No it doesn’t. It’s socializing a sector of the economy the same way socializing medicine is. It doesn’t mean you can’t still buy and sell computers or cars or financial services for profit.
2 Likes
upkeep is baked into the price of renting, thats why renting is more expensive per month than owning.
put another way - if we socialized housing, properties would not all go to shit- they would still get upkept by construction/maintenance workers. They are the ones who are necessary- not landlords. Just as doctors would still be necessary in socialized medicine, but insurance companies would not be.
3 Likes
Construction work and property management each require specific skills. I can do the latter well, whereas my “construction” skills are limited to very basic home repair.
I don’t know Zap well enough to know if she is being dismissive of construction skills or if she is implying that she had enough knowledge, physical strength, etc. to work construction.
Isn’t Capitalism based on private property? I suppose you could force multifamily dwellings to all be coops and set up in such a way that the rent is used to pay off the mortgage and cover upkeep of the building and what not. Dealing with people leaving would be tricky because you’d need to figure out how to buy them out or something.
Show me a single capitalist country that has abolished all private rentals.
The local authority pays them, the building supervisor (“the super”, employed by the LA) does all the rest.
1 Like
This is really irrelevant and it’s a derail. And this is not something I’m advocating I’m just stating what I think is obviously true that you can socialize one sector of an economy while leaving other sectors unsocialized. But, at least for a long time Singapore had something weird where all of their residential properties were actually owned by the government. People had leases and I’m not sure if they were allowed to sublet or not. The system is still largely in place and something like 80% of properties are owned by the government, but they may have liberalized it.
New thread please: Why capitalism is actually good and communism bad: thoughts of a landlord
6 Likes
Every sensible person doesn’t have the capital to become a landlord.
1 Like
Varies in exact form, but taxation, basically. I’m not being snippy - do you not know this?
1 Like
They pretty much do. You can buy an apartment building from a bank often with no money down and no income using the rent to qualify.
No. For one thing, taxes are usually levied on the populace as a whole, with progressive taxation meaning that wealthier people pay a higher percentage, not just a greater absolute amount. So the contribution from a low-income person to a collective taxation pool is potentially significantly lower than the cost of their rent on the private market.
For another thing, social/public housing has no profit-motive element and can be provided at true cost or even at a ‘loss’ (that is, it is provided as a public good).
Mmm, yeah, I’m completely right about a bunch of other stuff, too, you should try it. This is embarrassing.
1 Like
So far, I’ve had to explain social housing, progressive taxation, public goods and, apparently, building supervisors. Moving you from “How can a landlord ever be replaced?” to “Ah, but nevertheless, transactions will still occur, so-” with a new Pikachu Face from you every step of the way.
What part of that is not embarrassing to you?
Indeed.
Government can’t “just decide” to no longer let landlords evict people. In Wisconsin, at least, the governor’s emergency order to temporarily ban foreclosures and evictions cites state law as justification for the order. That legislators at some point decided to allow for a scenario where such a thing could happen suggests that someone abstractly thought that it could be a possibility, even if they did not envision this specific situation.
It’s the government that evicts people. Courts and then police.
The take jwax et. al have that making money with money is immoral is literally archetypal anti-semitism.
?
Personally, I’m not a Georgist, but speaking of Georgism…
For those ITT who seem mystified and say they can’t even imagine a world without Landlordism, you know kind of like they raised by wolfed… well Georgism is a fully thought out, practical, and proven to work in the real world alternative to Landlordism.
I point this out, not to get into the weeds about how “good” or “bad” Georgism may or may not be, but to attempt to drive a stake through the heart of this stupid, stupid, stupid, TINA (there is no alternative) so-called argument for Landlordism.
And… it seems some Unstuckers, for whatever reasons, would like to see horrific ills of Landlordism done away with, while also keeping the other parts of capitalism around… and are perhaps are looking all around for a theoretical framework that does this that is also, as I mentioned, coherent, practical, and tested. For those folks, Georgism is exactly the droid you are looking for.
Maybe (hint, hint) an actual Georgist might want to chime in here.
2 Likes
Out of curiosity, in a world without landlords, how is it determined who gets to live in the 200 sq ft studio, and who gets the 3000sq ft penthouse?
Do we all line up in the middle of Death Valley and someone blows a whistle and then it’s just first come first serve, but no vehicular travel is allowed? That could be fun. Maybe give people a head start based on their 40 yard dash times or how many limbs they’re missing.
You could say that’s not the point, but I’m still curious on your ideas for implementation of such a system.