this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2025
1358 points (97.8% liked)

Microblog Memes

7673 readers
2578 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 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Simulation6@sopuli.xyz -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Perhaps he means cost $100 a day? I mean you rent apartments, aren’t they called condos if you buy them?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] untakenusername@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago (17 children)

No one who owns a home would vote for them. It's not in their self interest, if they spent 300k on a house and this happened, they would lose ~300k. Not worth it at all. A much better idea would be to just have tax breaks for contractors making new homes, that would lower the value of everyone else's homes, but by a lot less.

[–] Hazelnutcookiez@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I get why they would lose money, but in my head it's still like you still have a home still so why should they care.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] slaveOne@reddthat.com 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh I'm sure those contractors would pass those breaks on and not just pocket the savings /s

[–] untakenusername@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (9 children)

This is effectively the same as the government paying some of the cost of making houses. Meaning that if they make more houses, they get 'paid' by the government, by paying less taxes. They pocket the savings because that is what the government gave to incentivize them making more homes.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Big_Boss_77@lemmynsfw.com 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Like the stock market losing trillions? That kind of economic crisis?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

This guy's giving me Robespierre vibes.

[–] snowdrop@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 month ago (14 children)

What could go right? If apartments cost $100, everyone would own one and there would be no speculative market in them — no rental market at all probably.

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If housing was truly abundant, we would still have landlords. The key difference is they would actually have to compete as a service provider instead of as mere land hoarders. "Landlord" would be an honest job for once.

Landlords like to say that many people prefer to rent because then they don't have to worry about maintenance, doing home repairs, etc. But most people rent simply because they can't afford to purchase a home themselves. Instead of helping people avoid maintenance, landlords in practice do everything possible to avoid spending a penny on any kind of maintenance. They're able to be so stingy because people need somewhere to live. With most rentals, you're simply paying for access to housing, the quality of the service is an afterthought. Very few people have the luxury of rejecting a potential apartment or rental home simply because the landlord has a reputation of poor responsiveness to maintenance requests.

With abundant housing, landlords would be more like hotels operators in vacation destinations. No one would stay at a resort hotel if the rooms were falling apart and full of mold. It's a luxury purchase that people can go without, so they can afford to demand quality. With abundant housing, rental housing becomes a luxury good.

For example, let's say anyone who wanted could buy a home with an affordable mortgage. Maybe the government subsidizes the mass production of housing units. Just flood the market with new homes and condos. Make it so there are 1.5 housing units for every 1 household. Or imagine some federal program to double the number of housing units in the US. And then offer low down payment and subsidized mortgages so basically anyone can get one.

In order to compete with that, landlords would have to offer a high quality of customer service. They would have to appeal to those who actually would prefer to rent. They would have to attract those who honestly just hate doing maintenance and don't want to futz around with it. Those who wanted to not have to do home maintenance could rent, and they would seek out landlords who actually properly maintained their units. With dirt cheap housing available, any landlord that didn't provide excellent customer service would quickly be driven out of business. Instead of being in the land speculation business, they would be in the customer service business. "Landlord" would actually be a real job for a change.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The President has that power now, because of the ╣¥th Amendment.

[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Ah yes, the MISSINGNO amendment. (Or at least that's how your comment loaded for me)

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wouldn't dropping a bomb be easier?

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 month ago (4 children)
[–] stephan262@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It would help the owner of the bomb factory get more money.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 21 points 1 month ago (2 children)

you could honestly make every apartment cost 100 dollars and no one would actually get affected

Those who own the land and go ape shit over their value don't even take advantage of it and sell it off, more often they just die and have their kids inherit it, and the landlords who benefit from every type of inflation in real estate

of course this assumes every housing unit is owned and managed by the government, and these themselves are incredibly successful even if they only have 10% of the real estate market

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

What if you made every apartment cost $100 AND promised to protect Americans from trans Mexican rapists stealin' their jorbs?

[–] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

If people actually think that comment was serious, I can only feel sorry for them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 16 points 1 month ago

The money that exits the economy through large landlords (not small landlords) is essentially wasted, I bet the economy would actually grow if we had proper gov. Housing that allowed people to actually spend their monthly wages on literally anything else

[–] paultimate14@lemmy.world 67 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Economic crisis? That would be terrible! It's a good thing we never have any economic crises under the current system!

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Surely not one that would cause the US to drop 10% of its stock market value in 4 months.

[–] paultimate14@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

Honestly I was just thinking of the past 200 years of US history that has mostly just been a sequence of economic crises with occasional breaks.

load more comments