I accept millionaires.
I've yet to see moral billionaires.
this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2025
897 points (99.1% liked)
Good News Everyone
1364 readers
1269 users here now
A place to post good news and prevent doom scrolling!
Rules for now:
- posts must link from a reliable news source
- no reposts
- paywalled articles must be made available
- avoid politics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yep, I've seen friends reach the seven figure area through steady seven day weeks and some luck picking their trade and finding industrial clients over a period of fifteen to twenty years. I have seen how little they slept and how kids were basically only possible because they were pretty self reliant from age 12 or 13 and helped a lot around the house. I have no idea how a human could possibly create a thousand times that value in their lifetime.
Damn, $200 sounds low, on the other hand 30% is a crazy share. I'm targeting 10-15% at most.
German here, 30% of income after taxes was the rule since a few decades, but in reality many people are closer to 50% now. How do you manage 15%?
EDIT: Oh, right, just saw the 8k income. That's C-Level money here.
It's a lot but certainly nowhere near C-level.
Wait what? Your rent is 10-15% of your income? What's that like in absolute numbers?
Closer to 9% right now, 700 USD vs. 8k income after tax. But I generally don't spend more than 1k regardless, it's a hard limit for me.
The thought of 700USD for housing just gave me a boner
Rent pricing is what the people should target first. Hard to fight the nutjobs when rent is so expensive
Simply approving more housing helps too https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/
My grandma lived in this trailer park for 40 years until she died. Pretty low overhead.
Based
If it was possible to build co-ops of these it'd be what I've been suggesting for like 9 years.
Look up "housing cooperative" in your area, there might actually be one, as there's a pretty substantial number of them scattered across many locations. My area has at least 10.
I have and there aren't any. Regardless they should be the standard, not the exception.
As for the residents of the houses, rent is kept at 30% of income, which means the large majority of residents pay a maximum of $200 — including all utilities and internet — every month.
How are they planning to sustain this long-term?
Surely, someone is paying for the difference. Unless I totally missed it from the article 🫣
He donated money to pay for the housing units, possibly the land. So that's probably all paid off. There are still taxes and utilities to pay for, which is probably where the rent is going.
This is just an educated guess though.
You're one of today's lucky 10,000! Landlords typically charge even more than the cost of building and maintaining the house, and then just pocket the rest as profit. It's bonkers!
It's why the tech millionaire financing this isn't a tech billionaire.
I get that he's financing it, but that's not sustainable if you want to implement something similar around the country.
I love the idea, and the tiny house village looks amazing! But if it relies on a millionaire to voluntarily subsidize the project, I can't see it lasting too long.
Now, that brings us to a wonderful new option: tax the rich more than we do.
The top 5 billionaires could fund 1000s of these tiny home villages with just a fraction of a percent increase on their hoarded wealth.
I love the idea, and the tiny house village looks amazing! But if it relies on a millionaire to voluntarily subsidize the project, I can't see it lasting too lang.
Which is why this needs to be a government task, and the rich shouldn't be begged for voluntary charity, they should be taxed.
Sure it is. You have to have government fund it, like a normal social democracy would do.
like a normal social democracy would do.
Any examples?
Public services don't need to be profitable to be sustainable. You just need to tax base to be okay with it.
Yeah, I don't want them to be profitable, but sustainable.
Even if taxpayers are paying for it, you can't rely on the (struggling) general population to lift people out of homelessness. Let the rich carry that burden. They are the ones who've hoarded money that should have gone to everyone else.
hoarded money that should have gone to everyone else
That's not how money works?
Yes, because hoarding billions means it was stolen from someone else. Either through low wages, low taxes, loopholes, or unethical business practices.
Nobody should ever be able to accumulate billions of dollars. We have people who will be trillionaires in our lifetime. Unjustifiable.
means it was stolen from someone else
No it isn't? Usually it just means owning stock in a company, that others want to buy.
These places are tiny at 240 square feet. There's not going to be much $$ tied up in them for material and utility costs can't possibly be that hught because the homes are so compact.
If each home cost $40k, which is probably generous, over 30 years that's $111/mo. Internet is probably a commercial line to the site and then a local network type setup. The real question is how much the land cost.
Rent might not cover everything 100%, but it would be close. It wouldn't surprise me if some money from the locality was involved since people living on the streets isn't free and simply providing housing can be a massive first step to getting people reintegrated back into society.
I would estimate their construction cost is closer to $100k CAD than $40k. Maybe somewhere in the middle. Construction costs can be very high for a tiny home, which is what these are. They are built on a trailer.
If each home cost $40k
"Lowest cost for a Canadian tiny home: $80,000 to $150,000" (SOURCE)
Yes, probably less if they are building them all themselves, but $80,000 seems to be the norm for temporary tiny homes. Uxbridge priced tiny homes made from trailer containers at $80,000, too.
I think they could be sustainable as far as electricity (solar) and even water and heating (propane), so that's not a bad thing.
But how is the land being paid for? Taxes? etc.
Every tiny home project I've heard about has these barriers that get in the way. What needs to change so we can build more of these, instead of single, detached homes with massive yards??
We need more of these!
There is no way you can't cut that 80k number in half if you're actually trying to build something with the goal of being affordable. Those are companies that are trying to make a manufactured home sound hot and trendy for profit, not an organization trying to make affordable housing.
I have done zero research, but that figure seems crazy. I could see it holding up if you were trying to build a single tiny home as each of the contractors will want to ensure a full day's worth of income. However, if you're build 100 units the piece cost should fall substantially. 240 square feet is truly tiny, so it should be pretty fast to assemble and wouldn't take much raw materials. One other possibility for keeping costs down is volunteer labor, similar to habitat for humanity. That type of model won't scale, but it can help keep prices low for a handful of jobs.
You would be surprised. There are a lot of fixed costs for building tiny homes, you have all of the appliances that need to be installed, trailer bed, plus framing, siding and roofing trades that need to happen.
Plus there is sitework, sewer, electrical water, and development fees.
Hopefully they got economies of scale to work here but they still can be a bit pricey.
Canada doesn't have the single family zoning problem that is prevalent in the US. Lots of Canadians live in high rise apartments.
This is proby a smaller community though.
I contribute to the OpenStreetMap project, and there are a lot of detached homes here. Some areas have like 20 homes in a space that could house thousands of people. It's pretty disgusting, actually.
We should be building up, and not contribute to sprawl.
But tiny homes are a great solution for keeping land space confined, while still offering functional homes in very little time.
Honestly when I see "tech millionaire" and "altruism" in the same article, I expect to seese seriously ghoulish shit.
I still have concerns around the long-term outcome - the land is ostensibly still privately held, and I assume the homes are as well. I'd like to
It said former, he sold his business 14 years ago and looks like he doesn't work in tech anymore.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I’m just glad it’s housing for the unhoused. In general, we shouldn’t compromise for any less than a normal standard of living for all. But, in absence of that we can’t wait around while people freeze and OD on the streets. As long as this doesn’t become normalized and is simply a step forward. Which is a very serious concern. But, this is a solution in that it’s a 1 not a 0, which is often how things play out irl - messy, and lots of compromises.
When I lived in germany full time, I would've loved to live in a tiny home, but germany would've rather put me on the street than allow a tiny home lmaoo.
That's the problem in a lot of the US too. We transitioned from building massive subdivisions of small/cheap homes to smalle subdivisions of larger/more expensive housing. This is due to a mix of zoning that favors single family detached housing, land availability, and consumer tastes.
Homes have drastically grown in size over the past 200 years while the number of people living in them has decreased. Not to mention nicer material, which also contributes to cost. No more "builder grade" cabinets and formica counters these days.
Imagine if the public sector did this and didn't limit it to a single development.
We could even build bigger-than-tiny sized units. Maybe include additional amenities like schools and health clinics and food malls in the immediate vicinity. Throw in a rail stop so people can get to the metro center easily. You know... actual urban development.
No idea where we could get money for that, though. Maybe if Canada didn't exempt 50% of capital gains income from taxation for some reason... But no, that would never work.
My city built a bunch of these, but they are 10 ft x 10 ft pods. Hundreds of them. We still have 5-6,000 homeless living on the street. Our county has been handing out free tents for 8 years and guess what, didn't help.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›