The core fabric of society - the deal that was offered by society to the people - to work in a job, own a house, raise a family, have a retirement - has decayed away entirely for many people.
crooked-v 2 hours ago [-]
The housing part never 'decayed', it was actively blocked by the people who already had homes. That's why you see things now like California actively overriding local zoning.
cucumber3732842 2 hours ago [-]
>, it was actively blocked by the people who already had homes.
You're not wrong but this is too simplistic and avoids holding up a mirror that really ought to be held up. Zoning was the "we're gonna regulate our way into utopia" of their time. The class of useful idiots who made it happen and the class of useful idiots who will go to bat for it's continuance because they make a buck on it is far broader than that.
tptacek 2 hours ago [-]
It's not simplistic. It is literally the core problem with housing. Zoning had a first objective of preventing Black families from moving into white neighborhoods, and then, in the 1980s, assumed a new role of driving scarcity (and thus the price of houses in areas of opportunity, to the benefit of existing homeowners).
SoftTalker 2 hours ago [-]
This is quite a new deal and not one enjoyed by most people for most of history.
Loughla 1 hours ago [-]
What is the purpose of what you're saying? Because people lived like serfs and slaves for a lot of history, we should be okay with that?
I don't mean to be shitty, and I fully understand that contrary takes are what HN is great at, but I genuinely fail to see what the point of your comment is other than a knee jerk nothing?
AngryData 1 hours ago [-]
Is that not how the 95% of the population of farmers lived before industrialization? The only difference is the job being their own farm or trade.
18 minutes ago [-]
andyferris 3 hours ago [-]
We are very fortunate that my wife got to work at the local school. She now walks to work and I work from home about 4 days out of 5 workdays.
The benefits are huge in terms of time available and costs, and not needing childcare before or after school.
It’s hard to solve couples having two jobs in different places, but having at least one person get to work basically instantly and for zero cost is a massive boon to society.
The issue I saw is that the government department in charge of education is not the one in charge of housing and infrastructure, and there are no incentives to hire locally or make it easier to move locally. Instead you get teachers in suburb A travelling to suburb B and vice-versa, and no way that they can choose to swap roles. We lucked out.
3 hours ago [-]
morkalork 2 hours ago [-]
It used to be like this in rural communities even up into the 70s and 80s. The town's branch manager would be young, shipped out for a few years and live in a house the bank owned and given a stipend to maintain it. Same with the postmaster and other professions.
ReactiveJelly 3 hours ago [-]
A land value tax would fix this
tptacek 2 hours ago [-]
I know the Georgism joke here, but we don't need an LVT to fix this; we just need states to override home rule on minimum density requirements for residential and mixed-use zoning. The core problem here is in fact very simple!
dragonwriter 2 hours ago [-]
A land value tax without changes in non-tax land use regulations would not fix, and a land value tax would not be necessary after removing the non-tax land use restrictions which this responds to.
2 hours ago [-]
lokar 3 hours ago [-]
Not on its own. You also need to relax or remove direct (and indirect, eg parking minimums) restrictions on residential density.
trashcan 3 hours ago [-]
How?
OutOfHere 3 hours ago [-]
It would allow housing to be substantially denser.
dragonwriter 2 hours ago [-]
How would an LVT do that when the barrier to dense housing is zoning restrictions?
Changing the tax structure doesn't remove that restriction.
tptacek 2 hours ago [-]
An LVT addresses the incentives underling zoning. The LVT imagined by Georgists would very probably result in radically altered zoning rules. Zoning, after all, exists primarily to prop up the finances of homeowners.
dragonwriter 2 hours ago [-]
A Georgist LVT is based on the value of the bare land, which is constrained by permitted uses. Adopting it without first removing zoning restrictions would increase the incentive for homeowners to defend the existing zoning rules, since the removal of the rules would increase the scope of alternative uses of the land in ways which would make it economically impossible for most existing single family homeowners to afford the taxes on the property.
On the other hand, once you remove the zoning restrictions, the existing economic incentives will produce densification without LVT, tbat's the whole thing the zoning restrictions exist to stop.
1 hours ago [-]
ahazred8ta 1 hours ago [-]
An LVT results in McMansions on quarter acre lots being taxed at the same rate as trailers on quarter acre lots. It's the perfect way to allow rich people to buy out poor people and pay the same tax as poor people. Welcome to unintended consequences.
OutOfHere 40 minutes ago [-]
> trailers on quarter acre lots
That is an irrelevant counterargument, since the idea of dense housing leans towards tall apartment buildings, not trailers. No one should have to live in a trailer.
AvAn12 3 hours ago [-]
Could just, you know, pay more…
tptacek 2 hours ago [-]
Teachers in major metro school systems already have quite a good deal. Rural schoolteachers really do have the deal everyone heard about in 1990s politics, but urban schoolteachers are generally economically privileged.
(That doesn't mean they aren't impacted by housing scarcity in ways that disrupt the administration of school systems; they are. But the problem isn't compensation, the problem is corrupt regulation written to prop up homeowner assets.)
Loughla 1 hours ago [-]
I genuinely need to see what data you're citing with this statement. Until recently, I worked in education and often worked with urban schools. Starting salaries of 55-60k/year living in a major metropolitan area is not what I would call economically privileged.
tptacek 1 hours ago [-]
The average CPS salary is somewhere around $75k, with 10+ weeks of vacation, but that undercounts it dramatically because CPS teachers get defined-benefit pension plans and often earn tens of thousands in additional cash comp for extracurricular work, and that's before what happens when you get a masters.
you provided a rough estimate of "somewhere around $75k". they followed up with a more accurate number and where they got the more accurate number.
40 minutes ago [-]
dpbriggs 3 hours ago [-]
Why not make housing cost less instead?
ninjalanternshk 2 hours ago [-]
Because we’ve been sold the story that your house has to appreciate in value 2-3 times over the period you live in it, consequently, homeowners vote against anything that lowers housing costs.
OutOfHere 3 hours ago [-]
They're not mutually exclusive goals. Wanting a more affording salary and scalable housing both are valid goals.
lumost 2 hours ago [-]
Governments may be uniquely positioned to offer housing incentives as they often own the land, and control the zoning.
Rendered at 02:28:28 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
You're not wrong but this is too simplistic and avoids holding up a mirror that really ought to be held up. Zoning was the "we're gonna regulate our way into utopia" of their time. The class of useful idiots who made it happen and the class of useful idiots who will go to bat for it's continuance because they make a buck on it is far broader than that.
I don't mean to be shitty, and I fully understand that contrary takes are what HN is great at, but I genuinely fail to see what the point of your comment is other than a knee jerk nothing?
The benefits are huge in terms of time available and costs, and not needing childcare before or after school.
It’s hard to solve couples having two jobs in different places, but having at least one person get to work basically instantly and for zero cost is a massive boon to society.
The issue I saw is that the government department in charge of education is not the one in charge of housing and infrastructure, and there are no incentives to hire locally or make it easier to move locally. Instead you get teachers in suburb A travelling to suburb B and vice-versa, and no way that they can choose to swap roles. We lucked out.
Changing the tax structure doesn't remove that restriction.
On the other hand, once you remove the zoning restrictions, the existing economic incentives will produce densification without LVT, tbat's the whole thing the zoning restrictions exist to stop.
That is an irrelevant counterargument, since the idea of dense housing leans towards tall apartment buildings, not trailers. No one should have to live in a trailer.
(That doesn't mean they aren't impacted by housing scarcity in ways that disrupt the administration of school systems; they are. But the problem isn't compensation, the problem is corrupt regulation written to prop up homeowner assets.)
https://www.cps.edu/media/community-updates/2025/january/neg...
im a bit confused by your question.
you provided a rough estimate of "somewhere around $75k". they followed up with a more accurate number and where they got the more accurate number.