this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
1246 points (87.9% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
13077 readers
1022 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What the fuck is with this thread being overrun with dickheads? Is this the breaking point, has Lemmy reached critical mass?
The image represents how capitalism uses the myth of scarcity. There's a bed there, and there's a human being sleeping on the ground. The lie is that there isn’t enough to go around; that somebody has to go without.
That's bullshit. We have everything.
The message is that you deserve nothing and must earn everything, not that there isn't enough to go around.
The annoying thing is that there will very likely be a homeless shelter in this city that he's not allowed to sleep in because they have a zero tolerance drug policy.
In what system would the homeless people sleep their nights in bed stores?
The scarcity isn't primarily the beds. The scarcity is where to put the beds, which is perhaps artificially upheld by zoning laws and other governmental shenanigans.
That's just unfaithful interpretation of the argument, and you know it. US on average has 27 empty houses per a homeless person.
Are those houses like habitable right now? I agree that there is a mismatch but 1:27 ratio seems high to me.
You might be confused because typically that figure refers to 'homes', not 'houses'. Apartments and other multi-family housing types are included in that figure.
That's technically true, but really not important. Houses are defined as vacant if they're unoccupied on the day of a census. There's many reasons a house might be technically vacant, but not currently be able to house a homeless person.
Was the house just sold, and is it unoccupied for a week or a month between owners? It's vacant. Did the owner just move into hospice or a memory care unit and their children haven't yet sold the house because they need to arrange an estate sale? It's vacant. Is the house under construction but is mostly built? It's vacant. Is it not safe to live in, but not officially condemned? It's vacant.
Want to move to a city? Either you have to find the apartment of someone moving out, or you have to move into a vacant unit.
Having a good number of vacant homes is a good thing, actually; having low numbers of vacancies in an area leads to housing becoming more expensive because you can't move into a unit that isn't vacant. Increasing housing supply relative to population leads to higher vacancy rates, but decreases housing costs.
Housing-first approaches to homelessness seem to be good in practice. But those are typically done by either government-built housing or government- subsidized housing; it's mostly orthogonal to vacancy rates.
Obviously not. The existence of homelessness isn't due to scarcity at all, it's to do with a system that tolerates (even necessitates) homelessness. The image could have just as easily been someone sleeping outside an apartment with a sign advertising available units; they sleep, freeze, and starve, because our economic model rejects their basic needs in favor of commodifying them.
It's not that hard a concept to grasp, it just seems like people have ingrained the logic of the market in their brains and can't conceptualize the issue of poverty beyond 'stuff costs money'.
Lemmy recently had a swarm of conservative sign ups and/or bot accounts in the last few days.
Has been for a while. During the big exodus from reddit we brought with us lots of typical redditors that think being a contrarian dickhead makes them cool.
As well as lots of the usually sad little losers from across the internet that see people enjoying themselves and get the irresistible urge to make things worse.
There's a ghastly number of people who are aggressively ignorant assholes.
The point is that we don't have people sleeping on the street for a lack of... anything, really. Including beds. The point is that, when nearly everything is run for-profit, and it's even slightly more profitable to let people suffer and even die, then people will suffer and die. We do a better job selling beds than we do making sure everyone has a bed to sleep in. We could make sure everyone has access to a warm bed, shelter, food, medicine, etc., but we don't, and it's less and less acceptable to just accept the status quo just because it's the status quo. If someone thinks the status quo is defensible, it's on them to defend it.
That doesn't mean the mattress seller is evil, or (and I can't understand the logic in one of the other comments) that wanting people to be housed makes you a hypocrite if you have your own housing. And the absolutely shameless comments that openly admit they won't (really can't) explain their position, but are going to condescend anyway.
But there being a salespoint for bed does not take home from the homeless. The issue is them being without shelter.
This is Symbolik, but not the issue at hand. Also turning commercial buildings into flats does not seem like a good/efficient solution to a complex issue like homelessness. (Disregarding living out of a car homelessness)
The other guy said it perfectly:
It really isn't more complicated than that. Any explaination why this person is not allowed to sleep in this bed or why this person should not be able to sleep in this bed is absolute bullshit.