• Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    188
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Happy Fake Labor Day to the Americans, because their government wants to hide real labor day from their citizens so they don’t have to educate them about the Haymarket Affair.

    Labor Day being in September is absolutely about erasing labor history. If more people knew labor history, more people would understand why All Cops Are Bastards.

      • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        According to others in the thread, you should have known your whole life about the Wikipedia article on it! Duh! /s

      • mub@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        I sort of knew about this but not the details. Reading that article shows just how far America has failed to come in 50 years.

    • socsa@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      11 months ago

      You are correct, the American website Wikipedia definitely does not have an article on Haymarket

      • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        The average American has a seventh grade reading level (with 54% of the population with less than a sixth grade reading level), and you expect them to be educated enough to 1. know what it is and 2. look for a Wikipedia article on it?

        Jesus, half this fucking country doesn’t even live in reality anymore. Somehow, they’re supposed to just know that it’s on Wikipedia.

        • socsa@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          11 months ago

          So you want like some mandatory Ludovico Technique for this piece of information, or what? There’s literally a library of Congress article. It has been part of AP US history for as long as I can remember. I’m not even sure what point you are trying to make. That there are tons of wilfully ignorant people in the US (true)? Or that this piece of history has been censored (objectively false)?

          • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            26
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Erasure is different than censorship, and I think you’re intelligent enough to know that. I took that AP history class, and it was super biased against the workers, so that’s kind of a joke to reference.

            Also, if we’re talking about a country with a seventh grade average reading level, we’re mostly talking about people who have never taken an AP fucking US history class.

            Choosing the September date is part and parcel to why more people don’t know about it, because it’s not generally part of the public consciousness or conversation. That’s called erasure, not censorship.

            • Zuberi 👀@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              If it was an AP class, that shits not getting to the ears of who really needs it most.

              I would argue that it’s completely erased in most States

              • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                11 months ago

                I mean we’re talking about a country that is literally in the process of redefining the history of slavery and running with “but the slaves learned valuable skills!” Yeah, I’m trying to meet these people at their level, but it’s clear that in huge swaths of the country, it isn’t talked about, period.

          • robotrash@lemmy.robotra.sh
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            11 months ago

            More that the US has successfully managed to censor entire swaths of history by limiting education (especially in red states) and ensuring that critical thought is not taught or enforced in any meaningful capacity. This is all totally intentional and verifiable. The information is there, but people are literally not ever taught (in academia) to think critically and seek answers to things they are unsure of. It’s mostly just memorization until you get the churned to the next year of memorization and if you do dare question any of it you get shit on by peers and teachers alike for being a know it all. It’s rare that you find people willing to foster curiosity in children which ultimately blooms into people eating up whatever they’re told as truth.

      • MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        be me american sees OP comment googles haymarket affair first result is Wikipedia article for haymarket affair 😐

    • Archlinuxforever@lemmy.3cm.us
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Mentioning America on a post that has nothing to do with America specifically? Yeah, this type of thing is ripped straight off of Reddit.

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      35
      ·
      11 months ago

      It was reasonable at the time to separate celebration of labor from Haymarket massacre, where an anarchist through a bomb into otherwise peaceful labor rally killing both the police and the civilian with many workers being injured and triggering the riot. The labor leaders in US then decided to make labor day to be not associated with these bloody events, which have little relationship with the labor movement itself. Not sure why you refer here to ACAB, the policemen were victims here.

      • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        52
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        At the McCormick reaper plant, a long-simmering strike erupted in violence on May 3, and police fired at strikers, killing at least two. Anarchists called a protest meeting at the West Randolph Street Haymarket, advertising it in inflammatory leaflets, one of which called for “Revenge!”

        The crowd gathered on the evening of May 4 on Des Plaines Street, just north of Randolph, was peaceful, and Mayor Carter H. Harrison, who attended, instructed police not to disturb the meeting. But when one speaker urged the dwindling crowd to “throttle” the law, 176 officers under Inspector John Bonfield marched to the meeting and ordered it to disperse.

        Then someone hurled a bomb at the police, killing one officer instantly. Police drew guns, firing wildly. Sixty officers were injured, and eight died; an undetermined number of the crowd were killed or wounded.

        But sure, the cops who were told not to show up, and then showed up when they were angry that people were pissed that they murdered workers, they deservedly got a bomb in their faces. Cops are always a bunch of authoritarian pieces of shit who can’t stand being criticized for being the violent fucking thugs they are.

        • MxM111@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          35
          ·
          11 months ago

          Cops are always a bunch of authoritarian pieces of shit who can’t stand being criticized for being the violent fucking thugs they are.

          Such blanket statements about all the cops is intellectual dishonesty at best. While there are shitty people working in all professions, and having some police officers shitty means very bad things can happen, the majority of the force is not that, as I am sure you aware. Yes, structural changes are needed, but this is not the same as calling all of them as bunch of authoritarian pieces of shit. There is crime in this country, and police does have its function and is needed by society.

          • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            39
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Just admit you were wrong. Just say “Actually, you’re right, the cops were committing violence against striking workers first.” It’s not that hard.

            No need to split hairs or change the subject.

            • MxM111@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              21
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Not on May 4. And I did not change the subject - you did with the ACAB statement.

              To the topic: The bomber was anarchist. Labor was not behind this attack and wanted to distant itself from it. Thus they selected the September.

              • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                25
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                You’re really dedicated here to handwaving away the violence committed by the police before the bombing and also handwaving away that the cops were asked by the Mayor to not interfere. Maybe, just maybe, if the pigs hadn’t fucking showed up, it would have never happened.

                It’s also handwaving away that only 2 of the 8 men put to death for the bombing were actually at the Haymarket event, and it was never conclusively proven that any of them built the bomb. They also never proved conclusively who threw it, but they put 8 men to death over it.

                Also, it’s handwaving away the brutal crackdown on union organizers afterwards. Maybe, just maybe, the reason the labor organizations acquiesced and distanced themselves is because all the businesses, property owners, newspapers, and government were busy vilifying them. How much choice did the labor movement actually have in the date?

                There was disagreement among labor unions at this time about when a holiday celebrating workers should be, with some advocating for continued emphasis of the September march-and-picnic date while others sought the designation of the more politically charged date of May 1. Conservative Democratic President Grover Cleveland was one of those concerned that a labor holiday on May 1 would tend to become a commemoration of the Haymarket affair and would strengthen socialist and anarchist movements that backed the May 1 commemoration around the globe. In 1887, he publicly supported the September Labor Day holiday as a less inflammatory alternative, formally adopting the date as a United States federal holiday through a law that he signed in 1894.

                So the labor movement is Grover Cleveland? And so it’s pretty clear it was because they wanted to prevent socialists from strengthening their numbers. Give me a break. Stop trying to rewrite history and get that boot out of your slobbery mouth.

                Also, finally, stop repeating “anarchist” like it’s supposed to be an insult. “Not on May 4th” is the definition of splitting hairs, chucklefuck.

          • mimic_kry@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Look, I kind of agree with your sentiment, but the historical event in question did involve what the commenter you’re replying to insists happened. I that instance, all the cops involved were assholes. In that era, law enforcement was tied to power by necessity, since only the powerful (read: rich) could start townships and such and afford to pay for law enforcers.

            But now? Things are a little complex. This is on purpose, as the powerful class has continually meddled in police affairs through lobbying and unions (ironically the police union is hilariously well funded due to rich interests wanting am army to keep the poors in line), and we’re (in the US) trending back towards police basically being an official branch of Pinkertons.

            Still, I’ve met good cops. Genuinely good people. Last year, I had a flat (entirely my fault. In CA) tire and a passing motorcycle cop stopped to help. He not only helped me replace it with a spare, he offered to call and pay for a tow truck for me. Truly a kind man, and believed in his social position perhaps more than the average.

            But yeah, that’s not how it is in most places. Even in CA you have sheriff gangs, prison guard gangs, corruption, you name it. Like I said, the US as a whole is generally trending backwards as of late.

            Anyways we need nuance. But we’re increasingly approaching a world where nuance is shunned or laughed at as missing the point, or being needlessly picky. Not only that, people seem even more desperate to feed into tribal groupings. Even on lemmy, you’re either pro US or pro China/Russia. It’s like people think they need to pick a side.

            Sorry, just needed to rant I guess. I just hope we manage to keep the planet alive while we figure our bullshit out.

            • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Cheers mate, thanks for the nuanced take.

              I don’t think most folks like me reject the idea that good cops could exist, it’s more that we’re so aware of how many bad cops exist (at least in the US), it’s one of those situations where good cops are run off the force (or worse, targeted and murdered before they can testify) or put up with so much bad behavior themselves that over time, they’ve become a bad cop, because they’re not stopping other bad cops. Even if they’re nice to citizens, if they’re covering for crimes of their fellow cops, they’re a bad cop. The fact that more cops aren’t standing up against things like qualified immunity when it’s painfully being abused or civil forfeiture when it’s abused shows exactly how little they care for the public and how much they care for their right to abuse the public without recourse.

              Unfortunately, that leaves most cops in the USA falling under the umbrella of ACAB.

              Oh, and the whole 40% of cops self-reported as beating their spouses. On top of the whole “Killology” mess that trains them to be an occupying force in their own cities. It’s really hard to make excuses for them at this point.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    181
    arrow-down
    58
    ·
    11 months ago

    One thing I’ve learned on reddit is that you never tell people on platforms like that or even this one that you’re a landlord. You could be the best landlord, never raise a reasonable rent, keep a well and promptly maintained property, and LanDlOrDs aRe The ScUm of ThE Earth!!1! is all you hear.

    • BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      108
      arrow-down
      59
      ·
      11 months ago

      The very idea of being a landlord is pretty evil though? Like in a housing shortage you’re hoarding property and profiting off it.

      • TheSambassador@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        69
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        So while I generally agree with your sentiment, there are some obvious ways that sometime could be an ethical landlord.

        What if you have a house that’s too big, so you convert a floor into an apartment? You’re adding to the number of housing units available. Should you be forced to sell a portion of your house/building to whoever wants to live there? Or should you be able to rent it out to someone at a reasonable rate? Do we want rules that discourage people from potentially adding units to the market?

        I feel like the “all landlords are evil” narrative is way too simplistic, and that simplistic view turns off people who would otherwise support reasonable limits on landlords and housing ownership. Like, it’s obvious that we need limits and taxes on people who own multiple properties, and it’s obvious that there are companies that exploit renters and drive up prices, but it’s all more complicated than just “landlords evil lol”.

        • Mawks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          25
          ·
          11 months ago

          I rent my property because it’s the only way I could’ve bought it at my age and I use that money to pay for the mortgage of it while I live somewhere I don’t want to (under parent’s wing in a crappy city) but angry people rarely if ever consider all scenarios

          • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            45
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            11 months ago

            Someone else is litteraly paying your mortgage for you because you cannot afford it otherwise. How out of touch do you have to be to say that with a straight face?

            • Mawks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              22
              ·
              11 months ago

              Thanks for the insult and making my point, I can afford it but in my country you have to make a downpayment of 20% of the value and that ate into my savings, I want to recover some of my savings before moving to another city and eating into those savings more, plus I have to wait a year for my wife’s job, is it wrong to rent it for that year before I move?

              • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                22
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                11 months ago

                How am I making your point? You litteraly said that you could not afford the place, so you rented it out instead.

                Someone is paying your mortgage for you because you cannot afford it, and then you will kick that person out when you want to. That person will then have to move again in a market that gets worse by the month.

                I’d say that is pretty bad all around.

                • Mawks@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  17
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  How can I not afford the place? This is just to make my life easier I would not artificially make it harder on me if I can rent it to some europeans that will stay on a sabatical in my country.

                  What is my other choice? Leave the place abandoned for a year until I move? Prices get worse every year and I found a great opportunity to buy now instead of wait until I could buy it without a bank loan. Prices doubled because I waited so this time I don’t want to wait. My mortgage is 25% of my salary that’s not bad is it?

          • TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            11 months ago

            So you’re keeping home ownership away from someone who can afford to pay your mortgage is what you’re really saying.

            • aikixd@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              11 months ago

              How did you come to this conclusion? If someone is renting it means they they can’t pay for mortgage. Otherwise they would’ve done so. He said, that he needed to make a 20% payment to even get the mortgage. Idk how much money that was for him, but where I live that would be around 130k$. Clearly not everyone has that kind of cash.

              And what’s your solution? Disallow renting properties for which mortgage wasn’t posted in full?

              • TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                11 months ago

                If you buy it, live in it. Stop contributing to the housing crisis. Greed got us here, it certainly won’t get us out.

                • aikixd@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  So disallowing renting. So you don’t control your property, which means you don’t own it but lease it.

                  This is problematic, since not being able to open your house is worse than having difficulties with obtaining it. I agree that generally having some people own a lot of housing units is bad, but not being able to own a house means communism. And not as a scare, but quite literally, as in definition.

      • Catsrules@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        47
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Your assuming everyone wants to own property over renting.

        House and property ownership has a lot of responsibility and expenses involved. Your water heater breaks well there is $1000+ your roof needs replacing there is 30K. All of that goes away when you rent as it isn’t your responsibility.

        If you own property it can be harder and more risky to relocate. I know a few people that bought in 2007 and then were stuck as they couldn’t afford to move because they were upsidedown on their house.

        Not saying renting is all sunshine and roses. I personally would rather own then rent but home ownership isn’t for everyone.

        But I do think it is a major problem when you have a few companies buying up all property so no one else can afford it. But I don’t think being a Landlord is inherently evil.

        • papertowels@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Threw down over 20k in fixes so far in our first year of homeownership, and due to interest rates and closing costs, we don’t really have the opportunity to move anywhere else without taking a significant financial hit.

          You bet it’s not for everyone.

          • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Yeah but you know what, you always have a home. It is very unlikely the bank will ever foreclose on you, they rarely do that, even in 2008 almost nobody lost their homes.

            But me, I lose my home on my landlords whim. At any given time I may have just 30 days to pack my life up and fuck off, and there’s nothing I can do about it.

            You have stable permanent shelter. Don’t undervalue that just because you have to maintain it.

              • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                Rights that allow me just 30 days to pack up and leave.

                Right now the news in my area is rife with “renovictions” and landlords kicking people to “move family in” but they never have to give any proof of those things. There is regulation, but there is no enforcement.

                • papertowels@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  That certainly sucks. Can you sue for wrongful eviction? I know that’s a thing where I’m at.

            • papertowels@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Definitely not undervaluing it, however it’s worth pointing out that 20k is over a years worth of rent for a similar property where I’m at.

              Are you renting month to month? Typically where I’m from you sign 1 year long rental agreements, so that is surprising to hear. Additionally, in some states, if the tenant has been living in a location for over a year, the owner has to give two months notice.

              At the end of the day, being financially locked down to a location vs having a “permanent” home, as well as having the opportunity to move wherever you want vs having no permanent home are two sides of the same coins.

              • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                You don’t have the opportunity to move where you want when you’re paying 50% or more of your takehome on rent. As an owner you have way more opportunity because you have equity you can leverage if you want to move. Renters have no equity.

                It is the furthest thing from two sides of the same coin.

                • papertowels@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  That sounds like an income vs cost of living issue to me. It wouldn’t really be feasible to move until many, many years in if you were making mortgage payments of 50% or more of your takehome.

                  Ngl in this imagined scenario where shelter is taking up 50% of your income, you’re kinda fucked regardless of renting or owning. There’s no way you’d be able to save enough money to replace the roof (25k?) Replace aging sewer pipes (9k to reline, maybe 15k to replace?) Or replace the windows (haven’t gotten quotes for this yet, but I’m dreading it). You’ll have to get financing for those fixes, so that’s even more interest.

                  However if you get a better job elsewhere, it is far easier to take advantage of that opportunity if you rent.

                  You have no equity when renting, but you also haven’t spent a cent on maintenance, and you don’t have to deal with closing costs, taxes, and whatnot.

          • papertowels@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I actually recently learned about housing co-ops. Basically an apartment complex led by a committee of residents. It’s non profit high density housing, so you can buy a share (meaning rent an apartment) at much lower rates. As an example, in my area the co-ops are at 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of traditional rentals. The downside is, from what I hear, the folks managing the apartment complex can be even worse than an HOA if you’re unlucky.

            IMO this is the sustainable way forward for housing.

            • TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Correct, but only one mountain can be climbed at a time. We have more reliable food sources than housing sources right now.

          • Catsrules@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            In a perfect world sure, government is fully funded and runs smoothly people care about the everyone etc… etc…

            But in reality I really would be very hesitant to want to live in that world. It is very scary to have a single organization control all your housing. At least with the way it currently is if you don’t like your landlord you can go somewhere else. If the government owns everything your kind of stuck dealing with the same organization no matter where you go. Governments are not immune to corruption and can screw you over even worse in some cases then an organization.

            In my opinion the best solution is many private citizens and small rental companies combined with government enforcing laws protecting both parties. However one big issues I am seeing is huge companies buy up everything in a small area and build a monopolies on rentals. That isn’t good either.

            • Nalivai
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Governments are not immune to corruptions, but in the democracy there are ways to influence the government. Private companies that buy all the property are doing the corruption by design, in this case it’s not even called corruption, it’s normal profit-driven business, it’s supposed to be like that. And you can’t do shit about that, there is no ways to influence them

              • Catsrules@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                And you can’t do shit about that, there is no ways to influence them

                You influence them via your business and local laws. That is why I specifically mentioned that the best solution is having multiple small companies. If you have problems with one you go to another one. Just like what you do with any other company. Yeah it stuck to have to move but it is better move and get a better situation then be stuck in a bad situation.

          • Pixel@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            You are basically insuring yourself against those expenses, which has a premium. If you are good with money and have a savings, you can afford not to pay that premium. Not everyone is in that position or smart enough with money. So many people are bad with money, that stuff really should be taught in school.

          • steltek@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            But you’re not researching, hiring, and scheduling a contractor to fix it. You don’t need to become an expert in long term planning and anticipate problems. You’re not mentally cataloging basic maintenance tasks like when you last painted the siding or mowed the lawn.

            Home ownership vs renting goes beyond equity and I know a lot of people who were happy renting because it gave them a huge chunk of free time back for trips, hobbies, etc.

      • grue@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Like in a housing shortage you’re hoarding property and profiting off it.

        Housing shortages are caused by bad government policy: namely, low-density zoning. Direct your anger towards the entity that deserves it, and make them fix their fuck-up.

        (Note: I’m not making some kind of Libertarian “all government is bad” argument here. I’m saying that in this specific case, the laws need to be changed.)

        • Nalivai
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          There is enough empty property to house every homeless person 30 times. Some of those empty property are summer houses and shit, but even then the problem isn’t the lack of housing, it’s treating homes as a mean to make money out of people’s basic needs. You can build the best walkable city in the world, but if it will be bought by professional landlords immediately it will not solve shit.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        11 months ago

        Not everyone is able or willing to own their property, what would they do if landlords didn’t exist?

          • KarmaTrainCaboose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            11 months ago

            What if I build a house on a piece of land I own and want to rent it out?

            The second construction is completed I’m all of a sudden a scumbag for privatizing someone else’s right to shelter? Even though it’s a house I built on my land? Doesn’t make much sense to me.

              • KarmaTrainCaboose@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                As I stated in the very first sentence: to rent it out.

                I suppose your response will be “but renting it out is bad! We should make that illegal because you’re extracting wealth from the tenant!”

                Then I will say to you “fine, I suppose I will not build that house at all”

                This is how you get a take a housing shortage in the US and make it far, far worse.

            • Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              You’re moving the goal posts here. Did you buy the land for the purpose of building property? Bad. Did you convert arable land into housing? Bad. Was it a rocky bad piece of land that you invested in to build something more out of it? Good. Housing policy isn’t binary but in most cases the current personal private multiownership model doesn’t help anyone. My perspective is no one should be allowed to own more than one house, and if so anything beyond the first house should be heavily taxed.

              • KarmaTrainCaboose@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Buying land for the purpose of building property is bad? I think any policy that discourages development of additional housing is probably not going to be great for house prices. Or if you’re handing out houses in a lottery system, it won’t be great for housing supply at least.

                • Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I’ll give you an example; my country has food insecurity, rich people take arable farmland and build suburbs on that land instead of infilling the city downtown which has single detached homes less than a kilometre from the centre of the city. Do you think that this is a good thing they’re buying this farmland for suburbs, or a bad thing?

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            So they would still have a landlord it would be the government instead and people would be pissed when the government increases rent or throws people out because they’re destroying the place or not paying their rent…

            • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              I’d much prefer to have social housing than slumlords that want to make a profit on the rented space while also keeping the value of the building.

              • kbotc@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                So, how does the government decide who gets beachfront property and who lives behind the power plant?

                • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  The same way that it works now? The unit is for rent, you take an appointment and the first person that qualifies get it.

                  This is not the gotcha you think it is. What so different than the current system?

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Make it illegal to rent out property you don’t live on.

          If you want to rent out your basement, or build a seperate dwelling on your property then you are adding to the available housing and can rent that. Most people would rather build their own equity given the chance, and this would provide rentals for temporary living situations.