You must log in or register to comment.
THATS UNIRONICALLY BETTER THAN OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT
While I like the thought, still terribly bad in my opinion. Presidents should never have a say in any of that. That’s where we have fooled most of America. Legislation can make such a law and then the president can execute it by arresting those who do not follow the law that was made.
The president is a local cop and international diplomat. Locally they should do nothing that is not previously written by Congress and Passed the Senate and then signed (or not signed) by them or previous office holders.
International diplomat means they also cannot declare war and cannot make trade rules. They are a spokesperson.
If I were President I would follow the constitution and the amendments made thereafter. I would never want to be president, but if I ran I would focus my campaign on educating the populous on what the job is supposed to be, and who the members in their communities/cities/county/state are that they should be pushing for to do great things for them.
I would cheer for them to elect legislatives who will write thorough adaptable bills that can help their constituents and keep a platform along the lines of “Presidents don’t make laws, Vote for good people who will write good legislation for your community, and please don’t make me have to perform a job that hurts our people. America’s governing is decided by your representatives”
if i were president i would do a billion executive orders and try to resign from the UN security council because we clearly don’t deserve that veto power
Just do me the favor of starting with the first, or maybe just dissolving the security councils veto power, and keeping the UN together. I think many of us overlook what knowledge diplomats do learn of struggles in countries most citizens could never name, and some they can because our information is often localized. Maybe make a U.S. funded broadcasting nationally of their meetings with a council local and abroad mixed that give their briefings and present the views.
I don’t think you could ever get the Security Council to dissolve itself. The only reason the UN was able to get off the ground is the veto, the great powers wouldn’t have joined otherwise.
But our permanent seat. That veto. That’s ostensibly under our control. And it shouldn.t. We suck. We use it so much crap like. Gone. I want it gone. Give it up.
I fear you forget who the rest are and what they use it for. Are we terrible, yes. Would the world be better off if we didn’t have it… Maybe. The vacuum it would create without disolving it completely would be treacherous. It gives us no right to use it. But it doesn’t mean there won’t be bad actors other than us that do. We have examples currently ongoing
there’s like 10 non-permanent seats on the council, flipping one of the forever-seats to temporary isn’t gonna create a vaccuuummeee
A vacuum forms when you, say, disolve the whol dam thing
When China Russia Iran and India are motivated in the same path, which of those seats do you think can disincentivize them. I’m not saying the U.S. should have veto power, I agree… But logistically, when China does well by manipulating Russia into smattering their children over eastern Europe and depleting economic wealth as well as all of their offspring suffering for both Europe and Russia, what do you see as a viable way to make them feel checked in a way that stunts such.
I should say, no I don’t think China is behind all of this in some conspiracy or some shit. But the powers of large economies and populations will always be pushing at each other demanding more so long as Capitalism is the center of our world. The U.S., China, India, E.U. (hate to lump them) all have agreed that capitalism is the choice for them.
This is why we battle for what seems like nothingness so often. Power. The reason so many nations didnt shift to renewable resources earlier was because of pressures from “super powers”.
Solar power won’t run out before humanity does. Nuclear energy won’t run out before humanity does. Geothermal energy won’t run out before humanity does. Wind might, but that’s because we keep fighting over land to assert dominance.
We are hitting a revolution where energy dependence should never be an issue again. Transportation, heating, cooling, cooking whatever it may be. And global powers have fought it tooth and nail because when someone has a home with heat, cooling, food, transportation for cheap… They don’t have to answer to power unless it can break everyone else who has it around them as well. The rich right now compared to the middle class SHOULD be, the cost of their fancy coat, but both coats can insulate the same. Power fears happiness within “scarcity” and our scarcity should be enough to make people happy, so they create artificial scarcity and have to drive people to homelessness and other issues to make sure we are still scared.
Fear drives capitalism (edit: which by the way, should define it as terrorism last I checked).
Maybe that’s why it’s so hard to understand the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. They are all coming from terrorism trying to gain freedoms manipulated by the fear intentionally driven into them)
Well I guess he could gather an army and open the portal to earth from hell?
No one who owns a home would vote for them. It’s not in their self interest, if they spent 300k on a house and this happened, they would lose ~300k. Not worth it at all. A much better idea would be to just have tax breaks for contractors making new homes, that would lower the value of everyone else’s homes, but by a lot less.
Housing should not be an investment. They didn’t lose anything except speculated value which comes at the cost of locking others out from the ability to own their own home. In fact, those morons who care so much about “muh investment” are also costing themselves through higher property taxes and ridiculous house prices they’d have to face if they ever have to move.
There are quite a few people who say they wouldn’t be able to afford the house they have now if they had to finance it at today’s prices and interest rates. How can they realize the capital gains on such an “investment” if they don’t own more than one home? They still have to live somewhere.
When housing is not an investment, you have far less incentive to improve or maintain the land you are on because you don’t own it and whatever you do may be met with hostility.
I think the problem isn’t with home ownership, it’s with unaffordability perpetuated by private equity and how our culture doesn’t see property ownership as a human right but instead as a privilege.
If we made residential property ownership illegal for businesses and limited individual property ownership to say, 5 properties, we’d all be better off. Rich people should be free to own places but they shouldn’t be able to profit off of it so much they choke out the middle class and play fucking monopoly with everyone’s lives.
Removing speculation from the housing market doesn’t remove ownership.
limited individual property ownership to say, 5 properties
fine, but taxes kick in on the second and get exponentially larger with each one
You need to consider that people need somewhere to live. So, if your only house doubles in value, you generally can’t make use of this fact to get more goods and/or services, since every other house has likely also doubled in value. The only way you can get to these gains is if you’re willing to trade down in some way. For example, you could move to a rural area, where housing is cheaper, or you could move into a smaller home. If you’re unwilling to do any those things, your house becoming more valuable is not that useful. (Unless of course the increase in value is due to the land your house is on getting better in some way. This only concerns cases were your house gets more valuable due to increasing scarcity). In fact, since property taxes exists, you might end up getting priced out of your own house.
Eh, I’d go for it. This whole country thing isn’t about my personal gain, but making life better for everyone.
I get why they would lose money, but in my head it’s still like you still have a home still so why should they care.
Lots of people buy homes as an investment, its not only large corporations that do this, and if someone bought a home expecting that when they sell it they will get most of their money back, or even a profit on it, they would really be harmed by a government guaranteeing effectively free housing for all. If you want such a world to exist, it can’t be done instantly for sure
Profit or loss on real estate speculation should no more guide government policy than profit or loss on soy futures or baseball card investments. You want to use housing as an investment, you have to accept risk like any other investment.
Homeowners already are subsidized with mortgage interest and real estate tax deductions, something renters do not benefit from. Government housing policy should be crafted to support strong, stable, healthy communities.
Homes as an investment is what should be illegal. If you want to invest in real estate it should be commercial only.
you leave individuals who own up to, say, 3 houses alone and start massively taxing anything further. 4+ house voting bloc can suck a dick. corporations will be forced to rent at obscenely low rates to the point that they will be stupid not to sell. they have a minimum tenant percentage to make sure they’re not hoarding, and have mandatory government evaluation for any sale. fail to do any of this for 60 days and your properties now belong to the people.
Oh I’m sure those contractors would pass those breaks on and not just pocket the savings /s
This is effectively the same as the government paying some of the cost of making houses. Meaning that if they make more houses, they get ‘paid’ by the government, by paying less taxes. They pocket the savings because that is what the government gave to incentivize them making more homes.
How does that lower the cost of homes though?
Edit: to be clear, I mean the cost to the buyer, not the builder.
No no, if they force my loan to be 100$ they’re just going to increase interest 10,000 to get to that 300k lol
Like the stock market losing trillions? That kind of economic crisis?
The entirety of the U.S. could be housed for maybe $3 trillion dollars. Since Trump took office the market has taken an $11 trillion dollar loss. We could have housed everyone with free rent/mortgage and made them nice, put Americans to work boosting the economy (making those refurbished/new homes) and also taking away the expenditures on said rent/mortgage making it so more money will be spent elsewhere to boost the economy and balance out the not spending to landlords/corporations who own them. To think of that in another manner. In 2 months, the market lost 44% of the U.S.'s GDP.
More than twice the GDP of any other country in the world except China, was lost in 2 months.
What could go right? If apartments cost $100, everyone would own one and there would be no speculative market in them — no rental market at all probably.
15 years ago I rented an apartment, in the US, for $250 a month.
If housing was truly abundant, we would still have landlords. The key difference is they would actually have to compete as a service provider instead of as mere land hoarders. “Landlord” would be an honest job for once.
Landlords like to say that many people prefer to rent because then they don’t have to worry about maintenance, doing home repairs, etc. But most people rent simply because they can’t afford to purchase a home themselves. Instead of helping people avoid maintenance, landlords in practice do everything possible to avoid spending a penny on any kind of maintenance. They’re able to be so stingy because people need somewhere to live. With most rentals, you’re simply paying for access to housing, the quality of the service is an afterthought. Very few people have the luxury of rejecting a potential apartment or rental home simply because the landlord has a reputation of poor responsiveness to maintenance requests.
With abundant housing, landlords would be more like hotels operators in vacation destinations. No one would stay at a resort hotel if the rooms were falling apart and full of mold. It’s a luxury purchase that people can go without, so they can afford to demand quality. With abundant housing, rental housing becomes a luxury good.
For example, let’s say anyone who wanted could buy a home with an affordable mortgage. Maybe the government subsidizes the mass production of housing units. Just flood the market with new homes and condos. Make it so there are 1.5 housing units for every 1 household. Or imagine some federal program to double the number of housing units in the US. And then offer low down payment and subsidized mortgages so basically anyone can get one.
In order to compete with that, landlords would have to offer a high quality of customer service. They would have to appeal to those who actually would prefer to rent. They would have to attract those who honestly just hate doing maintenance and don’t want to futz around with it. Those who wanted to not have to do home maintenance could rent, and they would seek out landlords who actually properly maintained their units. With dirt cheap housing available, any landlord that didn’t provide excellent customer service would quickly be driven out of business. Instead of being in the land speculation business, they would be in the customer service business. “Landlord” would actually be a real job for a change.
The problem isn’t landlords it’s land_barons_ rich fucks and corps treating housing as a business working the bottom line.
Not the first gen home buyer getting a 2 FAM or 3 FAM and renting out the spare unit. Not even when they get enough to buy a single and keep the multi as thier first step into making generational wealth.
Its the fuckers that buy up housing to rent at above market and do nothing they don’t legally have to maintain them.
Oh and they leave them empty for months on end instead of lowering rent to get the units all filled out.
Lots of new apartments are being built in my state but 90% is “luxury” crap that’s just going to keep raising rent.
The President has that power now, because of the ╣¥th Amendment.
Ah yes, the MISSINGNO amendment. (Or at least that’s how your comment loaded for me)
ü»≡!
you could honestly make every apartment cost 100 dollars and no one would actually get affected
Those who own the land and go ape shit over their value don’t even take advantage of it and sell it off, more often they just die and have their kids inherit it, and the landlords who benefit from every type of inflation in real estate
of course this assumes every housing unit is owned and managed by the government, and these themselves are incredibly successful even if they only have 10% of the real estate market
The money that exits the economy through large landlords (not small landlords) is essentially wasted, I bet the economy would actually grow if we had proper gov. Housing that allowed people to actually spend their monthly wages on literally anything else
What if you made every apartment cost $100 AND promised to protect Americans from trans Mexican rapists stealin’ their jorbs?
you forgot /s
I mean, it’s not like there’s a lot of trans Mexican rapists to start with. Probably cheapest way to keep them from stealing jobs would be to hire the one or two you do manage to find!
If people actually think that comment was serious, I can only feel sorry for them.
It would only be an economic crisis for land owners who seek rent. Really housing shouldn’t be something that people profit from.
Some people want to rent (e.g., young people, people with mobile jobs, or people who just aren’t ready to be tied down to one place).
And I don’t have a problem with a small-time property owner renting out a house at a fair rate. In theory it’s a win-win: the renter gets a place to stay, the landlord builds equity in their property.
The issue we have is two-fold:
-
Companies buying up massive amounts of property (not just a house or two, but thousands) and turning entire neighborhoods into rent zones, driving out any competition and availability of housing to buy, thereby driving up prices.
-
Price collusion amongst these companies, driving up rent far above fair rates, using these software services that share going rates across markets. That reduces consumer choice.
Barring a really interesting solution, like a Land Value Tax or something, my proposal to remediate this housing problem is rather straight-forward and simple:
-
Prohibit these software companies from sharing rental rates info to customers. Landlords just need to figure it out in their own markets the old fashioned way.
-
Prohibit corporations from buying housing with the intention to rent it. Force these corporations to sell their housing and get out of the landlord business.
-
Allow individuals to hold property for renting out, but cap number of properties a person or household can own for the express intention of renting out to five at any given time. That allows a person to build up a nice little savings nest, and provide a rental property to someone who wants to rent, but doesn’t allow anyone to dominate a housing market. Look for those massive profits elsewhere - start a business that creates and provides value.
Anyway, one can dream, I guess.
Landlords are parasites. Period.
People don’t “want to rent”. They want shelter. It’s just that renting is the easiest way to get that.
People don’t “want to work.” They want money. It’s just that working is the easiest way for most people to get that.
Well, thanks Captain Obvious. Statements like that are technically true, but how helpful are they for contributing to a conversation?
People don’t “want to work.”
I don’t think that’s true, but I suppose then we’d have a debate over what “work” is.
Statements like that are technically true, but how helpful are they for contributing to a conversation?
Well, we were having a discussion about renting vs. owning which you seemed to understand were two different things.
You can have non profit driven rentals though…? Why does rent need to be profit driving?
Some people WANT to have short-term commitments to their housing location. That is currently accomplished through rent. That’s an important distinction you are missing while trying to preserve elements of familiarity with the way the world currently works.
Acknowledging people wanting to rent was literally their first sentence
And that is precisely what I am disputing. No one WANTS to rent specifically, it’s just that there aren’t a lot of other options for short-term commitments. You’re looking at hotels, couch surfing, van life, nomadism. All of which exist but are less common.
The rest of their statement was about trying to find ways making renting less bad when the real solution is to eliminate the need for rent or landlords at all. You can still have short-term housing options without landlords.
In fact, in a lot of countries it is customary for landlords to require long-term leases most of the time. In most of the Middle East rents are paid annually up-front. In India it’s common to see security deposits of 6 months rent or more. The only force keeping short-term housing options available to those who want them are… Those who want them. The market demand, and the responsiveness to that demand.
But one of the major shifts the world is seeing globally is the breakdown of the relationship between demand and supply, with more and more power going to the supply side. Landlords in particular are colluding indirectly through 3rd party consulting firms against renters. It’s almost comical now to talk about how many countries like Canada, the UK, and the US are having housing crisis while the new construction seems to be almost exclusively low-densith luxury homes. Renters simply do not have the power to influence supply today.
Wow finally someone else with a level-headed take. Careful though, that kind of thinking doesn’t do well here
How do you mean “your proposal”?
Do you mean this post on Lemmy? Cause I’d vote for someone running for public office with that as their platform pertaining to the housing situation/crisis
Shit, I’d vote for that person, too.
Alas, I have zero interest in running for any public office.
Funny, that: with notable exceptions, of course, it’s generally the busy-body, loud-mouthed, ideologically-possessed control-freaks who seek any sort of political power. Sensible people tend to mind their own goddamned business, until the politicians and wingnuts force our hands to finally get involved.
-
Home values themselves would tank.
I imagine there would be far fewer people willing to pay thousands of dollars for a mortgage when rent is only $100 and maintenance is someone else’s problem. Hell, home maintenance and repairs alone are well more than that.
Then maybe we could adjust our zoning laws and take better advantage of the land available. Houses aren’t very effective use of land.
It would only be an economic crisis for land owners
They could sell their properties amd just invest in stocks, a little tricker to manage, but its still profitable.
I mean, 0 new apartments would be built
Existing apartments would be removed from the market too. $100 per month costs the owner more than keeping the apartment empty, because tenants are a risk.
If people thought that such a law was going to be permanent, or if there were fees for leaving apartments empty, then many (most?) apartments would be permanently destroyed - either converted to something else (condos, commercial space, etc) or just demolished so that the land could be used some other way.
You forgot the outcome that they could be sold. You know, so that a non landlord could own one.
I said they could be converted into condos, and that would happen to many of them if they were worth more as condos than as commercial space or undeveloped land (or apartments rented off-the-books at market price). Prices of condos would fall (at least until the market adjusted) but the supply of housing available would decrease, especially for the people who struggle to afford rent today.
I don’t follow your reasoning that goes from landlords selling housing to less housing being available. Also, which landlords are renting out at below mortgage prices?!
Less housing in the sense of (owner-occupied + rented). Not all former rented housing would become owner-occupied housing. People who struggle to pay rent are going to have a hard time getting a mortgage, and if they do then they’re betting a lot on an illiquid asset that they’re paying for with an unreliable revenue stream, especially since that asset might go down in value to below what they owe on it like what happened to a lot of people in 2008. One of the things a renter pays a landlord to do is to absorb a lot of the financial risk.
A couple of anecdotes about when I owned a house:
I would have been better off by renting for above mortgage price than I was by buying, since I had to move a lot sooner than I thought I would. There’s a lot of overhead to purchasing real estate that only makes sense if you plan on staying in one place for a long time. Fewer and fewer Americans are doing that.
I used to rent out the house at below-mortgage price but it was to good friends who were very trustworthy. (Even then, technically they shared the house with me although I would only come for one weekend a month, because then they would be easier to evict just in case.) Their rent covered interest and taxes, so I was paying off principal. I sold the house when they moved out rather than taking the risk of renting it to strangers. With that said, I don’t think this is common.
Not all former rented housing would become owner-occupied housing
Yeah, in your previous post you suggested it would be razed to the ground, which is a bit of a throwing your toys out of the play pen when asked to share. I’ll remind you that the original post was suggesting rent controls back to 1980s levels of rent. Housing prices would likely fall, bringing whole swathes of people who can’t get a mortgage now into the buyers market.
At the moment, most landlords basically get houses bought for them by their tenants. It’s iniquitous. If you’re paying the price for the house, you should get the house, not just someone with a better credit rating.
Until someone needs a home and they build it
Why? Its not like apartments are built by private industry. Not any lasting ones at least.
What? Of course they are
None of the good ones that have lasted. Only disposable trash that needs to be nearly entirely rebuilt every 50 years.
It would be a crisis for renters. Land owners by definition already have a place to stay, but the second you implement price controls you’re going to see the rental market go into convulsions. The correct solution is to Just Tax Land.
We had rent control apartments for most of the 20th century and the market was just fine.
The correct solution is
to Just Tax Landsocialized housing.There you go
Yep, this is already a solved problem.
About 60% of the people in Vienna live in public housing and its one of the best places in the world to live.
Tons of people in this thread are running around coming up with Rube Goldberg schemes of incentive structures and legal frameworks when the problem is really not that complicated.
There would literally be no rentals except maybe shitty murder sex room hotel rooms.
Well sure, people would stop renting in protest, and you’d have to tax unoccupied spaces at high rates to compensate.
It would crash the real estate market, which arguably needs to die since availability is artificially scarce due to wealthy hoarders.
tax unoccupied spaces at high rates to compensate.
Doing just this would help quite a lot today. A bunch of properties sit vacant because it’s cheaper to just pay the taxes and let the property appreciate than it is to bother with renting.
Economic crisis? That would be terrible! It’s a good thing we never have any economic crises under the current system!
Surely not one that would cause the US to drop 10% of its stock market value in 4 months.
Honestly I was just thinking of the past 200 years of US history that has mostly just been a sequence of economic crises with occasional breaks.
pretty sure this would lead to some sort of economic crisis
And? We’ve already tried it the other way around, and we’ve really got nothing to lose at this point by trying OOP’s idea out.
This guy’s giving me Robespierre vibes.
Wouldn’t dropping a bomb be easier?
what would that help?
Same results, fewer steps?
It’s not like this hasn’t been tried & studied before, and this information isn’t readily found. Pretty sure reviews of observational work or any introductory economics textbook tells the predictable effects of rent controls. Even socialist economists have compared rent control to slightly better than dropping a bomb.
While I’m no expert, discussions around here look like a bunch of armchair critics agreeing with each other’s dogma on gut feels & wishful thinking without reaching out for anything objective to substantiate their opinions. No sign of anyone cracking open a credible book on the subject, checking some scholarly articles, getting information from someone with a relevant degree, or sitting through a class on it & paying attention. Chamber echoic.
Random, late-night gunfire might do wonders to keep property values low: maybe do that?
i’ve heard graffiti also does wonders to ensure that rent doesn’t go up too much
While a Banksy might have the opposite effect, it’s worth a try. A few cars on cinder blocks, abandoned baby strollers, toddlers on the street at 2AM, the odd street shrine to someone killed at that spot add a certain charm that could seal it.
It would help the owner of the bomb factory get more money.
yeah but what does that have to do with the post?
If you can’t beat 'em, DEPORT 'EM TO HELL!
That sounds like a violation of the separation of church and state!
Always a winner’s first move! Disqualify, Deport, Dismiss. /s
Perhaps he means cost $100 a day? I mean you rent apartments, aren’t they called condos if you buy them?
OK so we don’t say condo at all where I’m from so I had to look it up - but it seems like condominium is a type of ownership, and you would still buy an “apartment” that’s in a “condo”?
Source is unfortunately a reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskACanadian/comments/1b3wlso/why_do_north_americans_distinguish_between_an/
