• the_q@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Lol everyone posting is normalizing the land price because it’s near water. Like they don’t see that it’s an artificial metric that can and does change with the wind and only stays high because rich people, and those wanting to be rich, keep up the charade.

    • theragu40@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is it normalizing? Or just pointing out how things are today?

      It’s possible to describe reality without approving of it.

      I don’t like that lakefront property is so expensive, but it surely is. I’ve been casually looking for years and I don’t know if I’ll ever afford it. And the headline is complaining about a shed selling for $225k when it’s pretty obviously the land and lakefront access that comes with it that is selling for that amount. The structure is a throw in and there’s a good chance whoever buys it simply demolishes it to build what they want.

      • the_q@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes it’s normalizing it. You’re doing it in your comment talking about what’s obvious about the value.

        • theragu40@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So what is your contention? That people should just say that land doesn’t cost what it actually costs? I don’t understand.

          • the_q@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well it would be nice if people wouldn’t participate in the charade as a get rich scheme. Or if land had some kind of flat price or homes… That’d be nice.

            • theragu40@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              But surely some land or homes have more desirable features? Should an acre of beautiful lakefront property command the same value as a dirt lot next to a dirty industrial park?

              Either way, let’s say your idea for how land and homes should be valued is executable in the real world. I still don’t understand why acknowledging the way things are in reality as things stand right now is the same as normalizing it. Ignoring something doesn’t get it changed.

              • the_q@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Why? Because it’s nicer to look at? Who’s deciding what’s nice to look at anyway? The dirt lot shouldn’t be near a dangerous industrial area to begin with. It’s just more of the same wealthy land owner maximizing profits at the risk of a poor person’s health.

                Because shelter shouldn’t be a commodity. It shouldn’t be a form of financial growth or security. It’s a need, a requirement. Normalizing it as I’ve called it keeps shelter unavailable for some and a hindrance to others all to keep landlords rich. Talking about it as “just how it is” continues the cycle.

    • unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s only artificial until someone buys at that price, then that price is a real measure of how much money someone in the market was willing to spend at the time they bought. Other market participants observe this behavior and adjust their own pricing expectations accordingly. There’s nothing magic or artificial about this, it’s supply and demand.