Manmoth

joined 5 years ago
[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

All you've done is move the point I'm arguing to the building process instead of renting.

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

They hire people to do that

This is why you don't get it. I spent my childhood cutting grass and repairing shit at a property owned by an elderly family member on a fixed income. We didn't have money to hire someone to do it and tons of people are in the same boat. We did it for free because it was the best thing for everyone involved including tenants who often stayed for years because it was a nice place to live. No one got rich off of that property believe me.

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You've resorted to name-calling in a way that is not only innaccurate but indicative of how hard you've thought about your argument.

I have no illusions about "wearing the boot" in fact I've already talked about the actual injustice that's causing pricing issues across the board. (e.g. avoidable macroeconomic factors) You're not proposing some revolutionary idea. 'Everyone should have a house man..' Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. You can disagree with me but don't bother unless you're going to explain yourself.

"Housing is a human right!"

Now what? Do you plant a house seed and grow a house? You can demand whatever you want but that doesn't mean you're going to get it. Even in a world of minimal scarcity the one thing that will always be at a premium is people's time and they usually they don't hustle unless there is something in it for them especially if they are tacking on a roof in the middle of July.

The reality is this non-renter economy idea is just going to move the cost elsewhere and those with the means are going to abuse it in even worse ways that you haven't thought of yet.

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I'm okay with some kinds (of making money with land)

Like what? There are infinite ways to make money with land that are more useless and exploitative to society than renting a house.

Yeah that's bullshit too (in regard to rich people owning acreage for enjoyment)

I'm glad you changed your mind.

Yeah that's bullshit too (in regard to a normal dude owning an investment property)

Why?! What's so morally reprehensible about someone working hard and being fiscally responsible to provide a service that people actually need as opposed to an ice cream shop or whatever? Do you realize someone has to actually build/maintain/renovate houses? Usually at great financial risk to themselves? The primary reason most houses exist is because someone took a personal risk in the hopes of coming out ahead from where they were originally. They can only charge what the market will bear after all.

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Why would I build a house if I can't make money on it?

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (6 children)

For doing dick all

Yeah because they just plucked the property off of a tree... people often work years and years to get enough for a property investment and it can take 30 years to pay it off. Throughout all that time they are responsible for maintenance, insurance and a litany of other things to keep it from falling into disrepair.

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (6 children)

To use it for a business

This is wealth extraction

Or enjoyment

So you're okay with some rich person owning acreage as long as it's for their own enjoyment but not for a normal dude who has an investment property and is holding out for a renter that will adequately cover his costs and generate some profit?

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I'm not a libertarian. Printing money, endless wars, corporate welfare, cronyism, ill-conceived laws and poor enforcement are very real MACRO (not individual) causes and you've not refuted them at all. These affect the price of EVERYTHING.

At the individual level homelessness can be fueled by all the things I mentioned. Some of those things are self inflicted and some are out of the control of the person. Either way there's nothing dehumanizing about stating facts.

I get the feeling in this thread that everyone thinks housing should be free which is... ridiculous... Nothing is free because everything has a cost. I agree, however, with the overall issue of corruption and exploitative wealth -- wealth that is often derived by anticompetitive, preferential treatment etc The average dude renting a house doesn't want to screw poor people they just want an alternative to a 401k so they can retire.

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (17 children)

Literally any other type of business

You've just eliminated perhaps the safest, most attainable method for the average person to achieve passive income.

Owning land for personal use

Other than living on it, why would someone want to own land?

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (5 children)

So, so many reasons...

At the individual level drugs are a HUGE reaaon, mental illness, poor care for veterans etc Although there is SOME government housing and charitable housing for people that need it.

At a macro level there is money printing, endless war, corporate welfare, cronyism etc

Let's face it though we could probably house everyone in Europe within South Dakota alone. Not to mention most homeless people are in extremely expensive areas like LA, Austin, Seattle and New York.

Passing an ill-conceived law that will have unintended consequences should be way, way low on the list of ways to lower housing prices. Especially since it's highly likely it won't be enforced properly.

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (7 children)

Because there is more than enough for everyone.

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (18 children)

So that people can decouple their time from their earning power.

view more: ‹ prev next ›