this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2024

142 points (98.0% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9982 readers

1911 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

givesomefucks@lemmy.world

142

Squeezed by high prices, a growing number of Americans find shelter in long-term motels (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 49 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

"Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor; and if one is a member of a captive population, economically speaking, one's feet have simply been placed on the treadmill forever." - James Baldwin

"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet." - Terry Prachett

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 28 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

While the above is absolutely true, the rich are rich because of generational wealth. And if you go back far enough, that generational wealth is based on exploitation, environmental abuse, genocide, all the hits.

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's about the lock in of poverty. It's not meant to be taken literally. It's about the increased costs levied on the poor that make it impossible to get out once you are in.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 13 points 2 weeks ago

The other side of that coin is that the poor have to buy from the rich, and the rich have bigger profit margins when selling cheaper items to the poor. This is exploitation of a captive market.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Pratchett mentions generational wealth as well, noting the attics full of furniture and sturdy tweeds which could be handed down, and the estate itself, which could not only house innumerable family members and friends and their servants, but also provided income from rents and food from the gardens, fields, and animal pens. It's just more spread about, whereas the Boots Theory of Poverty is a complete thought.

[–] iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 2 weeks ago

Usually, it's not even going back at all. The generational wealth kids I grew up around still had their parents stealing their workers' wages and engaging in fucked up business practices.

It might not be exterminating a native population kind of thing, but there's that whole thing about the banality of evil and generally accepted insanity, so I still think it counts.

[+] Deceptichum@quokk.au -17 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The boots theory is bullshit.

Price does not reflect quality of goods. Price reflects what the market will pay.

Cheap things can be better quality than expensive things.

Rich people aren’t rich because of some “wise” investment in necessities, the idea that that’s even considered a factor is insulting.

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

You are completely missing the point. Because they have money to begin with the have the money to invest. For example, buying a home instead of paying twice as much to live in a motel because you can't get a loan because you weren't born with wealth.

The principal is about the cost of poverty. It's not meant to be taken literally.

[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Exactly. To use another example it's cheaper to simply own your home outright than to pay rent for the rest of your life.

[–] MinFapper@startrek.website 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

...ish. My wife and I just did this calculation and (at least in America) property taxes throw a wrench into it.

A decent rental home in Texas costs about $2650 per month. A similar house costs about $460k to buy, and run about $1000/mo in taxes. So you'll only save about $1650 per month.

Even putting that 460k into a bank account at 4.5% interest will give you $1725/mo, let alone stocks, index funds, and all the other investments you could be doing that will out-perform real estate.

Of course, that doesn't disprove your point about poverty since you need to have the money to buy/invest. But it's just a reminder that houses are not the wealth builder that a lot of people imagine them to be.

Always research and determine the best option for your financial situation. Gate-keeping financial literacy is another tool the wealthy use to keep people in poverty.

[–] sushibowl@feddit.nl 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

A decent rental home in Texas costs about $2650 per month. A similar house costs about $460k to buy, and run about $1000/mo in taxes. So you'll only save about $1650 per month.

This would amount to an annual tax rate of 2.6% which is possibly some of the highest property tax rate in all of the United States. The median property taxes paid by homeowners in the US is only $2000 per year.

Even putting that 460k into a bank account at 4.5% interest will give you $1725/mo, let alone stocks, index funds, and all the other investments you could be doing that will out-perform real estate.

I agree that real estate as an investment is generally not the best option, but I don't think that says anything about real estate as a wealth building tool for the middle class. If you compare renting to buying using a mortgage (the typical options) over, say, a 50 year period, buying will almost certainly come ahead in terms of wealth built.

For a primary residence that you plan to occupy long term, i would recommend buying almost every time. If you're looking to build more wealth after that, I think there's usually better options than e.g. buying a second house and renting it out.

[–] MinFapper@startrek.website 1 points 2 weeks ago

Eeeeeeeyup!

1.9% for the county: http://www.tax-rates.org/texas/travis_county_property_tax

0.7% for the Public Improvement District: https://spdpid.comptroller.texas.gov/view/2024/103225659

I agree with your last sentiment too. Warren Buffett said the memories he made in his house are worth way more than the money he lost by not investing it. We're thinking of buying for the same reason.

[–] qarbone@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

And that's not even getting into the realities that it was a statement made some 30, 40 years ago(?) and the qualities of "quality" can shift in much less time than that.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

This so much. It is so hard to beat out of the older generation that you cannot SAVE YOUR WAY TO WEALTH!!!

My grandma thinks rich ppl are rich cuz they just spend less and have nice things.

[–] DeadWorldWalking@lemmy.blahaj.zone 36 points 2 weeks ago

Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives

[–] stinky@redlemmy.com 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This is horrifying. We're watching the American people get squeezed out of their homes into fucking motels after doing everything they could to stay afloat. This is awful.

[–] lemmylommy@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And then the government spends more tax payer money on housing them in motels than it would cost to house them properly, because those funds are only available for emergencies.

[–] pdxfed@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

But at least we can rest easy knowing profit was extorted to the max along the way to create a market humanity doesn't need.

[–] Potatisen@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago

How long before Americans start calling it "crowd sourced housing"? #grindset

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago

This used to be common with hotels in major cities. Long term hotel residency and boarding houses used to be common in the US. Probably fell out of style post-WWII with the GI bill paying for so many down payments on single family homes in the suburbs.

[–] shiroininja@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

I remember living in them, starting at 13-14 years old. There is an entire world of hidden homeless that live in hotels, motels, etc. able to make enough to have a bed, but never enough to get out. It’s a hard life.

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

It’s that stupid AI pricing needs to be more regulated.