462
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
462 points (96.8% liked)
Ask Lemmy
27008 readers
801 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is the biggest issue right here. Houses weren't always investments and making them investments was a terrible idea that's now difficult to fix.
Real estate has become a huge part of stock market and GDP figures. People's retirement funds have become other people's mortgage and rent payments. Affordable houses for some would mean economic decline for others, and no political party wants to create economic decline.
Maybe, but really the issue is construction of new houses. Cities are much cleaner now so people want to live in them. They used to be filled with factory smoke and animal feces.
Yes, more than now. No I don't care that you saw some poop yesterday. The streets were literally caked with horse poop. You wouldn't even notice dog poop.
And most jobs used to be physical, so the average person would have some experience in carpentry. If houses were too expensive, you would find a friend or relative with some expertise and build something yourself. So houses outside the city were cheap because you could build new ones, and houses inside the city sucked (and were cheap).
Part of high housing cost is due to the investment mindset and housing speculation. However, another part of high housing cost is that other people did put in the work to raise its value. Want to live in a clean, convenient neighborhood? Someone kept the place clean. Many businesses set up shop in the area to make it convenient to buy things and get things done. Certain passionate chef set up a wonderful restaurant so that you can just come by and enjoy good food. Some group of people, leader, or politician put in the political maneuverings that got certain ordinances passed or raised the bonds or taxes to build the public transportation. So over time as people continue to invest time, effort, labor to improve an area, it should be expected that the area becomes more expensive (and desirable).
And it's a flawless design if you ask me.
"no political party wants to create economic decline."
I'm afraid I have to disagree.
Yeah economic decline is actually being sold as the solution to global warming. It’s called “cutting back” but really it means making everyone poorer.
Ah yes, because building renewable energy generation, electric vehicles, fortifying the electric grid, repurposing and developing land formerly used for mining and fracking... All things that happen for free.
The solution for global warming has never been "use less than you need" it's always been "use what you have better".
How about using what we want? Is that part of the plan? Or is it only what we need?
You're out of your mind. You're saying no profit of any kind is possible unless we exploit people forced to rent?
I know that's not 100% what you're saying, but that's how it comes across...