5 ms·

I'm with you friend. Posters throw out lines like "property shouldn't be an investment" as though the idea that property has intrinsic value is something inven

I'm with you friend. Posters throw out lines like "property shouldn't be an investment" as though the idea that property has intrinsic value is something invented in the last 50 years or so, not something that has been true for millennia. I've been told that "housing is a right" which, if conceded, still runs into your point - housing may be a right, housing in the most expensive and populated areas in the US is not a right and there's no way to make it one.

pickovven 4y ago
Your point would be more compelling if people weren't specifically blocking additional housing so their investment appreciates.
undersuit 4y ago
How about housing in the most expensive and populated ares in the US is a necessity? If there can't be housing available for all the workers in an area then there needs to be a change. Whether it be higher wages, changes in zoning, or public housing depends on the area, but doing nothing doesn't fix things. Having all the low paying workers commute 2 hours to work every day to make frappes and burgers for the rich locals is not a viable option.
- nineplay 4y ago
  There are no magic wands here. Property is a limited commodity, it can't be expanded to fit demand. > then there needs to be a change No there doesn't > Having all the low paying workers commute 2 hours to work every day to make frappes and burgers for the rich locals is not a viable option. Viable is in the mind of the beholder. Viable solutions include - low income workers moving to more affordable areas, leaving the wealthy to make frappes and burgers with their Kurigs and air fryers - low income workers continuing to commute feeling it is still the best option for them considering all factors - wages raise in high-income areas to compensate baristas and chefs, allowing them to move closer to city centers. All of these are 'viable' and none of them make housing a right or necessity.
  - pickovven 4y ago
    > Property is a limited commodity, it can't be expanded to fit demand. Explain to me why we can't build more housing?
    - undersuit 4y ago
      Because it's not profitable to build entry level housing when you could build premium housing... unless you have government intervention.
Dracophoenix 4y ago
> I've been told that "housing is a right" An easy reply to these same people is to ask if they think they have a right to wood, brick, concrete, sewer pipes, electrical wire, all the other materials that go into making a livable house, and, on top of that, if they think they're freely entitled to the labor required to construct a house out of these properties.
- thepasswordis 4y ago
  Their reply is that the land beneath the house shouldn’t be available for private ownership.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    If the land beneath the house isn't owned by anyone, then how does one build a house on it? A future homebuilder would have to take the land, or rent it from another owner to justify building upon it.
- danenania 4y ago
  Every right requires infrastructure, investment, and labor to ensure. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness aren’t free. Whether or not housing should be a right, rights that are expensive to provide but are nonetheless provided anyway are nothing new.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    > Every right requires infrastructure, investment, and labor to ensure. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness aren’t free. People had natural rights long before the concepts of infrastructure, investment, or labor were ever conceived. > Whether or not housing should be a right, rights that are expensive to provide but are nonetheless provided anyway are nothing new. My point wasn't about expense. It was about a perceived entitlement to resources and help outside oneself. Housing in itself is not a right as it depends on resources and labor that don't belong to you. Such resources and labor are not rights.

pickovven 4y ago

Your point would be more compelling if people weren't specifically blocking additional housing so their investment appreciates.

undersuit 4y ago

How about housing in the most expensive and populated ares in the US is a necessity? If there can't be housing available for all the workers in an area then there needs to be a change. Whether it be higher wages, changes in zoning, or public housing depends on the area, but doing nothing doesn't fix things. Having all the low paying workers commute 2 hours to work every day to make frappes and burgers for the rich locals is not a viable option.

nineplay 4y ago
There are no magic wands here. Property is a limited commodity, it can't be expanded to fit demand. > then there needs to be a change No there doesn't > Having all the low paying workers commute 2 hours to work every day to make frappes and burgers for the rich locals is not a viable option. Viable is in the mind of the beholder. Viable solutions include - low income workers moving to more affordable areas, leaving the wealthy to make frappes and burgers with their Kurigs and air fryers - low income workers continuing to commute feeling it is still the best option for them considering all factors - wages raise in high-income areas to compensate baristas and chefs, allowing them to move closer to city centers. All of these are 'viable' and none of them make housing a right or necessity.
- pickovven 4y ago
  > Property is a limited commodity, it can't be expanded to fit demand. Explain to me why we can't build more housing?
  - undersuit 4y ago
    Because it's not profitable to build entry level housing when you could build premium housing... unless you have government intervention.

Dracophoenix 4y ago

> I've been told that "housing is a right" An easy reply to these same people is to ask if they think they have a right to wood, brick, concrete, sewer pipes, electrical wire, all the other materials that go into making a livable house, and, on top of that, if they think they're freely entitled to the labor required to construct a house out of these properties.

thepasswordis 4y ago
Their reply is that the land beneath the house shouldn’t be available for private ownership.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  If the land beneath the house isn't owned by anyone, then how does one build a house on it? A future homebuilder would have to take the land, or rent it from another owner to justify building upon it.
danenania 4y ago
Every right requires infrastructure, investment, and labor to ensure. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness aren’t free. Whether or not housing should be a right, rights that are expensive to provide but are nonetheless provided anyway are nothing new.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  > Every right requires infrastructure, investment, and labor to ensure. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness aren’t free. People had natural rights long before the concepts of infrastructure, investment, or labor were ever conceived. > Whether or not housing should be a right, rights that are expensive to provide but are nonetheless provided anyway are nothing new. My point wasn't about expense. It was about a perceived entitlement to resources and help outside oneself. Housing in itself is not a right as it depends on resources and labor that don't belong to you. Such resources and labor are not rights.