Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«30 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Alhazred
Feb 16, 2011






Azhais posted:

So your theory is you'd be happy to spend $200k building a house you didn't ultimately own at the end?

I mean, that's basically what renting is and people are willing to do that.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

tarlibone
Aug 1, 2014


Am I a... bad person?
AM I??


Fun Shoe

Alhazred posted:

I mean, that's basically what renting is and people are willing to do that.

Most people rent because they have to, not because they want to.

Often, they can afford monthly payments, but they have no insufficient savings or credit to buy. Sometimes, the reason is less about their economic situation and more about logistics: maybe they don't plan on living in a given place for 20 or 30 years, so they rent a place instead with the intention of moving sooner rather than later.

Snowglobe of Doom
Mar 30, 2012

Because if I tell you, you'll tell your friends, your friends are callin' me on the horn all the time, I gotta show up at shopping centers for openings and sign autographs and shit like that and it makes my life a *hell*. Okay? A living hell.


Fan of Britches

tarlibone posted:

Most people rent because they have to, not because they want to.

Often, they can afford monthly payments, but they have no insufficient savings or credit to buy. Sometimes, the reason is less about their economic situation and more about logistics: maybe they don't plan on living in a given place for 20 or 30 years, so they rent a place instead with the intention of moving sooner rather than later.

Also most renters seem to end up renting the nicest/least shittiest property they can afford, which is usually not as nice as they would have hoped but just tolerable enough to get by. That also means they're spending right up to their limit which totally destroys any chances of saving enough for a deposit on a house anytime soon.

It can take decades to escape the rental trap and most people never make it out. I'm in my late 40s and there's absolutely no chance I'll ever own my own home.

tsob
Sep 26, 2006

Chalalala~


pwn posted:

Because we like to live in houses?

What has that got to do with working in a construction company that builds thousands of houses for others, with no tangible return of any kind? You might build your own house, because you want some place to live, but why would you build houses for someone else without some kind of incentive? You might say that charity is or at least should be incentive enough, but building a house is a major commitment that requires a lot of resources, and is bigger than any one person's charity (well, anyone who isn't a millionaire), even putting aside that the time that would be required to build a good house is something that person could be using to do something else that does directly and tangibly benefit them and/or their family, and is only really feasible for people who are already comfortably well off.

Alhazred posted:

I mean, that's basically what renting is and people are willing to do that.

This is a pretty disingenuous post. Even if someone ends up paying $200k in rent, they do so over decades to benefit themselves and their families, not in the space of a few weeks/months/years to benefit others. Rental payments are a lot more analogous to mortgage payments i.e. payments to own a property, than payments to build a property.

tsob fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Jul 6, 2020

Alhazred
Feb 16, 2011






Have a functional welfare state and a regulated housing market, that's at least two silver bullets.

SlothfulCobra
Mar 27, 2011

STOP BEING EVIL.


Worth also mentioning that mortgages as a whole are their own massive problem. All the value represented by all the money tied up in mortgages is one of the pillars that supports the economy, and the last time something went wrong with that, the whole economy went down, and there's no meaningful measures to prevent another collapse. The pandemic's not great for mortgage payments either.

https://twitter.com/HoustonChron/st...198158476247040

And then nestled between rental and bank-backed ownership, there's relatively cheap home ownership on rental land, which LWT already covered. Housing is a mess, and the only way it's gonna be fixed is with some kind of government intervention and regulation.

Alhazred
Feb 16, 2011






SlothfulCobra posted:

Worth also mentioning that mortgages as a whole are their own massive problem. All the value represented by all the money tied up in mortgages is one of the pillars that supports the economy, and the last time something went wrong with that, the whole economy went down, and there's no meaningful measures to prevent another collapse. The pandemic's not great for mortgage payments either.

Norwegian banks actually lowered their interests on mortgages because they realized that it's better that they make a little less money over the economy collapsing.

Orange Devil
Sep 30, 2010

CUNT


tsob posted:

What has that got to do with working in a construction company that builds thousands of houses for others, with no tangible return of any kind? You might build your own house, because you want some place to live, but why would you build houses for someone else without some kind of incentive? You might say that charity is or at least should be incentive enough, but building a house is a major commitment that requires a lot of resources, and is bigger than any one person's charity (well, anyone who isn't a millionaire), even putting aside that the time that would be required to build a good house is something that person could be using to do something else that does directly and tangibly benefit them and/or their family, and is only really feasible for people who are already comfortably well off.

Here's the return and the incentive: "you get to live in society and have all your other needs taking care of". In exchange you perform useful labour to take care of the needs of others. This stuff is very simple.

tsob
Sep 26, 2006

Chalalala~


Orange Devil posted:

Here's the return and the incentive: "you get to live in society and have all your other needs taking care of". In exchange you perform useful labour to take care of the needs of others. This stuff is very simple.

That's not decommodifying housing; that's reforming society and the economy entirely, housing included. Which isn't what someone suggested, and I asked about.

piL
Sep 20, 2007
(__|\\\\)

Taco Defender

Guys, its easy. Just transition to a collectivist utopia in a society with no discernable unified vision but does feature cyclical approbation of counter cultures stretching back for a century. Why can't everyone else see my vision or be as committed to true ideals as I imagine myself?

The Cheshire Cat
Jun 10, 2008



Fun Shoe

tsob posted:

It's definitely too radical for me, because I literally have no idea what would even mean. I would assume it means something like "a house no longer has a value", but then, how do you even convince people to build and maintain them en masse, if doing so doesn't have any economic return?

Why do people build roads they won't own?

Alhazred
Feb 16, 2011






Orange Devil posted:

Here's the return and the incentive: "you get to live in society and have all your other needs taking care of". In exchange you perform useful labour to take care of the needs of others.

That sounds a bit..authoritarian. Like, who's gonna define what is useful labor and what is not?

tsob
Sep 26, 2006

Chalalala~


The Cheshire Cat posted:

Why do people build roads they won't own?

Money, because the road is a commodity. The government earns money from road users, then uses that to build or maintain new roads, which is done by various contractors who all earn money for those jobs. If a house isn't a commodity, then there's no money involved, so that whole system goes out the window; at least as I understand it. Which is why I asked for clarification on what the original poster meant. If the process still involves money in some form, then it probably isn't that radical frankly.

The Cheshire Cat
Jun 10, 2008



Fun Shoe

tsob posted:

Money, because the road is a commodity. The government earns money from road users, then uses that to build or maintain new roads, which is done by various contractors who all earn money for those jobs. If a house isn't a commodity, then there's no money involved, so that whole system goes out the window; at least as I understand it. Which is why I asked for clarification on what the original poster meant. If the process still involves money in some form, then it probably isn't that radical frankly.

Roads are not a commodity though; you cannot buy and sell roads. They raise money because people use them to get to their jobs, where they earn income which is then taxed. The roads themselves are not raising money on their own, with the exception of toll roads which are relatively rare (and still don't usually fully pay for their own construction and maintenance, it's just an offset, so they would still not be profitable to own). Couldn't the exact same argument be made for housing? The government earns money from people living in houses, because by not being homeless they are more able to pursue lucrative work and build a stronger tax base.

Decommodification doesn't mean "make it free", it means eliminating the idea of there being a "marketplace" for it. Public housing is the simplest form of this - the government just builds houses for people with money raised via taxes and then just.... lets people live there. The main obstacle to public housing in the US is the fact that private housing has to compete with it, which real estate developers and landlords don't like because it turns out that existing public housing is on land that has become quite a bit more valuable since that public housing was built, but because it's public housing they aren't allowed to buy it out and hike up the rent. It's a similar problem to the issue with healthcare in the US - the insurance companies hate the idea of a "public option" because they know they won't be able to compete, so they fight tooth and nail to prevent it from coming to be. If you want an example of decommodification, just look at healthcare in basically every other developed country. The specifics of how each country actually handles its healthcare varies, but the end result is that healthcare is not something you have to shop around for - it's just something you inherently have access to as a citizen, regardless of how rich or poor you are.

SlothfulCobra
Mar 27, 2011

STOP BEING EVIL.


Worth noting that there used to be a lot more private roads back in like the 18th century, and those were made for profit and funded by tolls, but eventually they all went out of business through a combination of government efforts to streamline transit and the entropy of time. A similar thing happened with railroads, eventually the government took control over the network that had largely been made by private enterprise, and then as technology improved and the federal government became more powerful, there were massive federal projects to make most of the infrastructure we now use.

People are a lot more heavily invested in housing though. Heavily regulating rent while also working on public housing projects seems like the way to go for now, but that itself has a lot of political pushback. I do kinda wonder what people would plan to do about commercial and industrial buildings in their grand "nationalize land ownership" schemes, since while everyone can understand the need for housing, commercial spaces are a lot more obtuse to figure out what to prioritize.

piL
Sep 20, 2007
(__|\\\\)

Taco Defender

https://youtu.be/3dBaEo4QplQ

There are advantages to modern day aristocracy in just the right situations, but monkey's paws world wide salivate at the thought.

Ancillary Character
Jul 25, 2007
Going about life as if I were a third-tier ancillary character

Who would decide where people could live in these scenarios? If housing becomes free and people decide to flock to the coastal cities, do you keep building housing to accommodate all of them or do you start telling people to gently caress off back to their flyover states where housing is already built and plentiful? Would small towns dying off from their younger population moving away be considered a problem or an opportunity to reclaim more of nature for conservation efforts?

tsob
Sep 26, 2006

Chalalala~


The Cheshire Cat posted:

Long explanation

A few days late, but thank you for clarifying that for me. It, and the video piL posted make for interesting material to muse over.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Milo and POTUS
Sep 3, 2017

I will not shut up about the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. I talk about them all the time and work them into every conversation I have. I built a shrine in my room for the yellow one who died because sadly no one noticed because she died around 9/11. Wanna see it?


Alhazred posted:

Norwegian banks actually lowered their interests on mortgages because they realized that it's better that they make a little less money over the economy collapsing.

That's treason, Johnny!

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«30 »