3 ms·
The opposite of: "only the rich can get a house" is not "everyone gets a fair chance of getting a house", but "not even the rich can get a house"
by hikarudo 7y ago
The opposite of:
"only the rich can get a house"
is not
"everyone gets a fair chance of getting a house",
but
"not even the rich can get a house".
Think of two families that want to get the same house, both having about the same wealth, but one is desperate to get the house and therefore willing to pay more, say because of health problems, while the second family can wait for another property.
You lose a lot when you "leave capitalism at the door".
- xg15 7y agoBy that logic, there would be no way at all for the poor to get a house.
- nemothekid 7y agoYes there is. You _build_ more so that prices go down. It’s baffling how much “adding more housing” is always a non starter solution. Everyone seems to understand that if flood the market with something like diamonds then the prices of diamonds will go down, but when it comes to housing then basic economics go out the window. Rent control is an incredibly pro-landlord policy. In high growth cities, land owners can simply sit on property, never invest in that property (they don’t have to compete) and simply watch their value skyrocket as they never have to worry about new supply driving the market down.
- zwaps 7y agoHigh price demand is filled before low price demand. In the context of limited space and inability to, say, build high (as in Berlin), what you propose could literally mean that there is no housing for the poor.