this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
1234 points (84.7% liked)
Memes
45647 readers
1366 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
Even communism aside, this is actually not uncommon. One of the advances we've made in construction is knowing how to save even more money, making the right sacrifices and meeting the minimum bars of code compliance, to maximize our margins.
I don't know how you say this unironically as criticism. That's arguably one of the biggest advantages people claim capitalism has: managing finite resources. It's not a good thing to waste manpower and resources for no real gain.
What gain? More profits for the ultra rich? A dying planet?
People living in comfortable apartments is no real gain in capitalism because it means less ROI. But it is a huge gain to everyone's quality of life if they can live comfortably.
Market mechanisms are very powerful in optimising resource allocation - but they aren't optimising for maximum quality of life, they're optimising for maximum ROI. Which lands in the pockets of the ultra rich, which then allocate the accumulated capital in only those endeavours providing maximum ROI, and the cycle goes on and on until so much wealth is extracted from society that the middle class collapses and the planet dies - and the ultra rich with them, for they depend upon the plebes to work for them in order to have an ultra rich lifestyle in the first place.
I mean if we were trying to house people we should be aiming for inexpensive and non-wasteful building choices, shouldn't we? When we're handling basic human needs we send boats full of rice and beans, not a bunch of badass chefs.
Why not? Why not let people have nice things?
I mean it's kind of a scarcity thing. Resources aren't infinite. I have no problem with letting people have nice things and would certainly want minimums to be pretty decent, but when you're getting people off the street or something then efficiency means lives saved.
I agree!
Did you know that in the USA more buildings are vacant than there are homeless people? So the amount of housing that needs to be built is exactly zero. It' s not an amount of resources problem, it's an allocation of resources problem.
It is still a resource problem. There's a reason NIMBYs exist. Homeless populations have substance, legal and mental issues. The property is pretty much a write off the moment you hand it over.
This is probably where we'll disagree: I believe that all people living in a humane way is more important than investors' real estate portfolio valuation.
I wasn't even talking about investors or the homeowners you'd plan to confiscate from. I was talking about turning neighborhoods into slums overnight. Pest infestation and drug use.
Again, there are more vacant homes than homeless. It's not taking away people's homes. Homes where people actually live in, I mean. Most real estate investments, the owner hasn't visited once in years.
And you'd be surprised at how much people improve once they have stable housing. Finland has had a "housing first, no conditions" programme for a while now with very impressive results.
Obviously people will initially be afraid of "bad people" coming to their neighbourhood. I understand this. But I believe their feelings of discomfort are less important than the immense suffering of the homeless.
Would you seriously place property valuations as more important than humanity and human dignity?
copium
We have all the money in the world. We have more than enough homes to house people, right now. We have an abundance of housing, of resources to build more housing, of everything. What we do not have is a distribution that allows people who need housing to get it. Instead we have a literal Spiders Georg situation where a tiny fraction of the country each own hundreds of homes they don't live in or even have any intention of living in. This situation is deranged.
Alright, then show the numbers. Let's ignore that seizing all that property will go super well. I know, you want people that own more than one house dead, so even include it as double the free housing. Figure out how much it costs to upkeep rental properties. Double it, maybe more, for people that literally don't give a fuck about it. Add costs for policing the shit.
Seizure won't fix it.
The math has already been done. I'm not your high school teacher. Go look up, ex, housing co-ops for a relatively inoffensive example.
I'm not of the opinion that people with more than one house should be killed, but people who own a thousand? People who own houses they will never live in and have no intention of ever living in? Those people are parasites.
And you can talk about upkeep all you like but who's paying for they upkeep now? Not the landlords, that's for sure. Oh don't get me wrong, they're managing the upkeep and it's coming out of their account but all that money? The money is all coming from the tenants. The people living there are already paying the upkeep.
It's also an absolute joke to try to characterize landlords as being interested in maintaining property any more than is absolutely necessary when they're, as a class of person, categorically infamous for being cheap bastards who refuse to make any improvements or even do basic maintenance because it would cost them money. "Sure the heat may be out and the place may be drafty and the freezer may not freeze and the whole place may be infested with vermin but if we didn't keep paying the landlords for all this decadence the poor people would ruin it!"
They literally sacrificed quality and safety to maximize profits and you call that good? Come on... You're being too biased.
That's literally not what I said.
You called the thing I criticized "one of the biggest advantages".
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Yeahhhhh...
An apartment complex went up outside my work and it's made of wood. That's against fire safety code but they found some creative work arounds to convince the inspectors it was legal. (And of course the inspections are all toadies who have been put in place to rubber stamp developer plans.) Very efficient until it burns down and kills everyone inside.
So it doesn't actually meet minimum standards?
It meets the law but it sure as hell doesn't meet the safety.
Laws usually follow industry standard safety guidelines.
That’s naïve
No, it's not capitalism, this is definition of economy itself. Which by the way includes communism.
Por que no los dos?
It's something capitalists claim. Communism claims to distribute things equitably and they have to fight over efficiency. Capitalism is the opposite.
No, communism claims to distribute things fair.
Same does any other economic system, but define efficiency differently.
Fair on both counts.