Comment on What is an average person living in the US supposed to do about corporations raising prices?
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months agoIt will partially fix it because part of the problem is wealth inequality; housing is a form of wealth and becomes more out of reach as wealth concentrates away from people. Giving everyone money serves as redistribution.
phillaholic@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Think about it. If everyone has more money that means so do the other people bidding against you. It’s like the college tuition problem. Everyone can get student loans, so colleges have no incentive to keep costs reasonable. Giving college students more money doesn’t fix the problem of college being too expensive.
Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 11 months ago
You still think you’re bidding against other people for housing. That’s not the case, often, these days. Corporate land grabbing is the largest proponent of the housing crisis. That has to be ended before anything will get better on that front. Education for profit is another absolute crime against the citizenry. College should only cost what education costs, not what it costs to hire the fucking football coach and build a goddamn stadium.
phillaholic@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Here’s a source: housingwire.com/…/no-wall-street-investors-havent…
You’re being against people with under 10 homes, which I agree is still a problem, but you’re not bidding against large corporations.
phillaholic@lemm.ee 11 months ago
You’re bidding against both, and increasing the amount of money people have also gives people who already own a home to buy another one and get in on the investment opportunity those corporation are. All you’ll get is inflation and probably a crash leaving you owing more than the homes worth when it all comes tumbling down. Throwing money isn’t the solution. Building more multi-family buildings and legislating multi-home ownership including corporations is.
AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 11 months ago
What’s it like being so passionate about something you’re so totally wrong about?
phillaholic@lemm.ee 11 months ago
This is basic supply and demand. Please explain how I’m wrong and giving people more money would solve the problem.
AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Other people already explained why you’re wrong. Since you continue to insist on your wrong opinion now I just mock you for being the idiot you are.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
This would make sense if what was being proposed was increasing everyone’s wealth proportionally to how much wealth they already have, but I don’t think anyone is really suggesting that. Think about it this way; say you have 300k and are bidding on a house against someone who has 50 million dollars. They have a strong advantage. Now say you both were gifted 10 million dollars before bidding on the house. Your adversary still has the advantage, but much less of one.
phillaholic@lemm.ee 11 months ago
You’re ignoring the hundred other people with 300k that will getting money and now bidding against me. It’s Supply and Demand.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
I am not, I intended the person with 300k in this example to represent the whole class of people with less. Your assumption seems to be that the accumulating mass of wealth held by the few is just not in competition for houses, but that begs the question, why wouldn’t it be? You can extract rent from housing to profit on it over time. It serves as a safe investment very likely to increase in value. You can convert it into other forms of real estate. You can have multiple homes for convenient travel.
An important feature of supply and demand is that the weight of demand doesn’t depend on a quantity of people, but a quantity of money. If no one ever had a reason to want more than one house for themselves, maybe it would have more to do with the quantity of individuals, but I think that’s just not the case, they do want more.