In what way? The majority of affordable housing (as defined by the government) is housing to rent. Someone has to own it and it’s incredibly likely to not be the people living in it because they can’t afford it or do not want to be buying a house.
In what way? The majority of affordable housing (as defined by the government) is housing to rent. Someone has to own it and it’s incredibly likely to not be the people living in it because they can’t afford it or do not want to be buying a house.
the_q@lemmy.zip 19 hours ago
Your assumption that our government is somehow not for profit is the flaw here. “Someone has to own it” why not a person? Why do people have to pay for shelter?
tyler@programming.dev 17 hours ago
That’s not my assumption. I know people that only want to rent, they don’t want to own. In that worldview someone owns it.
In regards to paying for shelter, unless you get rid of money, things have to be maintained, that costs money, and someone has to be paid to fix it, even if it’s the government paying a contractor.
The government doesn’t like owning things that require enormous amounts of maintenance. It’s a liability, because they can’t then focus efforts on actually serving their citizens. So if the government is already going to pay someone to maintain buildings, it’s better to not own the buildings and instead regulate in a manner than serves everyone.
That means there will still be landlords. There are still people that want to rent, the government doesn’t like owning buildings, so there will still be people owning and renting their places out.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 13 hours ago
you say this as if most people would be like that. whereas most people don’t want to travel all the time, for most that wouldn’t even be possible because of their job, most just want a place to live, and feudalists are taking advantage of (and contributing to) prohibitively expensive housing prices
tyler@programming.dev 11 hours ago
I do not, I say it because it has to be involved in any discussion of ethics. It isn’t a binary problem. There are shades of gray to everything, which people hate talking about.
I know many people that like renting because they want to move every few months or years. Their job affords it (which any reasonable nation also allows), they work remote, or they’re mobile, etc.
Acting like everything is black and white when it literally never is is making it impossible to have actually discussions that enact change.
Wouldn’t you like to travel the world and see the sights? Would you want to have to buy a house and sell your old one every single time you changed countries? I think not.
the_q@lemmy.zip 16 hours ago
If renting didn’t exist you think people would choose it? If every person was given a spot of land and a small home at like 18, you really think they’d be like “no thank you I want to never be secure in the knowledge that I have a safe place to live until my death”? Capitalism has really done a number on you. Plus your belief that the government focuses on serving it’s citizens is just laughably insane. I’d wager you own property you rent out.
tyler@programming.dev 11 hours ago
I know people (including myself who actually owns a house) who would love (or already do) travel the world and buying and selling houses in every location you travel would be a hindrance not a help.
There is no black and white, this is an ethics discussion, there are shades of gray for everything. Just because you want to stay in one location and never move doesn’t mean others want what you want.