• theragu40@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    So what is your contention? That people should just say that land doesn’t cost what it actually costs? I don’t understand.

    • the_q@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Well it would be nice if people wouldn’t participate in the charade as a get rich scheme. Or if land had some kind of flat price or homes… That’d be nice.

      • theragu40@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        But surely some land or homes have more desirable features? Should an acre of beautiful lakefront property command the same value as a dirt lot next to a dirty industrial park?

        Either way, let’s say your idea for how land and homes should be valued is executable in the real world. I still don’t understand why acknowledging the way things are in reality as things stand right now is the same as normalizing it. Ignoring something doesn’t get it changed.

        • the_q@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Why? Because it’s nicer to look at? Who’s deciding what’s nice to look at anyway? The dirt lot shouldn’t be near a dangerous industrial area to begin with. It’s just more of the same wealthy land owner maximizing profits at the risk of a poor person’s health.

          Because shelter shouldn’t be a commodity. It shouldn’t be a form of financial growth or security. It’s a need, a requirement. Normalizing it as I’ve called it keeps shelter unavailable for some and a hindrance to others all to keep landlords rich. Talking about it as “just how it is” continues the cycle.