I remember when I was growing up, tech industry has so many people that were admirable, and you wanted to aspire to be in life. Bill Gates, founders of Google Larry Page, Sergey brin, Steve Jobs (wasn't perfect but on a surface level, he was still at least a pretty decent guy), basically everyone involved in gaming from Xbox to PlayStation and so on, Tom from MySpace... So many admirable people who were actually really great....
Now, people are just trash. Look at Mark Zuckerberg who leads Facebook. Dude is a lizard man, anytime you think he has shown some character growth he does something truly horrible and illegal that he should be thrown in prison for. For example, he's been buying up properties in Hawaii and basically stealing them from the locals. He's basically committing human rights violations by violating the culture of Hawaiian natives and their land deeds that are passed down from generation to generation. He has been systematically stealing them and building a wall on Hawaii, basically a f*cking colonizer. That's what the guy is. I thought he was a good upstanding person until I learned all these things about him
Current CEO of Google is peak dirtbag. Dude has no interest in the company or it's success at all, his only concern is patting his pockets while he is there as CEO, and appeasing the shareholders. He has zero interest in helping or making anyone's life pleasant at the company. Truly a dirtbag in every way.
Current CEO of Home Depot, which I now consider a tech company because they have moved out of retail and into the online space and they are rapidly restructuring their entire business around online sales, that dude is a total piece of work conservative racist. I remember working for this company, This dude's entire focus is eliminating as many people as feasibly possible from working in the store, making their life living heck, does not see people as human beings at all. Just wants to eliminate anyone and everyone they possibly can, think they are a slave labor force
Elon musk, we all know about him, don't need to really say much. Every time you think he's doing something good for society, he proves you wrong And does the worst thing he can possibly do in that situation. It's like he's specifically trying to make the world the worst place possible everyday
Like, damn. What the heck happened to the world? You know? I thought the tech industry was supposed to be filled with these brilliant genius people who are really good for the world...
Yeah, you don't need to have a billion to exclude people from shelter and exceed complicity in their suffering or death. Anyways, yeah short of abolishing property and landlords a significant tax, property hoarding deterrance, and rent control would make so much sense. It would take an severe naivete or true sociopathy not to support it.
... or seeing how those things affected a few rent-strained places not in the USA where you are apparently from.
Property taxes are fine and all. But renting out has a place in economics. It should be profitable and encouraged, it does benefit people who can't buy real estate.
Of course when huge realty companies rent out, and there's not much other choice, you are going to have problems. But that's work for anti-monopoly laws.
But where I live, for example, it's usually individuals who rent out and they don't own dozens of apartments.
Landlords do spend their money and time on maintaining their property, buying furniture, appliances, keeping it in good state, insured and all that, so that someone without time and energy to do a hundred things would be able to rent that property and live there without too much bother.
They provide a useful service. Hating them all is stupid.
Sitting in the "shelter is not a right" space:
They withold houses from the market, thereby driving cost up. In turn that drives mortgage down payments up. The credit system and bank hurdles to securing a mortgage are also a big part of that issue but another conversation.
The generalization that the individual landlord does the maintenance and tasks that the tenants don't want to is hard bs. Considering that rent is based on a profit, and any landlord I've had has hired out labor, the tenants functionally already pay for all of that maintenance and upkeep. Many would love to DIY but others could afford to hire the labor and save money with a mortgage vs rent. That's not to mention it's basically 50/50 on whether the landlord actually maintains a property or sits in the area of, "tenants aren't going to report me cause i have all the power and they need shelter".
Now owning a home i can easily say, you don't really have much to do for maintenance. I guess i mow the lawn every few weeks and otherwise do basic cleaning? Even my old car only takes a few hours of labor every few months and it has moving parts. I guess i also cleaned the gutters back in spring. Took an hour and a buddy to hold the ladder. Oh i also have savings put away for larger infrequent maintenance which i can just hire out(if i wanted) at a tiny fraction of what i used to pay in rent.
Anyways, to the part where i can agree in some sense is short term housing. That's a real need. That's where rent really makes sense. Still, rent control based on simple percent profit and tax. Limits on unused properties. So on. Housing capacity should grow but housing cost should not drive cost of living nor exceed inflation.
Wouldn't that stimulate more construction?
OK, where I live people usually don't own houses, they own apartments, and maintenance minimally involves ensuring that your apartment is not a cockroach breeding ground and your piping doesn't make your neighbors below feel too wet.
In a separate house yeah, you can more or less just shrug because liquids go into the ground anyway, and there are no central heating pipes that may rupture, and so on.
That'd be fine. Maybe if you own 5+ apartments, or by living space, because otherwise you'd, say, hurt people who have one apartment they are slowly restoring to livable condition to maybe rent out later and one they themselves live in.
New construction isn't always an option in dense urban areas. It's also possible that new development is simply purchased by investors and put on the rental market (with or without tenants) and you're back at square 1.
As much as I loathe HOA's, and I've heard of bad condo association drama, multi-unit housing can be run under alternative, collective schemas. If you are renting there's a lot of value in considering a renter's union in such scenario. Tenants have banded together to buy out their own building collectively before. But also I'm talking outside my experience here and shouldn't prescribe a solution for ultra-dense housing when I've only lived in a 30 unit building in a medium sized city and not new york or whatever.
Look, no one is saying do this overnight. There is shitloads of nuance to it which needs to be addressed but it is east to get voiced down in. But people shouldn't be on the street when they can't afford rent. That's the quickest way to losing your job, your belongings, a permanent address, and even your personal documentation. Without those you can't get a job, or housing, or any public benefits. We have to stop putting people out for the mere act of attempting to survive and making one mistake or missing one bus.
I'm actually fine with pretty communist futuristic solutions here, as long as they are very clearly defined to prevent slippery slopes.
As in - state-provided place to bunk for those who have problems.
Sort of a capsule, behind one sliding door there's a toilet, behind another there's a shower and a water tap and a mirror, behind the third one there's a space to sleep horizontally, and a space to store your stuff under it. A retractable table and a seat. Obviously electricity. Something like that, taking minimal space, allowing modular maintenance and repair. One of the walls has a window, that can be opened. The space shouldn't be too small either - if people get too claustrophobic, they might prefer grass or subway stations.
Of course, if we think about this seriously, multiple such capsules' inhabitants can all queue for shower and even to use toilets and even to cook. A washing machine for laundry in every capsule seems inefficient, so common laundromats it is. A place to sleep and keep possessions is the most important thing.
Such apartment buildings should have sufficiently passable corridors and sufficiently spacious common areas.
With those requirements in mind - it takes a standard design and a program of construction of such housing. Apartments won't be property of their inhabitants, just something provided by the state as long as it's needed.
But a program of construction of such things, only with selling to end inhabitants by subsidized price, is too a possibility. Only I'd separate them - a building is either inhabited by owners\renters\guests, or by people needing temporary housing, not both at once.
What did I write ...
That's a potential solution to one problem. Sounds like a japanese hotel lmao!
Honestly i could keep nitpicking but this post shows that you can at least see a concept for caring about someone's humanity beyond economics. If only we could get those imbecilic billionaires to do the same.
Interesting chat, cheers!
Economics of this are generally beneficial for everyone (... non-sociopathic, it will "make rich richer" too, but reduce their relative power, and the latter is more important for such people), because of scale, standard design and modularity making this cheaper, and because of the variant involving sale affecting the rent market well too, and because the fruit of this will be enormous new economic development.
I was thinking of something between Japanese hotels and "studios" they sell here as the most available kind of apartment, ha-ha, just a bit downgraded to the level of Khruschev-era mass construction plus the idea of standard modular insides of those capsules.
EDIT: (Thx)