In some areas, that probably means lowering standards on dimensions that people don’t care about too much, but that have previously been highly regulated by those trying to “outlaw” poverty in order to keep crime away from themselves (e.g. room size minimums, zoning, etc.)
Why? I would expect the opposite. Government standards become more important when the government pays for the goods then when private actors pay for the goods.
I agree with your point in general. In these cases, I’m specifically focusing on regulations for issues that evaporate with central coordination:
- Government is doing the central coordinating, so overriding zoning shouldn’t result in uncoordinated planning: gov will also incur the related infrastructure costs. - If you relax zoning and room size minimums everywhere, the minimum cost to live everywhere decreases, so no particular spot becomes disproportionately vulnerable to concentrating the negative externalities of poverty while simultaneously you decrease housing cost based poverty everywhere.
Why? I would expect the opposite. Government standards become more important when the government pays for the goods then when private actors pay for the goods.
I agree with your point in general. In these cases, I’m specifically focusing on regulations for issues that evaporate with central coordination:
- Government is doing the central coordinating, so overriding zoning shouldn’t result in uncoordinated planning: gov will also incur the related infrastructure costs.
- If you relax zoning and room size minimums everywhere, the minimum cost to live everywhere decreases, so no particular spot becomes disproportionately vulnerable to concentrating the negative externalities of poverty while simultaneously you decrease housing cost based poverty everywhere.