161–170 of 764 posts
>a basic human right You do not have a basic human right to the labor of the people who build and maintain these houses. This is where this entire discussion collapses for me. Yes, I agree there needs to be more access to housing. And it’s frustrating to me that our government is too inept to simply provide it. For instance: we have committed to about 45 Billion to Ukraine. At a cost of $100k/unit (achievable at scal…
I already posted a comment on this, but forgot to answer the actual question. I don’t think it follows that it’s wrong to commoditize basic necessities. Take, for example, food: the reason just about everyone in the western world can afford food is BECAUSE it is commoditized. I would like the barriers to home ownership to be lowered. On the other hand, I don’t think the rental market is evil. A lot of people can’t af…
The western world gets cheap food because it exploits the labor and resources of the less fourtunate. Real estate investment is a direct example of wealth concentration. The less wealthy pay a richer individuals rent plus a little profit on top. That person should be able to buy the dwelling directly without a middleman extracting profit.
Nowadays they're paid well, and that is reflected in the cost to build.
Folks wanting to go back to cheap housing are arguing to reduce the compensation for builders.
Yes. The commons morally shouldn't be owned by anyone. They can own the building on top of the commons, because they built it, but not the commons (land) itself, which they had no role in creating. If we want to invent the concept of land ownership, then people should pay rent to society for the privilege of monopolizing a slice of the commons (and the privilege of soaking up a larger proportion of the benefit of pub…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you propose we would — systematically — provide housing to people who, for whatever reason, are not in a position to buy? Should housing be bifurcated into government-provided housing for renters and privately-owned housing for those fortunate enough to have the money and stability to buy? Would you like to live in government housing, or would you prefer to keep the investor-owned rental option, but have them…
>How do you propose we would — systematically — provide housing to people who, for whatever reason, are not in a position to buy? Should housing be bifurcated into government-provided housing for renters and privately-owned housing for those fortunate enough to have the money and stability to buy? So...council estates? Subsidized housing is a thing we have. >realize that property rentals are a necessary service that…
Without the profit incentive, what developer would build a multi unit apartment building to achieve higher density living in cities?
I think this is blatantly unethical, but also stupid. By creating a speculative bubble fueled by low interest and moderate to high inflation, these people will put themselves upside down in their holdings. Meanwhile this drives up homelessness (plenty of tent cities popped up near me as rents and housing prices skyrocketed) which will drive political instability and increase crime as people become desperate. Edit: on…
I agree about the housing speculation, but I challenge the (oft-repeated) assertion that this has caused homelessness. If you could afford to pay SOME rent in an area that got more expensive, then you can move to a less-expensive area and pay the same rent.
I definitely do. It's something that turns a basic necessity into a speculative asset, with a price distorted by the money poured into it. Airbnb is also a deeply harmful influence on housing prices. Imagine if we did the same thing with, say, water: privatized it and then "democratized" ownership of it. It's easy to get retail investors to buy things at inflated, speculative prices, so the price of water would go up…
Don't like almond farms, bottled water companies pumping millions of gallons for the price of a $200 permit, and golf courses watering their courses during a drought? Then you should too.
>a basic human right You do not have a basic human right to the labor of the people who build and maintain these houses. This is where this entire discussion collapses for me. Yes, I agree there needs to be more access to housing. And it’s frustrating to me that our government is too inept to simply provide it. For instance: we have committed to about 45 Billion to Ukraine. At a cost of $100k/unit (achievable at scal…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US housing market is regulated and subsidised…the American dream of owning a home is socialist…US mortgages are guaranteed by federal government.. this doesn’t happen in most other countries..
It’s not really socialist at all. It’s in the governments best interest to have owners of properties. This leads to improvements making the capitalization of the country larger. It also develops more property tax capability. A governments 2 main assets are its people and its land. Ensuring that people have ownership of the land ensures the people will continue to support the government as there’s mutual interest. So…
In a free, capitalist market, private providers would price and provide mortgages. This is not happening here..
For some Americans this may be difficult to digest since there may be cognitive dissonance…how can an American ideal be characterised as socialist.
Yes. The commons morally shouldn't be owned by anyone. They can own the building on top of the commons, because they built it, but not the commons (land) itself, which they had no role in creating. If we want to invent the concept of land ownership, then people should pay rent to society for the privilege of monopolizing a slice of the commons (and the privilege of soaking up a larger proportion of the benefit of pub…
We do - it’s called property tax. How do you think local police, firefighters, schools, parks, services are funded? By land taxes.
I'd just add that a property tax isn't that, because it also taxes the building.