this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2026
682 points (98.0% liked)

Work Reform

17285 readers
1933 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 43 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I think that's part of it, but a larger part--having been a local reporter--is that government is run by people trying to keep property values high. In cities, that's real estate developers and landlords. In suburbs, it's typical homeowners.

Most construction brings down property values: increase supply=lower demmand=lower prices. There is therefore a strong political will to oppose ALL new construction.

The second concern is: how do we keep poor people out? Things like minimal lot sizes are designed to keep the prices up and limit the amount of new citizens.

The third concern is: how can we spend the most of our money on OUR children's education. Many suburbs are spiritually and economically designed to do ONE thing: get kids into good colleges. That means high property valuations across the board so the most money can go to individual children's education. There are very many suburbs people don't even move to UNLESS they're having children, and they move out when their kids leave school.

If you build an affordable apartment building in one of these suburbs and children start moving in, what happens? THe money from the rich houses is now diverted away from the rich children and towards the poor children, who are now paying much less in taxes.

I do like the oligopoly narrative, but we have to face that we are facing MASSIVE FAILURES on a social and political levels. Everybody is scrapping for themselves and building walls and pulling up ladders and basically being as self-interested me-and-mine as possible, at the same time money is becoming the dominant form of political activity with which the masses of regular people can not compete.

[–] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Don't worry, with birth rates dropping like a rock we'll have plenty of extra houses in a couple generations, assuming humanity can make it that far.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 week ago

The other factor with much of our development is that it requires an automobile, automobiles that are consistently getting more expensive to buy and repair. We've really fucked up.

[–] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, we'll destroy houses for freeways and data centers

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Or they’ll be bought up and turned into rentals. Student houses, Airbnb, etc.

[–] caseyweederman@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Doubt it. There are plenty of empty houses right now.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Right now, the folks keeping an empty unit for speculation can afford to keep it empty.

When the less wealthy investors who need to pay a mortgage for their micro-estate empire of 3 units realize the demand is fading, they'll be forced into lowering rental cost and maybe even selling.

China has seen a ginormous housing value appreciation over decades. The population is shrinking and the correction is happening. It is brutal.

[–] caseyweederman@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well no, they'll sell to cut their losses. To people richer than them.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Yeah, that's still possible. Corps should be banned from buying housing units. People who buy more than one should be taxed with an increasing rate for each additional unit.

Edit: typo

[–] caseyweederman@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago