So What Should We Do About Drug Addicts?

[ciao_yall]

Lack of supply is not an issue, it's the only issue!

Rent control keeps places affordable for those already living in the existing housing stock. Unless a South Bronx 1970's happens, when rent control made it profitable to burn down buildings.

Bronx Burning

To keep housing prices and rents down you need more damned houses! After all, a surge in demand for bubble gum drives up quantity, not price. 

Careful throwing around terms like "public good". An eminently useful definition is a good that can be consumed by more than one person at the same time. My flat is a private good. You can't consume it at the same time I consume it.

Restrict the return on investment in housing, and presto, you get no additional houses. Try to find a flat in Paris.

Government subsidies for housing? No, we have a safety net that is far more generous than usually thought. We need more houses, not more subsidies.

That is assuming that supply will meet demand to level out to "market rates."

Out in the 'burbs it is more profitable to build large homes that are too expensive for first-time homebuyers. "Starter" homes are bought, all-cash by investors who then rent them out at a rate that grows with the market.

In the cities, lots of one-bedroom one-bathroom apartments that are too small for couples or families but the perfect size for an AirBnB!

The cost to build in the City is at least $500 per square foot. There is no way to supply affordable housing at those prices. Materials, earthquake safety, and making sure the construction workers can earn a living wage means it all adds up. Subsidies are a must, whether it's housing assistance or a higher minimum wage.

[ciao_yall]

[. . .]

Careful throwing around terms like "public good". An eminently useful definition is a good that can be consumed by more than one person at the same time.

[. . . ]

I'd say that is a non-rival good. A public good is both non-rival and non-excludable.

I think of a "public good" being one that disproportionately benefits society (roads, education, utilities, parks) and how we are better off as a society spreading out the costs evenly to make sure all have access rather than letting some people irrationally skip out. I don't want to pay my road tax so I'll travel on the dirt path, even though it takes me longer. I'd rather buy a new TV than send my kids to school so they will grow up illiterate.

So are health care and housing "public goods?" We are better off if everyone is well and thus able to contribute to society. We are better off if everyone is safely housed and thus rested, stable and able to access jobs, education, and the like. Some might decide they would rather spend their money on something other than medicine. Or prefer to live for free in a tent/RV and spend their money on whatever else. But as a society we take that choice away by charging taxes and making health care and housing so easily accessible that it's a no-brainer decision.

[dismalist]

[. . .]

Careful throwing around terms like "public good". An eminently useful definition is a good that can be consumed by more than one person at the same time.

[. . . ]

I'd say that is a non-rival good. A public good is both non-rival and non-excludable.

I think of a "public good" being one that disproportionately benefits society (roads, education, utilities, parks) and how we are better off as a society spreading out the costs evenly to make sure all have access rather than letting some people irrationally skip out. I don't want to pay my road tax so I'll travel on the dirt path, even though it takes me longer. I'd rather buy a new TV than send my kids to school so they will grow up illiterate.

So are health care and housing "public goods?" We are better off if everyone is well and thus able to contribute to society. We are better off if everyone is safely housed and thus rested, stable and able to access jobs, education, and the like. Some might decide they would rather spend their money on something other than medicine. Or prefer to live for free in a tent/RV and spend their money on whatever else. But as a society we take that choice away by charging taxes and making health care and housing so easily accessible that it's a no-brainer decision.

No. I can't consume my neighbor's health.

Lack of supply is not an issue, it's the only issue!

Rent control keeps places affordable for those already living in the existing housing stock. Unless a South Bronx 1970's happens, when rent control made it profitable to burn down buildings.

Bronx Burning

To keep housing prices and rents down you need more damned houses! After all, a surge in demand for bubble gum drives up quantity, not price. 

Careful throwing around terms like "public good". An eminently useful definition is a good that can be consumed by more than one person at the same time. My flat is a private good. You can't consume it at the same time I consume it.

Restrict the return on investment in housing, and presto, you get no additional houses. Try to find a flat in Paris.

Government subsidies for housing? No, we have a safety net that is far more generous than usually thought. We need more houses, not more subsidies.

That is assuming that supply will meet demand to level out to "market rates."

Out in the 'burbs it is more profitable to build large homes that are too expensive for first-time homebuyers. "Starter" homes are bought, all-cash by investors who then rent them out at a rate that grows with the market.

In the cities, lots of one-bedroom one-bathroom apartments that are too small for couples or families but the perfect size for an AirBnB!

The cost to build in the City is at least $500 per square foot. There is no way to supply affordable housing at those prices. Materials, earthquake safety, and making sure the construction workers can earn a living wage means it all adds up. Subsidies are a must, whether it's housing assistance or a higher minimum wage.

Subsidies increase demand, raising price.

It's supply that's the problem.

[spork]

[. . . ]

Subsidies are a must, whether it's housing assistance or a higher minimum wage.

Read Janos Kornai on the shortage economy. Subsidies decouple demand from price, and scarce resources, because they are scarce, are held in reserve rather than utilized. Shortage generates slack, which in turns worsens shortage.

[marshwiggle]

I don't agree that rent control is a problem. Rent control keeps places affordable.

Rent control is a problem when owners don't keep a place properly maintained. If they sell the property, the new owner can't raise rents to do the necessary repairs, so the only economically sensible thing to do is to tear it down and sell the land.

The maintenance legacy of a rent-controlled property is the albatross around its neck.

[marshwiggle]

Some people are perfectly happy to have a home in XYZ that they maintain but only visit a few times a year.

How big a portion of the population can afford this? (Vacation properties don't really count, since they are rarely properties that were occupied year-round at some time in the past.) Properties previously occupied full-time being sold to sit empty most of the time can't be a very common scenario.

[kaysixteen]

Random thoughts and questions:

1) I never did say that I think harm reduction/ drug legalization strategies/schemes will increase the number of drug users.   Maybe they will, but there has been little research done on this question.  But it is unambiguously true that such schemes will make it much less likely that existing drug users will stop using drugs, because the lion's share of their incentives to do so will be taken away.

2) The housing shortage/ affordability crisis is real, and clearly multifaceted and multicaused.  Obviously however it does exist, and it is a public evil.  As such, it must needs be addressed, and properly doing so will be expensive, AND will almost certainly require us to be willing to accept certain limitations on absolute 'freedom' rights traditionally held by and espoused as good by numerous Americans.  We need to consider not only things like rent control, and vast increases in housing subsidies and public housing construction, but also laws that limit the number of houses and apt units that can be owned by people not planning on making these residences their primary residence, laws limiting speculating and investing in housing stock, as well as more or less laws forbidding or at least severely attenuating most incidences of NIMBYism. 

3) People have noted that various Euro and Asian (and perhaps also Canada) countries have much less of NIMBYism, and housing supply issues, etc., even though they do impose rent control and various other policies that seem certain to attenuate a housing shortage scenario.   What is it that makes these places less susceptible to NIMBYism, and more amenable to such actions?

[marshwiggle]

3) People have noted that various Euro and Asian (and perhaps also Canada) countries have much less of NIMBYism, and housing supply issues, etc., even though they do impose rent control and various other policies that seem certain to attenuate a housing shortage scenario.   What is it that makes these places less susceptible to NIMBYism, and more amenable to such actions?

Canada is certainly not immune to NIMBYism, but one big difference between Canada and the U.S. is in their origins; the U.S. was founded on a revolution, while Canada was founded on a compromise. So the U.S. has a militant "my way or the highway" streak in their political DNA, while Canada has a "it's not perfect, but we can live with it" streak in their political DNA.

[ciao_yall]

3) People have noted that various Euro and Asian (and perhaps also Canada) countries have much less of NIMBYism, and housing supply issues, etc., even though they do impose rent control and various other policies that seem certain to attenuate a housing shortage scenario.  What is it that makes these places less susceptible to NIMBYism, and more amenable to such actions?

Canada is certainly not immune to NIMBYism, but one big difference between Canada and the U.S. is in their origins; the U.S. was founded on a revolution, while Canada was founded on a compromise. So the U.S. has a militant "my way or the highway" streak in their political DNA, while Canada has a "it's not perfect, but we can live with it" streak in their political DNA.

I would add to this that other countries/cultures seem more willing to give up a little bit for the greater good. So they don't mind paying more taxes because health care is a necessity. They don't mind losing their view or "open space" because people gotta live somewhere. They ride public transportation because they don't mind sharing spaces.

No. I can't consume my neighbor's health.

But if your neighbor has a treatable illness yet cannot afford treatment, you are paying for their government assistance for them to stay home instead of their working and paying taxes. If they die, you are paying to support their children while they grow up, or their elderly parents.

Or their grieving loved ones turn to drugs and alcohol to ease the emotional burden of their loss and they end up homeless. And the cycle continues.

[dismalist]

3) People have noted that various Euro and Asian (and perhaps also Canada) countries have much less of NIMBYism, and housing supply issues, etc., even though they do impose rent control and various other policies that seem certain to attenuate a housing shortage scenario.  What is it that makes these places less susceptible to NIMBYism, and more amenable to such actions?

Canada is certainly not immune to NIMBYism, but one big difference between Canada and the U.S. is in their origins; the U.S. was founded on a revolution, while Canada was founded on a compromise. So the U.S. has a militant "my way or the highway" streak in their political DNA, while Canada has a "it's not perfect, but we can live with it" streak in their political DNA.

I would add to this that other countries/cultures seem more willing to give up a little bit for the greater good. So they don't mind paying more taxes because health care is a necessity. They don't mind losing their view or "open space" because people gotta live somewhere. They ride public transportation because they don't mind sharing spaces.

No. I can't consume my neighbor's health.

But if your neighbor has a treatable illness yet cannot afford treatment, you are paying for their government assistance for them to stay home instead of their working and paying taxes. If they die, you are paying to support their children while they grow up, or their elderly parents.

Or their grieving loved ones turn to drugs and alcohol to ease the emotional burden of their loss and they end up homeless. And the cycle continues.

The first sentence about the neighbor is a non sequitur. Me paying for my neighbor's medical bills doesn't make health care a public good. It's OK to call it a publicly financed good. Actually, it's charity or forced charity. To clarify, while my neighbor's cancer treatment is a strictly private good -- I don't benefit  -- his flu vaccine is a public good -- his shot protects him and me.

As for "other cultures" health policy, tomes have been written about this. The US is the outlier and that can be traced to the influence of the AMA. Other countries tax themselves to provide the private good called health care. The use of force is justified because they would not let the uninsured die, so the uninsured cannot exploit the society.

[marshwiggle]

The first sentence about the neighbor is a non sequitur. Me paying for my neighbor's medical bills doesn't make health care a public good. It's OK to call it a publicly financed good. Actually, it's charity or forced charity. To clarify, while my neighbor's cancer treatment is a strictly private good -- I don't benefit  -- his flu vaccine is a public good -- his shot protects him and me.

As for "other cultures" health policy, tomes have been written about this. The US is the outlier and that can be traced to the influence of the AMA. Other countries tax themselves to provide the private good called health care. The use of force is justified because they would not let the uninsured die, so the uninsured cannot exploit the society.

Is the fire department a private good? It would seem so, at least in cases where one building burning poses no serious danger to any other buildings nearby.

Much of police service would also be a private good. So would public education. Almost any service provides vastly more benefit to the people who have to use it than to the rest of society.
 

[ciao_yall]

The first sentence about the neighbor is a non sequitur. Me paying for my neighbor's medical bills doesn't make health care a public good. It's OK to call it a publicly financed good. Actually, it's charity or forced charity. To clarify, while my neighbor's cancer treatment is a strictly private good -- I don't benefit  -- his flu vaccine is a public good -- his shot protects him and me.

As for "other cultures" health policy, tomes have been written about this. The US is the outlier and that can be traced to the influence of the AMA. Other countries tax themselves to provide the private good called health care. The use of force is justified because they would not let the uninsured die, so the uninsured cannot exploit the society.

Is the fire department a private good? It would seem so, at least in cases where one building burning poses no serious danger to any other buildings nearby.

Much of police service would also be a private good. So would public education. Almost any service provides vastly more benefit to the people who have to use it than to the rest of society.

So imagine a society with no fire service, public safety or public education. Would you be willing to live there if you had (1) a garden hose to put out a fire, (2) a gun to shoot any intruders, and (3) the benefit of your existing education?

[marshwiggle]

The first sentence about the neighbor is a non sequitur. Me paying for my neighbor's medical bills doesn't make health care a public good. It's OK to call it a publicly financed good. Actually, it's charity or forced charity. To clarify, while my neighbor's cancer treatment is a strictly private good -- I don't benefit  -- his flu vaccine is a public good -- his shot protects him and me.

As for "other cultures" health policy, tomes have been written about this. The US is the outlier and that can be traced to the influence of the AMA. Other countries tax themselves to provide the private good called health care. The use of force is justified because they would not let the uninsured die, so the uninsured cannot exploit the society.

Is the fire department a private good? It would seem so, at least in cases where one building burning poses no serious danger to any other buildings nearby.

Much of police service would also be a private good. So would public education. Almost any service provides vastly more benefit to the people who have to use it than to the rest of society.

So imagine a society with no fire service, public safety or public education. Would you be willing to live there if you had (1) a garden hose to put out a fire, (2) a gun to shoot any intruders, and (3) the benefit of your existing education?

That's my point. I'm curious (as many others are) at how many people in the U.S. seem to be OK with public funding of these things while feeling public funding of healthcare is unreasonable because it's a "private good". In countries with universal healthcare most people view it a lot like fire service; some people are unlucky enough to need treatment vastly beyond the capacity of their own finances, so everyone gets the service they need at public expense. By making the service publicly provided, it's much more efficient and uniform than it would be if it were handled by a patchwork of private providers.

[ciao_yall]

That's my point. I'm curious (as many others are) at how many people in the U.S. seem to be OK with public funding of these things while feeling public funding of healthcare is unreasonable because it's a "private good". In countries with universal healthcare most people view it a lot like fire service; some people are unlucky enough to need treatment vastly beyond the capacity of their own finances, so everyone gets the service they need at public expense. By making the service publicly provided, it's much more efficient and uniform than it would be if it were handled by a patchwork of private providers.

You could take a "follow the money" approach.

Police and fire personnel can get paid better by the government/taxpayers because people recognize these services are essential. So they lobby for their unions, pensions, etc to get to the deepest pockets.

Doctors believe they can get paid better by insurance companies or grateful patients, so they lobby hard to keep health coverage "private" by telling horror stories about public health systems in which doctors are paid a professional-but-not-outlandish salary by the government. 

These days, doctors are getting squeezed by private health practices and insurance companies, so who knows what will happen next?

[dismalist]

That's my point. I'm curious (as many others are) at how many people in the U.S. seem to be OK with public funding of these things while feeling public funding of healthcare is unreasonable because it's a "private good". In countries with universal healthcare most people view it a lot like fire service; some people are unlucky enough to need treatment vastly beyond the capacity of their own finances, so everyone gets the service they need at public expense. By making the service publicly provided, it's much more efficient and uniform than it would be if it were handled by a patchwork of private providers.

You could take a "follow the money" approach.

Police and fire personnel can get paid better by the government/taxpayers because people recognize these services are essential. So they lobby for their unions, pensions, etc to get to the deepest pockets.

Doctors believe they can get paid better by insurance companies or grateful patients, so they lobby hard to keep health coverage "private" by telling horror stories about public health systems in which doctors are paid a professional-but-not-outlandish salary by the government. 

These days, doctors are getting squeezed by private health practices and insurance companies, so who knows what will happen next?

Good.

Actually, fire and police services are private goods with a strong element of publicness. Putting out my fire, spillovers aside, and preventing me from getting robbed, deterrence aside, helps me, not anyone else. But preventing the spillovers and providing deterrence helps everybody.

Both are publicly financed goods. Why?

A monopoly is better than competition in providing such services. I remember when I moved to Northern Virginia 30 years ago I played tourist and took a tour in Washington, D.C. In the preserved Georgetown neighborhood we were told that originally fire services were private and subject to competition. When a fire was reported competing companies would send their equipment, and fist fights would break out over which crew would get to douse the fire!

If you have to have a monopoly you must either regulate it or provide it through the government. The difference sometimes matters.

The reason health insurance in the USA became an outlier was indeed the control by the AMA of State medical boards, but the reason the US stays an  outlier has a not so subtle political cause: Most people are happy with their private health insurance.

The high earnings of doctors in the US are ensured by the AMA through its influence on the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which serves to cap the number o doctors. The US has an extraordinarily low ratio of doctors to population by civilized country standards.

It's almost like housing, really!