That is also a fantastic read. The book I had contained both of them, but all of Orwell is available for free online.
What I find amusing is the constant attempt to somehow tie the landlord system into the construction business. Like how can houses be âcreatedâ⌠itâs a stumpier. How the fuck did anyone live indoors?
When a landlord could just buy an existing SFR, or a unit in an existing condo, and rent that out. No need to do this whole farcical dance about âempty dirtâ and crazy construction workers at all.
So⌠why donât they just skip this whole farcical construction cone zone dance ???/?
because thatâs all the got⌠farce
It was a while ago, but I thought you said you thought the logic in this post was reasonable?
I think discussion about construction is just similarly motivated, and seems pretty relevant, at least to the larger discussion about capitalism which I think PocketChads is engaged in, even if itâs broader than the original topic?
The person that wants the house to be built paid for the house to be built. So he becomes the landlord once he rents it out, but I thought landlords and capitalists werenât necessary?
Well we have come full circle.
When you canât win the arguments itâs time to throw down credentials.
Oh by the way, the building that you built, would it have been built without your involvement?
Yes once you start taking value without having earned it you become bad. That is correct. Landlords arenât necessary. Glad weâre learning.
We need the âbuyerâ to pay the labourer and the producer to build the house or else the house is not built.
The buyerâs money is absolutely necessary to have the house built, but because he decides to rent it heâs bad now, and heâs unnecessary. So you want to seize the house from the buyer once he decides to rent it and not live in it?
Itâs quite interesting to take contradictory arguments.
Correct.
Correct. Once the house is built then the money that built it isnât needed any more. because the house is already built.
We donât necessarily have to seize the property but itâs one solution to the theft of value that is taking place.
There is nothing contradictory here. If you build a house and live in it thatâs good. If you buy a house and live in it thatâs good. If you buy some land and rent seek (literally) off it thatâs bad. Try to keep up man itâs not that complicated.
Interesting.
You only get to live in the house you buy or build. If you decide to move, you have to sell it. You canât rent it because thatâs thieving and if you leave it empty Sabo gets angry at you. One of the solutions is to have your house seized because you are profiting off people by doing so.
Me the renter. I donât want to own housing at all and be responsible for the debt it takes to build it. Now how do I get the housing built on the piece of dirt? I guess this question still hasnât been answered yet.
I know you think you are keeping up, but you really arenât.
- If there is less incentive to provide for-profit housing, then the supply of for-profit housing will decrease.
I donât think this is true at all. I also think that a look at history would show it hasnât been true.
The problem here being that there is an implied ECON 101 premise, that just isnât true. Rent isnât tied to the cost of erecting buildings, in the way the cost of soybeans are tied to the costs of farming. Rent is tied to the fear and immiseration of being forced downward in quality life towards and into homelessness.
What happens as a working folk becomes less profitable to extract from? Well⌠SFR, MFR, roommates, six to a room, weekly SRO, blowing a guy to sleep in his storage shed, urban camping. What happens when the big factory closes in the small town? Freeholders, 2nd mortgages, distress sales, quick-n-dirty rentals, fire trap tenements, private âparking spacesâ for car campers, charging homeless folk to sleep on the landlordâs dirt.
My contention is that as working folk become less profitable to extract from, the landlords donât go creating an army of homeless folk, while keeping their portfolios constant but empty⌠there ainât no profit in that. Instead they just âprovideâ worse and worse housing.
I donât think this is a premise in my argument. Iâm not talking about the cost of rent, but about the supply of housing.
I think this is also true, though there is probably some floor beneath which this is no longer possible. But itâs kind of to my larger point, I think, which was that some approaches to reducing the amount of for-profit housing are more likely to have negative consequences for the people whose lives weâre trying to improve (and that talk about construction is relevant).
I think if you clarify more exactly what you mean by the âsupply of housingâ youâll find a little of that ECON101 hiding back on in there.
You mean like a movement of large scale arson? Sure. But the rest is just concern trolling.
No, 1000x no. Thatâs a credit problem. Building construction has nothing to do with the landlord system. Thatâs just simple minded propaganda. SMH.
Would you prefer if instead of using credentials I just said that I think youâre an idiot? Because what I really mean is that you should not presume that you are correct. You probably arenât very often. Again trying to be polite, you should just participate in good faith and instead of assuming that everyone else is wrong and clueless you could allow that people may know what theyâre talking about.
Your second question is not particularly relevant or easy to answer. I donât know if the buildings that I worked on would have been built without me. Many other people were involved. I made a contribution, but if I werenât there someone else could have done exactly what I did or perhaps they would have found a different way to do it.
If those particular buildings hadnât gotten built though, different buildings would have been built. What I was doing was helping people win competitions for grants or tax credits. And yeah, I was involved in stuff that I thought was worthwhile and productive, but not nearly so much as what I do now which is actually build things with my hands.
ETA: the buildings that I helped get built were not developed by capitalists.
If you want to rent we can build a house and rent it to you at replacement + upkeep cost. Youâre gonna have some pretty big savings now that you donât need to generate profit for a random person for no reason.
For some reason, how buildings get erected seems to be a complete mystery to some folk. But I guess now-a-days a lot or urban sites are draped pretty well, and it might seem like some magic is going on behind those curtains. Like the wizard of oz, I guess. Anyways, I helped build the house to the east of me, and several other houses in the county.
My beach house was built before I was born. But it is a kit-house, and was quite likely built personally by the original owner-occupant. Before that time, it was legal to camp on these lots, and itâs also quite likely that the original owner-occupier bought the lot earlier. By camping out, instead of paying rent, for maybe a year, they would have been able to pay for that kit.
In jurisdictions where it is legal, you can still do the same today, by car camping for ~1 year, then buying or building a âtiny houseâ, for use of about ~4yrs, then paying construction workers to build a traditional house.
ETA: But once again, this is a credit issue. It has nothing to do with building erection. It has nothing to do with the landlord system.
I mean if youâre that afraid of change weâll even let you pay the inflated amount youâre currently paying if you really must. We can put it to good use Iâm sure.
Very cool how you used to be able to buy a kit house from Sears.
I wish mine was from Sears. I wish my lot was that big. Those were top of the line. There were other national brands too. One cool thing was theyâd send weekly pre-kitted shipments.
My shack wasnât anything like that. It was probably a kit for a camping shack, or maybe a small office. No plumbing or electrical as shipped. There was a tiny door which I assume was designed to access a latrine or something. It was installed with plumbing and electricity (2 cloth wires 2ft apart) as that was code in 1927. The framing is dimensional old growth redwood.
I think organization is a bigger problem than credit.
ETA; the problems are very different depending on whether youâre talking about single-family or multi-family housing and whether you are in areas where land is very expensive or not.