• motorwerks@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not just them, it’s everyone, just say different times. The moment the world allowed, & even heralded, wealth extraction over wealth creation everyone lost. Well, not everyone, a small number of people won impressively, like generational wealth levels, but we speak of them fondly. We assign labels like entrepreneur & genius to those folk.

  • Saneless@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Didn’t we all know this anytime we saw House Hunters and they wanted $700k for some of these shitboxes?

    • Thrillhouse@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      When it pops most people still won’t have money (because recession) and corporations will scoop in and buy up all the assets oh boy!

      • cybermass@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right so we just implement socialist policies in housing.

        I mean, water, power, education, healthcare are all heavily regulated or controlled by the government. Why not housing? It is a basic human need after all more of a basic need than education (not saying education should change).

        • droopy4096@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          despite my socialist views I’m also a realist: no elected government in Canada or US would socialize real estate. None. Within current economic and political system it’s a surefire recipefor country implosion. The only feasible solution is taxing “luxury” properties and diverting that money towards subsidized/public housing. Demand outpaces supply and supply is being choked by corporations and individuals scooping up properties and not releasing them back either as rentals or for resale. Make it passable for them to sell and impossible to hold and we can bring market to some shaky equilibrium. Build more affordable housing and you may stabilize the market. There are no other options on the table as far as I know.

          • MyNameIsIgglePiggle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s my take as well here in Australia.

            No person should own more than one house, and no corporations can own a house ever.

            If you must move, that’s ok, there is a central no reserve auction system that you must place your property into.

            You can also buy your new property from said no reserve auction system.

            Making housing a wealth vehicle is immoral

        • 'M' as in 'MANCY'@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s sweet that you think we can just implement social policies like that.

          Only the rich and corporations would benefit from the housing market crashing.

          • cybermass@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, just tax corporate home ownership, double property tax for homes that sit empty for more than 3 or 6 months, and put a 50% tax on any rental net profits above 15% of the total rental price.

            Use that money for high density/low income development grants, seems simple to me.

      • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We really need to start limiting the number of properties/parcels/acres that any one entity can own. It’s really the only way to stop corporations from taking over.