Quality post. Really compelling stuff.

You forget that for one to acquire said property one must first "exploit" one's self. What I do with the earnings from my exploitation is my business.

I don't have a problem with either one of those things so pick your favorite.

Anything not needed for human survival.

A thriving business selling stuff people don't need for them to buy with excess capital they no longer have.

This is just a whataboutism fallacy.

No you're just ignoring a hole in your argument. I could profitably buy a plot of land and use it to store pig feces which happens in North Carolina.

Landlords do no more to provide housing than ticket scalpers do to provide concert tickets.

This analogy doesn't track. They aren't selling something the person could otherwise afford or even want to buy.

Landlords don't work hard. Owning is not a job that provides for society.

Massive overgeneralization. I know contractors that built houses and eventually built one and rented it out for additional income. This means they worked to make the money to buy the land and the materials and invested their own time in building it which saved them a ton on labor costs. Somebody moved into it and lived there (e.g. value). Somebody should report them to the secret police!

I sure am aware. And I'm always aware that the people who do those things aren't landlords. They're construction workers and maintenance workers.

Again. Sometimes that's the case. Sometimes it's a dude taking care of everything himself on the weekend.

The landlords take no such risk because the demand for housing is so high that any vacancies can be filled as quick as they like.

You've never had to clean up a house destroyed by drug addicts. Believe me they can do a ton of damage. There's plenty of risk. No one in this thread understands that though.

Funny how "what the market can bare" equates to entire generations being priced out of owning a home.

I wonder if the macroeconomic factors could play into that? You know? Stagnating wages, a falling dollar, endless wars, cronyism, endless immigration, enriching Blackrock during the 2008 bank crisis so that it can single handedly buy more single-family homes than any other entity in American history. Nope it's Jim from work that rents a condo.

You've resorted to name-calling in a way that is not only innaccurate but indicative of how hard you've thought about your argument.

I have no illusions about "wearing the boot" in fact I've already talked about the actual injustice that's causing pricing issues across the board. (e.g. avoidable macroeconomic factors) You're not proposing some revolutionary idea. 'Everyone should have a house man..' Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. You can disagree with me but don't bother unless you're going to explain yourself.

"Housing is a human right!"

Now what? Do you plant a house seed and grow a house? You can demand whatever you want but that doesn't mean you're going to get it. Even in a world of minimal scarcity the one thing that will always be at a premium is people's time and they usually they don't hustle unless there is something in it for them especially if they are tacking on a roof in the middle of July.

The reality is this non-renter economy idea is just going to move the cost elsewhere and those with the means are going to abuse it in even worse ways that you haven't thought of yet.

I'm okay with some kinds (of making money with land)

Like what? There are infinite ways to make money with land that are more useless and exploitative to society than renting a house.

Yeah that's bullshit too (in regard to rich people owning acreage for enjoyment)

I'm glad you changed your mind.

Yeah that's bullshit too (in regard to a normal dude owning an investment property)

Why?! What's so morally reprehensible about someone working hard and being fiscally responsible to provide a service that people actually need as opposed to an ice cream shop or whatever? Do you realize someone has to actually build/maintain/renovate houses? Usually at great financial risk to themselves? The primary reason most houses exist is because someone took a personal risk in the hopes of coming out ahead from where they were originally. They can only charge what the market will bear after all.

To use it for a business

This is wealth extraction

Or enjoyment

So you're okay with some rich person owning acreage as long as it's for their own enjoyment but not for a normal dude who has an investment property and is holding out for a renter that will adequately cover his costs and generate some profit?

I'm not a libertarian. Printing money, endless wars, corporate welfare, cronyism, ill-conceived laws and poor enforcement are very real MACRO (not individual) causes and you've not refuted them at all. These affect the price of EVERYTHING.

At the individual level homelessness can be fueled by all the things I mentioned. Some of those things are self inflicted and some are out of the control of the person. Either way there's nothing dehumanizing about stating facts.

I get the feeling in this thread that everyone thinks housing should be free which is... ridiculous... Nothing is free because everything has a cost. I agree, however, with the overall issue of corruption and exploitative wealth -- wealth that is often derived by anticompetitive, preferential treatment etc The average dude renting a house doesn't want to screw poor people they just want an alternative to a 401k so they can retire.

Literally any other type of business

You've just eliminated perhaps the safest, most attainable method for the average person to achieve passive income.

Owning land for personal use

Other than living on it, why would someone want to own land?

So, so many reasons...

At the individual level drugs are a HUGE reaaon, mental illness, poor care for veterans etc Although there is SOME government housing and charitable housing for people that need it.

At a macro level there is money printing, endless war, corporate welfare, cronyism etc

Let's face it though we could probably house everyone in Europe within South Dakota alone. Not to mention most homeless people are in extremely expensive areas like LA, Austin, Seattle and New York.

Passing an ill-conceived law that will have unintended consequences should be way, way low on the list of ways to lower housing prices. Especially since it's highly likely it won't be enforced properly.

Because there is more than enough for everyone.

So that people can decouple their time from their earning power.

What is an example of decommodifying?

What should people invest in then? How is land ownership handled? Etc etc etc

Why should it be anything but a personal investment?

What do mean? I don't see how what I said negates that.

Isn't it better for everyone to decommodify housing?

Not really no. Commodfication is why things used to be cheap. High [insert item here] prices are directly related to money printing, corporate welfare and regulations that are designed to raise the barrier of entry for normal people.

Real estate should be considered an investment. It's one of the few things people invest in that is actually valuable. It's the speculative and labrynthine financial markets that are the problem in that regard.

The only reason mega-renters like Blackrock and Vanguard are able to monolithically buy property in the first place is because of dubious speculative earnings and government bailouts.

It's not surprising that home ownership was actually a lot higher 60 years ago.

Podverse! I'm pretty sure it's the only FLOSS app that has implemented all the podcasting 2.0 features. The only thing it's missing is Android Auto :(

What a surprise!

Just watch Fern Gully instead lol