Draft talk:Market failures

Public goods and coercion

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes that voluntary collective action can also be a functional alternative to coercion. [1] So the notion that only coercion can resolve the free-rider problem is philosophically questionable. The scores of people willing to die for a cause also can go against pure rationality. People do not always behave "rationally" (as economists define it), to discredit altruism is, again, philosophically dubious. Carthage (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that collective action can work as a solution to this problem? Not anectodes. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Are the literal philosophers at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy guilty of an anecdotal fallacy? How does this count as anecdotal evidence? Is this usage fallacious, which is what ultimately matters, if it is an anecdote? The Civil Rights Movement was an example of effective voluntary collective action, was that committed out of individual self-interest? Carthage (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

So, bring their evidence here, instead appealing to their authority. Hint, some people argued something similar, like Mancur Olson. He was almost a radical on his defense of capitalism. The Civil Rights Movement is an anecdotal evidence, so we can bin it. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Our own article says:

In two instances, it is possible to use anecdotes non-fallaciously:

If you use one or more anecdotes to refute the claim that there are no instances of the event that the anecdote describes. This is not fallacious because one counterexample is all it takes to prove a universal rule false, or an existential rule true.

If you use one or more anecdotes as an example of a general rule which is already supported by a broad, comprehensive investigation (i.e., your evidence/argument does not rely on the anecdotes, they are just used to illustrate the point).

So, no, this is not fallacious. Also, I am not committing an argument from authority. You have to explain how this is fallacious. Disregarding anecdotes, counterexamples are not anecdotal. You can look up "Civil Rights Movement" and see that it clearly was effective in (some of) its aims. Carthage (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is."If you use one or more anecdotes to refute the claim that there are no instances of the event that the anecdote describes." I didn't say that. "If you use one or more anecdotes as an example of a general rule which is already supported by a broad, comprehensive investigation." You didn't do this, you just brought an example. So, yeah, no evidence so far. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

One last thing before I go on break: How many examples would I have to provide to satisfy your standards? The Civil Rights Movement proves it can be done. Furthermore, you're a supporter of liberal democracy, yes? If voluntary collective action is ineffective, then voting would not work as a system. You could make voting compulsory, but not all nation-states do so, and liberal democracy still functions more or less as intended. Carthage (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I think your status as a social scientist is entirely discredited if you say things like “the civil rights movement is anecdotal evidence”. That is not what anecdotal evidence is. Anecdotal evidence is based on personal observation/individual testimony. You can’t class entire national historical movements sampled by hundreds of different events across decades as “anecdotal evidence” that doesn’t make any sense. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ And this sort of bad reason is one of the reasons (the other being your inability to read a scientific paper) why I often say you're unqualified to talk about methodology on social sciences. According to our own article.

Anecdotal evidence (also proof by selected instances, or, more pejoratively, anecdata) is use of one or more anecdotes (specific instances of an event; stories) to either support or refute a claim. The use of anecdotal evidence to draw a conclusion is like using the NBA all-star teams to estimate the average height of Americans.

Whereas anecdotal evidence is sometimes the starting point of a proper scientific investigation, it is all too often the ending point and every point of a pseudoscientific investigation. In the world of pseudoscience, an anecdote is treated as the equivalent of a peer-reviewed, double-blind, repeatable scientific experiment with consistent results.

So, anecdotal evidences are not always based on personal experiences. The fact that movement rights (what kind of public goods were was provided by their action?) was a historical example is irrelevant here. When you give many examples (now answering Carthage) you still haven't provided enough evidence. You need a model for that. Again, Mancur Olson, a radical pro-market economist, could do at least that on criticism of public goods. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 11:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

1) Disregarding the fact that we have an economist telling a philosopher they're unqualified to talk about philosophy (what a farce), if voluntary collective action is unfeasible then how does non-compulsory voting as a system continue to function?

2) Here's a paper arguing that the effects of altruism are far too often underestimated in economics.

3) The harms inflicted by Jim Crow obviously affected the ability of black folk to participate in the market economy. The voluntary collective action of the Civil Rights Movement went some way to addressing this. To say otherwise borders on social denialism. Carthage (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

1 If you want my opinion, voting should be mandatory. Yes democracy as a whole works better in Europe (where voting is usually not mandatory) than in Latam (where it usually is), but I think it works despite, not because voting is voluntary. I didn't say collective action is unfeasible, I said it's not enough to provide public goods. You're strawmanning me. That being said, public choice scholars have written a lot about how vote is limited because of the reasons you've mentioned. They are right-wing libertarians, like Buchanan and Bryan Caplan. I don't think it's the kind of theory you would support.

2 Does your article mention how can collective action provide goods such as national defense? I skimmed through your article and it doesn't seem to provide an alternative to the mainstream theory of public goods. In fact, it summarizes it pretty well. It even criticizes your point:

Additionally, volunteering may not necessarily produce the expected positive outcomes. Eliasoph (1998), for example, contended that the neo-Tocquevillian celebration regarding the positive association between active community volunteering and the formation and strengthening of social ties, bridging social capital, and public conversation is far too optimistic. Eliasoph found that civic engagement by most volunteers is quite ‘ordinary’ and ‘close to home.’ Most volunteers avoided political issues and preferred to focus on service tasks. As such, volunteering can claim only a marginal contribution to the buffering effects and the hope for establishing a stratum of active and concerned residents. Eliasoph concluded that, in fact, many people use volunteering to excuse themselves from political responsibility. People can focus on a small circle of concern and thus avoid any concern for or involvement in the big issues and the political process. As such, volunteering can be undemocratic and placating.

3 But I'm not denying anything. I'm genuinely curious to know which public goods were provided by the "voluntary collective". Not being able to take part on the economy is a barrier to entry another unrelated concept. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Voting IS mandatory in (some parts of) europe, what are you on? A somebody. (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Only in some countries. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Our “own article” isn’t authoritative on the topic of anecdotal evidence GJK. The civil rights movement isn’t reducible to “a specific instance of an event” or “story” or even just a mere collection of them. We are talking about a sociological phenomenon happening on a national scale over the course of decades. Dismissing it as anecdotal is bad faith at best. Also again anecdotal evidence being provided isn’t always fallacious. It is a genuine disproof to something being presented as universal. It is fallacious when used to “debunk” general (but not universal) trends. This is why rare instances of intersexuality still disprove sex being binary, but someone being able to accurately access their skills doesn’t disprove the Dunning-Kruger effect. As Richard Feynman (actual Nobel prize winner) said “Exceptions prove the rule…wrong”. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Given you wrote “Again the only way to resolve this issue is when an agent is capable of coercing everyone else to pay the necessary quota to match marginal costs to marginal benefits. (aka the state collecting taxes).” This is a universal claim as “only” implies “∀x” which is logically identical to “~∃x”. Any claim of ∀xPx is logically contradicted by ∃x~Px. I am not sure, however if the civil rights movement works as a genuine counter-example in this case, but if it was it would be by logical principle a falsifying claim to the free rider problem requiring the use of coercion by an individual as a solution. Though tbh I think I would need elaboration on why it would it be a counter-example assuming that is the intended debunk from Carthage. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

We still don't even know what kind of public good was provided by the civil rights movements, so this conversation is pretty silly. Also, yes. No society has ever survived without a government providing national defense (oh, wait, Costa Rica doesn't have a permanent army, despite having a National force guess my point os refuted!) That's what the article is arguing. You can't have National security without a government collecting taxes. Regarding our article, if you think it's wrong, you should edit ir then. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean there is also the fact that "national security" kind of has "nation" in its name to imply it is a product of a nation-state. Yes, taxation is what nation-states typically need to do to fund their endeavours. Defence of people and territories that wouldn't be classed as nation-states can and have been provided by other means, but no doubt that wouldn't constitute "national security". It is not as if we have many alternatives to go off of to make a genuine comparison. If the point is solely about national security it's kind of....trivial? I think Carthage should be given a chance to specify what her major point was. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk)

Yes, national security is a also natural monopoly. Defence of people and territories that wouldn't be classed as nation-states can and have been provided by other means? Sure, and they failed when they fought more organized conventional armies (there's a reason why they're not around anymore). That's why we need national security, and the only way to fund it is with taxes. That's the point. I mean, you should at least read the basic about the subject before forming strong opinions. According to Carthage "The harms inflicted by Jim Crow obviously affected the ability of black folk to participate in the market economy". Well, if people are being excluded from something then we're not talking about public goods since one of their two main characteristics is the fact that they are not excludable. They are even more lost in this discussion than you. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 02:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

You classify defense as a "public good." However, as the Tulsa Race Massacre shows, during Jim Crow the state (that supposed purveyor of national defense) was often an actively hostile force enabling insecurity among black communities. So either defense is excludable by the state, or the definition of a public good is purely theoretical and not universally applicable. That would make defense in this case a "club good" rather than a "public good." My major point is that voluntary collective action can also be used as an alternative to coercion, or that we shouldn't exclude voluntary collectivism from the realm of theoretical possibilities. Take roads for instance: supposedly without a state roads would fall into disrepair without the coercion needed to maintain them, but voluntary crews dedicated to road repair can also work, at least in theory, to maintain the roads. Also does the Civil Rights Movement still count as "anecdotal evidence," Gee? Carthage (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

So, now we are on the praxeology realm (theories with no evidence that just sound good). Yeah, Walter Block wrote an entire book on how we don't need the state for roads.[2] Of course, there is no evidence in the book, just like in your "theory", it's just a thought experiment. No, we don't have any reason to believe that collective action can build roads (not even Mancur Olson believed that large scale roads could be build without the state). Regarding the Tulsa Race Massacre, I still don't see what it has to do with the subject. You are saying that people couldn't use the national defense back them? Because this example shows that defense wasn't being provided, not that these people were being excluded from using it. And yes. the Civil Rights Movement still count as as anecdotal evidence. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 12:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Noticed I specified maintenance, not building. I've seen charity groups take on road maintenance work in areas where infrastructure is neglected by the state. Also "defense" only counts if it covers everyone in the state, if it doesn't it's an excludable good. The state actively worked against the defense of the black community, and any groups who tried arming themselves would be punished for it. Also, no, the Civil Rights Movement does not count as "anecdotal," to say it does is bad faith and social denialism. To quote OSD:

Our “own article” isn’t authoritative on the topic of anecdotal evidence GJK. The civil rights movement isn’t reducible to “a specific instance of an event” or “story” or even just a mere collection of them. We are talking about a sociological phenomenon happening on a national scale over the course of decades. Dismissing it as anecdotal is bad faith at best. Also again anecdotal evidence being provided isn’t always fallacious. It is a genuine disproof to something being presented as universal. It is fallacious when used to “debunk” general (but not universal) trends. This is why rare instances of intersexuality still disprove sex being binary, but someone being able to accurately access their skills doesn’t disprove the Dunning-Kruger effect. As Richard Feynman (actual Nobel prize winner) said “Exceptions prove the rule…wrong”.

So no, you haven't established how the Civil Rights Movement is "anecdotal" or why that counts as fallacious even if it was. Carthage (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm not going to repeat myself. Again. The answer to your questions are either in the article or on in my posts on this talk page. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 12:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Should I add inequality as a market failure?

Is not in any microeconomic textbook, I think, I think it's more of a moral problem than an economic problem, but I still feel like adding it. Thoughts? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

As I wrote on the Criticism of socialism talk page:

a 20% increase in the income of people making two dollars a day is going to be very different from a 20% increase of people with a 2 million dollar income. Inequality leads to power differentials no matter the overall 'growth' as those hoarding all the fucking money will have more of a market share than those who don't, ie the majority of people. So from the ground class differences will remain the same. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Even though there's an absolute increase in income this has to be tempered by context. Try living on $300 a month and then compare that to someone with $100k a month. It's not the same no matter how one cuts it.

Also I do question how something like this isn't an economic problem seeing as how it directly relates to economy. Unless you're talking about inequality in general, which is probably more of a sociological issue than an economic one, although economic inequality intersects with broader inequality. See the intergenerational racial wealth gap and redlining for details on that front. Carthage (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Carthage Views on inequality are changing fast over the last few years and I think most of the modern textbooks haven't incorporated them yet. Most textbooks only have a couple of pages about inequality, treating it more as a moral problem, Okun's book Inequality and efficiency: the Big Trade-off was, I believe, the reason why most people thought that we should treat equality as a moral problem. Even the more recent book Combating Inequality, probably the best out there, has a chapter called "why inequality matters", written by the philosopher T.M. Scanlon, and he argues against inequality on moral grounds. However, things are changing, and the "leaky bucket" is probably a lot smaller than we used to thing. Additionally, inequality apparently brings political instability, which leads to economic inefficiencies. Also, rich people are known (this is also known from right-wing economists from the Public Choice school) to use their power to get privileges, as if they were a separate caste. I think some of it is in the Criticism of socialism article (you can see for yourself), and I'll write about this here too. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Rent crisis

There's currently a housing crisis going on in America as more and more people are being priced out of the market and are therefore being economically displaced as a result. Perhaps you could add this to your article on market failures. Of course, you could also argue that this is a failure of the governmental responsibility to provide basic housing for its people (a fundamental human right), but due to how housing works in America it is very much an economic issue (as well as an ethical one). Carthage (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

(EC)I don't think so, the current consensus is, as far as I know, that the government is causing this crisis by preventing people from builing new houses. So, you can't blame supply and demand. You can contrast the US with Japan and especially Tokyo: why they don't have this problem? One of the reasons (the other being a dwindling population) is the fact that they build lots of houses. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

"Consensus" should probably be put into scare quotes when we are talking economics. Also, I don't know if "prevention" from governments is necessarily the best way of framing it, even if certain government policies do impact the costs associated with building housing. Looking at Vancouver as a case study [3], we can see even despite the approvals for housing construction, there are still factors related city fees, etc that impact the rate of construction. So yeah no doubt government policy plays a role in limiting supply, but it is not the only relevant factor. Market factors related to the cost of materials, costs associated with the equipment, available supply of skilled labour, etc. will also likely impact the rate and costs of construction which in turn actively impacts the supply of housing. Relevant to if the expert from SFU is to be believed is the kind of housing that is being built, investing in the wrong types of housing likely wont have the desired effects on the housing market. The claim that "government is causing this crisis by preventing people from builing new houses"(sic) seems a bit oversimplified. It is sort of naive to attribute any singular sole cause to macro-level societal phenomena. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

We're not only talking about the lack of affordable home ownership, but the lack of affordable rent. "Nearly half of American workers don’t earn enough to afford a one-bedroom rental". This is a real issue, and simply "building more housing" isn't going to solve it if those houses remain unaffordable. Of course, you could just place homeless people in those empty houses (which are going to remain empty because capitalism as a system encourages parasitic rent-seeking), but that would be violating "property rights" never mind the fact that the Constitution allows for governmental usage of eminent domain, and if the interests of the public welfare outweigh the interests of a minority of landowners, we should probably favor the public welfare. We don't even have a dearth of housing, as of right now there are more empty homes in the States than there are homeless people. Carthage (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

That rent control is a truly stupid idea is supported by 94% of the economists.[4] Just because you don't like the consensus doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is straigh up denialist behavior. No one is denying that other factors also exist, just that this is not a market failure. If you want to know more about how rent control is the main cause of this problem, I'd suggest this article and its sources [5]. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Did I suggest rent-control? This is a strawman of what I wrote. How exactly is rent-control the main cause of this problem anyway? We see increases in rent across the board, including in polities not practicing rent-control. That "rent control" is responsible for rising rent and not, say, stagnation of wages and whatnot is laughable. Because we commodify housing, this is definitely an economic problem. And of course, all those 16 million empty houses are going to remain empty. The shortage of housing in this country is artificial. I also read your article. The fact of the matter is is that a lot of the problem with rent control is that housing is a commodity and not a fundamental human right, which it should be. If we move the discourse away from "housing as a private resource" to "housing should be available for all," then suddenly things look very different. You're operating from the normative assumption that property rights should be protected and are a natural way of operating human society, when in reality the Western model of private property is a recent invention that's often been forced on societies that practice a communal system of property (see the Dawes Act for an example of this.) How would you propose we deal with the rent crisis? Carthage (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

(ec) In fact you didn't. But that being said, if you think there is a rent crisis, we have two solutions, either build more houses, or rent control. Also, there is no wages stagnation. Stop propagating this myth. [6]. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The fact that half of Americans don't make enough to afford even a one-bedroom apartment kind of betrays your bullshit narrative. Here's an article from Pew Research which rebuts your narrative. Clearly not everyone is in agreement with you, ergo it's not a "myth." Piss off with your social denialism. The Harvard Business Review also supports the notion that wage stagnation is real and not a "myth". Carthage (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the Baumol effect, it's an entirely different problem. You can read about it here. here GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Here we have a peer-reviewed paper from the Cambridge Journal of Economics stating that "wage stagnation" (there's that dreaded term and supposed myth again) is partially responsible for widening economic inequality since the 2008 Recession. [7] To quote from the abstract:

Explanations of the financial crisis of 2008 have centred upon inadequate regulation stemming from laissez-faire ideology and low interest rates. Although true, the deeper determining forces of wage stagnation and dramatically increasing inequality in the USA over the preceding 35 years have received less notice. Wage stagnation and heightened inequality generated three dynamics that made the economy vulnerable to systemic dysfunction. First, consumption was constrained, reducing profitable investment potential in the real economy and encouraging an ever-wealthier elite to flood financial markets with credit, helping keep interest rates low, stimulating the creation of new credit instruments, greater indebtedness and speculation. The second dynamic is that consumption externalities were generated, forcing households to struggle harder to maintain the welfare of their families and their relative social status, resulting in plummeting household saving, ever-greater indebtedness and longer work hours. The third dynamic is that as the rich took larger shares of income and wealth, they gained more command over ideology and hence politics, resulting in tax cuts for the rich, reduced welfare for the poor and deregulation.

This paper could be of potential use for your proposed inequality section, but I digress. Given that half of American workers still can't afford rent, one would suspect that a case could be made to include it in this article, since housing is treated as a market and not a public good. Carthage (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ According to your own article, there is not even consesus if BLS data is reliable on this matter. At least read your own links. You can see here why we shouldn't use such data. Also, your link from the HBR claims that only the poorest were affected, not most of the population, which is perhaps more accurate (the Elephant curve is real. You can read my first link if you want to know more. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have access to your Cambridge article or did you just read the abstract? Because it doesn't seem to talk about wages or housing. . It will be the four time, as far as I can remember, that you posted a link that you didn't read. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

(EC) The fact that "there is no consensus" suggests that your bold proclamation of wage stagnation being a myth is at best hyperbole, as not everyone in the relevant field agrees with your proclamation. The Brookings Institution is also a think tank with ties to big-money groups, that's not to say it's unreliable but we should keep in mind that economics is not a politics-neutral field as much as some people like to claim it is. As for housing, I added it as an afterthought about how half of American workers are unable to afford even a one-bedroom apartment. The article itself was a rebuttal to your claim that wage stagnation isn't real, when the reality is far more muddled than that. Where do you think workers get their income from? Inheritance? Carthage (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

To preempt accusations of the genetic fallacy, my argument does not rest on the Brookings Institution being a think tank with ties to big-money groups. Also, GJK has done the exact same thing ([8]) so it'd be rich for him to accuse me of making a genetic fallacy argument. Carthage (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

So, did you choose to believe in what a minority on the field believe just because it makes sense according to your confirmation bias? Regarding housing, I already told you, it's a shortage problem that is mostly caused by regulations, not the market. You still haven't provided evidence that the market is causing this shortage. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, are you really going to compare the Brookings with the LvMI? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

So those 16 million empty homes and that half of American workers unable to afford rent are issues because of a lack of housing? That's questionable logic. Complex issues can't be said to occur because of single causes, that's reductionist. Academically dubious. We already see that there's 16 million empty homes collecting dust that all the government needs to do is invoke eminent domain and give to homeless people. That would go a far way towards mitigating the homeless crisis. Also, are you seriously going to compare the EPI to the LvMI? Carthage (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you know why these houses are empty? Do you think it's interesting for the owners to make them deteriorate and not earn money from them(assuming the number is accurate)? Regarding the second answer yes, if we build more houses we will be able to tackle it. I never said that building houses was a panacea, you're strawmanning me, what I said is that this is not a market failure since the government is mostly preventing people from building houses. Also, my own post said that I not putting both think tanks on the same level, get a grip. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

So you indirectly invoke class interest here? Do you think it's "interesting" for the homeless to continue to sleep on the sidewalk and freeze when unoccupied housing is all around them? I myself said that because capitalism encourages parasitic rent-seeking (what you call "increasing value") that these homes are going to remain empty. However, I also said that the Constitution permits eminent domain. It ultimately depends on which interests the government considers to be more relevant, that of a powerful minority of landowning plutocrats or marginalized homeless folk. The possibility is there however, and would be constitutional to expropriate private property (ie all those empty houses collecting dust while the homeless freeze) in the interests of the public welfare. Also notice that I myself didn't compare the Brookings Institute to the LvMI? To say I did, when I actually stated that the Brookings Institute has an incentive to publish conclusions favorable to their funders' interests ([9]), is a misrepresentation of my argument. Carthage (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Where are these houses? Are they on the same place as people? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

America's a big place. But there are plenty of abandoned buildings in the States that homeless people will sometimes squat in. Homelessness is not simply a matter of "location." Someone living in a car, or in a hotel room, is also legally classified as "homeless". However, the statistics state there's 29 empty houses to every one homeless person, so in all likelihood any given houseless person is gonna know the locations of at least several abandoned buildings and empty houses. I'm not homeless and I know of a few myself. Carthage (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

So instead of relying on anecdotal evidence (again) you can show evidence that argues that 1 these houses are not in Detroit, but in the Bay area, 2 that they are not decreptic ruins and 3 gives a decent explanation on why these houses are empty. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Bringing up rent control and stating that it is a consensus among economists, then accusing others of denialism when no one actually brought up rent control is straight up just arguing with strawmen. Also I would challenge the notion it is genuine denialism because calling it a “stupid idea” isn’t simply a descriptive fact but a prescriptive evaluation. The moral opinions of scientists is not a part of genuine scientific theory. It would be more reflective of a genuine scientific consensus if according to our best data “rent control” policies do not produce the intended effects efficiently; which I am not going to doubt is the case in this regard. Regardless no one was arguing for rent control. To act as if that is the only alternative option that could possibly be argued for in response to “state prevention of more houses being built” is engaging in a false dichotomy. It should also be noted you followed up in response to a peer reviewed article in a reputable journal with a op-ed from a think tank. You’re pretty inconsistent about what constitutes acceptable evidence. You wouldn’t accept it if I did something like that. It seems your standards change to suit your rhetorical needs. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

If it is a false dichotomy then what are the other options? Regarding the "peer reviewed article in a reputable journal" (the article is over 10 years btw, I'd like to see more recent evidence. I'm pretty sure that others have worked on this subject in the past decade), my point was the fact that Carthage didn't read the article, so you are strawmanning me . They have this habit, they just read the abstract. The "truly stupid" part of your post is just semantics and you know it. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You evidently didn't read The Guardian article, which already mentions a feasible solution that falls outside of your false dichotomy and dishonest strawman:

A higher minimum wage does make a difference for housing affordability.

In Missouri, Arkansas and Illinois, higher minimum wages make housing costs relatively manageable compared with neighboring states that have not raised the minimum wage above federal levels.

For example, in Sunflower county, Mississippi, the minimum is $7.25, which means a worker would need to spend about 54% of their income on a two-bedroom rental – about $684 a month. Just 125 miles away in Arkansas county, Arkansas, the minimum wage is $11, which means a worker would spend only about 36% of their income on a similar rental.

As OSD said, no one mentioned rent control. Bringing it up and then accusing me of denialism for "advocating for rent control" when you were the one who introduced it into the discussion in the first place is the definition of bad faith arguing. Carthage (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

1 I made you three questions, you didn't answer any of them. This (along with using articles that you didn't read as sources) is bad faith arguing. Two. Yeah, I didn't see the The Guardian article until now (I don't see every post in the thread, and the fact that you keep editing your own comments makes your reasoning very difficult to follow), but despite being one of the poorest states in the US, Mississipi also have the lowest homelessness rate in US.[10][11][12], while NY, DC and Cali, despite having the highest minimum wages in US, also have the highest homelessness rates in the country. Now, does that mean that minimum wage causes homelessness? Of course not, I'm not taking any conclusions from this data. It is possible that the Mississipi data is wrong, or maybe that there is a public policy there that works. But I think the data is far more tenuous than you article suggest. If you want my opinion, we should double the minimum wage [13], but saying that this is an alternative to building more houses is utopic reasoning. Maybe a higher minimum wage would help (maybe people would just be fired and we would have more homeless people), but it's not an alternative, it's, at best an auxiliary policy. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 21:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I used to live in Vancouver and in my province in Canada the expected wage needed to afford a 1 bedroom rental is about $25/hr which is $10 higher than the provincial minimum wage. I don't know if the argument is genuinely thinking raising the minimum wage would be a replacement for building more housing, but I think skepticism is in thinking of the problem as having a sole cause. Clearly, this is something that is affected by a multitude of factors, issues regarding government policies that prevent more housing from being built is one of them. Financial speculation is another, inflation is another factor, and so too is median income. To say this is the only cause, and the only solution is building more houses oversimplifies the socioeconomic issue. No doubt that is probably one of the most effective things that can be done given that dramatically increasing the supply so that it outpaces demand will drastically lower housing prices, but it also heavily depends on the types of housing being built and where. There are also things one has to consider in relation to the intersection of other political and socioeconomic problems. Construction projects can be harmful to indigenous sovereignty when done on traditional territory without their approval; construction itself can only happen at an appreciable rate if the cost of building materials is currently affordable and contractors can still expect to profit. There is also the question of how realistic this plan is in the short or long term when the prices for homes in places like Vancouver are currently in the millions? At what rate do we build housing so as to lower prices appreciably enough so that the median family can afford a down payment and keep up with the costs of mortgage? Some people think that the government should be investing in non-market housing in particular. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

(EC) There are of course a few other policies that can help. Mental health and drugs and alcohol abuse for instance are some of the reasons why there are so many homeless people, and building houses won't resolve the reasons why these people are on the streets. But in the end, the major problem is that there are not enough homes, at least not where people live. Landlords don't like vacancies. Not only they are not earning money from their properties, but lots of vacancies reduce their market power. You should really read a textbook before coming to conclusions that are not supported by mainstream views. My point is, you said it is a false dichotomy. Well, it isn't, there is no alternative. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, Canada and America are pretty big places. NIMBYs and those stupid suburbs and their lobbies are the reason why we can't build enough houses, not indigenous populations. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

"Mental health and drugs and alcohol abuse are some of the reasons why there are so many homeless people..." This can also be a symptom of homelessness, not necessarily a cause. You're ignoring socioeconomic factors at play here, like, again, being priced out of the housing market. A study done in British Columbia gave homeless people 7500 each, and they overwhelmingly spent it on clothing, food, cars, and other necessities. That homelessness is caused primarily by mental illness and substance abuse, and not socioeconomic factors, is anti-homeless propaganda. Of course, some homeless people are likely homeless because of substance abuse and whatnot, but not all. Domestic violence can also cause homelessness for instance, and there is also a noted racial disparity between rates of homelessness for minorities and for whites. Here's a good source on the issue: [14] Carthage (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@GeeJayK I don't disagree too much about the point about Nimby's but we also have to consider how issues like this intersect with other social issues, like gentrification as an example. A lot of this ends up being a balancing act, and if all you give a shit about is the housing supply and prices then sure, "simple" solution. That's not the only thing real living people and governments have to consider, however. I don't think we are genuinely in conflict here but I think you divulging a little bit into logically contradicting yourself. You both admit that there are various policies that can be pursued to help alleviate this issue but then insist that rent control and deregulation to allow for more houses to be built are the only "true" policies, one of which is implied to be totally ineffective. So only one real "solution". Why can't we be pluralist about this? There are many things that can be done in addition to increasing the housing supply. We can expand the housing supply and implement policies with the aim of lowering the cost of living and controlling inflation, no? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

(ec)Where did I say that homelessness is caused primarily by mental illness and substance abuse? I said that some people are on the streets because of this, but I think my post implicity says that this is not the main reason (if I believe that mental illness and substance abuse were the main cause, then building more houses would not be the answer to this problem). Also, you still didn't answer my three questions, nor you provided evidence that the cause of this crisis is the market. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, in case it isn't clear enough, I don't think that the market alone can solve the entire crisis. And I do think there should be some constraints for building houses. A better argument is that housing is a Merit good (I don't remember seeing people saying so). If that's your point, I'm already planning on writing a section on merit goods, though I'll focus on public health and public education. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

add more sources

Can you add more sources --Edward the eight (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I think most people here know that my work is painstakingly sourced (even if you disagree with with my stuff, I don't pull things out of my ass). The content of this article is mostly ECN101 (I literally wrote most of this in less than an hour), so I didn't really use a book or articles to write about this one, but most claims will be sourced based on modern textbooks, just give me some time. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)