I don’t think I will.
Most readily-available definitions of ‘affordable housing’ define it with respect to median household income, and the man said ‘by definition’. Nobody uses the phrase ‘affordable housing’ and means “Well someone can afford it” FFS.
Well, it sounds like a question you perhaps need to take up with your god. For a lot of people what’s “ok” and not “ok” is a matter of faith. If you are a Christian, yesterday was Easter… that seems like it would have been a good time to make such spiritual inquires.
Meanwhile here on Monday, and outside of the considerations pertinent to high religious holidays, surely the Hotel Bauen is open for business as usual…
That’s your perception, not reality.
It’s affordable in the sense that there is literally zero incentive to build it if the units cannot be sold.
That doesn’t mean that every developer targets the top 10% of the income bracket, because 10% of the people can’t live in 100% of the housing.
You just want your apartment to cost less, and that’s a different argument than saying there’s a lack of affordable housing.
Oh, OK, I take it back, this one guy means “someone can afford it” and sincerely believes that that’s the definition of ‘affordable housing’.
I’m marking this down as “we’re banning hotels.”
List of things that are properly comparable to the n-word:
1: _____________________________
(this list is complete; you can help by shutting your fool mouth)
You might be right with the patents but property development requires properties which are are capped. So even that everyone can build the same stuff there are seldom the same pieces of land available twice which can have a huge impact on profits.
Sigh, no. The Hotel Bauen is a hotel. Did you even read the linkee?
Once again, peeps are confusing what these fools claim their violent scams “create” -vs- who’s actually doing the real work.
Landlordism don’t “create” travel or short term housing any more than it “creates” long term housing… just like insurance companies don’t “create” healthcare… etc/etc/etc.
So we’re only abolishing privately-owned hotels then.
Landlordism buys the project. Landlordism puts out the capital to buy materials and labour. Without capital there is no construction. There would be no construction industry without landlordism.
Construction workers do the manual labour. These are good middle class jobs for people without higher education. Construction workers are not victims.
A sex worker is a whore now? Are they even borderline humans to you? There’s not 1 sex worker that would enjoy being called a whore by the way.
What built up value are you talking about in a global invasion? What exchange in value is there? If you want to buy up all the housing stock on earth you need trillions of dollars to do so. You can’t just print that money and arrive at earth.
If you are talking about a global invasion every single earthling would agree to send all the nukes we have at the invaders. This is no longer a landlordism conversation.
Wow you are such a fake liberal it’s hilarious.
Let me educate you yet again. Both words are used solely to dehumanize a vulnerable class. They are meant to hurt, belittle, and reduce the inherent value of people. They are used in exactly the same way. Just because you don’t care about one class of people doesn’t change the harm of the word.
Industries that are price inelastic are industries I support nationalizing or having strong government influence over. I wouldn’t touch price elastic industries like landlordism.
Education.
Healthcare.
Energy (depends).
Pharma.
Consumers of these industries pay nearly no matter what the price is.
Landlordism is different than those industries. Now the things are quite different in global cities like LA / New York / Paris. But this is more a supply problem than a landlord problem. There simply isn’t enough land anymore to house all the people we need to house.
I would not describe myself as a liberal.
Tee-hee to the bolded but that’s just a goof. More seriously, can you imagine a ‘joke’ such as this:
Q: What would you call The Flintstones if they were sex workers?
A: Whores!
Now, the original, racist version of that joke is a real knee-slapper to a lot of racists. A gay old time. The version I’ve shown you won’t be met with grins and high-fives from even the most ardent prohibitionist. This should tell you that you’re on the wrong track.
Too much editing, dude, there’s a preview panel on the right. Take your time. I said I’m all for respecting sex work as work, and I regard it as, at best, pretty rude to refer to sex workers as ‘whores’. My issue is with your equating it to the n-word. That is just crazy shit.
I’m done with you. I havnt even put victoar on ignore. You will be my first.
It’s N-word Lite? Weird hill to die on, bro.
Yeah, it does sometimes feel like I’m in a fistfight with a literal six-year-old. Just maybe sometimes the six-year-old shouldn’t be mouthing off like that.
A big problem with discussing things on the internet is that people write a lot of things, long lists of new items and interject new twists in bunches at a time and it’s never possible to resolve even one little difference of opinion, let alone a big complicated one.
Let’s try to just look at one thing there.
“Landlordism requires structural homelessness”
That’s an interesting point that I’ve considered before and lean towards thinking it’s likely somewhat true, but imo it’s not obviously true. You’ve given some reasons why it may be true, but those reasons are not proof. And the credible and immediate threat does not need to be homelessness. It could be almost anything. It could be just damage to one’s reputation in some circumstances.
So, how do we know whether or not #1 is really true? If Landlordism REQUIRES structural homelessness then it must be present everywhere there is landlordism. So, let’s look for an example of a country (or even part of a country) that has landlordism and little or no homelessness.
Now I’m no expert in this. We would greatly benefit from someone who was. I’m sure I don’t really understand these places that I’m doing a little googling on , but, I’m finding some interesting things. Some countries like Japan have very few homeless people because they are wealthy, have some social safety net, and maybe just fewer people are abandoned by their families. Many countries like Egypt have very very few people with literally no home because they have many “informal settlements” or “unplanned settlements” where people build their own structures on land that they do not officially own.
People call these places slums, but of course there’s more to it than that.
This is pretty interesting imo.
In most places, here too I’m sure to some degree, informal settlements are persecuted by the government. A large neighborhood in Egypt seems to have recently been demolished. On the one hand that is ostensibly because the housing quality is so low, but the threat of government eviction certainly makes it so people are less willing to invest in even their own homes.
I dunno. Interesting. How would the world look if all or most of it were a non-persecuted squatter settlement? But still, even if it looked decent like some of the homes there in Tijuana, would that really end landlordism?
(another problem with the internet discussions - like I’m trying to examine one little thing and realizing a cursory look at this is a 10 page paper - not happening here)
1 Like
Not sure what you mean. Do you think calling a sex worker a whore is morally equivalent to calling a black person the n-word? Because I don’t think I’m the one who’s going to be dying on that hill.
I would like to sincerely apologize to all my fellow Unstuckers.
Above ITT I used inappropriate, foul, derogatory, and de-humanizing slang to refer to sex workers. This is 100% my bad. There are no excuses. I know. We organize sex workers. I’ve even been trivially involved with organizing workers at LA area strip joints.
Once again, my behavior was inappropriate, to say the least. Once again, I’d like to apologize to my fellow Unstuckers. Once again, this is 100% my bad. I have edited out my foul spew. I’ll redouble my resolve not to spew such foulness in the future. For now, I’m going to attempt to self-ban for a week, as a penance.
6 Likes