Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
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 [email protected] or [email protected].
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 [email protected]. 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
view the rest of the comments
No, unless we separate housing from investment, it will never be affordable. I don't foresee the political will to make it happen.
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...
Still trying to understand how everything has to be crushed under capitalism. Food. Health care. Housing. Travel. It all there to spin up cash.
Can’t wait till they figure out how to monetize air 🫠
Saw this at a Walgreens last week.
These are really popular with people traveling to Colorado ski resorts and getting altitude sickness. They’re useful to grab to avoid getting sick and combating the symptoms if you do.
I remembered those existed and grabbed one when the gf was having a tough time fighting covid
It’s honestly fantastic that you can buy oxygen in stores. Imagine if you needed oxygen fast and had to wait for a doctor’s appointment.
There are actually medical edgecases for stuff like this where they can be quite useful. That being said, a lot of people definitely also seem to view it as merely monetary, as there are literal oxygen bars in Vegas.
My first thought was "I wonder how sturdy these cans are, and what provisions they have against puncture". Normally oxygen bottles are strong, and the oxygen is dissolved in a foam or something so it doesn't leak out as fast from a puncture.
In the healthcare space they already have. If the wild fires keep up, it won't be long before we have a Spaceballs or Lorax mogul in our midst.
Certain states such as Oregon (where I live) have acts in place regarding forests in general such as the FPA that should prevent the worst, or at least the destruction of forests whether imperatively or by wildfire, from happening.
However, when it comes to other places, I wouldn't even be surprised unfortunately. On the California state border on Highway 199 crossing from Oregon where it's mostly green, you see nothing but Redwoods burned and left in shambles for a few miles, it's gives off goosebumps seeing a natural sight in this awful condition, let alone a supposedly protected state park.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that it isn't capitalisim that is doing this. Blaming capitalism for fucking the 99% is like blaming science for inventing nuclear weapons. Capitalism is just the process. The focus is determined by key players. Frankly, I'd blame the availability of just about every industry in the stock market for what we are seeing. Companies used to be run by industry experts, who had a vested interest in their business being a sustainable long term asset that would provide wealth to their family for generations. Now, companies are run by "Line Go Up" CEOs appointed by a board of stock holders (mostly financial bros) who just want the stock to look real good before they sell it. There is no concern for the customer, workers, or the general populace beyond government mandated standards. All that matters is making money for people who couldn't care less or know less about the industry.
Capitalism didn't ruin food or housing. Capitalists did.
Where hexbear when you need them?
Actually the stuff with the freeest (is that a word? How is that spelled??) markets tends to be the easiest to get and cheapest.
Medicine has uncontrolled price explosion because it’s an incredibly tightly constrained market. Food tends to be plentiful and cheap because it’s not very tightly constrained.
Yes, food did jump in price in the past couple of years … because of massive market interference when the governments dumped huge amounts of currency into the world, with only the upper classes having access to that new cash (it was given to corporations and to stockholders, leaving the lower class to watch their money devalue with no offset).
Housing is another tightly constrained market. You practically need positive permission from government in order to build anything, and there are tons of local constraints on what can be built.
I’m thinking of Boulder as an example where housing prices are skyrocketing, and construction is limited to a certain number of floors.
Capitalism is based on free markets. Where free markets exist goods become cheap and plentiful. But we have a lot of markets that aren’t free, for various reasons.
Investment is exactly what we need. We need more people to see building housing as a good investment, in order to get more housing.
The only other option is forcing people at gunpoint to build housing, and that only works for a couple of months then backfires.
But keeping supply low is more profitable. There isnt going to be an expansion of housing without a change in the rules of the game.
Either you're being a parody or you fit the stereotype. If the latter, what went so wrong in your life to make you care that much about money?
Judging by their bio they are a parody account. At least I hope so
Lol
Ah yes, shall I remind you that not everyone is as fortunate as you are. And your arrogant and self entitled attitude doesn't help the picture. I pity individuals like you, who think so highly of themselves.
Maybe we, the apes who work from 9 to 5 should simply die so that there is no one to pay the rent for your shitty apartments or service them.
Do you think you will be at the same place if you were born in a ghetto or to parents who would not be able to provide you with education. There are plenty of smarter kids out there who are way more capable than you will ever be but they would never achieve their true potential because of lack of education, opportunities, parental support, social circle, place, country, etc.
But I guess self awareness is not your forte.
And if you really wanted to make a positive impact you would make your housing affordable but we all know that would never happen.
I have a chronic illness. I've spent vast amounts of time, energy and money managing that. But go on and look down on others. All the great philosophies in the world and you choose this. Your family has failed you horribly.
Mmmm, fresh pasta 🍝
Looks like Mr Smartwood’s plan worked!