# squatting the planet and macroeconomics



## CXR1037 (Feb 20, 2013)

So macroeconomic policy (at least here in the US) has two goals: 1.) price stability, and 2.) full employment. 

A strong part of MMT economics is the job guarantee program, which would ensure a job with a living wage to every unemployed person who wanted it. Thinking back to "No Trespassing" by Anders Corr, I've recently been thinking about how the homeless, as well as society in general, could benefit from this: employing homeless to "squat" in abandoned buildings and renovate them, perhaps even turning them into something productive for society (rehabs, community creative spaces, mini-malls, whatever). 

Paying them would stimulate local economies, and getting them off the streets would remove "eye-sores" to the general public. I imagine this would have a positive effect on property values, as well (less run down properties, less people on the streets). Further, with paychecks, less money would be spent federally on welfare programs. 

This might be a long shot, but does anyone have any research on this topic? I have the aforementioned Corr book, which I hope to revisit soon, but I was wondering if any of you punx rawkerz had any academic papers/studies/etc on the positive effects of squatting, employing the homeless, or anything you can think of that might be related. Personal opinions are cool, too, but I'm looking to write a paper on this and would like credible sources. 

cxR - boredom in between classes leads me to research stuff


----------



## Matt Derrick (Feb 20, 2013)

hmm, i don't have anything specific along the lines that you're requesting, but thanks for mentioning the book, i'll check it out!


----------



## spoorprint (Feb 20, 2013)

The closest I've heard to what you are discussing were "sweat equity" programs in Philidelphia and (I bieleve) New York in the 1980's. People weren't paid to squat and improve buildings but got ownership for a minamum payment plus the value of the work they put into it.


----------



## Ekstasis (Feb 20, 2013)

Would anything from FDR and any of the New Deal programs have any information you are looking for? He started a lot of the welfare programs, HUD. I think they started around 1933. Look up New Deal Programs on wiki and then find a real source from whatever program you like. I had to look up the year that FDR was elected. 

There would be so many complications to allow this. You'd need landowners permission, who would fund this, who would supervise and train the squatters, need code inspectors, what would they be paid, that would lower wages for regular construction workers, also unskilled workers working with power tools and liability. People selling tools to pawn shops or stealing them for personal use at their house.

You can't have people living in what the government deems unsafe conditions. 

Maybe I gave you some leads for your paper.


----------



## Ekstasis (Feb 20, 2013)

Would anything from FDR and any of the New Deal programs have any information you are looking for? He started a lot of the welfare programs, HUD. I think they started around 1933. Look up New Deal Programs on wiki and then find a real source from whatever program you like. I had to look up the year that FDR was elected. 

There would be so many complications to allow this. You'd need landowners permission, who would fund this, who would supervise and train the squatters, need code inspectors, what would they be paid, that would lower wages for regular construction workers, also unskilled workers working with power tools and liability. People selling tools to pawn shops or stealing them for personal use at their house.

You can't have people living in what the government deems unsafe conditions. 

Maybe I gave you some leads for your paper.


----------



## spoorprint (Feb 20, 2013)

Around here, Wheeling and Youngstown have been seizing and demolishing neglected properties, so ownership might not always be an issue. Safety certainly could be.

What troubles me is the ethical difference between someone's home lost to foreclosre or back taxes vs. a building that was part of some large corporate holding, and maybe kept off the market because prices where low.I think we should fight foreclosures first.


----------



## Fishkiss (Feb 21, 2013)

Maybe look into Fireweed universe city and other Detroit projects.its not exactly what your looking for but it is squatters taking over abandoned houses and trying to give back to the community.Technically they will be paid from the crops from there urban gardens


----------



## CXR1037 (Feb 21, 2013)

A couple quick thoughts: 




> There would be so many complications to allow this. You'd need landowners permission, who would fund this, who would supervise and train the squatters, need code inspectors, what would they be paid, that would lower wages for regular construction workers, also unskilled workers working with power tools and liability. People selling tools to pawn shops or stealing them for personal use at their house.


 
Permission would be tough to overcome. I think perhaps legislation should be enacted (does it exist already?) that you can't just abandon your property or leave it derelict. I know that if people in my neighborhood leave a bunch of trash on their lawn, they get citations from the city for basically being an eye sore. Unfortunately this would surely be a one-way ticket to "big government tellin' me what to do with my property!!!" arguments.

The funding could be all federal government, as they aren't limited by the amount of money they can spend, especially now with all the idle workers/capacity laying around.

Supervision and training could probably just be usual supervisors? I've seen a few homeless people in Labor Readys. Basic housework doesn't seem too difficult. Code inspectors could come, as well. I'm not really envisioning just giving squatters an abandoned building and a truck full of tools and saying, "have fun!". I was thinking more of integrating them with professional construction crews, or training them as one.

Alternately, maybe the government could buy the property from the original owner. Then, ideally, the government would pay a pro construction crew to renovate it to living conditions, pay a code inspector to give it the okay or not, let homeless people live there and pay them to do some basic service (trash collection, easy manufacturing, day labor, whatever), pay a security guard or two to make sure the house doesn't become chaotic, pay drug rehab professionals to help the addicts get clean...

Thoughts? 




> What troubles me is the ethical difference between someone's home lost to foreclosre or back taxes vs. a building that was part of some large corporate holding, and maybe kept off the market because prices where low.I think we should fight foreclosures first.


 
This weighs on me because my mom lost her house. There's still a visceral connection to that place, but it would make me feel better to see it as a place where people in need could go to potentially get better than what actually happened to it: some company bought it and flipped it for a huge profit. 


cxR - pragmatic dilemmas


----------

