Socialism

2846 readers

65 users here now

Beehaw's community for socialists, communists, anarchists, and non-authoritarian leftists (this means anti-capitalists) of all stripes. A place for all leftist and labor news and discussion, as long as you're nice about it.

Non-socialists are welcome to come to learn, though it's hard to get to in-depth discussions if the community is constantly fighting over the basics. We ask that non-socialists please be respectful and try not to turn this into a "left vs right" debate forum by asking leading questions or by trying to draw others into a fight.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why For-Profit Housing Ruins Kitchens (www.currentaffairs.org)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

When profit is the bottom line, functionality and human enjoyment do not matter.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

When profit is the bottom line, functionality and human enjoyment do not matter

Unless you’re selling to humans, at which point your profit becomes linked to the degree to which you provide the functionality and enjoyment that human is in the market for

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

That is only true when supply outpaces demand, and buyers can choose not to purchase the shitty products, which is not the case for housing thanks to years of NIMBY and protectionist zoning regulations preventing housing development on the low end of the market.

Also, necessities completely upend the supposed "free market" dynamic by not being something buyers can opt-out of when no better option is available.

If you control necessities, people are trapped with you no matter how shitty your product is.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

at which point your profit becomes linked to the degree to which you provide the functionality

except when the commodity is a basic necessity and there's no alternatives. 'the market' can't really 'vote with their wallet' on the cost and quality of shelter, particularly when price fixing is rampant.

sidenote: 'voting with your wallet' implies people with more money than you should have more say in what's 'more valuable', because the rich can always outbid you, and homo economicus is only a thought experiment. (see: foreign real estate investment, conspicuous consumption…)