deleted by creator
It falls under a greater problem of our time. Everyone thinks they can be clever by becoming a passive income earner. So we get things like middle men which has been increasing the cost of things because every hand needs to grab a cut along the way. We have people becoming landlords slowly amassing rental properties which created a bigger and even life long tenant class. We get economies that revolve around stock markets pivoting industry from productivity to shareholder profit.
I don’t know if this is a trigger phrase like it is on reddit but it’s true that nobody wants to work anymore. Societies require people to work to keep things going. Can’t have everyone sitting on their ass waiting for others work for them.
Nobody wants to talk about it because nobody wants to be the sucker that didn’t get a leg up on everyone else. So everyone plays along with this massive collective cognitive dissonance.
deleted by creator
and those lazy stone age humans didn’t want to work hunting and gathering all the time so they invented agriculture.
Most people have always been OK with working reasonable jobs for good pay, though. Work is not the problem. Unchecked greed is.
Evidently given the state of affairs whatever share of “most people” has been tipping away from a balance.
Call it unchecked greed. Call it nobody wants to work anymore. It’s two sides of the same coin. The framing is just hurting someone or others feelings. The underlying problem is the same. Too many greedy people don’t want to work.
I think we should be careful. It’s certainly true that greedy powerful people in the world today are getting increasingly aggressive about seizing more money and power, and that’s terrible, and we need to do whatever we reasonably can to stop it.
I don’t recall seeing any data that suggests the average level of greed among the general population has grown, or that the average desire to work among the general population has gone down.
The reason this distinction matters is because when someone makes the claim that too many people are greedy these days, it sounds like a problem with the general population, when what we’re actually seeing is a problem with the ultra-rich.
Here’s some ideas:
-
Put limits on the amount of residential property that can be owned by investors in a given market. Something like “In order for an investor to purchase a residential property within this particular municipality, no more than 40% of existing residential housing can be owned by investors, excepting where A) The investor in question is an individual or family who intend to reside in the property and share it with one or more roommates or B) the investor in question is an individual or family who are moving out of a unit they already own intending to purchase another one and convert the original home into a rental property.” Alternatively "No more than 20% of the housing market in the municipality may be owned by entities who’s majority ownership A) resides outside of the municipality or B) who’s ownership possesses a combined net worth in excess of $10,000,000 (automatically adjusting for inflation over time), excepting newly constructed properties intended for sale.
-
Reform property taxes to avoid squeezing out homeowners. I.E. Property taxes shall, in perpetuity, be assessed at the purchase price of the home when the current residents moved in. Meaning… If you’re a landlord, you don’t WANT your tenants to move out because then your property taxes will go up. Also “No insurance company may charge more for home owners or renters insurance than X percent of the current property tax rate.” And “No landlord shall charge more than X times the current property tax rate, where X is an adjustable number slightly higher than the current competitive market rate.”
-
Pin a carbon tax on retail or office businesses in a given area to scale with whatever commute they require for workers who live far away. Make it high enough to strong arm business owners into paying (and charging enough) that they save money on higher pay rates for employees so they can afford to live locally in affluent areas and areas undergoing gentrification. I’m totally OK with employers being like “We prefer to hire local (or localish) because of this tax” to a perspective employee. I’m OK with it being high enough for business owners to feel it, and with business owners screaming about it as much as they want. Affluent residents want to fucking shop locally and they WILL, even if that means local retail has to raise their prices. If it puts you out of business, good. Someone else will show up to take your place and will treat their employees better.
Not that you would EVER see ANY of these ideas proposed in WSJ.
Reform property taxes to avoid squeezing out homeowners.
California has that property tax; it is not going as well as you would hope. It helps encourage communities to keep from allowing more density and freezes people in their homes as they will never be able to afford moving within their communities.
-
Summary: Houses expensive, mortgage rates suck. People no move, maybe this problem? Darn people not moving!
I guess I’m the problem for locking in a good interest rate when they were low and not wanting to fuck myself over by moving. Been a real problem for me though because I do want to change my job and really want to go to another state if I do.
Not feasible to do so because I live in such a low cost state. There is a huge financial gap now to overcome. It’s depressing because I’ll probably be stuck for years waiting this out.
I guess I’m the problem for locking in a good interest rate when they were low and not wanting to fuck myself over by moving.
Funny, I locked in a bad interest rate when they were high. I’d refinance, but I can only find “worse interest rates that are higher.”
Hey here’s a thought: let’s get rid of all the laws requiring single-unit detached housing. That should open up some new housing in places people want to live.
Put landlords and house flipping corp CEOs in wood chippers and a lot would be fixed
Archive: https://archive.is/S3n7T
