Who won the debate? Biden or Ryan?

[richardhutnik]

HappySqurriel said:

richardhutnik said:

Do you seriously want to argue that current economic conditions are such that EVERYONE wanting work can find it, and it pays sufficiently enough that they can afford to live and not be homeless?  Or do you want to pull a Ben Stein and say that almost everyone on food stamps and welfare are shiftless, lazy, and a bunch of good for nothing bums (in short, if there is any suffering ALL these people deserve it, so getting rid of welfare would get rid of the bad folks, and justice would be served):

And churches do say that, as do any other charitable organization, because they don't see where the slack will be picked up, if they are are the levels of stress they are facing now.  But you need to seriously show someone else who advocates the government should totally stay out, who is in the business, or actually show evidence that it would work out.  Well, maybe work out for you is a bunch of beggars on the street.

If people were not being paid not to work they would (most likely) lower their standards for what work or pay was acceptable and the number of available jobs would increase. Since the output of the economy increased because these individuals were working and producing goods and services, and people would spend their saved tax money in the private economy demanding additional goods and services, it is likely that the job market would improve to the extent that they could at least find a job that paid as well as welfare.

Beyond that, rent control has been demonstrated to reduce the availability of rental properties and rent subsidies have been demonstrated to increase the cost of rent, and if government interference in the housing (and other) markets was eliminated it is likely that you would see greater stratification in the housing market (and other markets) resulting in lower cost of living at the lower end of the spectrum; allowing even low income people to survive.

Essentially, for centuries and throughout most of the world people have been able to survive with an adequate standard of living relative to the country they live in even though they're low income; and only after the government became involved and created an income floor does it become impossible to survive as a low income individual.

Here is an economic reality: If people have only so much to spend, then if you charge above what they make, they can't afford it.  One can argue that rent controls prevents the quality of buildings to improve.  But, if there is a market available, which can be serviced at a certain price, then people will service it.  Other things can impact rental property being available, like limitations on land available, and zoning, which is there to try to manage the environment of a city, keeping elements away from other elements.  Natural limitations can cause it impossible to effectively service.  Same can happen if you have building codes, and landlords can't afford to meet their requirements.  One could possible end up making shelter totally available, if you allow people to occupy parks, but apparently cities don't like that.  Seems people feel there is a need for a minimum standard of health people can live in.  Like, you could have people rent a closet real cheap in NY, that doesn't even provide a bed, or a toilet.  

For example, here is one article that questions a possible link between rent control and homelessness:

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/applebaum-richard_scapegoating-rent-control-masking-the-causes-of-homelessness-1991.html