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
[–] 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.

[–] 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...

[–] 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