A practical solution to a uniquely modern problem.

Submitted by Longjumping-Voice452 t3_117flb9 in Futurology

I write to you fellow citizens of the world because, as we all know, there is one big problem plaguing all of our nations’ most vulnerable, but also increasingly the work horse that is the middle class. One problem that increasingly year after year gets worse, and as it worsens so does not only the living conditions of all of these people but they are also losing their liberty for it, their self respect, and their humanity. As fewer and fewer people are able to afford homes, and more and more houses, apartments, and condos are not owned by the primary occupier, and that non-occupant can kick that poor soul who just wants a roof over their head out or raise their rents to affordable levels, at practically any time; many people now are forced to live on the streets, while millions of homes and properties stand empty because some billionaire needs to own an investment portfolio, or a Chinese elite needs to store his cash where the cat can’t find it. Millions of homes across all of our countries boarded up with nobody inside, while a family displaced by greed froze to death in their car. We already have the resources, we just need the will to stand up for what is right, what is just, and what in the end may even be practical. Everyone needs a home, everyone gets a home. Now, of course, it does have a couple more steps which I will explain further, but it really is that simple. We just need to stop the way we currently think about rent. Instead of rent fluctuating wildly to an aristocrat's whim, it will always be an affordable 25% of your salary every year in perpetuity. We would have no need for people to even move unless they are forming a new family so we can pretty much outlaw the sale of new homes entirely as we wont be needing it, seeing as everyone already has a roof over their heads who needs to move? See, even more practical! A headache of our previous lives almost removed entirely. A fair deal I would say, to both the landlord and the tennant. You will always have a roof above your head, and if you lose your job your rent seeker is already incentivised to help you find a new job as soon as possible. Even better in times of crisis, like the financial crash of 2008, where the more people are laid off their jobs the more leverage the rent seeker has to find a company willing to invest in their people. Its a classic win-win, for everyone.

Please do consider my proposal thoroughly, we all wish to live in a future where nobody can throw you out in the cold because their greed is more important than your life. We need fundamental change and we need it now more than ever.

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Semifreak t1_j9brike wrote

Side note:

A post would be easier to read if you break up the sentences into paragraphs separated by new lines- as apposed of a wall of text.

Cheers.

15

ApocalypseSpokesman t1_j9bfsjp wrote

Price controls almost inevitably result in unforeseen negative consequences by distorting the market. One result in the present case may be landlords relaxing upkeep standards/renovations due to a lack of financial motivation.

14

Heap_Good_Firewater t1_j9bp0sg wrote

Capping the cost of rent (rent control) is a terrible idea (and an old one).

Rent controls invariably worsen shortages (just look at New York and San Francisco). It seems like a simple solution, but price controls are literally cited in Economics 101 handbooks as examples of perverse incentives.

What we need to do is increase the supply of housing. This can be accomplished by:

  1. Loosening zoning restrictions to allow for more multi-family units and higher density development.
  2. Limiting the power of NIMBY homeowners to block new development with frivolous lawsuits
  3. Eliminate the mortgage interest tax credit on second homes to discourage viewing home ownership as an investment

https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2022/12/30/the-economics-of-the-housing-shortage/

​

>By contrast, economists are less in favor of rent control programs. While rent control can lower displacement and insure tenants against rent increases, most economists believe it to be an ineffective and counterproductive long run solution. By setting the rent at less than the market equilibrium, rent control laws result in an excess demand for local rental units, which further feeds into the housing shortage. A 2018 study on evidence from San Francisco found that a rent control policy reduced the rental housing supply and likely increased market rents in the long run despite being designed to improve affordability.

4

Puffin_fan t1_j9btnln wrote

It really is just a problem of democracy.

With democracy, communities control how to develop communities.

At present, the state and Fedgov are run by the servants of the ultra wealthy.

4

phine-phurniture t1_j9bdjsw wrote

This problem stems from the definitions of success we teach in our schools our places of business and our places of governance. Many want to call the "fat cats" evil but they are just gaming the system as they have been taught.

In uni I had a prof who really explained the concept of a captured society... Every avenue that we have been taught to get change is gamed to lessen even negate the forces of the changes we seek.

It is the "captians of industry" who must see the flaw in their own perspectives...

The argument they hear cannot be an attack it must be logically sound and without judgement...

And how the heck does that work? Humans refuse to see their animal side the one that responds to buzzwords dog whistles and offers of inclusion.

2

khamelean t1_j9e06og wrote

“as we all know, there is one big problem plaguing all of our nations”

Is that problem a lack of paragraphs??

2

Eodbatman t1_j9e2292 wrote

Short of bombing it, rent control is the best way to ruin a city.

2

just-a-dreamer- t1_j9bgne2 wrote

I don't see the problem here?

I don't buy a stock in the expectation that it's value will go down. Nor does anyone. Same is true for your home.

People buy homes as investments and the middle class most of all. They WANT prices to go up. That is why they buy homes in the first place.

It is part investment, part piggy bank, part retirement account, part generational wealth. For most people, home is the key bargaining chip in life.

So what do people, especially middle class people do? They create zoning laws and complex building codes. They fuck over those people without homes.

That is part of the capitalist system. To increase valuation, one must create scarcity. Thus new comstruction must be blocked at all cost. It is the middle class that sits on councils and establish zoning laws.

So, crying about the middle class not getting homes while the middle class push up home valuations up makes little sense.

Those without homes must attack the capitalist system to enforce construction on plots of lands they occupy. Nobody is gonna "give" it to them.

1

Heap_Good_Firewater t1_j9bpyov wrote

>Those without homes must attack the capitalist system

A large number of those without homes are profoundly mentally ill and/or face severe substance addiction. They're probably not in a position to fight anyone.

Letting them fend for themselves is not admirable, or "empowering", it's cruel. They should be involuntarily committed to mental health and addiction intervention programs. Unfortunately, we in the US dismantled our public health infrastructure back in the 1980s (which roughly coincided with the start of the homeless crisis).

2

Rofel_Wodring t1_j9c2wpv wrote

>Letting them fend for themselves is not admirable, or "empowering", it's cruel. They should be involuntarily committed to mental health and addiction intervention programs. Unfortunately, we in the US dismantled our public health infrastructure back in the 1980s (which roughly coincided with the start of the homeless crisis).

The self-pitying, po-faced uselessness of Enlightenment liberalism, summarized. 'We should be doing this, but we can't, so what can we do? Definitely Reagan's fault, though.'

−1

LanghamP_ t1_j9brl56 wrote

NIMBYism is just nasty but it is indeed the defining feature of the so-called middle (suburban) class. It's really hard to be sympathetic to the majority of the middle class (ie suburbanites) when they get so many government handouts via zoning laws, infrastructure support via urban sales taxes, HOA that stop anything <but> single family detached housing, public transportation to their neighborhoods, and so on.

2

Roland245s t1_j9e14xj wrote

Some people buy their houses so they don’t get wet when it rains and the valve of the home doesn’t enter into the motivation.

1

Lolwat420 t1_j9c7b4x wrote

Technically price controls already exist, it’s called supply and demand. The price of homes drops when there is a larger supply of new one’s entering the market.

The ‘08 crash hurt home builders bad, and they haven’t recovered. Now there are so few new homes out that the prices of existing homes are so high. Now that the interest rate has more than doubled, it’s definitely going to see a drop in prices, but I’m not sure for how long.

We need new homes, that’s it. More properties means price competition, and that’s better for the consumer

Edit: a word

1

pumpkin20222002 t1_j9cyyq9 wrote

It's a cycle that isn't sustainable, wages haven't kept up with inflation since the 80s so now it takes 2 people 30yr, 45yr mortgages with little downpayment to get a house, it's not supply and demand it's easy lending and low wages in a system dependent on non stop growth that guarantees inflation and a wealth gap where billionaires accumulate and don't redistribute wealth back into the system.

1

prion t1_j9cyv1h wrote

Nope.

How about this for consideration.

Progressive taxation as follows

1 house - Regular property tax

2 homes - 200% property tax on each home

3 homes - 300% property tax on each home

etc

etc

Same taxation regulations on individuals or businesses

This will lead to very few people owning more than 2 homes while still allowing for the buying and selling of homes and people to move freely throughout the world as they see fit.

It will also prevent real estate investing from incentivizing the increasing of prices in the name of profits rather than the only legitimate reason for increasing prices which is increases in costs.

Your in the right ballpark, you are just on the wrong base

1

Effective_Motor_4398 t1_j9de1ed wrote

Hedge fund citadel made 16 billion dollers in profit last quarter. That's in a quarter. The other side of those winning trades is a mess of loosing trades.

1