Welcome to 1984: Implied Consent and Socialized Medicine (LONG!)

[CamB]

Whats the difference between saying I want to live in Malibu at $10,000/month versus where I live at say $4,000/month, versus someone who wants to live in south-central Los Angeles (poorer area) at $1,500/month, versus where my sister live in New Mexico where you can get apartments for $750/month?

We're on the same page with the other stuff.

The difference in your quote above is that the choice between the first two is dictated by how much money a family has, whereas the difference between the last two is likely to be dictated by what jobs are available. There are more jobs in LA than NM (but they don't pay enough to allow market rents).

I guess I (marginally) take the view that the rent subsidy will be assisting Los Angeles (not just the people receiving the subsidy).

I dunno.

[MFAFF]

Quick question.

LA is an expensive city, in general, correct?

So to live there, or within reasonable distance you need a fair amount of income, which supposes a well paying job, which implies a skill level.

However within LA there are numerous tasks which need to be do by those whose skill levels are relatively low, yes? So where do these people, with lower skill levels and possiblity lower incomes live, in town or far out with associated travel costs and time.

If they are to live in town they will need more income, therefore charge more for their services, which you will pay for either in taxes or as a consumer, or they will need to be paid for travel etc, again which you will pay for one way or another.

Or you can go without these services.....

Which would you chose?

I dislike the paying of benefits for those unwilling to work, but agree we must provide for those unable to, or those for whom their skill levels and income mean the only place they can live without assistance is far from where they work.

In London we have similar issues in the gap between income for certain workers and the prices of accommodation. This applies to Police officers, nurses, firefighters and teachers especially in the inner city.
Either they live miles away or they need reserved or priviledge and subsidised accomodation.
Either way we pay for it in some fashion.

[turbo6bar]

Originally posted by CamB
[i]I guess I (marginally) take the view that the rent subsidy will be assisting Los Angeles (not just the people receiving the subsidy).

I dunno.

OK, let's go over this one more time. The subsidy is not for the landlord. The subsidy is not for the community. The subsidy is for the Section 8 recipient. However, the Section 8 program does pay higher Fair Market Rents for housing in urban areas. So, yes, indirectly, landlords and cities benefit from the influx of money.

Website for Section 8 Voucher program:
http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/hcv/index.cfm

[Hugh R]

We have the same issues in LA. Many police and fire who serve the City of Los Angeles live in other cities. I'm sure not too many police who work in Beverly Hills actually live in Beverly Hills. In LA low wage workers live in older areas of town or a great distance out of town and commute.

CamB my point about living in the Los Angeles area versus moving to New Mexico is entirely relevant (at least to me). Again, people should live and work where they can afford to live and work. They shouldn't live in an expensive place, like southern California and expect someone else (me) to subsidize their existance. Again, people don't have a "right" to live anywhere they choose, rather, they have a "right" to live where they can afford to live. For someone to live in a shack in LA that they can't afford and insist that they're entitled to housing subsidies, is no different than me insisting I have a "right" to live on the beach in Malibu and insist that I need subsidies because I can't afford to live there.

[CamB]

MFAFF is right - it is coming out of one pocket or the other.

Lets say the job situation is in equilibrium in LA at the moment - the right number of people have the right number of jobs at the right wages.

However, for a certain percentage of these people (the majority of which earn <30% of the median wage, according to Jurgen's website), decent housing is too expensive. If market rents were charged across the board, something has to change.

- will wages go up (unlikely)
- will housing come down (somewhat, but probably not much - see discussion below)
- will living standards drop (yes)

Why do I pick the latter? Because people do what they need to in order to get by (and would pay punitive housing costs if they have too). If you were living from pay cheque to pay cheque you are unlikely to pack up your family and move to New Mexico in the hope that a job will be there (and it won't if lots of people make that move). Instead, you'll just economise (whether through restricting other spending, increasing overcrowding, etc).

I guess what I'm getting at is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you pay for the housing subsidy through tax, you pay the workers higher wages, or you have people in substandard living conditions.

I guess I'm arguing that housing subsidies, for those that actually need it, benefit everyone.

[Moneyguy1]

On Long Island, many municipal workers in places like Garden City (High $$$) live in the City, in places like Queens Village. Primary reason? They cannot afford to live in Garden City. Period.