• CannonFodder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    19 hours ago

    So you don’t just want free housing, but you want it in the downtown core? But you don’t want the people that make the housing to make any money? What about the labourers who build the house - should thay be forced to do it for free so you can have your free house? And what about everyone else who wants to live in that area, but there’s not enough room for everyone - why should you get it over them even if you don’t contribute anything to society?

    • Goodeye8@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Are we in the making shit up step? I never said anything about free housing or not paying people for their labor.

      • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        18 hours ago

        The problem is, that we live in the real world. Someone has to build and maintain the housing. Some people don’t have any money for rent. If we are providing affordable housing as a human right, then that means free housing.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          18 hours ago

          There are places in the world where healthcare is a human right. The people providing healthcare get paid. This is a solved problem.

          • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            17 hours ago

            That is a good argument. And overall it’s been shown that having free healthcare saves money in the long run and leads to better quality of life. As would free basic housing probably. And free food. And free phones/internet. I am personally quite in favour of UBI which covers this. But at some point people are disincentivized to work / be productive. And that’s a problem because humans are rather lazy when they can be. And we need people to be productive so that we can produce housing, food, healthcare, phones, internet, etc. Clearly things are out of whack now with housing costs too high compared to salaries. But I just don’t think going full communist would work.

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              15 hours ago

              Who said anything about full communist? This is about landlords.

              I am personally quite in favour of UBI which covers this. But at some point people are disincentivized to work / be productive. And that’s a problem…

              Pick a fucking lane.

              • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                14 hours ago

                ‘Full communist’ as in everyone gets everything for free from the government. Like free healthcare, housing etc. if you don’t want landlords but people can’t afford to buy, the only other option is free stuff from the government.
                I like the idea of UBI at a fairly low rate - ie just enough to survive ok - and with no clawbacks (for a certain level) - that way people have a safety net and aren’t beholden 100% to employers, but are incentivized to find a job however small to improve their lot. It would be good for people’s mental health. It encourages an upward spiral, and employers can’t be completely shitty.
                However you still need landlords - they offer rental arrangements for people who can’t buy.

                • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  13 hours ago

                  the only other option is free stuff from the government.

                  I like the idea of UBI

                  Pick a fucking lane.

        • Goodeye8@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          16 hours ago

          You’re steering the discussion elsewhere but to answer your question, affordable housing can be achieved through government subsidies and yes, that would includes free housing. If you’re worried about freeloaders the subsidies can be contribution based. A part of your income goes the universal housing fund and with that fund housing projects can be either partially or fully subsidized.

          • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            16 hours ago

            Well the discussion moved yes - did I steer it? not intentionally. I would agree government housing is needed or UBI. But back to the original issue: that still doesn’t mean landlords are necessarily evil. It’s an important role and regulated and with proper controls a very valuable one.

            • Goodeye8@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              15 hours ago

              It’s an important role and regulated and with proper controls a very valuable one.

              You’ve yet to explain how that’s an important role.

              • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 hours ago

                Many people cants get a mortgage as they cannot afford a down payment and/or they are too much of a credit risk for the bank. So they cannot buy a house. A landlord buys the house using their own down payment and assumes the risk and then provides an arrangement where people who otherwise could not get somewhere to live, now can rent on a monthly basis. Without the landlord, people who could not buy a place to live in would have to live on the streets. So the landlord plays an important roll unless you’re ok with poorer people having to live on the streets.

                • Goodeye8@piefed.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  12 hours ago

                  You just pretty much described them as a necessary evil and hardly a benefit to the people who can’t afford a house. They will have a roof over their head but that comes at the cost of accumulating wealth as a noticeable part goes to paying for the rent, wealth that could go towards buying a home. I’m not going to pat landlords on the back for essentially exploiting people who are already having it rough.

      • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        18 hours ago

        I’m certainly lazy yes. Laziness is the mother of invention. I work hard to build stuff that then allows me to be lazy. But then I’m on to the next project!
        And I’m not a landlord nor a tenant so it’s immaterial.