this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
1358 points (87.1% liked)

Memes

45730 readers
1161 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] joao@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Shame they're in no position to buy, I wonder if they would be if people or corporations weren't allowed to own a "few" rentals. Or if reducing the pressure on the market brought by people or corporations who own a "few" rentals would at least make it easier for them to rent in the first place since other people who have to rent would be buying instead.

[–] socsa@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There would just be less housing. Construction workers are workers too, and as much as it sucks, they aren't going to put $50k of their own labor and materials at risk so that a person living paycheck to paycheck can own a home, regardless of how noble that pursuit might be.

I also support radical action to end housing shortages and homelessness, and believe secure housing is a fundamental human right. If the government wanted to buy my properties at cost, using my own tax dollars, and gift them to those in need, I would support that. If they wanted to turn my current home into high density housing, I would support that. I am doing many things on my own, both through advocacy and direct action to address the real moral problem of housing. Unfortunately, I have no interest in being a smug slacktivist, so it often seems like lemmy doesn't have any interest in my ideas.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not everyone wants to own and it can even be profitable not to... It's like if the anti landlord movement wants to force ownership on everyone...

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Obviously not. The "movement" wants to remove profit intensives from the whole process

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

So landlords should rent for the price of their mortgage only? What about when they're done paying their mortgage, they should rent for free and take a risk that the person "renting" the place will damage it and the landlord then has to pay for the damage? What's the incentive to rent then? Wouldn't that create more scarcity? What about if they're on a mortgage with variable rate, should the rent price vary every few months?