeal.

Even with the close allies like AUS and GBR, going to work directly for those governments can be a headache. For a while the Aussies were recruiting aviators from the US to operate thier F-18s. Especially WSOs. But you had to become an Aussie citizen, which as a general rule would preclude any additional ability to hold a security clearance in the US higher than Secret.