- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
This would be a great argument if it didn’t smell like Mao.
Housing is a human right, and therefore should be provided at-cost to everyone for virtue of existing. Fuck for-profit housing.
I lived in USSR/ Russia, and these free housing thing didn’t work out well
People had to wait for years before being assigned an apartment, which was never in the place you wanted. In the meantime, you d live with your grand- family in the same 30sq meters
This could be, maybe, improved somehow? But definitely not straightforward
I could see this being improved by processing paperwork through computers instead of humans. But I can also see how dragging this process out is beneficial to the government, the longer it takes to assign a apartment to somebody, the more likely they will jump ship and find another solution and the less the government has to pay.
To build housing requires massive amounts of labor. Labor is expensive. (Thus DIY is a thing to save money).
If there is no opportunity for some profit, no one is going to build housing, because that profit is also generated from work (by a general contractor or builder). It requires finding and buy land, conception, designing, permitting, inspecting, financing, sourcing, selecting architects, engineers, designers, and contractors, etc. And not to mention taking a big financial risk to borrow a loan or pay upfront for all the materials.
If you take away the potential to make profit from all that effort, then what you will end up with is that any housing will be built with very low effort. You will basically end up with complexes like old, spartan Soviet apartment blocks.
I would say the bigger problem isn’t the workers who build houses being compensated for their labor, but the high price of houses being driven by rent. A huge federal program to build millions of houses with deed restrictions that make it unprofitable to ever rent them would go a way to help lower the price of homes to be driven by materials and labor again, and could potentially help end homelessness in the US.
Pay workers for making the world better, don’t pay people for owning things.
That’s a lot of assumptions about my thoughts on who and how the housing will be built and maintained.
The US federal government has monetary sovereignty, and therefore is only limited by the amount of labor and resources available to the US. The government could produce and provide high quality housing wherever it’s needed, and then transfer the property through an interest-free loan to the residents through a housing cooperative.
This does a few things:
- It democratizes housing
- It creates an enforcement mechanism for paying housing dues without replicating some of the actual mistakes of Soviet housing
- It ends homelessness
- It recognizes housing as a foundational part of our survival
Having lived in former society countries, there was genuinely nothing wrong with society apartment blocks that are well maintained. They were very pleasant, well proportioned apartments.
Wrong. You don’t need profit to build housing. The people getting the profit aren’t doing any building to begin with.
This would be a
greatvalid argument if it didn’t reek of the John Birch Society
Illegal immigration is not without its problems, but the groups you described are responsible for that too. They benefit from illegal immigrants in the workforce, and then publicly rage against it. Make no mistake, the owner class does not want to curtail illegal immigration, they just want people mad at the immigrants instead of them.
If only there was an entity large and powerful enough to like… govern over these things.
Hhhmmmm… Smells like communism infringing on muh freedom, boy!
/S in case it wasn’t obvious.