Is it normalizing? Or just pointing out how things are today?
It’s possible to describe reality without approving of it.
I don’t like that lakefront property is so expensive, but it surely is. I’ve been casually looking for years and I don’t know if I’ll ever afford it. And the headline is complaining about a shed selling for $225k when it’s pretty obviously the land and lakefront access that comes with it that is selling for that amount. The structure is a throw in and there’s a good chance whoever buys it simply demolishes it to build what they want.
Well it would be nice if people wouldn’t participate in the charade as a get rich scheme. Or if land had some kind of flat price or homes… That’d be nice.
But surely some land or homes have more desirable features? Should an acre of beautiful lakefront property command the same value as a dirt lot next to a dirty industrial park?
Either way, let’s say your idea for how land and homes should be valued is executable in the real world. I still don’t understand why acknowledging the way things are in reality as things stand right now is the same as normalizing it. Ignoring something doesn’t get it changed.
Why? Because it’s nicer to look at? Who’s deciding what’s nice to look at anyway? The dirt lot shouldn’t be near a dangerous industrial area to begin with. It’s just more of the same wealthy land owner maximizing profits at the risk of a poor person’s health.
Because shelter shouldn’t be a commodity. It shouldn’t be a form of financial growth or security. It’s a need, a requirement. Normalizing it as I’ve called it keeps shelter unavailable for some and a hindrance to others all to keep landlords rich. Talking about it as “just how it is” continues the cycle.
Is it normalizing? Or just pointing out how things are today?
It’s possible to describe reality without approving of it.
I don’t like that lakefront property is so expensive, but it surely is. I’ve been casually looking for years and I don’t know if I’ll ever afford it. And the headline is complaining about a shed selling for $225k when it’s pretty obviously the land and lakefront access that comes with it that is selling for that amount. The structure is a throw in and there’s a good chance whoever buys it simply demolishes it to build what they want.
Yes it’s normalizing it. You’re doing it in your comment talking about what’s obvious about the value.
So what is your contention? That people should just say that land doesn’t cost what it actually costs? I don’t understand.
Well it would be nice if people wouldn’t participate in the charade as a get rich scheme. Or if land had some kind of flat price or homes… That’d be nice.
But surely some land or homes have more desirable features? Should an acre of beautiful lakefront property command the same value as a dirt lot next to a dirty industrial park?
Either way, let’s say your idea for how land and homes should be valued is executable in the real world. I still don’t understand why acknowledging the way things are in reality as things stand right now is the same as normalizing it. Ignoring something doesn’t get it changed.
Why? Because it’s nicer to look at? Who’s deciding what’s nice to look at anyway? The dirt lot shouldn’t be near a dangerous industrial area to begin with. It’s just more of the same wealthy land owner maximizing profits at the risk of a poor person’s health.
Because shelter shouldn’t be a commodity. It shouldn’t be a form of financial growth or security. It’s a need, a requirement. Normalizing it as I’ve called it keeps shelter unavailable for some and a hindrance to others all to keep landlords rich. Talking about it as “just how it is” continues the cycle.
I don’t think this conversation is happening in good faith. I wish you the best.
I’m not sure what you mean by good faith, but ok