this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2025
1718 points (98.8% liked)

Microblog Memes

7730 readers
3680 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Lots of less expensive housing in the suburbs and country, go live in them. The reduced noise and air pollution is great.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 73 points 2 months ago (3 children)

This concept has a name. Artificial Scarcity.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Shout-out to too good to go - an app that aims to minimize food waste by letting restaurants and grocery stores sell "surprise bags" of food at 1/3 to 1/2 off!

Good mythical morning has a few episodes featuring these!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (5 children)

First, I agree with the general sentiment. However, there are some devilish details.

Take a look at some pictures of Gary, Indiana. It's an entire city that's been mostly abandoned since the collapse of the industry that built it. There are entire boarded up neighborhoods, and some quite fine large, brick houses where wealthy people used to live. It's all just sitting there. I'm sure that Gary would love to have people start moving back in, and revive the city.

So, say Gary just eminent-domained all those properties, and said to America: you want a house? All you have to do is come, pick one, and move in. You live in it for 5 years, it's your's.

The problem is that it costs money to keep up a home. Home maintenance is stupid expensive, and most of these abandoned homes need repairs: new windows, new roofs, new water heaters, plumbing repairs, electrical repairs. Do you have any idea what a new window costs? And even if it's sweat equity, and you're able to repair a roof yourself, you still need materials. Where does this money come from?

Are the homeless in California going to move to Gary, IN? Are the homeless in Alabama? There are homeless employed folks, but they're tied to their locations by their jobs. They're not moving to Gary.

Finally, it's a truism that it's often less expensive to tear down a house in poor condition and build a new one than it is to renovate. If these people don't have the money to build a new house, how are they going to afford to renovate a vacant one.

The problem is that people need jobs to live in a house (unless someone else is paying for taxes, insurance, and maintenance). And the places with jobs aren't the places like Gary, that have a abundance of empty homes. All of those empty homes are in inconvenient places, where the industry and jobs they created dried up.

It may be that a well-funded organization could artificially construct a self-sustaining community built on the bones of a dead one. But I think it's oversimplifying to suggest that you can just take an empty home away from the owner (let's assume you can) and just stick homeless people in it and assume it'll work - that, even given a house, they'll be able to afford to keep it heated, maintained, powered, insured. Shit, even if you given them a complete tax exemption, just keeping a house is expensive.

I'm sure there are some minority of homeless for whom giving an abandoned home in the area they live would solve their problems. And I'm sure that, for a while at least, having a bigger box to live in would be an improvement for many, even if the box is slowly falling apart around them. But I think it's naive to be angry about the number of empty homes, and that homelessness could be solved by relocating the homeless to where these places are and assigning them a house - whatever state it's in.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago

We don't need to move them, there are vacant homes everywhere. Even in San francisco the residential vacancy rate is 6%. The unhoused in San francisco make up about 1% of the population, so assuming the unhoused population takes up the same amount of housing per person as the housed population, we could house every unhoused person here and still have 5% left over.

That's the worst case too, the rest of the country has a higher vacancy rate and a proportionally lower unhoused population.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

To compound matters, the US is currently moving all the new manufacturing jobs into southern red states, which will be interesting. Red staters are pissed because they are experiencing major cost of living adjustments, particularly in housing prices. Which is partly why they voted maga.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I agree.

Economic growth on Earth is coming to an end, and it's important to recognize it and deal with it properly. It doesn't make sense to scare people into work by telling them "otherwise we don't produce enough". We do. Whether people work 60 hours a week or 20 hours. We should just recognize what we really need. Which is the right to self-determination.

[–] [email protected] 95 points 2 months ago (11 children)

Related: the idea that everyone needs to work all the time isn't really true anymore. If we were in like 3000 bce in a small farming village outside Ur, yeah, people gotta pitch in so we don't get eaten by wildlife, the neighboring tribe, or whatever.

But in 2025ce, where so many jobs have so much filler nonsense? And when the rich can just live on investment income? No, the whole "work or starve" thing isn't needed anymore.

We should have basic income for all and public housing. Let people pursue what they want. Maybe it's art. Maybe they just want to take care of the local library. Maybe they just want to be a local barfly that keeps the tavern interesting. Who knows? But wage slavery needs to go.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Recommendation: the book Bullshit Jobs

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Also Graeber’s Debt.

So many of Graeber’s ideas are right on the dot. Those two books helped me understand economics better than fucking Milton Friedman ever could.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I've heard of this one. Maybe I'll check it out.

The downside of reading a lot of depressing non fiction is I increasingly feel like I'm living in a cuckoo clock, and get frustrated with how everyone else seems oblivious and uncaring.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

We haven't needed to work since the early 1900s. The labor movement was all about getting people to work less and ensuring everyone is taken care of. Consumerism was invented to fight back and has been winning ever since. People are animals and animals can be manipulated.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 months ago (12 children)

when the rich can just live on investment income

How do you think they make that money? Primarily off of consumerism. If we all collectively decided to share what we have and stop buying what we don't need, there could be no passive income, not at the scale it exists today, anyways.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Consumerism is used for wealth redistribution.

Real wealth production occurs when machines create work, saving time. Work = money.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

I guess? With enough money you can just buy bonds, which sort of depend on consumerism but indirectly. Some municipal bonds return like 5%. 5% of a shit load of money is enough to live on.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (3 children)

this

that

away

empty

people

clothing

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

this…Blows

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's a good typographic river. Nice find!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Ahhhh I couldn’t remember the term, thank you!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] -5 points 2 months ago (5 children)

pfff. wrong.

1 third of all ppl have access to a washingmachine. there not enough resources to build one for everyone. or cars etc..

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Well if we stopped building useless shit…

How much washing machines can you build for an average yacht’s worth of ressources time and energy?

Probably not enough but it’s not like there wasn’t other useless shit being made nor like a lot of households would not do just fine sharing a washing machine.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago

no doubt. but claiming there enough resources for a rising number of ppl is wrong and keeps points out of the discussion that might come in handy for humanity later. sure eat the rich, but ppl will still be hungry.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 56 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We don't have a resource problem, we have a distribution problem.

Resources are constantly being wasted to accelerate the wealth transfer up the chain.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The first thing you say is absolutely correct but I have no idea what you mean by the second

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Food being wasted instead of given out. Clothing slashed and tossed away. Housing boarded up and left vacant in the name of investing.

All in the name of maximizing sales and profit. Resources hoarded and wasted.

30% of the worlds resources would be sufficient to meet everyone's needs if properly distributed.

But it's not because corporations see a homeless man taking a sandwich out of the trash as a lost sale.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

The problem is even if you do give away excess food, next growing cycle, you'll still adjust to grow less. And there won't be excess. So donating food is good, but it's not a long term solution to the distribution problem. Same with houses and clothes and whatnot

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›