You must log in or register to comment.

paulwhitedotnyc t1_j5y15ou wrote

If you count those goo pods people were wired into in the matrix as small studio condos then I agree.


DickieGreenleaf84 t1_j5y13px wrote

No chance. Think about it for a second. Has outsourcing improved homelessness in the countries the work is outsourced to? I see no evidence of that being true.


cybercuzco t1_j5ybbd4 wrote

Government provided housing for mentally ill-> homeless man screaming at me that I’m an alien.


Surur t1_j5y3ka7 wrote

> Has outsourcing improved homelessness in the countries the work is outsourced to? I see no evidence of that being true.

On the face of it, why would it not? It funnels wealth to less developed parts of the world, and that money would be used to secure housing.


StupiderIdjit t1_j5y4kal wrote

Because work isn't outsourced to pay workers to buy houses, lol. It just funnels money from America to like a couple of foreign dudes in China. That's it.


Surur t1_j5y5boi wrote

Clearly you are not giving it much thought. Vietnam's home ownership rate is 90% for example.


pmaurant t1_j5zmgqg wrote

Do they own the home or is it leased from the government, like in China?


Surur t1_j5zoj6a wrote

It looks like leasehold for 50-70 years, but that is not different from Uk for example.


DickieGreenleaf84 t1_j5y7fh7 wrote

How can it secure housing when the people aren't being paid enough to do so?


Surur t1_j5y82i4 wrote

> How can it secure housing when the people aren't being paid enough to do so?

Why would you believe that is not the case? I'm not talking about you.


DickieGreenleaf84 t1_j5y8mry wrote

Because there's no evidence that it is the case.


blatchcorn t1_j5y1p84 wrote

For starters you need to define 80% of who and by what time. I am guessing 80% refers to just the USA because I doubt people living in Somalia will ever be living in small condos doing remote work for tech firms.

Your thesis is based on observing that as technology advances it becomes cheaper and therefore becomes more accessible. Housing isn't limited by technology - it is limited by politics and finance. This means that your examples do not provide evidence housing will also become more accessible.


UniversalMomentum t1_j5yzelt wrote

Housing costs are mostly the literally costs of material and labor, there is plenty of room for reduction. House costs are not mostly driven by politics and finance, they are big custom build that takes multiple stages and requires multiple skilled workers on their trade to coordinate their material and labor over several months.. that's the main cost. Even the land is still rather cheap compared to the house in most cases.

How we build houses should be re-invented from the materials to the labor and that's where you would get the most cost savings, by far.


blatchcorn t1_j5zexnn wrote

That's an interesting angle, but the premise of the OP is different. The OP is saying remote work will lead to greater home ownership, where as you are saying materials innovation will reduce housing costs and increase ownership.


Girafferage t1_j5ygnma wrote

It's also limited by physical land space. Its hard to live in that affordable housing if it's not anywhere near your job location which will statistically be closer to areas of higher prices for homes and apartments.


Surur t1_j5y3ova wrote

> housing isn't limited by technology - it is limited by politics and finance.

This is not 100% true. First streetcars, then commuter trains and then cars allowed people to live further and further from work and access cheaper housing. So that is directly technology related.

As OP notes. remote work is now allowing people to return to small towns, which is a real thing.


blatchcorn t1_j5y4vmg wrote

It's fair to say technology has some impact on housing. Technology impacts everything to a degree. But it's not the main input of housing availability.

To go back to my '80% of who' point. Somalia hasn't got remote workers living in condos. The technology all exists for Somalia to have condos, trains, and cars but they don't. That's because the main constraint is money and politics, not technology.

If we focus on the USA, consumer technology improved massively from the 60s and that coincided with the rise of suburbs with affordable housing. But that doesn't mean technology delivered affordable housing. Correlation doesn't guarantee causation right. Instead the housing was briefly affordable while the economy was booming and demographic trends didn't put strain on housing.

Even if you do believe that consumer technology did make housing accessible, you need to acknowledge that somehow that it didn't stay accessible for long. Despite all of those technologies you listed, housing became inaccessible again. It seems naive to think that technology will lead to a permanent change in housing because of this. Again it just keeps boiling down to the fact the main limiter of housing is not technology


Surur t1_j5y692z wrote

Sure, which is why I said it's not 100% politics and finance. Like everything it's multi-factorial. But technology is a massive enabler.


strvgglecity t1_j5ytrzm wrote

Until jobs start disappearing by the millions. That's what's predicted for the next 10 years in technology.


Surur t1_j5yucij wrote

The same technology which replaces jobs will bring down the cost of living and enable us to live in places which are not viable now. Precision fermentation may even make huge tracks of farm land available for habitation.


strvgglecity t1_j5yvf9m wrote

Disagree! Prices for everything are likely to rise precipitously as climate change and global consolidation of resource ownership continues unabated. We have done nothing to slow or stem any of our biggest problems. Home ownership is dropping in my country. I simply don't believe technology will make wood cheaper to build with or eliminate the greed that stop our homebuilders from making smaller homes in America.


Surur t1_j5yx40a wrote

> Home ownership is dropping in my country.


> Typically, there is incremental movement for homeownership statistics over time. However, homeownership rates are subject to volatility around larger economic events. For example, after peaking at 69% in 2004, 2008’s Great Recession led to homeownership rates declining, falling to just 63.4% by 2016. As homeownership began to slowly recover, the rate peaked again at 67.9% in the second quarter of 2020 before falling to 65.5% at the end of 2021, most likely due to the pandemic. Homeownership rates may be subject to more volatility in the near future.

Q1 2020 65.3%

Q4 2021 65.5%

Q 3 2022 66%

Do the numbers being different from your perception change your mind at all? Or are your views not fact-based?


strvgglecity t1_j609gz9 wrote

Annual rates are irrelevant. Long term trends are more important. A smaller percentage of my fellow citizens own homes than they did 25 years ago, or 15 years ago. Home ownership here has morphed into a corporate business opportunity, a commodity that's repackaged and resold over and over to raise prices. I also don't think the 66% figure means much here, be a use homes are so expensive that virtually all of those "owned homes" are actually under mortgages and only technically belong to the resident - the actual owner is the bank, until the mortgage is paid off. Any recession that impacts mortgage payments for a few months, and the home is no longer owned by a resident (that happens here with great regularity every 10-15 years).


-Ok-Perception- t1_j5y9l3o wrote

Nah, as we can see now, any available land/homes/property is just being purchased up by big corporate landlords. And pay is always calculated to be the barest minimum they can pay, yet keep you coming in. Rent is calculated to be the absolute maximum you can afford.

As time goes on the wealthy constantly chisel away at the net worth of the peasants. We're rapidly returning to feudalism.


Has the working class seen 2 cents of all the value created by new manufacturing technology? No, they've just used that technology to work people harder, for less pay.


TheVBush t1_j5yapzf wrote

How do I upvote this more than once?


SadMacaroon9897 t1_j5ysds4 wrote

>Rent is calculated to be the absolute maximum you can afford.
As time goes on the wealthy constantly chisel away at the net worth of the peasants. We're rapidly returning to feudalism.

You've got it right on the nose with this part: Rents eat all gains. It's like the Red Queen said:

>“My dear, here we must run as fast as we can, just to stay in place. And if you wish to go anywhere you must run twice as fast as that.”

As productivity and pay go up, that means landlords can increase rents to capture those gains. Likewise, as society's spending decreases to make slack in our budgets, rents will still go up because now people can pay more for housing. The steady-state is a nation of serfs that can barely afford their rents

The only solution is to stop subsidizing land ownership, fairly tax land, and likewise distribute the benefits to society at large: Land should be seen as a liability to hold, not a pass to print money.


Surur t1_j5ydits wrote

Home ownership in USA has fluctuated between 60-70% for decades now and was a lot lower in the past.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.


rugbysecondrow t1_j5ynw3u wrote

This. People like to jump up and down, but the reality is that homeownership rates are statistically normal.


daingerous88 t1_j5yroze wrote

I understand your point, and I know a quick google search might show the same. But are we really considering an imgur link to a picture of a graph that i could make with excel and no other links leading to hard data, a source that we take seriously?


Surur t1_j5yt3rv wrote

I think people are much more likely to look at an image than read a link, but anyway.

It's interesting to me that people have extremely strong views on something which if they googled it for 20 seconds they would know is wrong.

People prefer anger over facts these days.


Cryptizard t1_j5yw9wk wrote

And they are downvoting you for pointing out the truth lol it’s fucking depressing… It’s easier to tell yourself that nothing is your fault and the system makes it impossible for you rather than face more uncomfortable possibilities.


Surur t1_j5yyl2b wrote

It's happening a lot these days. Emotion over common sense, which means no real solutions for problems are found, just what makes people feel better.


frequenttimetraveler t1_j5y1x1x wrote

We have to fix it. We can't just simply lose our rent seeking profits just because people decide to build their own homes. No worry, we will introduce the most inane regulations making it impossible for people to build anything anywhere any time. We ll just call them 'environmental regulations' or historic preservation or something, and they ll be happy and own nothing


rugbysecondrow t1_j5ynz6l wrote

>We ll just call them 'environmental regulations' or historic preservation or something, and they ll be happy and own nothing

The California solution.


SadMacaroon9897 t1_j5yp953 wrote

Ironically, I do want to own nothing and be happy. I'd love for apartments to be so common that it's preferable to owning a house. Never needing to own a car because alternatives are available and cheaper than ownership. Both together would directly save me literally thousands of dollars per month.


frequenttimetraveler t1_j5yspe7 wrote

Unironically, they know it, and it s generally true. However the megacapitalists of today are bona fide rent seekers and will always raise rents to usury levels. Take for example Uber: mega capital subsidises prices for a service that trains people rent cars and get food delivered. The business loses money but they keep piling up capital on it in order to change behavioral patterns. And when they (believe they) have done that, they start raising prices to unaffordable levels. Something similar, and worse, is happening with housing (airbnb, wework/ welive etc). They will eventually all become dependence relations .

The only way to fight this is to open up housing rules , allow new methods of construction and make housing dirt cheap, so that it has super low profit margins


UniversalMomentum t1_j5yzr9q wrote

In most places impacts fees are not the big problem and realistically you have to force people to do land management or they will just drain their whole yard into their neighbors yard and claim it's not their problem.

You pay more to build houses in areas that aren't good to build houses, that's fair.


lostcauz707 t1_j5ymo7q wrote

When anything becomes affordable, it instantly becomes unaffordable.

My rent with utilities is $2200/month in a cold drafty apartment 50 minutes from work.

A mortgage for a house 2 times the size of my apartment is less than the base rent of my apartment of $1600/month. I've been saving for years and going nowhere with debt. I'm 33, make almost 6 figures and I'll see a house when I'm 40, and it will be small as fuck.


sh-rike t1_j5yf5s9 wrote


You've completely ignored most of the factors at play in housing choice and the motivations behind them.


Actaeus86 t1_j5yi5oj wrote

Most of the jobs that are done remotely now will be replaced by AI, better off learning a trade. Robots aren’t going to be replacing plumbers anytime soon.


dnimeerf t1_j5yc1vg wrote

Are you on crack? Seriously! That's some good stuff you are smoking mate. What is your source? I have to try whatever it is you are smoking That's gotta be some good shit Share


musicofspheres1 t1_j5yfl33 wrote

The goal of the market is infinite growth/acquisition. The ideal (for capitalists) would be rentism. The ownership class owns all housing/services and society would need to pay indefinitely, like a subscription model


UniversalMomentum t1_j5yzx58 wrote

The goal is for person X to make money, that's all. There is no grand conspiracy, it's just lots of assholes trying to make money with any opportunity they see.

Capitalism did not invent greed, greed was a thing before capitalism was even remotely conceived, so you will have these problems in any system with limited resources because that's just how humans are naturally. The sooner you can realize that more sense the world will make to you.


musicofspheres1 t1_j5zt0im wrote

That’s what I’m saying, there is no nefarious plan, no evil billionaires, they are doing exactly what the market incentivizes. Human nature fallacy is just the same as the religion cop out. Any actual studies such as epigenetic research shows that humans are a product of their environment.


PerunVsVeles t1_j5yirqz wrote

So true. $4.99 a month and your lights will be brighter.


rugbysecondrow t1_j5yofzw wrote

totally disagree. Owner occupied homeowners spend way more than renters on upkeep, decor, renovations, landscaping, appliances, furniture, paint etc etc etc.

There is a reason why owner occupied home ownership is tax subsidized by the government, because it spurs economic activity. Offers stability to the local economies and it actually better for capitalistic endeavors.


Sardanapalo t1_j5ynhwd wrote

You have absolutely no idea what are you talking about, mate.


kungirus t1_j5ytzhb wrote

In the EU in 2021, 70 % of the population lived in a household owning their home, while the
remaining 30 % lived in rented housing. The highest shares of ownership
were observed in Romania (95 % of the population lived in a household
owning their home), Slovakia (92 %, 2020 data), Hungary (92 %) and
Croatia (91 %).


Brainjacker t1_j5y7huc wrote

And prohibitive zoning laws that have been in place preventing this for over half a century will just magically become amenable to this? How exactly do you anticipate that proceeding? In which country/ies?

80% of ALL people?

Your hypothesis is incredibly complex and unfortunately probably equally unlikely.


UniversalMomentum t1_j5z1iqq wrote

It's the building the house due to labor and material costs that really has gone up the cost. Most places don't have serious zoning laws because most land by volume is just rural area.

In overbuilt areas you need zoning or people fill fuck each other over constantly and run the area into the ground with poor building choices. We tried it without zoning and we got shitty houses that lowered the value of everyone around them or flooded the area because nobody make them do water management.

Forcing home builders to do water management in higher population density areas or low/marshy areas is just smart. Not letting people build basements in the swamp is just smart.

As far as getting away from some of that you just have to build in less developed areas, you can't just cheat the population density problem and jam more houses together with less rules.


Darkwaxellence t1_j5yapi9 wrote

The factory workers are still waiting for 4 day work weeks. Production is way up, profits are way up, workers are still over worked and underpaid.

Be wary of anything capitalists promise for the future.


UniversalMomentum t1_j5z19tx wrote

In socialism they still work the workers too hard for too little pay and a select group of people tend to benefit. This is because the system you use for economics does not magically remove human opportunistic behavior. Humans as individual or groups will compete and try to get advantages against each other IN ANY SYSTEM. You can make systems you think deter that behavior, but they will constantly look for the loopholes. Humans adapt their greed to any system you give them and training them away from millions of years of opportunistic evolution creating the brain we have today is not something that can happen fast.

In socialism you have unions that unfairly compete and take advantages from one group. In capitalism you have the same thing, the difference I see is just that capitalism is more self regulating where as socialism has to be micromanaged.

You more or less always need a government, so you always have some public power and then you allow private power to operate in a way that requires less overhead and logistics and matches human behavior well.

At the end of the day it's just a system that works will with human behavior, it's not the system that makes humans greedy. We are all born as rather greedy little liars and we are only taught to work within society we have to curb those natural impulses. Kids pretty much all learn to lie on their own and have to be taught to be honest and to share.

The best you can do with socialism is hope that somehow by leveling the fiscal differences between people you would make them less greedy, but I've seen no sign that actually happens. It seems to me people remain greedy and socialism still has all the corruption and greed of capitalism, just usually at much lower quantities because it's less successful/harder to pull off as your main economic system.

That all being said the only real system we see working is where you balance capitalism and socialism in the form of public vs private power, which at the end of the day is a better way to refer to the socialism vs capitalism debate, though reality does clearly show there are no Capitalism nations or Socialism nations, there are just hybrid nations that use both ideas to varying degrees.


maskedpaki t1_j5ydg6t wrote

yh no thanks. ill take renting in a decent area over home ownership in a shithole area.


also the sexdoll part is kind of sad imo.


2mmGaussRifle t1_j5yj55c wrote

Laughing at “hot girlfriend -> VR/sex doll.” Besides suggesting that we’ll somehow stop feeling procreative drive and the need for genuine human companionship, you forgot about (give or take) the four billion people on this planet who do not want, will never want, a hot girlfriend at all.


johnp299 t1_j5yq7p5 wrote

Hah, nope.

Homeownership will be under 1%, thanks to rampant unemployment from AI and robotics. Conservative gov't will step in only to head off mass starvation. Waiting list for barebones government housing will be very long. Wealthy will employ a few thousand as personal assistants. Most resort to begging, selling food/trinkets on the street.


UniversalMomentum t1_j5z29cr wrote

If robots kill that many jobs it also means everything becomes dirt cheap because labor is almost always the biggest cost of everything. In reality robots will kills some jobs and make some jobs and kill some jobs and make some jobs, there won't be any big all at once style change.

So yeah you might not have a job, but you will have robots that can build houses with almost no labor cost and farmers that can farm food with almost no labor cost.


johnp299 t1_j60bj89 wrote

If I have money, I can have robots that build things for low cost.

If I don't, and someone else has robots that build low cost things, how do I get those things from them? Will they simply give them away? Will the government force them? What if they simply want to keep the robots and the many houses for themselves, and their own family & friends?


Stealthy_Snow_Elf t1_j5yruf0 wrote

No. Just no. Homeownership rate has stagnated since the conservative/capitalist cultural revolution in the 70s. Went up over 20 points in twenty years during more a progressive america (the same one that desegregated, implemented minimum wage, established social security and other welfare programs) starting under FDR and ended when Nixon took office and then since has basically remained the same for the last fifty years.

Without Americans going back to how thr US used to be, more public funding, public projects, public employment, and higher taxes on the rich things will stay as they have for the last fifty years.

If anything, homeownership rate will probably drop in the coming years as deregulation and a weakened bureaucracy has lead to hedge funds and bug businesses building rentals and buying houses en masse to turn into rentals. Watch, wait for the boomers to die out and for the Xers to hit retirement age and then you’ll see that shit get so bad.

That’s not even talking about your other “ideas”


Trainboi998 t1_j5ys7ev wrote

Well this person has never been to a major metro area over 500,000


strvgglecity t1_j5yss35 wrote

Sorry, OP cannot possibly be over the age of 16. This post doesn't make any sense or give any justification for its premise.


CypherMcAfee t1_j5ytfdn wrote


Everythung will be even nore expensive then is nowadays, specially to own a house


UniversalMomentum t1_j5yyg0z wrote

Or living costs will be so low via automation that people don't even bother owning.


ChivalrousRisotto t1_j5yzmrv wrote

Counterpoint: home ownership will drop, because with remote work, you don't have to be tied to a single place anymore.


ncc74656m t1_j5z05qw wrote

Not likely. Right now finance is spending all its waking time and resources on scooping up real estate hoping to make it a permanent source of income for itself. It'll take decades for that to be undone if it happens at all, which isn't likely.

We have this fantasy that Boomers kicking off will free up tons of real estate and drive down prices and it seems very unlikely. In most cases that will simply be passed on to other family members, and while many will be sold on, many more will hold onto it if only for a better price, whether it comes or not.

I think the reality is that a lot of the current generation that can't afford a home will be stuck with that going into the future. Millennials and Gen Z to be sure, but many from Gen X are in that boat as well. And even then, banks won't sell off homes on the cheap because they aren't profitable anymore. They'll try to sell off the land to developers, anything to pull one last profit from it.


Surur t1_j5y3ssq wrote

OP, I think you may be on to something.

In the extreme case, with UBI, we would not need to live close to a job in any case - you could go live in the desert with solar power and farm moisture.


SomeRandomEntity44 t1_j5yx8pr wrote

At the end of the day, homeownership is a scam. You rent, albeit at a lower cost than right out renting a home. Don't pay your taxes. See what happens. You get evicted, just like a renter.


UniversalMomentum t1_j5z2i6n wrote

Yeah, but try to sell your rental and see what happens. You can cash out a house and get back a considerable amount. With rent you pay about the same with no options to cash out. If you have low rent with utilities included it can be a good deal here and there vs trying to upkeep a low end house, but those deals are rather far and few between for anything that isn't half falling down junk.

For most home owners the analogy would be not paying mortgage gets you evicted. You can not pay taxes for years usually before they take your house because they will offer payment plans and such vs a landlord just being like YOUR DONE GET OUT!