You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-59 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

Oh look… a capitalist shill using homeless people as a propaganda prop to do apologetics for the capitalists that caused all the homelessness.

Yawn.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

The reason those houses are vacant is because companies bought them and are now pricing them out of the reach of most consumers

permalink
report
parent
reply
-18 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Free market can work in fields where competition is plenty and entering is cheap.

When the amount of “players” in the market is so small they can collude to keep prices high it all falls apart.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Do you know that real estate investment exists? A house is an asset, and unless the entire economy crashes (like in 2008), then owning homes (even if empty) will make you easy money. It’s an appreciating asset. I could be wrong, but I also believe it’s very good for laundering money.

Wealthier Chinese nationals have been doing this for years in the US and Canada (look at what Chinese real estate investment has done to the housing market in Vancouver, for example).

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

Hol up. Lolololol.

Are you saying that the rich fucks who are buying up housing stock will make them accessible to the houseless population of America?

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

So far they actually have nothing to say beyond “nuh uh you’re wrong”, which is effectively nothing at all. I’ve asked them to explain, we’ll see what we get.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-11 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Proceeds to let the crickets explain their position

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Then what the fuck are you saying lol

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

And please explain the economic theory behind your post. We have history as far back as the start of capitalism. It shows your post to be completely out of touch with reality. If you have proof evidence or a functioning theory of why your post would lead to Las vacancies and more accessible housing for people, I am very interested in seeing it.

I’ve got a feeling though that you don’t have an adequate response or you would have posted it. So if you’re going to reply without a response, maybe all you need to do is post an apology…

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

A surplus of homes does not equal less homeless people. If their prices, either as rentals or for buying, is too high, it can actually increase the number of homeless people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

so, you think the reason that the homeless people don’t live in these homes is because… they wouldn’t be able to pay rich people money if they did?

how high do you have to be to make the statement “look I would love to not freeze to death, but only if I get to pay half my income to Amazon” seem reasonable?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Vacant does not mean unowned.

Plus I’m pretty sure Amazon doesn’t want thousands of crackhead row houses in shit areas.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

If there are 15 million vacant homes now, then a company made up of wealthy investors buying up heaps of them at the current inflated prices isn’t going to change anything. Those houses won’t become living spaces for poor and homeless people - they’ll sit vacant until someone comes along who’s willing to pay the exorbitant rent.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 21K

    Posts

  • 524K

    Comments