Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Commits $2.5 Billion to Fight California Housing Crisis
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I guess it would depend on where in Texas they are moving to, but I get the sense that many of the people here moving to Austin think of Austin as a "Bay Area in Texas".
This is a gross distortion, likely because this is something you've learned through ultra-right-wing media.
Housing "crisis?" I'm sorry, but no. Supply and demand make housing prices go up. Building more and more houses after you're already this far behind is like trying to shove a square peg through a circle hole. It just isn't going to work. You'll never build enough houses quickly enough to fundamentally change the housing market in a city that large. When you start treading water, you've just got to move. This country is massive and most of it is very affordable.
And homelessness? I've been around the entire country, have seen conservative states and cities and liberal states and cities, and let me tell you: the most liberal cities were the ones with the worst homelessness. Most (notice I said most not all) of these folks have moved to these areas by choice and are on drugs or alcohol. Enabling these people is NOT helping them, it's KILLING them.
Let's look at Seattle. One of the biggest homeless populations in the country. Guess what percentage of Seattle's homeless is actually from Seattle? 30%. Yes, a mere 30%. Why didn't the other 70% just move somewhere more cheaply? Because they know that they can continue in their lifestyle and even be enabled to do so in a place like Seattle.
For anyone who hasn't seen it, I implore you to watch this terrific documentary on Seattle. My favorite part is near the end of the documentary where we take a look at a homeless rehabilitation center in Rhode Island. THAT is how we help people get off the streets. We help them create a life for themselves again. We do NOT enable them:
And homelessness? I've been around the entire country, have seen conservative states and cities and liberal states and cities, and let me tell you: the most liberal cities were the ones with the worst homelessness. Most (notice I said most not all) of these folks have moved to these areas by choice and are on drugs or alcohol. Enabling these people is NOT helping them, it's KILLING them.
Let's look at Seattle. One of the biggest homeless populations in the country. Guess what percentage of Seattle's homeless is actually from Seattle? 30%. Yes, a mere 30%. Why didn't the other 70% just move somewhere more cheaply? Because they know that they can continue in their lifestyle and even be enabled to do so in a place like Seattle.
For anyone who hasn't seen it, I implore you to watch this terrific documentary on Seattle. My favorite part is near the end of the documentary where we take a look at a homeless rehabilitation center in Rhode Island. THAT is how we help people get off the streets. We help them create a life for themselves again. We do NOT enable them:
A band-aid exists. A band-aid will stop bleeding until a wound can heal.
Given the true nature of the problems that homeless Americans deal with a band-aid would be a free apartment. At that point it would be possible to begin addressing the underlying issues and heal them.
Capital dictates that the wound must be healed first by the wounded without a band-aid. If you can't afford the band-aid - the apartment - well, "sucks to be you!"
.
I know you’re being sarcastic but the reality is, some people love to use the term “illegal aliens” to refer to immigrants because it makes them seem less like human beings, less like... what’s that word we use... oh right. Less like “people”.
Your suggestion - you're insisting that 'fair' means splitting the risk equally between the huge multinational corporation and the individual median-wage home owner - but - well - that is the way most business investment works - if you invest in a company and it succeeds, you get a share of the success, if it fails you lose some or all of your money. Seems to work better than a mortgage industry that (a) caused at least one disastrous financial crash and (b) is currently pricing people out of the housing market.
Sure - one side has the risk of losing their single most valuable asset, seeing everything they've paid in to it disappear in a puff of smoke, likely leaving them bankrupt and homeless. The other side has the "risk" of re-possessing the house, getting back the balance of the loan (although that's pretty much 'sunk costs' to a bank) and keeping all of the interest they've received to date - and even in a negative equity situation it's usually their decision to force the sale of the house then and there, rather than wait for the market to pick up. Oh, and theres the bit where the borrower pays for insurance policies (sometimes inappropriate or invalid) to protect the bank's stake.
You can educate people until you are blue in the face, but its no good unless you offer them viable alternatives.
You can rent - you probably should rent if the alternative is getting a 90% mortgage and deluding yourself that the bank doesn't effectively own your home - except nowadays you end up renting from someone who (rather than investing capital in property) bought a property on a mortgage and expects your rent to pay their mortgage so they can clean up on the equity when they kick you out. (In the UK, until a few years ago, the government was offering tax breaks on 'buy-to-let' mortgages).
It is exactly that kind of BS that CREATED the housing shortage. You have a housing shortage because people are making so much money on rent. That thrives on a housing shortage.
ignoring the rest of the world, since we can't control that. And "extreme Poverty" is not the only poverty that is of concern.
what does this look like at a US level?
The distribution of wealth in the United States and implications for a net worth tax - Equitable Growth
An overview of the distribution of wealth in the United States to inform discussion of a potential net worth tax—or other reforms to the taxation of wealth.
equitablegrowth.org
That chart alone doesn't take into account local economic conditions. in the US alone, there are nearly 25% of the population that would have less than $10,000 in wealth.
your chart is a red-herring as it does nothing to actually show the actual problems that wealth inequality in the US is causing.
Also Note: I am NOT campaigning to ditch capitalism for communism. I am a proponent for fair redistribution of the wealth made from a free market. When the "top 1%" earners are paying less a percentage of their incomes than those in the lowest tax bracket, there's a significan't problem with those who have wealth not paying their fair share towards ensuring that social services are properly funded to help prevent worst case poverty issues that cause people to go homeless.
For software focussed roles I will argue till I’m blue in the face that there is at most marginal productivity/convenience benefit to a big building with everyone in it.
Remote working solves a lot of problems that seem to be commonly mentioned by Big-city-bound tech workers.
"If you wont share your own home then you cant advocate building more houses for more people"
What sort of boring moon logic is that.
"Oh you wont donate all your spare money to cancer research? Guess you must like kids dying of cancer so."
You purposefully missed the point.
Before you volunteer others, volunteer yourself, so that you lead by your own principle.
Does this need to be further clarified?
Yep.
All those cushy vegetable picking, toilet cleaning, taxi driving jobs that Americans love... oh wait.
As Jimmy Carr said, if an illegal immigrant can come to a country with no contacts, likely poor at best language and no work history, and take your job from you, you’re probably **** at your job.
How am I volunteering others lad? Just support polices that result in more housing being built.
The whole point of government and taxes is that social issues aren't purely dependent on random acts of kindness, no matter what the Ben Shapiros of the world might think.
WTF does my demand that apartments be built to house homeless Americans have to do with "sharing my home"?
Let us know when you figure it out.
Liberal politicians like Newsom make it possible. And they wonder why California is a quite now LITERALLY , a dumpster fire......too soon?
Americans would be happy to do those jobs if they could make a mortgage payment on a house working that job for 40 hours a week.
You know that's true.
.
I'm disappointed by your viewpoint (and it has nothing to do with the Apple Housing issue.) Not everyone that owns stock is a multi-billionaire. You may indirectly own Apple shares if you have a retirement plan. I also note investing in stock is no guarantee you will make money. Apple almost shuttered their doors at one time. Those stockholders almost lost their entire investment.
You may be in a position to give a $.10 dividend per share away. Others may not be or not want to. Trying to make a divisive "us" and "them" commentary is unnecessary.
I personally believe one should give back to their community. I do so because I believe it's the right thing for me. A corporation making this decision is concerning. I don't know the details enough of this circumstance, so this is not intended a specific commentary.
I moved to California a few years ago - yes my mortgage doubled - yes I pay higher taxes - BUT I never need to shovel snow anymore- I can go to the beach 365 days a year - Awesome mass transit, I can get there faster than driving my electric car. - I can get direct flights pretty much anywhere in the world - I can order anything I need and get it the same day or the next. But the best part I am making 4 times what I made before. California has the 5th largest economy and very low unemployment rate - you can quit your job in the snoring and get a new one in the afternoon. This nation needs to elect more liberal governments b/c it sure has not hurt California.
You are supporting policies which involve other people's money, or in this case the interests of other shareholders.
I'm completely fine with spending money to resolve social issues, to actually fix them... However, there needs to be an honest conversation about why the issue exists, and many people are uncomfortable with acknowledging the underlying reasons for why the issues exist.
For example, people purposefully conflate legal immigration with illegal immigration. This is intellectually dishonest, but they do it anyway because the ends justify the means. You can't have an honest conversation with someone like that about spending government money to resolve social issues.
I'm fine with spending money to house homeless Americans. However, we need to ask why they're homeless and what part of the system failed them to make them homeless as part of the spend. What politicians failed and what party they're from? This is all part of an honest discussion, and I'm fine with that. If these questions aren't asked and answered honestly, then it's money wasted without fixing the problem and cause.
It's a shame they (along with legal immigrants) been neglected by our government for so long while politicians have endlessly pandered to illegal immigrants.
Not really. The issue might be price driven.
Bring it to the extreme and see the point: what would happen if tomorrow janitorial services, veggie picking jobs etc paid $5,000/hr? You would see MANY Americans in line for that job. What would happen if it suddenly dropped at $1/hr? You would see MANY Americans choose different, more remunerable jobs.
The problem is in part that some of the jobs you listed pay crap. Part of it is because the job does not require much skill. Part of it is because the price is driven down by illegal immigration (and sometimes even legal immigration). So here you have a bad combination of issues. Crappy jobs, crappy pay, lots of cheap offer.