![](https://cdn.masto.host/liberalcity/accounts/avatars/109/977/044/754/622/069/original/5b7263b656d33218.jpeg)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/F97XyrIC0I.png)
@CrimeDad can I introduce you to Singapore with 80% owned housing units by government
Dad of two awesome kiddos. Lucky to be married to my best friend. Interested in interesting things: progressive politics/social democracy, infosec, Linux, organized labor, Yankees, NY Giants,Rick & Morty, Andor, CBS’ Ghosts, The Orville, cord cutting before it was cool (since 2012), The West Wing, The Wire. American by birth, citizen of the world by choice, progressive social democrat.
Formerly @TheSean before the Masthead.social instance disappeared
@CrimeDad can I introduce you to Singapore with 80% owned housing units by government
@CrimeDad @Coreidan I don’t believe this, but I will give it a go in trying to steelman this argument.
If landlords and real estate developers see a sector specific decrease in returns then they would decrease the capital in the sector and thus decrease the housing units made available for rent.
This theory ignores the real world where developers opted-out of low-income housing in favor of luxury real estate that either remains vacant or unoccupied while the owner uses it as value storage
@CrimeDad the low homelessness is due to the highest rate of public housing outside of self-identified socialist countries. The first several decades public housing was primarily for relocated squatters and shanty inhabitants, but since the 1980s they’ve promoted it for middle class and upper middle class improving the public housing stock.