4 ms·

> undeniably a little cool that luxuries got cheap, but it's severely un-cool that necessities got expensive Well said. Being told that 'you should be happy wi

> undeniably a little cool that luxuries got cheap, but it's severely un-cool that necessities got expensive Well said. Being told that 'you should be happy without owning' to a party that can't afford to own by another party who is actively scooping up the same resource can feel extremely invalidating. My personal take is that a lot of support for contemporary political extremism in many countries comes from the fact that a significant portion of population is pissed off and see no realistic chance of the 'settle down and thrive' life, not because they are racist/prejudiced or whatever (although labeling them as such only makes things more extreme)

forgotaccount3 3mo ago
> Being told that 'you should be happy without owning' to a party that can't afford to own by another party who is actively scooping up the same resource can feel extremely invalidating. It's not really coming from those though? At the same time that housing costs have ballooned, we've also had a significant migration back to cities. When a larger % of the population are living in high density locations you are going to naturally have a larger % not owning homes. Owning your own home does not align with the density required for a city to function. At the least, narrowing down the topic to 'Why do people rent instead of own a condo?' is a much more meaningful topic over 'Why do people rent instead of own a SFH?' since a condo is a more viable option in locations where most of the renters are.
- repeekad 3mo ago
  Why does being in a city “naturally” mean less home ownership? More demand and higher prices yes, but you also should be earning more and dense housing projects should be trivial to justify. It’s legislation all the way down, politicians protect the interests of the wealthy who want to rent seek regardless of location. Look at how mamdani got a common sense luxury home tax in NYC, before that ultra wealthy owned multiple homes just because they could.
  - mauvehaus 3mo ago
    Because multi-family buildings (required for higher density) come with more complicated ownership models. Owner occupied triple deckers in Boston, for example, often come with their own condo associations because there needs to be some way to handle the shared maintenance and expenses. That's for a three unit building. Now scale that to a twenty or one hundred unit building. At some point, it makes sense for a single entity to handle the common maintenance through outright ownership and rent. Individual families have the flexibility to leave if things suck without being financially tied to the building long-term and subject to changes in housing prices. Yes, moving as a renter is expensive. It's still lower cost and friction than moving as an owner. Source: rented for years in cities. Now happily a homeowner in the hinterlands of Vermont.
    - jimberlage 3mo ago
      A counterpoint is that a huge number of suburban Americans already have experience with a condo association through being in an HOA. Rural homeowners and people with single family homes in streetcar suburbs or cities don't, but most new developments already have an organization with dues for shared maintenance.
    - 100percentjake 3mo ago
      Pulling from fuzzy memories here, but to my knowledge the legal framework for the bastardized entity known as Homeowners Associations here in the US originated from the exact thing your describe; multiple person ownership in parts of a single building.
  - PunchyHamster 3mo ago
    One thing soviet commies did right was housing builds. Build factory for city blocks, then just pop them up, constantly, keeping the line busy. It should really be city that is building the new housing (even if in the end it gets subcontracted, at least the top level have vested interest in keeping the quality and cost in check). Maybe even offer some rent-to-own programs where part of rent gets put into savings that can be used to either buy it after few years of use or be withdrawn when moving so renter have nice lil bit of money to put forward for buying new apartment/home. Then the city can actually plan for it, rather than hope housing developer that bought the land does something good for city and not just their own pocket.
- carlosjobim 3mo ago
  Housing costs have boomed and are still booming in rural areas and regions where the population is decreasing and all young workers are moving away.
- jimberlage 3mo ago
  Most people don't see that as viable because American cities don't have the public transit needed to make that viable, and equally important, don't have condos built that are the size of a family home. And there's a big push among suburban parents to judge their kids for living in cities, even if they're not as dangerous as the parents think. If we modeled Spain, we could have more condos. That would require good, safe transit, condos with green space and multiple rooms at a SFH price point, and a cultural change among the older generation to view cities as having less crime.
- Swizec 3mo ago
  > Owning your own home does not align with the density required for a city to function Much of Europe would like a word. I grew up in a block of flats where everybody owned. 16 apartments, around 60 people, lived on the footprint of a typical American house. All our parents were homeowners, together they owned the building. Two buildings actually and the land they stood on. So a total of 32 apartments, 120 people, a small parking lot, and a bit of green lawn owned by the people who lived there and self-governed through a sort of HOA. Little communities like this were extremely common in the city. Nowadays with my generation homeownership is becoming a little more rare. Still people own apartments in these self-governed buildings, but many have become priced out. Too much demand not enough build.
JKCalhoun 3mo ago
"…not because they are racist/prejudiced or whatever…" Perhaps wealthy actors (or those representing them) are attempting to distract the aggrieved—focus their anger toward some non-wealthy group.
- soco 3mo ago
  This is seriously the basis of the manual of populism as mass control tool: identify something attacking their group identity, hang it before their eyes, and they will follow you blindly in every other aspect. Many books have been written about this and nowadays we can see their implementation at work about everywhere.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- LPisGood 3mo ago
  This seems like an interesting theory, but when I look at the two ways it may be actuated it seems to fall apart. Either there is explicit collusion where they meet and discuss how to do these things, or there is implicit collusion where they all act in their own best interests and the results is the same. Neither of these mechanism seems particularly likely to me. I would be happy to hear some thoughtful explanation of how other people approach this issue
  - JKCalhoun 3mo ago
    I agree that your two examples don't stand up to scrutiny. There is historic precedent for blaming immigrants (as an example, or just others, if you like) for one's woes. So on one hand you have well-known "playbooks" that don't require some secret meeting of a cabal. That aside though, even if actors don't collude, if they're each throwing a lot of things at the wall, they may well all arrive at the same things that seem to "have stuck". It's as though there are universal fears and even prejudices among populations of people.
  - beedeebeedee 3mo ago
    Hi, this is a well known phenomenon in politics that is much discussed in political science and sociology, and goes by many names (strategic polarization, racial capitalism, split labor market theory, etc, and depending upon how you frame it, it encompasses all politics going back to Plato’s Republic). There are many examples where elites have stoked division amongst the poor (usually along ethnic or religious differences, but any difference can be utilized). The most famous examples in America were the divisions created between poor white and poor black Americans during Reconstruction and the Jim Crow era to prevent them from forming class solidarity, and then later, the Southern strategy that enabled Nixon and the Republican Party to regain power during and after the Civil Rights era. If you are unfamiliar with this topic, you can look at wiki articles and blogs like these, and then go deeper by reading academic papers and books on the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_labor_market_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_labor_market_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Reconstruction_in_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Reconstruction_in_Americ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://belonging.berkeley.edu/new-southern-strategy https://belonging.berkeley.edu/new-southern-strategy
grvdrm 3mo ago
I like your take. Do you feel it also a lack of interest in genuine evaluation of hard options? Not all policy is easy to understand, but I feel (anecdote) that lots of folks don’t want to understand what isn’t an obvious benefit to them, especially if benefits accrue over a longer period.
palmotea 3mo ago
> Well said. Being told that 'you should be happy without owning' to a party that can't afford to own by another party who is actively scooping up the same resource can feel extremely invalidating. That's been a long standing element of capitalist propaganda: attempt to distract and invalidate people's real, legitimate complaints about their situations by noting that not even the Kings of old had color TVs and refrigerators. Who cares if your housing situation is insecure, getting healthcare is challenging, and politically you're dis-empowered? Look at the boob tube and rejoice at your good fortune!

forgotaccount3 3mo ago

> Being told that 'you should be happy without owning' to a party that can't afford to own by another party who is actively scooping up the same resource can feel extremely invalidating. It's not really coming from those though? At the same time that housing costs have ballooned, we've also had a significant migration back to cities. When a larger % of the population are living in high density locations you are going to naturally have a larger % not owning homes. Owning your own home does not align with the density required for a city to function. At the least, narrowing down the topic to 'Why do people rent instead of own a condo?' is a much more meaningful topic over 'Why do people rent instead of own a SFH?' since a condo is a more viable option in locations where most of the renters are.

repeekad 3mo ago
Why does being in a city “naturally” mean less home ownership? More demand and higher prices yes, but you also should be earning more and dense housing projects should be trivial to justify. It’s legislation all the way down, politicians protect the interests of the wealthy who want to rent seek regardless of location. Look at how mamdani got a common sense luxury home tax in NYC, before that ultra wealthy owned multiple homes just because they could.
- mauvehaus 3mo ago
  Because multi-family buildings (required for higher density) come with more complicated ownership models. Owner occupied triple deckers in Boston, for example, often come with their own condo associations because there needs to be some way to handle the shared maintenance and expenses. That's for a three unit building. Now scale that to a twenty or one hundred unit building. At some point, it makes sense for a single entity to handle the common maintenance through outright ownership and rent. Individual families have the flexibility to leave if things suck without being financially tied to the building long-term and subject to changes in housing prices. Yes, moving as a renter is expensive. It's still lower cost and friction than moving as an owner. Source: rented for years in cities. Now happily a homeowner in the hinterlands of Vermont.
  - jimberlage 3mo ago
    A counterpoint is that a huge number of suburban Americans already have experience with a condo association through being in an HOA. Rural homeowners and people with single family homes in streetcar suburbs or cities don't, but most new developments already have an organization with dues for shared maintenance.
  - 100percentjake 3mo ago
    Pulling from fuzzy memories here, but to my knowledge the legal framework for the bastardized entity known as Homeowners Associations here in the US originated from the exact thing your describe; multiple person ownership in parts of a single building.
- PunchyHamster 3mo ago
  One thing soviet commies did right was housing builds. Build factory for city blocks, then just pop them up, constantly, keeping the line busy. It should really be city that is building the new housing (even if in the end it gets subcontracted, at least the top level have vested interest in keeping the quality and cost in check). Maybe even offer some rent-to-own programs where part of rent gets put into savings that can be used to either buy it after few years of use or be withdrawn when moving so renter have nice lil bit of money to put forward for buying new apartment/home. Then the city can actually plan for it, rather than hope housing developer that bought the land does something good for city and not just their own pocket.
carlosjobim 3mo ago
Housing costs have boomed and are still booming in rural areas and regions where the population is decreasing and all young workers are moving away.
jimberlage 3mo ago
Most people don't see that as viable because American cities don't have the public transit needed to make that viable, and equally important, don't have condos built that are the size of a family home. And there's a big push among suburban parents to judge their kids for living in cities, even if they're not as dangerous as the parents think. If we modeled Spain, we could have more condos. That would require good, safe transit, condos with green space and multiple rooms at a SFH price point, and a cultural change among the older generation to view cities as having less crime.
Swizec 3mo ago
> Owning your own home does not align with the density required for a city to function Much of Europe would like a word. I grew up in a block of flats where everybody owned. 16 apartments, around 60 people, lived on the footprint of a typical American house. All our parents were homeowners, together they owned the building. Two buildings actually and the land they stood on. So a total of 32 apartments, 120 people, a small parking lot, and a bit of green lawn owned by the people who lived there and self-governed through a sort of HOA. Little communities like this were extremely common in the city. Nowadays with my generation homeownership is becoming a little more rare. Still people own apartments in these self-governed buildings, but many have become priced out. Too much demand not enough build.

JKCalhoun 3mo ago

"…not because they are racist/prejudiced or whatever…" Perhaps wealthy actors (or those representing them) are attempting to distract the aggrieved—focus their anger toward some non-wealthy group.

soco 3mo ago
This is seriously the basis of the manual of populism as mass control tool: identify something attacking their group identity, hang it before their eyes, and they will follow you blindly in every other aspect. Many books have been written about this and nowadays we can see their implementation at work about everywhere.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
LPisGood 3mo ago
This seems like an interesting theory, but when I look at the two ways it may be actuated it seems to fall apart. Either there is explicit collusion where they meet and discuss how to do these things, or there is implicit collusion where they all act in their own best interests and the results is the same. Neither of these mechanism seems particularly likely to me. I would be happy to hear some thoughtful explanation of how other people approach this issue
- JKCalhoun 3mo ago
  I agree that your two examples don't stand up to scrutiny. There is historic precedent for blaming immigrants (as an example, or just others, if you like) for one's woes. So on one hand you have well-known "playbooks" that don't require some secret meeting of a cabal. That aside though, even if actors don't collude, if they're each throwing a lot of things at the wall, they may well all arrive at the same things that seem to "have stuck". It's as though there are universal fears and even prejudices among populations of people.
- beedeebeedee 3mo ago
  Hi, this is a well known phenomenon in politics that is much discussed in political science and sociology, and goes by many names (strategic polarization, racial capitalism, split labor market theory, etc, and depending upon how you frame it, it encompasses all politics going back to Plato’s Republic). There are many examples where elites have stoked division amongst the poor (usually along ethnic or religious differences, but any difference can be utilized). The most famous examples in America were the divisions created between poor white and poor black Americans during Reconstruction and the Jim Crow era to prevent them from forming class solidarity, and then later, the Southern strategy that enabled Nixon and the Republican Party to regain power during and after the Civil Rights era. If you are unfamiliar with this topic, you can look at wiki articles and blogs like these, and then go deeper by reading academic papers and books on the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_labor_market_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_labor_market_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Reconstruction_in_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Reconstruction_in_Americ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://belonging.berkeley.edu/new-southern-strategy https://belonging.berkeley.edu/new-southern-strategy

grvdrm 3mo ago

I like your take. Do you feel it also a lack of interest in genuine evaluation of hard options? Not all policy is easy to understand, but I feel (anecdote) that lots of folks don’t want to understand what isn’t an obvious benefit to them, especially if benefits accrue over a longer period.

palmotea 3mo ago

> Well said. Being told that 'you should be happy without owning' to a party that can't afford to own by another party who is actively scooping up the same resource can feel extremely invalidating. That's been a long standing element of capitalist propaganda: attempt to distract and invalidate people's real, legitimate complaints about their situations by noting that not even the Kings of old had color TVs and refrigerators. Who cares if your housing situation is insecure, getting healthcare is challenging, and politically you're dis-empowered? Look at the boob tube and rejoice at your good fortune!