this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
964 points (95.8% liked)
solarpunk memes
3937 readers
61 users here now
For when you need a laugh!
The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!
But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.
Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.
Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines
Have fun!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If a person disappears the things they own will still be here, shocking revelation.
point is that they add no value to anything.
I own my tv, but add no value to it by doing so.
Do you hoard TVs so that people can't buy their own, and charge people fees to watch?
That's not quite true. They add the initial and after-market capital to build and support the houses. They also carry some of the capital risk.
Developers build houses and neighborhoods all the time without landlords paying them to do so. I'm actually not sure if landlords paying for building is common at all. Though, developers do all kinds of shady and harmful shit too.
you think the developers will continue building if nobody gives them money at the end of the build? either through pre- ("give us money and we'll build you a thing") or post- ("come give us money for this thing we built")
why do bakers even charge for the bread they made?!! its just sitting on the shelf doing nothing?!
We don't want developers to continue building in the way they have been. McMansions (the most profitable house for them to build) in car-fucked-surburbia (the most profitable area because all the hidden costs are loaded onto the city in the future) are unsustainable, in the ecological sense, the environmental sense, and in the financial sense, as everyone trying to buy a house now is discovering.
Right now that building model is continuing because corporations wanting to rent are seizing up everything they can. There will be enough folks wanting affordable, sustainable housing, and we get that by building more densely and making cities nice to live in.
So let the current developers die, and a new model come in.
I think it's mostly regular homebuyers that give them the money (well, the bank, through mortgages).
Exactly, many people rent because they're credit constrained - they can't borrow the lump sum even though they have enough to pay the rent each month.
Banks are shit at supplying houses because they like to protect the (over)value(d) assets of their balance sheet - plus they ration credit inefficiently. (source some papers by joe stiglitz et al).
Council housing / social housing / rent controlled is the thing to fill the gap, the government can borrow againts its much more secure asset and pay the construction workers. Govt should not care about crashing a house price bubble; in fact it should want to - oh hang on . . . govts are controlled by landowners too.
Definately land (ownership) reform needed hopefully to democratise governments at least a wee bit more representative.
Found the landlord, guys
When workers die, you no longer have labor. When scientists die you no longer have their intelligence.
Those things will be inherited and there will instantly be new landlords. Unless we want the state seizing and redistributing assets on death... which i don't.
I do.
I don't want them to wait 'til death. The death isn't important the land ownership reform is.
Maybe the true communism is just killing whoever we don't like and taking their stuff all along. /s
Where is your horse in the race? Is it really "yours" if all you do is collect a premium for having a piece of paper that says so while someone else does all the care, training, and maintenance for it? What a raw deal for that person...
My horse in this race: Posts like this push a specific political ideology using emotion as fuel. I have the hindsight and the foresight to know what pushing violent and uneducated policies gives us.
As for your hypothetical landlord who does zero maintenance, they're financiers who hold all the liability so tenants don't have to. Corporate Landlords shouldn't exist in my opinion but single property landlords are cool in my book.
If a property rental gets wrecked and the insurance, which the landlord pays, doesn't cover it then who owes the bank the remainder of a loan equivalent to 5x the renters annual income?
A) The Tenant
B) The Landlord
If the insurance doesn't cover it, the landlord fucked up. Should have gotten better insurance. Homeowner's insurance is very cheap.
Even if the insurance does cover it, the tenant loses all their belongings and their housing.