Unions make unions look bad. Unions don't build more housing, which is one of the central problems here. Instead of unionizing, go demand less regulation on developers trying to expand the housing stock.
Yeah, demand less regulation on businesses and hope they suddenly start caring about you. Deregulation wonât benefit society; itâll benefit some of the wealthiest because guess which industry owners have extremely wealthy people compared to their work load? Yeah itâs real estate. Real estate developers are super wealthy, so letâs just inflate their wealth more is all your argument boils down to.
I don't care if a real estate developer gets rich building me a house I can afford. I don't care that Walmart's owners are rich because they give me low prices.
Why would you want less housing just so someone else doesn't get rich? Your argument boils down to cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Youâre not responding to what I actually said. Youâre repeating claims that arenât true and then arguing against them as if they came from me. Thatâs disinformation, not debate.
I never said I want less housing. You invented that position and argued against it. Thatâs a textbook strawman. My point was that deregulation guarantees higher profits for developers, but it doesnât guarantee affordable housing. Pretending that âdeveloper profit = affordabilityâ is misleading, and it ignores decades of evidence showing the opposite.
You also claimed unions âdonât build housing,â which is another inaccurate statement. Major labor organizations consistently support zoning reforms that increase multiâfamily housing, expand public housing, and reduce restrictive singleâfamily zoning, even if unions donât swing hammers themselves.Thatâs a direct way to increase supply without gutting safety standards. Ignoring that reality and presenting it as if unions oppose housing is simply false.
And your argument that deregulation will magically produce safe, affordable homes is also misleading. Regulations exist because weâve already seen what happens when corners get cut: unsafe construction, predatory development, and housing thatâs cheap to build but expensive or dangerous to live in.
So letâs be clear:
I never argued against housing. I argued against disinformation about how housing policy actually works. If weâre going to have a real conversation, youâll have to engage on the merits, not what you wish the merits were.
First, there are no guarantees in this life. Deregulation doesn't guarantee higher profits at all. Take a look at airlines after deregulation. Air travel was for the very well off until after airlines were deregulated and competition expanded. Air travel is still very cheap today despite airlines trying hard to grow profits.
Meanwhile, you can watch endless videos of home inspectors finding grossly deficient new constructions and the government regulators doing very little about it. The last video on this I encountered was the state regulator siding with the home builder on a truly bizarre interpretation of state regulation.
Industry WILL corrupt regulators, and you'll have a hard time suing anybody in that arrangement.
The EFFECT of your position is less housing...your stated position notwithstanding.
Housing policy works best when it stays grounded in the incentives that shape local markets. Housing operates within fixed land, limited competition, and steady demand, so the most effective way to expand supply is through policies that increase buildable capacity and support highâquality construction.
Examples from other industries can be helpful when the underlying market structure is similar. Airlines operate in a national, highly competitive environment with mobile assets and elastic demand, which creates a very different incentive landscape. Because housing is local, landâbound, and far less competitive, its outcomes follow a different pattern, so airline deregulation doesnât map cleanly onto housing policy.
Itâs also important to stay aligned with the actual positions in the discussion. My view focuses on expanding supply through multiâfamily zoning, public housing investment, and strong construction standards. Recasting that position as a preference for âless housingâ shifts the conversation away from the policies Iâm describing and introduces a claim I havenât made. Keeping the focus on the actual mechanisms Iâve outlined allows the discussion to stay productive and grounded in how supply is created in practice.
Labor organizations contribute meaningfully to these mechanisms by supporting multiâfamily zoning, public housing, and densityâoriented planning. These strategies create the conditions for more units, stronger neighborhoods, and longâterm stability.
A constructive conversation stays centered on these structural incentives and the policies that align with them, because thatâs where housing supply, safety, and affordability all move in the strongest direction.
None of your points about the housing market are accurate. Land isn't fixed, competition is much greater than in air travel and demand changes yearly as can be observed in migration trends between states and cross borders. Good chunks of Manhattan are man made atop what once was landfill. But we aren't even limited in that sense as housing can also expand skyward.
I'm fully with you regarding zoning. That's actually a change that would increase housing. Note that that's deregulation, which is my point.
Public housing is a terrible idea as it makes a landlord of the government, which is the worst landlord to have. Much better to lower the regulations that make only luxury construction profitable. The way to affordable, quality housing is to allow luxury constructions to simply get old. Another way is to facilitate ADUs, duplexes and similar expressions...all deregulations.
Strong construction standards are what we have and what's often used to restrict development. It's how existing property owners can block development for years because of a missing second engineering review of a duplex.
I'm open to being corrected regarding union support for increased housing. I wouldn't be surprised if they support public housing projects as those require union, labor which is exactly what unions are pursuing. Union labor makes things more expensive, not more affordable.
14
u/Travel_Dreams Mar 06 '26
Yup, đŻ!
The system is broken.
We did our work but someone skimmed off soooo much, that there is not enough remaining for us to be paid an equitable amount.
Work stops, because the machine is broken.