The Housing Crisis is the Everything Crisis

The Housing Crisis is the Everything Crisis

Show Video

[ticking] Every year since 1947, the Bulletin of Atomic  Scientists – a non-profit academic journal   concerning science and global security – has  published updates on a metaphorical “clock”   counting down to the end of the world.   The closer to midnight the clock hands  are set...the closer we are to doomsday.   Right now the clock is set at 100 seconds  to midnight – the closest it has ever been. 

Some dismiss the Bulletin and  its clock as fear mongering,   while others see it as a legitimate expression of  the scientific community’s angst about the future.   But whatever you think about it, it’s clear  the 2020s have been a turbulent decade so far   and the future course of humanity rests of the  decisions we’ll make over the next few years. It is very likely that current trends continue;   global temperatures inch closer to 2 degrees  Celsius, millions in the developing world are   displaced by drought and food shortages, citizens  in the west continue to work unfulfilling,   dead-end jobs for poverty wages, their children  are mindless goons consuming a continual feed   of garbage pushed by soulless influencers,  while idiot populists keep getting elected,   abusing our institutions and changing nothing  as the gap between the Haves and the Have Nots   only gets bigger, all the while repressive  dictatorships with no regard for human rights   reorientate the global order in their favour and  destabilise the democratic nations of the world. But there is also a possibility that this  doesn’t happen; maybe we get our act together,   and start taking climate change seriously. We  care for the poor, we fix our infrastructure, we   revive communities, educate our children properly,  plan for the future, and build healthy alliances.   Genuine political reform rips out the rot  our institutions have been subject to over   the past few decades and our nations  are put in the best possible position   to challenge the unfree world. Then we can  finally focus our efforts towards things like  

going into space, mathematics, quantum  mechanics, the secrets of the universe,   painting, poetry, music, architecture.  The things that make life worth living! What if I told you that the difference between  these two futures is one policy choice so simple,   so mind-bogglingly easy, that it is  sheer elegance in its simplicity. It’s called BUILDING MORE GOD DAMN HOUSES AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. Across the western world, house prices and rents  are soaring above what is remotely reasonable,   caused by a steep drop in housebuilding  since the Great Recession. And this, my dear friends, is why  everything is so bad these days.  Based on the evidence I will present in this  video, we can pinpoint the root cause of most   of society’s ills right now down to houses being  so expensive these days. For example, In 2015,  

two professors at Chicago University calculated  that if the housing crisis had not existed,   the United States economy would  beeeeeeee……..this much bigger.   That’s prosperity being stolen from YOU, buddy. It is estimated that the housing crisis   is the single worst thing to ever happen to the  economy of England since World War Tw-, wait, no,   World War One- oh, the War of the  Spanish – ah! The Civil War! No? Oh   no. Oh noooo. The BLACK DEATH? ARE YOU KIDDING ME. Houses are the backbone of the free  world. Solve the housing crisis and  

you solve the other problems. To do  that we need to build more of them. I don’t even care who does it.  Private companies, the government,   building societies, whatever. It is imperative! Because while western governments argue  for months about if we can take one metre   off of a “historically significant car park”,  China has no problem building five new cities,   17,000 more miles of highway, and probably  beginning work on a space elevator.   No wonder they’re calling this  the start of the Chinese century.

We are artificially making ourselves poorer,  unproductive, unsustainable, and uncompetitive.   And it’s entirely down to housing. Here is  how fixing the housing crisis will solve   nearly all of our problems, including but  not limited to; climate change, poverty,   inequality, poor public health, economic  stagnation, crime, the cost of living, and more. In the immediate post-war era in the west, housing  was a consumer good, like your microwave or your   toaster. And it worked like any other consumer  good in a capitalist economy. You produce as   much as possible for the lowest cost to the  consumer. And that’s why the UK government also  

built houses, to compete with private business,  playing along to keep supply high and prices low. But, after the government stopped  building houses in the 1980s,   houses have become more of an investment,  like fine art or stocks on the stock market,   because new houses are now rarer and increase  in value over time, just like paintings. So like bids in an art auction, the  price of houses and flats can only go up,   taking up more and more of someone’s  income as the population grows   but the number of houses doesn’t keep  up. How many people are in poverty   right now who would be fine if they  simply had cheaper rent or mortgages? Wait we actually have an answer to  that. About half of the children   and one quarter of all adults in poverty  according to Child Poverty Action Group. Isn’t it strange how housing costs were  basically not a factor in child poverty   until 1980? I wonder what happened. When government housebuilding was at  

its post-war peak, over 500 houses were completed  every day in England, with the record being 1968   when they finished nearly 1,000 houses every  day. This also coincided with the so-called   “Golden Age of Capitalism” where everyone could  afford a home, a car, three kids, and a holiday,   on the income of one guy working in  a mineshaft. In the 1950s the average   Briton was spending more per week at his local  pub than he was on his rent or his mortgage. Here’s some concrete proof from Tokyo; in 2015  they approved more housing construction permits   than the entirety of England, and while  both London and Tokyo had a comparable   increase in population, the change  in house prices is uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... If we want to drastically reduce  the level of poverty in our society,   simply start treating homes as a commodity, like  they used to be, and not treasure to be hoarded.

Finland is the only country in  Europe where the rate of homelessness   is falling. In the capital of Helsinki, there  is only need for one homeless shelter that beds   fifty people. They don’t need any more than that. And what they did was, they  built enough affordable houses,   and then they put the homeless people in them. This saves the taxpayer saves 15,000 euros per  year for every homeless person that is given   a home, because they no longer have to rely on  social services. So next time you hand a homeless   guy your spare change, bare in mind that you  would get a tax cut if he was just given a free   house. I did the maths with the current homeless  population in the USA it’s $62 per taxpayer. I think we’re done with this section.

Ah, the iconic American suburb. The perfect place  to settle down, start a family, go to church,   play catch with Jimmy in the yard, beat  your wife, see little Susie get married   (she’s growing up so fast), and eventually  die of a heart attack while watering the lawn. But as charmingly vacuous as this is,   there is no other way to live that  is more damaging for the environment. Yes indeed, it might sound backwards, but suburbs  are worse for the environment than cities. Take a look at this map of the average  household carbon footprint in each Zip Code;   here’s New York City, and here are the  suburbs surrounding it. Pretty stark contrast.

We can find out why from California, which is  literally just one giant suburb. If we consult   this low-res jpg chart of California’s carbon  footprint, two of the largest sources of their CO2   emissions are from transportation and electricity.  It’s no surprise that when everything is spaced   out more in suburb, you need to rely on a car to  get around. As opposed to a city or just somewhere   with more density, where there is usually a  store on your street that you can easily walk to. Also, because houses in suburbs are generally  bigger, they cost more to heat and to power,   while utility pipes and electricity wires need  to cover more distance to reach every house. 

Those sterile, mono-cultural lawns  don’t provide much biodiversity either,   and Las Vegas had to ban them entirely  because watering equipment took up too much   of the city’s valuable water supplies. Compare this with the cities who have   massive biodiverse central parks or smaller  community gardens with many types of plants. What has this got to do with housebuilding?  Simply put, if you build houses taller and   closer together, you can fit more  of them in the same amount of space.   That mean price go down as well as CO2 emissions  and wasted water. You don’t have to drive as far   to get places, and sharing a wall or two with  your neighbours keeps the energy bills down. If you’re a staunch suburbanite, you might be  saying “Ahhh nooo my idyllic bourgeois American   lifestyle” I can’t do the voice I’m too tired. BUT this would be for your own good because  

building houses like this might  one day actually Save Your Life! As the most densely populated  non-microstate country in Europe,   the Netherlands has to be  conservative with their space.   “Suburbs” in the Dutch sense look  less like this and more like this. Even in rural areas like farming communities,  houses are really close together and most of them   are huddled around the central village square,  with a few detached houses on the outskirts.  

Ignoring the fact this looks far better than your  soulless cut-and-paste suburban tracts of boredom,   it’s also the reason why the Netherlands has  some of Europe’s lowest levels of obesity.   For the simple reason that if everything is within  walking distance...people tend to...walk more.   Which is better for their health. The narrow, winding streets also makes it a hassle   to take cars on short journeys – you’d be better  off taking your bike to work. Which a lot of Dutch   people actually do. Not only does this reduce  carbon emissions and increase energy efficiency   like we discussed in the previous section, but  obviously makes the air cleaner and makes the   Netherlands one of the safest countries in the  world for road traffic deaths. That’s not to  

say the Dutch don’t have a housing crisis too, but  when they do build houses, they build them better. In a study of 14,000 people across the world,  living in a dense suburb like those in the   Netherlands cuts obesity by 9%. Mixed-use  development like putting shops and businesses   nearer to houses cut it by a further 8.3% and  being within walking distance to a recreational  

area like parks cut it by another 8.4%. Such a simple change with huge positive   consequences, just because they  built more houses, closer together. Poor mental health among young people is  increasingly a problem in the developed   world too – a lot of people blame the  Instasnaps and Tweetbooks, but you know   what? I’m blaming the housing for that too.  You ever tried to rent a place in London?   No? Me neither but look at these  properties I found for rent online.   How are you supposed to develop meaningful  friendships if nobody can visit you? How are you   supposed to exercise? How are you supposed to pay  for luxuries and the things that make life worth   living if all your income is going towards rent? God forbid the Sigma Variant comes along and forces people into lockdown here,  it’s like solitary confinement. If we built  

more houses, construction companies would  actually have to compete with each other   to make the best possible homes, instead  of cramming everyone into these shoeboxes. One report published by the  Ministry of Health in 2012   recommended that no house in the UK  be smaller than 79 square meters,   because anything below this was found to be  detrimental to the occupants’ mental well being.   Despite this, the UK still has no national  minimum floor space laws – only “guidelines”.

The average new dwelling built in  Britain is a pitiful 74 square meters,   the same in the Netherlands. Compare this  with Denmark, where the average home is   double this size. And I don’t think the Danish  are having a particularly hard time right now. Oh I forgot to mention; this  report wasn’t published in 2012   it was published in 1912!! AAAAAAH!!!! As you may recall from the start of  the video, it is estimated that the   American economy would be 74% larger if  the housing crisis had never happened.  A second study partially confirmed this, saying  that if just three American cities – New York,   San Jose, and San Francisco –  allowed many more houses to be built,   this would translate to a pay rise of  between $8,700 dollars and $16,000 dollars   for the average American – even if  they don’t live in these places.

Cities are where wealth is generated these days,  so it figures that when you lock people out of   cities through high prices, you prevent  them from being at their most productive.   How many great computer innovations are we  missing out on because the smartest programmer   can’t afford to live in Silicon Valley? How  many kino movies will never be made because   Hollywood is too expensive for upstart directors  and actors? What if we never go to Mars because   the person who knows how to do it can only  afford to live in Clinton, Missouri and not   with NASA in Pasadena. The same is true for any  city or major economic centre across the world;   New York, London, Berlin, Dublin, Auckland, Paris,  Vancouver, Rome, Barcelona, Cape Town, Zurich. And for those that do manage to live in the  cities, current housing costs usually negate their   productive output anyway. For the average worker,  most, if not all, of the wealth they add to the   economy is sucked out by the real estate industry  and put into a landlord’s checking account.

This is kneecapping your own  economy. Build more houses,   cut landlord profits, and these  problems will just...disappear! Hong Kong has one of the lowest  birth rates in the entire world,   beating only South Korea and Puerto Rico. A  birth rate lower than 2 children p er couple   means the population decreases, but the average  Hong Kongese woman has only one child in her   lifetime, which you can imagine could cause quite  the problem a couple generations down the line. It is very normal for fertility rate to drop when  countries become developed, like in Bangladesh.  

But the unintended consequence of this is that the  national population begins to decrease – leaving a   lot of old people and not a lot of young people  to look after them and pay for their pensions. Not just in Hong Kong though – across the  developed world, countries are projected to   lose millions in population over the next few  decades for this reason. You could supplement   this with immigration, which is a perfectly fine  solution, but it doesn’t address the root cause. When asked “how many children do you really  want”, most women in the developed world answered   two or three – above the replacement rate. So why don’t they have that many children?  

You guessed it. It’s the houses! That’s  what this video is about remember?? In Hong Kong, the price of  housing is astronomical.   One square foot of floor space over there can cost  2,700 US dollars, forcing many people to live in   so-called coffin homes. It’s a miracle they  can afford to raise one child, never mind two! The situation is less extreme but still  present in the western world too. In the UK,   for every 10% rent increases, births go  down 5%. One study suggests house price  

rises between 1996 and 2014 prevented  the birth of 157,000 people. In 1976,   nearly 40% of households in the USA were  home to a married couple with children.   Today that figure is 21%, with single person or  childless couples making up half of households.   Not because people don’t want a  family, they just can’t afford it. The more expensive it is to  buy or rent an extra bedroom,   the less likely a family is to  get one and fill it with a child.  

OK, we’re behind schedule, so  let’s finish off with the...  Lightning Round!!!! Housing reduces crime. Increased home ownership  generates significant reductions in property crime   and violent crime. When mortgage costs  get too high and homes are foreclosed,  

the number of burglaries in the  neighbourhood of a foreclosed home goes up. Housing improves education. Children who live in  a crowded household are less likely to graduate   from high school. Houses near high-performing  schools cost on average 2.4 times as much.  

Building more houses lowers this  entry barrier to good schools   and gives parents more choice  over their child’s education. Housing promotes technological innovation. A study  of 600,000 patents filed from 2000 to 2010 showed   that areas with high-density housing produced more  patents and innovations than low density areas. and the housing crisis made Coronavirus worse.  You are obviously much more likely to pass a   disease on to your parents if you still live with  them. Cities with high levels of overcrowding   fared much worse than cities with  plenty of housing for everyone.

So, it’s pretty clear since the start of  the 2010s that the western world is having a   bit of a moment (to say the least). And surprise  surprise, it can also be traced back to housing.  In Britain, people living in areas where house  prices were stagnant were more likely to vote for   populists and their policies like Brexit, the  SNP, Corbyn’s Labour or Boris’ Conservatives.   In France, the same can be said for National  Front voters. Sinn Fein saw a massive vote share  

increase in Ireland, driven by young people sick  of Dublin’s housing crisis. Trump’s voter base are   Midwestern suburbanites who have seen their  cities decimated after the Great Recession. Young people across the west can only afford  poorly paid, insecure jobs that can barely cover   rent and living costs – no wonder we  have a generation of communists. The   older generations sit comfortably  in their overvalued housing   and don’t see why the young are so  entitled and demanding of change. a reaction they become... reactionary.  This is incredibly dangerous. Populists all   across the world have shown no respect for good  government or managing the economy properly. The housing crisis is tearing our societies  apart – it ruins the economy and stokes division,   pushing people toward extremism. Extremism that  plays into the hands of our enemies – there   is nothing they want more than for the free  countries of the world to withdraw inwards,   destroy their own economies,  and descend into chaos. So I think it’s fair to say that housing is  pretty much the root of all of our issues in   the world right now, and solving it by building  more houses would greatly improve all of our   lives. But how can we get developers to build more  houses? What’s stopping us from doing this? Well  

in one part of the world, the answer can be  found in a small town, one hundred years ago... It’s the 1920s, let’s get in the car and  drive to a party and listen to jazz on   the radio and go to the movies. Meanwhile the  city of Cleveland is getting crazy big thanks   to its growing industry and more and more  people are moving to the surrounding suburbs. In the suburb of Euclid, north east of Cleveland,   the Ambler Realty Corporation wanted to build  a set of apartments for all the new residents.  But knowing the uhhhhhh demographics  of the growing worker population,   the suburb of Euclid passed a law banning  anything other than single-family detached homes,   in an effort to keep prices high and keep  out the working-class “undesirables”. Ambler realty were quite annoyed at this, not  cause it’s racist, they just wanted to build   some apartments. They took it all the way to  the Supreme Court, arguing that it violated  

the Fourteenth Amendment because the city had  confiscated their property without compensation.  The local government of  Euclid argued “No it doesn’t”.  And the Supreme Court agreed. The law was upheld. This gave inspiration to many cities  across the United States and Canada   who also wanted to keep out black people  and poor people through high prices.  And so, across the United States, there are vast  swathes of cities that legally cannot be anything   other than single-house suburbs – including  nearly all of the San Francisco bay area.  

Building these lovely town houses is ILLEGAL  and if you want to turn a run-down factory   into an apartment complex then you are a  CRIMINAL. No wonder housing is expensive;   building cheap apartments  is prohibited by the law! But did it work? Did Euclid at least get their all-white suburb? [disappointing steel lick from Spongebob] But not everywhere in the USA has these zoning  laws; Houston Texas did away with their zoning   ordinances in the 1980s. As a result, you can  get this luxury apartment in down town for….375   dollars a week. I did some digging, here’s an  apartment for the same price in Los Angeles.

Although, this only explains the  problem with housing in North America.   Over in the UK, we have our  own terrible planning laws too. Prior to the Second World War, if  you owned a piece of land in Britain,   you could do whatever you wanted with  it. Build houses, demolish houses,   make a park, construct a statue to  your favourite racist, et cetera.

In the 1930s, Britain was building four  times as many houses per year as we do   today. Because if you wanted to, you could a house on the land that you own.  This has its benefits – it was a  factor in our recovery from the   Great Depression and made up 17% of  the country’s economy at the time.   It also has it’s drawbacks;  Victorian London was hideously ugly. But in 1949, the Labour government  introduced the Town and Country Planning Act,   and now you need local government  permission, as well as the permission of   all the local residents, to do any  of these things on your own land: The Act made it unnecessarily  harder to build more houses,   and as such, set us on this path  of economic and social decline.

Clement Attlee, widely regarded as one of  the best prime ministers in UK history,   actually did more damage to the British  economy than anything since the plague. Now, those are the main structural barriers in  the US and Britain, and I’m sure other nations   across the world have their own unnecessary laws  and regulations. But we can’t cover them all. But if there’s one thing I’m sure all  countries with housing crises have in common,   it’s the phrase “Not In My Back Yard”. A  NIMBY is someone who opposes, tooth and nail,   every potential construction of new housing in  their area. This is the town they’ve lived in,  

why should it have to change now. All these  new residents will ruin the neighbourhood,   taking up too much space, criminals could  move here, poor people could move here.   Worst of all, it will lower  the value of their home.

Many of these fears are unfounded, as outlined  in this video. But one thing that does come up   a lot with NIMBYs is that they think it will  ruin the “neighbourhood character”. Many   European capitals are filled with quaint  picturesque houses that would be ruined   if you dumped a massive steel and glass  apartment building next to them. Aside from   the fact that a tent city of homeless people  looks far worse than this building ever could,   perhaps your time could be better spent arguing  against ugly houses, not just houses in general.  

One proposal in the UK right now is to allow  individual streets to democratically vote   on which pre-approved design they want the new  housing development will be. Housing gets built,   local resident have no reason to oppose it, and  the new builds are pleasing.   what's with zoomers these days using  aesthetic as a synonym for beautiful? With these facts in mind, the  solution seems simple enough.  Remove barriers that prevent good housing   from being built – developers want to  build homes and make money from them,   but we’re not letting them. It’s time to repeal  and replace these outdated, unhelpful laws.

But these NIMBYs are smart. They have a whole host  of excuses to justify their fear of change – even   if the change is positive and benefits them. Let’s  take a look at them in detail, so next time you’re   at the next town planning committee meeting, if  you’re boring enough to do that, I mean how sad   can you get – you’ll know exactly how to counter  argue against the Karens and Kevins of the world.  

If you want to click off  the video now that’s fine. Now   some people out there might say that we  already have enough houses and it’s just   the greedy landlords and real estate sector that   jack up prices. This isn’t true  and we’ll get to that later,   but the solution is not to put a limit on rent or  house prices, otherwise known as “Rent controls”. I’ll be the first to admit that for  people who are renting, this policy can   help. It protects them from landlords who  arbitrarily hit them with rent increases.   But that’s the thing. It helps people who  are currently renting; not future tenants. As evident in: Berlin, where the   amount of available housing dropped 30% and  landlords instead started asking for other,   more expensive ways to extract money from renters  like forcing them to buy their own furniture,  in Stockholm, where after implementing  rent control in 2011 the waiting list for   an apartment is now nine years, up from  five years before the law was passed. 

in Boston, where, rent control was found  to benefit mostly wealthy white people,  in St Paul, where housing construction dropped  80% within the first three months of rent control   being implemented, and in San Francisco,   where a 2019 Stanford university report  concluded; “[Rent controls] lowered the   supply of rental housing in the city, but also  shifted the city’s housing supply towards less   affordable types of housing that are likely to  cater to the tastes of higher income individuals. Ultimately, these shifts in the housing supply  seem likely to have driven up citywide rents,   damaging housing affordability for future tenants. By simultaneously bringing in higher income  residents and preventing displacement of   minorities, rent control has contributed  to widening income inequality in the city.” I’ll summarise with a quote by Swedish economist  Assar Lindbeck, who wrote in 1971 that "next to   bombing, rent control seems to be the most  efficient technique for destroying cities". The New Zealand political class love to blame  rich Americans, the Chinese, and B-refugees as   a reason why they need to cut immigration and ban  foreigners from buying property in the country.   This is strange because a  government report in 2016   already discovered that, and I quote, because  I couldn’t find a Kiwi to voice this bit;   “visa-controlled immigration into New Zealand,  and specifically into Auckland, in the recent past   has had a relatively small impact on house  prices compared to other demand factors”.

You guys are just lazy, build more houses. Thanks Kirstie, great advice. Maybe I should have  done what you did and buy my first house in 1993,   with my parents’ money for £51,000. Unfortunately  I made the terrible career choice of being born   7 years later and now house prices  have increased 440%. Oops, my bad.

There are currently more empty houses  in the UK or USA than there are homeless   people in either of those countries. So  just give them a house like Finland did. Sure, on paper the number of empty houses is  more than the number of people without homes.   But it doesn’t solve any of the other problems  with not having enough houses to go around. 50% of American adults under 29  still live with their parents.   That figure is 35% in the EU and 40% in  Britain. At least they’re not homeless   but I’m certain most of them want a  place of their own that they can afford.

The average American commutes about an hour a  day, adding up to 9 days total a year. Think   of all the centuries of human life collectively  wasted every day that would be massively reduced   if people could live closer to where they work. And not only is our time wasted, our health   is too. People with long commutes are 33  percent more likely to suffer from depression;   21 percent more likely to be obese; and  nearly half of them get less than seven   hours of sleep each night. Building more houses  lets people live closer to where they work. And just because someone has a home doesn’t  mean they aren’t burdened by high rents or   overcrowding. In New York City, 42% of  renters pay more than a third of their   income towards rent, with nearly 1 in 4  New Yorkers giving away more than half.

Aside from that, there is also  the problem that not all of these   “empty” houses are fit for human habitation.  This is an empty house, but so is this. Or what   about an empty house in the middle of nowhere  with no job prospects or regional connections?   On the opposite end of the spectrum, holiday  villas and second homes also count as vacant. But   how many low-income people do you know who could  afford to live here? Speaking of rich people: Gentrification is a growing concern in working  class communities, particularly in neighbourhoods   that are predominantly made up of ethnic  minorities. Many people worry that building new  

housing will lead to predominantly middle class  white people moving in and raising the cost of   living with their vapid middle class faffery,  pricing minorities out of their communities. In 2021, the NYC Department of City Planning  used census data between 2010 and 2020   to figure out the effects of new housing  on the racial demographics of the city.   They looked at population change  on neighbourhoods with low,   average, and high levels of  new housing construction. The demographic that increased the most was  Asians. Hispanics also saw an increase no   matter how many houses were built too. White  residents get a less defined trend – sometimes  

the white population goes down, sometimes  nothing happens, sometimes it goes go up. However, in every single one of these scenarios,  the black population decreased, and it would   appear that the more housing that gets built, the  higher percent of black people are forced to move   out of the neighbourhood. That’s because when  wealthy yuppies move into a city that doesn’t   have enough high-income housing for them,  they move into working class neighbourhoods,   taking up all the cheap housing and  raising the price for everyone else.

So what’s the solution then? Well,   there is actually a fourth section  to this graph – neighbourhoods with   very high levels of construction. And  the effect on the demographics was... [angelic music] It’s certainly not an even  distribution by a long shot.   But it’s the only scenario where  no racial group is excluded. Massively increasing the housing stock  massively increases racial inclusion.

Despite the clear evidence against  these policies and objections,   people still keep believing in them. Politicians  simply don’t want to have to confront angry   NIMBY voters, and so propose nice-sounding but  ultimately worthless solutions to placate them.   And this will come back to bite them  eventually, as we are about to find   out from the place that decided to implement  all of these terrible, terrible policies... Mississippi usually ranks among the worst  in the United States in terms of education,   poverty, public health, or crime. But  there’s one metric that Mississippi   ranks the best in; they have the lowest rate of  homelessness out of any state. This is because,   despite their poverty and racism and so on,  Mississippi goes the Finland route for solving   the homeless problem – they build houses and they  put the homeless into them. Good job Mississippi!

Contrast this with wealthy liberal high IQ  California, with a homeless rate more than   11 times the rate of the supposedly  backwards gun-toting redneck states.   For whatever reason, California will do  anything to reduce the homeless population,   except building more houses, and as a result,  their state just gets worse and worse. Zoning laws prevent anyone from building  houses more than three stories tall,   and when new three story houses or apartments  are proposed, the plans can be shot down by   angry residents so long as they act angry enough. The population of San Francisco has basically   stayed the same since 1960, but rents  are through the roof. Because every time   a home is demolished or otherwise taken off the  market, a new one can’t be built to fill the gap!   When California passed rent control measures  in the 90s, it actually led to renters   collectively paying 2.9 billion more on rent than  they had been. New constructions and luxury houses  

were exempt from rent control, so landlords simply  converted existing housing into luxury houses,   obtained the “new building” sticker, and  proceeded to increase the rent while not   actually adding any more houses to the total, and  taking away from the number of affordable houses. Sometimes it can take years just to get  government permission to demolish old   buildings and turn them into new homes or  apartments – all the while developers are   paying property tax, hiring security, and  paying for maintenance, inflating the price   of the apartments when they finally do get  built so builders can make back their losses. The effect this has on Californian society is  terrible. These mediocre houses sell for millions.   People who have a salary of  140,000 dollars per year still   qualify for government assistance  to help pay their rent and mortgage! Want to visit the Walk of Fame? Too bad,  it’s a makeshift homeless shelter now. San  

Francisco city hall? They turned it into a  real homeless shelter! Chinatown? Watch out   for the heroin needles in your won ton soup. Here’s a fun game; put yourself on Google   Street view anywhere in central LA and  see how long it takes before you find   a homeless tent. My record is 48 seconds.  It’s honestly scarier than Alien Isolation. Not only is this housing and homeless  crisis a great humanitarian disaster   but it’s also taking a hit  on the Californian economy.   A lot of the wealth generated by Silicon Valley is  just vacuumed up by landlords due to high rents.   The once thriving film industry is now relocating  elsewhere, with the state of Georgia and the UK   predicted to be home to more film  studios than Hollywood by 2025.

California is a warning bell for every  other major city in the western world.   The fate of California will be  the fate that befalls your town,   your city, your country, if you  don’t solve the housing crisis. I don’t care if you’re a socialist  or a liberal or a conservative or   a libertarian or whatever this guy is, If  you value the continued existence of free   and democratic societies, if you want to  fix the sorry state of the world right now,   then support building more houses. That’s  it. That’s all I have to say. Goodbye. Hello again, thanks for sticking around to the  end. That was fun, wasn’t it? I promise I’ll never   make a video about anything this nerdy ever again. Special thanks to these people, who helped with  

the narration, and also all of the channel  members, your names are on screen now.

2022-05-03 00:18

Show Video

Other news