3 ms·
We have to start somewhere. We have people who say that we can't demolish houses as investments because it's one of the few remaining holds of generational, fam
by ToucanLoucan 3y ago
We have to start somewhere. We have people who say that we can't demolish houses as investments because it's one of the few remaining holds of generational, familial wealth left. And that's true. But we also don't have enough housing, and building more housing will naturally devalue the housing that exists. That's also true. But we can't simply let this keep going. There are people who can afford those homes: private equity firms, and they're buying more than they ever have to rent them out. While we bicker about which way to go about it is best while ensuring we harm as few people as possible, the people already in charge right now are teeing up to not only destroy them as investment vehicles for the people who own them, but ensure that no people will ever own them again, that we'll all just be little rent-paying serfs in their various fiefdoms.
These issues are complicated, and any action taken will have ripple effects across centuries, much like the practices of redlining have led to generations of impoverished minorities and over-policed communities. But at some point we have to begin solving the damn problems instead of just arguing and debating ad-infinitum while the system already in place is making all of it objectively, factually worse.
And frankly, my inner cynic sees the drumbeat of the neoliberal establishment, the ones most likely to have the most valuable "investment accounts" in the form of homes, constantly saying "well we need to make thoughtful considerations about this before we do anything" over and over and over, for years on end, while their investments continue to gain value year over year, and the societal harms inflicted on others continue to not be their problem, as frankly, not positioned or well incentivized to actually fix it since they directly profit from the problem they're being asked to solve. I don't want to believe none of you are capable of empathy, but incentives are much, much stronger than feelings, and none of the establishment middle-class has any solid, incentivized reason to wind down the profit machines that are continuing to make them insanely rich. That worries me.
- ta1243 3y ago> We have to start somewhere. We have people who say that we can't demolish houses as investments because it's one of the few remaining holds of generational, familial wealth left. Why would we want that? My great great grandfather was luckier than yours, and that's why I live like a king and you clean my shoes?
- ToucanLoucan 3y agoBecause historically in the United States at least, the ability to pass down your wealth to your children has been one of few reliable ways to ensure your children aren't themselves thrown into the meat grinder of poverty. Hence why huge swaths of it are called "generational poverty:" their parents didn't have shit, and they too will not have shit. That the privileged groups have leveraged this to keep their children from suffering the same fate is not a bad thing. No one deserves to be squeezed dry like the poor are. But the notion that we need to replace houses for these people as a way to accomplish this is not wrong, and making whatever it is be not-houses is a way to get communities that were brutalized by red-lining the ability to accomplish the same thing. This is far above my pay grade. I just sick of the status-quo warriors endlessly citing the fact that we don't yet have a perfect solution as a reason to keep on using the broken current solution.
- ta1243 3y agoHow about raising the floor of poverty? As a wealthy parents you can already afford massive leg-ups with your children by supporting their education and offering the opportunities. How does inheriting 300k when they turn 50 help?
- ToucanLoucan 3y agoIn the current market, it's the only way many millennials and zoomers will ever own a home.
- ta1243 3y agoAny many more won't be able to because their parents don't own a home? Carry on like that and you end up with the landed gentry and feudalism. Far better to ensure millennials (many who are now in their 40s) and zoomers can own a home regardless of their parents. One way would be to prevent generational transfer of wealth -- meaning that everyone is in the same boat, you have to work on your merits, rather than who your parents are.