this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
426 points (98.4% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

503 readers
603 users here now

A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.

A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.

RULES:

1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.

2 No Trolling

3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.

4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.

5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.

6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc.

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] aesthelete 15 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

I think a bigger threat than corporations buying single family houses is that there are certain types of housing that will likely never not be owned by a single entity such as the large apartment buildings with shared entry areas.

I think the YIMBYs need to start adding "ownable units of housing" to their list of things to look for when developing new housing structures. A lot of places in California are starting to build again, but they're building a lot of corporate-owned apartment buildings with hundreds of units that only help further consolidate the housing market.

My neighborhood did a mixed development model and I think that's the way it should go: some apartments, some townhouses, some condos. Stop letting a single company own the entirety of the new housing units you're building.

[–] Zannsolo 8 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Corps should only be able to own apartment style housing. I'd be fine with more of them being built if we removed single family homes from the rental market.

[–] aesthelete 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

That varies a lot depending upon where you're talking about. In my area, the overwhelming majority of people that rent aren't renting single family houses.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

My area of New England, rentals seem to be either big corporate places or a unit in a triple-decker (3-story building with a single unit on each floor, traditionally owned by someone who lives in one of the units).

I live in a condo I own, which seems like an ok balance of privacy, responsibility, and being able to actually afford housing. Mortgage, HOA fee, taxes, etc, is still $800/month cheaper than my old corporate apartment, and I promise you I'm not spending $800/month in maintenance and neither was my landlord.

[–] rockSlayer 4 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

I think we need to look beyond individual ownership towards collective ownership. Apartment buildings should be a housing cooperative managed collectively by the people who live there.

[–] aesthelete 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I'm on board with that too, but I think that's a tougher sell politically.

[–] rockSlayer 4 points 11 hours ago

That's reasonable. Given the current climate of apartments, I think the most accessible option for folks would be tenant unions

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

Get a group of people interested in doing that. And enough money to buy it.

[–] rockSlayer 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

It's possible, my city passed an ordinance to allow right of first refusal to tenants. 3 immediately formed, and there's been a few more since.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

That's dope. I like hearing that. Spread that news, it's good news to spread. Im interested in how that works out.

[–] nalinna 4 points 13 hours ago

Agree! With the added note that they shouldn't do it the way the developers in my area did: they pitched it as affordable, accessible mixed use, and then built luxury homes that normal people couldn't afford.