LemmyKnowsBest ,

There are 27.4 empty homes for every homeless person in the U.S.

Every homeless person gets 27.4 empty homes?

Hell I don't even have ONE home for me! And you're telling me there are 27.4 homes for every homeless person! 🤦‍♀️

LemmyKnowsBest ,

There are 27.4 empty homes for every homeless person in the U.S.

If those empty homes are for the homeless people, why aren't they in them??

yuki2501 ,
@yuki2501@lemmy.world avatar

Alright, question. If market prices are supposedly driven by supply-and-demand, and the supply is nearly 30 times the demand, why are housing prices so fucking high?

WindyRebel ,

The same reason groceries are.

Greed

Passerby6497 ,

Because a house today is worth less than a house years from now (probably). Housing is seen as an investment instead of a human need, so you can hold a bunch of them like tickets in the hopes that you can sell them for more later.

ZMoney ,

As long as banks keep printing money (which then becomes public debt), housing values will continue to rise along with all other financial assets.

Asifall ,

Demand includes every person currently housed as well and only a small portion of the population is homeless, so the supply really isn’t 30 times higher than the demand.

_stranger_ ,

30 times demand

That's not what this is saying.

This says there's ~650K homeless, let's round up to a million.

Round the post number up to 30, and we get 30 Million empty houses.

This says 15 million in 2022, so the post isn't off by much, given were talking different years.

That said, the second link I posted says 15M homes is ~ 10% of the US housing inventory, and of that 10%, only ~0.7% was homeowner inventory, which means the rest is rentals.

So there's your answer: Landlords.

(Also, homeless people usually don't have the income to afford a rental, let alone buy a house, so they don't affect the demand curve, which is your second answer: Landlords don't give a fuck about the homeless)

brucethemoose ,

What really boggles my mind is how many mosty vacant "vacation" homes people have here in Florida. You can drive along some coasts or barrier islands, and most of the big houses along there are totally vacant for a large part of the year.

Not to speak of how they are in a prime spot for being trashed by a hurricane, and taking up space for what could be a public beach or park.

Forget ethics and all that. Just economically, it seems incredibly inefficient. It's like building five star hotels along volcano rims, then leaving them mostly empty.

fukurthumz420 ,

abandon capitalism, adopt resource based communities

HawlSera ,

Wow that number's gone up I remember when it was 4 vacant houses

Crikeste ,

I love how the verdict is FALSE, then goes on to explain that the problem is MUCH bigger than the post implied LMAOOOO

EatATaco ,

If it went to 1 homeless person and 1million homes, would that be worse or better?

Crikeste ,

Uhhhh, sure? Maybe try to figure out a way to stop asking such stupid questions. It isn’t some existential problem. Like this very post points out, we have the resources to end homelessness. We simply don’t. We are evil. We want money.

werefreeatlast ,

But just carefully, don't give them a home! Make them work for it! What if you just give them a home and they sell it to buy drug? Or what if they just use drugs in the home.

Man if I was young again, I would buy a home to have lots of sex in it. I mean that's what we did with our first home. Why wouldn't a homeless person just use it for drugs...right?

jorp ,

If you give them homes they'll become dependent on shelter, next they might try jobs

werefreeatlast ,

One time I saw a guy who was clearly doing totally fine at a job. I swear, he even smelled good. Imagine if ever kid in town had a job! What would we do? It's illegal for kids to work, you know! What message are we sending our kids if guys are just given houses and allowed to work at a job!

plz1 ,

Stats like that ignore the fact that they are polling "empty homes" nationally, but the homeless population is majority in densely populated cities, not where those empty homes are. So even if they were given these homes for free, they'd have to be relocated, too.

JackbyDev ,

I also wonder about the state of many vacant homes.

jj4211 ,

Mmmmm...asbestos flavoring

jorp ,

That's another condemnation of allowing only the market to decide where we build housing. A socialist government would build houses where people need houses.

dream_weasel ,

And... Float them in the air? Homeless in metro areas may not have started there, but that's where a sizeable portion are now and it's not like there's abundant space for housing.

People need houses but we need stores and office buildings and other things too.

jorp ,

This is your sincere and well thought out position? You think the homeless population in each downtown area is so large that there's not enough real estate to house them?

You can just say you don't care about housing them, this is a safe space

KevonLooney ,

And you can just say that you are not listening because you believe your position is the most moral one.

This guy's point is that it doesn't matter what government is running things. There will always be some desirable areas where demand is larger than supply. You haven't proposed any details besides "a socialist government would solve it".

Post your specific proposals or stop posturing.

jorp ,

You might want to sit down, it's complicated.

500 people need houses in an area. Ignore what the market thinks should be done. Build houses or densify housing in that area.

Do you think there are any real world examples where you would need to "float them in the air?"

It's a stupid argument that's not on good faith and completely lacks any imagination...

How are houses built now? People speculatively buy land and build on them. Instead of market speculation telling people where to build, people tell people where to build.

Planned economies aren't a novel or theoretical concept.

TL;DR use your brain

KevonLooney ,

Do you think there are any real world examples where you would need to "float them in the air?"

Yes, in cities. We were talking about downtown areas. Not anywhere that has land available. So any housing project will be more complicated than "build houses".

You obviously think you are more moral than everyone else, but you've provided no interesting solutions. so there's no use talking to you.

jorp ,

On a more serious note i wonder why you think people that are currently unhoused couldn't take public transit?

Do you ever have any ideas? What's it like not being able to reason?

dream_weasel ,

Watch out! Goal posts are moving boys!

This is not "house then where they are". This is the sane argument of put housing and move the people, not "There's no housing so I cast SOciALisM!" And poof it's solved.

jorp ,

local man disproves leftist theory on technicality by taking online argument extremely literally!

dream_weasel ,

  1. We don't need to move people around, build houses where people need houses!

  2. No not like that. Obviously build them somewhere else and bus people to the houses!

Internet idea man is oblivious to cognitive dissonance.

jorp , (edited )

Editing to be less rude because I think there's actually a real misunderstanding here.

Build houses in places (cities, not literal square meters) where unhoused people need to be housed. They, like anyone else that lives in a city, can use their feet and bikes and public transit to go from where their house is to another place in that city where maybe they shop and work like any other citizen. The suggestion is simply to give them houses.

I also disagree with suburban sprawl and NIMBYism, hence my comments about densification

dream_weasel ,

We are on the same page. Where I see homelessness there is not space for housing, but there are places that could accommodate without a cross-country trek.

Shardikprime ,

"planned economies"

My dude you can just say you have no idea about economics and leave it at that

jorp ,

ah yes true capitalism is equivalent to economics I've forgotten

Crikeste ,

Have you ever thought that the houses don’t need to be in big cities? Why is that not an option in your mind? Other states bussed them out, they can pay to bus them back in and give them homes.

Why would you advocate for keeping displaced people displaced?

jorp ,

it's insane how people cannot imagine a way to make decisions that's not profit driven. people's minds are so poisoned by capitalism. If we're around in 100 years, people will judge us like they judge any superstitious culture from the past. We sacrifice our own to the "profit motive" to appease "the market"

HawlSera ,

Oh don't worry, the end of the world's probably coming around 2045 with the start of the post-oil dark ages

dream_weasel ,

Did you read the person I replied to? You can't house then where they are with socialism or marxism or Harry potter magic. Sure, yes, move them, that's sane. But no you can't just snap your fingers to generate housing in places with no footprint to build in.

jorp ,

Why are you hung up on the literal square footage of where these people currently sleep on the streets?

People commute with public transit across great distances.

But yes, downtown areas can be densified. Did we hit the limits of engineering? As far as I can tell we can still build tall buildings.

Holy shit bro, just think.

dream_weasel ,

There's no reason to reply to you at all if you can't read dude. This starts with "we can't house then where they are because capitalism" but this is the fucking point. You can't house then where they are no matter, literally because of square footage. Public transit and house. Calm your tits and learn to read.

jorp ,

No I mean it lets build houses under bridges and in parks

dream_weasel ,

Well that's not what you said. It's not unreasonable except for the fact that you just eliminated all the green spaces from an otherwise concrete jungle. I could be persuaded anyway, but it's a not insignificant downside.

jorp ,

Ok I actually feel bad now. I'm being sarcastic. Build more houses in cities, and people can live in those houses, just like the people in those cities that already have houses. People use transportation to move around inside of cities.

dream_weasel ,

Ok then agreed. Sorry for the vitriol, I wasnt feeling heard/understood and maybe handled it poorly.

jorp ,

No need, I was objectively being an asshole for most of it. I'm a leftist, and I want to live in a world where people are put above profit and cooperation is more important than competition. I want to live in an egalitarian society not a stratified hierarchy. I'm extremely frustrated not just by how far from that we are, but how much further we constantly get.

I took my frustrations out on you as if you were being malicious

explodicle ,
@explodicle@sh.itjust.works avatar

There's plenty of room; we just build nothing but luxury housing. And there's an over-abundance of parking lots because of land speculation. Our land is not being used efficiently at all.

dream_weasel ,

Are you finding homeless people somewhere I'm not? The downtown metro areas are where there is a) not other housing by and large, and b) not space for anything else anyway. Maybe we are talking past each other.

explodicle ,
@explodicle@sh.itjust.works avatar

I'm in downtown Los Angeles. We have lots of homeless people, vacant housing, and wasted space like paved parking lots. Where are you?

dream_weasel ,

Midwest, below Chicago burbs. We have in my area way way way more housing demand than supply and houses sell before market or within hours. We have some here and there homelessness but it's never as bad as streets of downtown Chicago, where parking spaces cost as much as houses.

Glytch ,

Most office jobs are done as or more efficiently by workers at home so we should downsize office real estate. This frees up a lot of space for affordable housing and encourages office workers to stay in their suburban communities, thus reducing congestion.

dream_weasel ,

Whole hearted agree. Happy my company is 100% remote.

jj4211 ,

In my experience, the vacant housing is not built without demand, it's that the demand vanishes.

There were two trailers where they would have been scrapped, but some relatives took then over and kind of refurbished them, and one of those is now home to another relative that would have been homeless otherwise, and the other is a "hobby" trailer until someone else needs it.

Another is a house where the man died and the wife moved to a small apartment because she felt like she needed to be in the city near a hospital, but no one wants the house because the area is the middle of nowhere.

Rural areas tend to have a fair amount of "nobody wants them anymore" housing laying vacant, but they all, at one point, were being used as housing.

UncleGrandPa ,

And research shows it would be cheaper to give each of them a house... Instead of spending on programs that don't work

jorp , (edited )

I'm as leftist as they come and yes I could Google it myself but I wonder if you have specific examples of research that you've seen that you'd be willing to find again and share

I've found some here:

https://www.vox.com/2014/5/30/5764096/homeless-shelter-housing-help-solutions

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/housing-homeless-cheaper-more-effective-than-status-quo-study/article4563718/

TempermentalAnomaly ,

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/spring-summer-23/highlight2.html

Illuminostro ,

Don't worry. They'll have a bed and roof when they're rounded up and put into for-profit slave market prisons. 'Murica.

ArmokGoB ,

Your fact check says the claim is false.

absentbird , (edited )
@absentbird@lemm.ee avatar

It says false because there's fewer homeless and more vacant homes than the meme quotes. That doesn't negate the point of this post at all.

Tom Murphy, director of communications for NAEH, told the Daily Caller News Foundation in an email that the figure for homelessness doesn’t reflect the most recent data, saying, “The last time the numbers were in that range was 2010, when the count was 637,077. The most recent federal data is for 2018, when the count was at 552,830.”

The Census Bureau tracks the number of vacant homes in the U.S. on a quarterly basis and, as of October 2019, the number stands at about 17 million. That’s roughly 3.1 million more than the meme suggests.

FrowingFostek ,

Yup because the number is actually 31, or so it says lower in the page.

nyctre ,

Depends how you check the statement. If you do "is empty home = 27.4?" Then, sure. But if you do "is empty home >=27.4?" Then the statement is true. And the latter is the more relevant way to do it.

fine_sandy_bottom ,

Looking at the vacancy data:

https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf

... it seems as though the vast majority of vacant homes are rentals looking for tenants, rather than rich peoples second homes.

Make of that what you will.

CileTheSane ,
@CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

the vast majority of vacant homes are rentals looking for tenants, rather than rich peoples second homes.

They're the same picture.

Catma ,
@Catma@lemmy.world avatar

So who owns these rental homes but is living elsewhere? Perhaps rich people looking to make cash on their second homes while they dont use them?

Phegan ,

Landlords are scum.

CableMonster ,

If you want to rent whom should you rent from?

version_unsorted ,

There should be options other than renting and owning. If you don't wish to own property there should still be housing available to you, but it doesn't need to be rented from a landlord, it could be collectively owned (by tenants), municipal ownership, or something else. Relying on people with capital to provide housing while profiting from your need for housing is a broken system.

CableMonster ,

Sure, why dont you start one and give away your labor to people that dont want to work as much as you?

jorp ,

If you don't want to participate in a market system why do you not simply die?

CableMonster ,

Because I dont want to die. If there were no market system how would you get food and survive?

jorp ,

Do you think market economies are the only kind humanity has ever had?

CableMonster ,

No, but how is a market economy worse than what people did in the past?

jorp ,

Consider the thread we're in. Housing perhaps should not be market driven

CableMonster ,

Do you really want government provided housing? The ones I am aware of are places like the projects and were the worst place to live (unless you were a drug dealer).

jorp ,

When imagining that the government do more can you not imagine that it do better?

Yes Americans have a shit government, they also don't have a socialist government.

You're pointing to the corrupt right wing hellscape you currently live in to deny that another way would be better.

CableMonster ,

What is one definitive thing the government does better? I want a 100% solid thing, and not just a thing that they have a monopoly on.

jorp ,

I'm not sure what you mean by "the government" but why not look at the medical system in the US compared to any other similarly developed nation?

Is your thesis that profit motive and competition the only way that any good or service should be produced?

Would you prefer to pay a toll on every privately owned road you take? How should mercenaries be paid in order to guarantee they won't mind living in a nuclear sub for months? If the weather service can't raise enough capital by selling stock how should we collect weather data?

CableMonster ,

The medical field is one of the most regulated things in america.

My thesis is that the government structurally cant do things efficiently.

I dont want zero government, but I want smaller government. RIght now the US has the biggest government(s) in the history of the world, why not make it a bunch smaller? The government is the direct cause of why things are so expensive, would you like to have cheaper housing and in exchange less government involvement in your life?

jorp ,

As someone who considers my ideal society to be one that's left-anarchist I can sympathize with that point. However that's not something that can be done overnight and requires building parallel power structures and communities.

However, given the realities of today. A State that serves people interests rather than profit interests is the next best thing.

Every statement you're making and your entire way of looking at this problem are rooted in existing capitalist frameworks. I'm not going to convince you that there are better ways, but putting aside my online persona for a minute I encourage you to learn about what other ways MIGHT be.

You are only thinking of the state as its current neoliberal incarnation. Your critiques of the state are local in time and geography to today and where you live.

Humans have come up with wildly different ways, and there are many more that might only be enabled now in what's effectively a post scarcity economy with respect to our basic needs. We are overproducing and wasting every single thing a human needs: shelter, clothing, food. Yet people still don't have those things. Is this an efficient economy?

You don't owe me anything, but maybe you'll find it interesting to think about these things and learn about wildly different ways that things could be working so that you can broaden your imagination. A skim of the topics in here might inspire https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works

CableMonster ,

The problem is that the state will not ever serve the peoples interest, that power will be taken by the powerful and directed where they want.

I think your biggest problem is that your dream includes taking away my rights to interact with people as I wish. I want you to have freedom, but you want to take away my freedom. We can run down the various reasons why socialism/communism dont work even in theory, but I dont think that will help you see what the end result would be.

jorp ,

As I said my dream is anarchism, which has free association as part of its core. I'm separating that from my idea of how a state should function because states are something we have to live under today.

Anarchism is compatible with (to put it mildly) communism and socialism. In fact you'd be hard pressed to find anarchists who aren't those things. And it does not require anyone to be forced into anything.

CableMonster ,

You said left anarchism which is the communist side of things. The libertarian side has a lot of anarchists, and those are the most famous ones. See Dave Smith and Michael Malice. Communism is the biggest form of government in the end, you have to use force to get people like me to do what you want.

jorp , (edited )

You're very misinformed. All Anarchists are opposed to all forms of oppression and free association is core to left anarchism as well. Communism is not the same as authoritarianism.

You've completely bought the propaganda, I'm sad to say. I encourage you to do research.

I don't respect Libertarians for the most part, because they're individualists for the most part, and they don't usually oppose capitalism, which an authoritarian economic system

CableMonster ,

Why would I join you in your communist utopia if I dont want to?

jorp ,

Editing to remove snippy comment. You should just learn about anarchism on your own. You're asking redundant questions.

CableMonster ,

I probably know more than you do about communism; what would you do if I didnt agree to join your "utopia"?

jorp ,

You're a waste of time. You're not speaking in good faith. Fuck you and have a nice day.

Pro-capital anarchism is a joke, your ideology is an oxymoron.

You could educate yourself but instead you keep asking the stupidest gotcha question. If you knew anything about communism or anarchism you'd understand that your question is laughable.

I'm not going to explain, and you're welcome to think you're right, but know that you're completely ignorant and that's just sad

CableMonster ,

I love how you cursed at me and then wrong three more paragraphs as though I would read them (hint- I didnt). The issue is that communist is for people that dont have the ability to do well in society.

jorp ,

You're trying to twist everything to fit your existing worldview. The only person hurt by that is you. You will hopefully one day care to learn

jorp ,

Let me leave you with another question seeing as you seem to be a pro capitalist "anarchist"

Why should workers take orders from dictators? Why is the economy authoritarian and not democratic

CableMonster ,

The only reason someone should take orders from a dicator is if they will die if they dont (or be imprisoned). The economy is not authoritarian, if you dont want to work with me you dont have to. The part that gets authortarian is when the government wont just let you live out in the woods off the land or in some other way. But that is arguably a good thing overall, but could be reduced to allow you to have complete economic freedom.

jorp ,

If you don't want to work in a capitalist system you don't have to, you just do if you want to eat or have shelter... You're so ignorant, willfully so, it's depressing

CableMonster ,

If we didnt have a capitalist society, where would your food come from? You keep just talking in circles, you need to directly say things.

jorp ,

Do you really think capitalism is a requisite for growing or distributing food? You talk about capitalism like it's your God.

Read the link I sent you earlier at least a little. It's structures as a question and answer document, you're repeating a lot of those questions and I'm not going to answer them.

I'm telling you this in the tiny chance that you care to learn. You're really really uninformed.

Capitalism isn't the same thing as trade, or markets, or money. Nor are those things necessary for an economy. Capitalists reading your comments must have the biggest hard-on knowing how well their propaganda has worked on you.

You truly need to educate yourself on these things, as one human being to another I'm telling you this so you can grow

CileTheSane ,
@CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

A basement suite isn't a vacant home when it's not being rented.

bamfic ,

a homeless person could live there and not be homeless anymore

CileTheSane ,
@CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

True! What's your point?

Someone putting a basement suite in their home isn't removing a purchasable dwelling from the market, it's adding to the number of available dwellings.

CableMonster ,

Then who fixes and maintains it?

Katana314 ,

The homeless guy.

It is tough sometimes. It is not a full-time job.

CableMonster ,

Oh that is funny. Normal renters dont take care of a unit let alone a person that is homeless. And many problems are out of the ability of almost everyone. Is the homeless person going to replace the HVAC system?

littlecolt ,
@littlecolt@lemm.ee avatar

"HR needs you to spot the difference between these two pictures."

Rentals looking for tenants

Rich peoples second homes

"They're the same picture."

frezik ,

Are they homes in the places people want to live? Vacancies in Bumfuck, OK don't help homeless people in Chicago.

jorp ,

You're just also saying the "free market" does a poor job of providing for the needs of the people. A socialist government would build homes where they're needed

frezik ,

Sure. The problem I'm seeing here is how people approach the solution. You can tax the hell out of vacancies everywhere, but it's not going to help if there are no vacancies in specific cities.

Katana314 ,

And behind Door Number 2, we have:

"There's not a joblessness crisis, there's a labor shortage. We offered free pizza on fridays for this unpaid Senior Graphic Designer internship, and we're still not getting applicants"

StaySquared ,

It's ok, Biden and Co. will figure out a way to give it to the illegal immigrants.

reminiscensdeus ,

We have Republicans on Lemmy?

StaySquared ,

Didn't you know? By default the opposition of the "left" is, "Republican"... apparently there are NO other oppositions.

crusa187 ,

If you mean giving people housing instead of locking them in cages while they await asylum hearings, then yeah, let’s hope so. I’m not holding my breath though.

StaySquared ,

Or... no waiting. No cages. No asylum. Turn the fk back around and find another country to migrate to. Or face violence. I rather pay for the violence with my tax dollars than for some migrant trying to sneak into our nation, getting caught, and then paying for their livelihood with my tax dollars.

We pay Israel and Ukraine for violence with our tax dollars, why not extend that to our border patrol?

crusa187 ,

I’d prefer a world without violence. Perhaps once where our tax dollars are spent on our happiness and well being, as opposed to inflicting violence on “others.”

You should be aware that immigrants to our country are incredibly motivated and hard working on average. Many of them do jobs Americans are unwilling to do, and at near starvation wages because they are exploited by their employers due to their status. Most importantly - research has shown them to commit less violent crimes compared to native born Americans. Please let that sink in.

You seem angry about our living situation based on what you wrote. I get it, I’m mad about things too - just make sure you’re directing that ire at those who deserve it. Immigrants aren’t the enemy here. We’re all immigrants brother, it’s what built this great nation. As it has been since time immemorial - the enemy are the elites who work to set us against once another so they can steal everything we have while we’re distracted. It’s a class war, and these immigrants you’re getting all riled up about are on our side of that conflict.

StaySquared ,

I'm by no means shifting the blame on immigrants themselves. But the politicians that opened the borders and allowed them in without background checks. Illegal immigrant today, Democrat voter tomorrow.

crusa187 ,

lol well it’s kind of hard for them to vote (read: impossible) until they complete the legal naturalization process, but ok.

You’re right that our politicians in Congress suck ass for not reforming immigration policy. It has gone pretty much untouched since the 60s. Name me any other profession where you can collectively fuck off and not do your job at all for 60 years and it’s considered normal, like wtf.

StaySquared ,

History of Path to Citizenship Legislation

“Path to citizenship” is a political phrase that usually refers to allowing undocumented immigrants to become American citizens via a special process. This process may include special requirements (such as fees, background checks, or additional waiting times) beyond those already in place for the naturalization of documented immigrants. Citizenship means the immigrants could receive government benefits (such as Social Security), would be eligible to vote, could bring family members into the U.S., and would not be deported for committing a crime.

The term “legalization” refers to a different process from a path to citizenship. Legalization means undocumented immigrants would be allowed to remain in the country legally but would not be allowed to become citizens or receive the same rights granted to US citizens. With legalization, the immigrants would be authorized to work in the U.S., have the ability to legally travel in and out of the country, and would not be subject to deportation for being in the country (though committing certain crimes could lead to deportation). They would not be eligible to vote or to receive government benefits or to bring family members into the country.

More here

My understanding is that the Democrats want illegal immigrants to come into this country (illegal because they did not take the path to citizenship, they're not documented, they're undocumented) to later give them an easy (easier than what we have already established) path to citizenship. These new immigrant citizens would only be obligated to vote for Democrats as a returned favor. Dem party needs more Democrat voters and we know it.

Now hopefully when Trump takes office we get that wall built completely, once and for all. Personally, I'd support adding .50 cal turrets every few hundred yards of that wall.

CileTheSane ,
@CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

If they're illegal immigrants then by definition the politicians are not "opening the borders and allowing them in", they are sneaking in.

tinfoilhat ,

Biden has actually done very little for immigrants in this admin... And he's kept a lot of Trump's policies on immigration.

CileTheSane ,
@CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

So you agree they should be given to homeless Americans?

StaySquared , (edited )

No matter what, America first. So yes, clearly. Why TF would I prefer some random illegal immigrant to take up housing on U.S. soil when we have homeless people? It's ass backwards to give illegal immigrants any privilege over American citizens.

CileTheSane ,
@CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

Try to stay on topic. We understand you hate minorities but that is not being discussed here. The article is about how there's more empty dwellings than homeless people. We both agree that is absurd yes? Perhaps there should be higher taxes on empty dwellings to motivate owners to sell / lower their asking rent.

StaySquared ,

I'm... technically a minority. I just don't have the mindset of victimhood that liberals tell me I should have.

With that said, we should cut the head off the snake, asset management firms like BlackRock (that's a whole other discussion in of itself).

Allow the market to run its course. Meaning if no one is buying these empty dwellings, naturally, the price of these empty dwellings should drop over time. If the owner is able to continue holding onto it and refuses to lower their price to attract more attention to sale, that's on the owner. Doesn't make sense to force their hand to sell it by increasing their taxes on a building that isn't even being utilized in the first place.

Same thought process for renting a dwelling. If the owner can afford for assets to not produce, then so be it. But anyone with a sound mind would definitely lower their rent prices to attract renters.

CileTheSane ,
@CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

Allow the market to run its course.

We have been allowing the market to run its course, we are living with the result: a limited quantity required for survival (shelter) is bought up for the purpose of profiting off that scarcity and requirement, and those that can't afford to maximize the landlord's profits are left on the streets.

When people do this with luxury items like concert tickets and consoles we vilify them and call them scalpers. When they do it with shelter it suddenly becomes "an investment" regardless of the harm it does to the general population.

I find it baffling how often I hear "things are bad right now with X, but we just need to continue doing the exact same way we have been and change nothing, and surely it will improve!"

StaySquared ,

Well I personally feel that BlackRock and other asset management firms are the problem. I don't support corporations buying up assets (homes in this case), manipulating the market, and attempting to flip for even more than its actually worth.

CileTheSane ,
@CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

Well I personally feel that BlackRock and other asset management firms are the problem. I don't support corporations buying up assets (homes in this case), manipulating the market, and attempting to flip for even more than its actually worth.

Okay, but that is a result of "letting the market run its course." What do you suggest be changed in order to stop BlackRock from doing that?

StaySquared ,

The End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act - introduced by Dems.

This is why I stay center (though I lean right of center), I'm able to to sway left and right on issues. As should everyone else.

CileTheSane ,
@CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

See? Now that is a much better response to the article than a random tangent about immigrants. Actual ideas that could help the situation.

I do very much question your so-called commitment to "stay center" when your first response to an article about homelessness and vacant homes is "Biden and immigrants bad".

Katana314 ,

The only True Americans I know that aren't illegal immigrants or descendants of illegal immigrants:

  • Are not white
  • Live on reservations or run casinos.
S_204 ,

It's comments like this that demonstrate just how uninformed Republican supporters are about the actual policies of the two parties.

CableMonster ,

Do you understand how ironic this is when this site non-stop strawmans every republican position?

CileTheSane ,
@CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

this is when this site non-stop strawmans every republican position?

Isn't that statement itself a strawman? Just a vague non-specific accusation in order to attack a group?

CableMonster ,

I can understand your critique, but the thing is every single post with more than a few comments turns into a strawman of republicans. I dont really know what to tell you if you cant see how bad places like this are.

CileTheSane ,
@CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

So here's the thing: S_204 was criticizing OP for a specific comment OP made.
You then criticized S_204 for vague comments other users may have made.

Do you see the difference? Regardless of if your statement is true or not, it is irrelevant to criticism S_204 is making of OPs comment unless either one of these people are making the comments you are critical of.

Lemmy has a large user base with many communities. It's as relevant as running into a Vegan and saying "That's ironic considering how many people in this country eat meat."

the thing is every single post with more than a few comments turns into a strawman of republicans

Then the place to criticize that behaviour is on those posts, not randomly elsewhere to random people that didn't make the post.

CableMonster ,

If I took a glance in to that guys comment history, I bet I could find the exact strawmans he is making. I was just pointing out the silly the comment was about the GOP when Lemmy does the exact same thing in the opposite directing.

CileTheSane ,
@CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

If I took a glance in to that guys comment history, I bet I could find the exact strawmans he is making

Then do it instead of making vague assumptions. You complain about Strawmen but all you do is Guilt by Association, Ad Hominem, and Begging the Question.

I'm just pointing out that someone making a criticism of a specific comment is not equal to vague statements about comments that may or may not have been made by other people not involved in the conversation.

StaySquared ,

Or we just sit back and watch the chit show that the democrats provide us almost on a daily basis.

blindbunny ,

But but but these houses don't have...
Batman slaps Robin
It's not sleeping in the elements and it's an address to put on a job application.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • usauthoritarianism@lemmy.world
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •