• ssboomman
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not sure why you’re being so heavily downvoted, it’s true. Landlords, due to their position in society benifit from high poverty, less rent control, etc. Working class people want the exact opposite. It’s a clear and obvious dielectic contradiction

    • WarmSoda
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Where are you going to live if you can’t buy a house?

        • WarmSoda
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ok I hear you. Like you would buy the bottom or top floor.

          Same question though, what happens if you don’t have enough money up front to buy a unit?

          • Anamnesis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Seems like a simple solution here: tax and redistribute money to pay for social housing to be built by the government, subsidizing people’s housing.

      • LesserAbe@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s the issue - do we want people to be homeless? No. So we should proactively fix the situation and build social housing, implement rent control and limits on non occupied structures.

        Even setting aside love and empathy, it’s to the benefit of society for people to be productive, which is hard when you’re scrambling just to meet basic needs. And the cost of homelessness on society (shelters, emergency medical care, crime) outweighs the cost of providing permanent shelter. There have been studies.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, but land free for the taking is not part of that argument, and is naive at best

          • LesserAbe@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not about “give me free land” it’s “resources were distributed before I existed.”

      • ssboomman
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Funny you say that, since the reason why houses are so expensive is because landlords are buying all of them to rent, and creating artificial scarcity which drives up the price. They create a problem where the only solution is to pay them.

        Without landlords, worst case, housing would be far more inexpensive. Best case we could even make them free, and start treating housing like a human right and fundamental need.

        • rchive
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          One separate reason housing is expensive in the US, at least, is that most jurisdictions make it very hard to build new housing. Law of supply, if supply goes down, price goes up, if supply goes up, price goes down. Supply hasn’t been allowed to increase much for the last few decades, therefore price goes up. If we could double the amount of housing over night, it wouldn’t matter how much landlords wanted to buy everything up, they wouldn’t be able to keep up.

          • ssboomman
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            We already have more than enough housing to give everyone a home, and have some left over. Landlords are causing an artificial scarcity.