• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    Except they aren’t actually occupying the pool, just gatekeeping it. They still have to find tenants in order to actually make money.

    In other words, the real problem – the only reason they can charge exploitatively high rents in the first place, the outsize profits from which is fueling the buying spree – is lack of supply in places people want to live. As fun as scapegoating landlords is, it doesn’t actually fix anything. The way to actually solve the problem is to allow denser zoning!

      • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think the key is to tax the absolute dog shit out of houses after your first or second. A company can own a house but unless the company lives there, tax the dog shit out of it.

        Make it so that houses are reasonable for people to own and live in but speculators are out here subsidizing all our schools, parks, and roads.

        • Delphia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Sliding scale makes more sense. I dont object to a person owning a couple of apartments or houses as investments (as long as they actually landlord ethically) but once you’re a person making more than a “good living” off the rental income then ratchet up the tax sharply.

          The reason I say that is 2 fold.

          1. Investors drive a lot of new development, someone has to buy the land and pay for the house to be built and not a lot of people can afford to rent and pay a mortgage for the 12 to 18 months it takes, you need people building houses for people to buy completed. Its either going to be mom and pop investors or property developers.

          2. Realestate is about the best investment regular folks can make. If you have worked hard, gotten lucky, had a demand job… whatever. Its realestate, stock market or just shove it in the bank and get diddly in interest. Im all for “people” doing well by owning half a dozen apartments as opposed to corporations buying up whole subdivisions.

          • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            I ain’t mad at that idea either. And now I’m drunk enough not to have any arguments about much of anything.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I’d love to see that happen, both because (a) fuck speculators, and (b) being able to say “told you so!” when it still doesn’t result in housing that’s affordable because the real problem is still simply high-demand areas not being allowed to have enough supply.

          • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            If high demand areas don’t end up more affordable, you can absolutely say that. But if they do you have to come back here and tell me I’m the prettiest drunk you know.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Well, they could certainly try, fail, and go bankrupt when the rents and values collapse. (If that’s not the result, it just means you need to densify the zoning even harder.)

        • gimpchrist @lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          So everybody has to live toe-toe like God damn sardines because these people are too greedy? Sounds so great.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            No, everybody has to live toe-toe because they all want to live in the same place. The ‘landbastards’ are ultimately just red herrings that have nothing to do with it.

        • exocrinous@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Bruh, people are making money on Bitcoins and nfts. Speculative investments don’t need to have any tangible value to be profitable. It doesn’t matter that there’s more houses than anyone could ever live in. It’s a tulip panic, actual value is irrelevant.

    • exocrinous@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Let’s kill two birds with one stone by having a communist revolution. Boom, no more hoarding empty houses for profit, and the government which now serves the people instead of Capital can build more houses. Ideally according to sensible neighbourhood planning.

    • Landless2029@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      That only causes you to lose your security deposit and then rent goes up after they send in some sketchy fuck to do an inspection while you’re not home.

    • fidodo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      I feel like calling it capitalism gives it too much credit. The arguments in favor of capitalism is that competition increases efficiency and production and lowers prices. That’s not happening with the real estate market, it’s full of monopolies, collusion and trust and to actually allow for capitalism you need government intervention to break that up and fight the consolidation of wealth and power. What we have is a mercantile plutocracy. Capitalism has its own problems too, but this isn’t even that, and even with those problems it’s a step up from the corrupt bullshit we’re dealing with here. I think calling it capitalism gives them more footing in arguments than it deserves. We should call it what it is, a corrupt plutocracy of elites.

      • penquin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Corruption and all the bad things you’ve mentioned are capitalism’s fuel. Capitalism doesn’t work without being horrible. That’s just how it is. The pursuit of infinite profit in a finite medium is just impossible, so capitalism resorts to shitty practices and fucking people’s lives to keep the profits coming. Until the bubble bursts and all the peasants are more fucked and the rich are ok. There is no way around. I called it capitalism because capitalism is horrible.

      • exocrinous@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        The arguments in favor of capitalism is that competition increases efficiency and production and lowers prices.

        Yeah, but those arguments are false. Competition is owning an empty house while people freeze to death on the street, because it’s “competitive”. Cooperation is how you design a productive society. Competition is how you kill an economy.