this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
1143 points (93.7% liked)

Memes

45444 readers
1552 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Pogbom@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

So 30% of people can't afford their own house and that doesn't seem like inequality to you?

Here's the wiki page on global income equality, to address your claim that Europe is worse than the US:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

[–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

So 30% of people can’t afford their own house and that doesn’t seem like inequality to you?

Income inequality is a completely different thing from home ownership. Also, some of those 30% choose to not own a house. Also further, the average home ownership rate in EU is almost exactly the same as in the US, but our local purchasing power tends to be quite a lot worse.

USA is doing pretty fine economically.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

some of those 30% choose to not own a house

[citation needed]

And even if true, what do you think is driving that decision? Decisions aren't made in a vacuum. I posit - it's the financial burden.

[–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Perhaps things are different where you live, but where I live, there's always a significant additional bureaucratic cost when selling a house and buying another one. Because of that, renting has at least a single clear benefit beyond just being able to afford it: greater flexibility. Also, the financial risk is almost zero when you rent.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

there’s always a significant additional bureaucratic cost when selling a house and buying another one.

This really only affects landlords and estate agents. Most people looking for a home are looking for a place to stay for life, and any "bureaucratic cost", if you're purely talking about red tape, form-filling, phone calls etc, is more than worth it for a lifetime home. Again, citation needed. If you're talking about a literal monetary cost... whoa, look at that - capitalism!

renting has at least a single clear benefit beyond just being able to afford it: greater flexibility

"Flexibility" is a daft measure, only useful for people who plan to move often, which, again, is not common, except in the case of people needing to move often for work, which - hey, it's capitalism again!

Also, the financial risk is almost zero when you rent.

"Almost" is doing a lot of work in this sentence. The risk of being made homeless by your landlord for petty reasons is a pretty clear risk. Having your rent hiked is a financial risk. Having to bite the bullet and choose an expensive place to rent because it's the only one reasonably close to work is a financial risk. Being under someone's thumb to provide them income is itself an inherent financial risk.

And by the way - what do you think causes the financial risk of home ownership, since you're so intent on proving my point for me?

[–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

And by the way - what do you think causes the financial risk of home ownership

Accidents, subpar maintenance, market changes, divorce.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Try and think a little more deeply. An accident in itself is not a financial risk. Even flooding isn't inherently a financial risk. Do you know what is?

Also, "market changes" is a part of what I'm pointing at ;)

It's capitalism!

[–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

That's cute, but also not how any of this works.

I suggest https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465060730 -- it's 700 pages but I'm sure you can do it if you put some effort in.

[–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Oof, unironically suggesting Sowell? Might as well toss in Prager-U, or DailyWire.

[–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Ok, so which multiple award-winning, widely respected PhD of Economics would you suggest instead? Or you just against things instead of having any positions of your own, like most other deep-end socialists are?

[–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

For one, I wouldn't recommend a clown that supports removing the minimum wage, or argues that colonization was a good thing. Recommending a far-right Chicago economist, who is far-right even by Chicago school standards, is laughably absurd.

I have many positions of my own. Decentralization is key, as is democratization, and this extends to production. I think protecting worker power is key, and I think Imperialism and colonization are terrible. As such, I can't agree with recommending Sowell.

All of those are reasons why I'm a leftist and am on Lemmy, rather than a Capitalist site like Reddit.

[–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz 2 points 10 months ago
[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -3 points 10 months ago

Henry Kissinger won a nobel peace prize lmao

Capitalist awards often mean you are bad at the thing they're commending you for

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

fosforus uses deflection!

It's not very effective!

Answer me instead of making bad jokes, coward.

By the way - are you unaware of the incredible self own inherent in this? In your attempt to "recommend" a book for more information on these issues, you recommend "basic economics". Well...