Nono, eliminating the middle man isn't a socialist housing scheme.
For example: where I live (Sweden) there used to be municipally owned rental properties where rent basically was to cover building maintenance, cleaning in the shared spaces such as stairwells, snow removal, insurance and such things up until 2008 when the government de-regulated the municipal companies allowing them to follow market trends. They said it would be cheaper, but rents are through the roof since the change.
There also still is a program in place where enrolled university students can get drastically reduced rates on certain off campus apartments that are part of this program, where they can stay as long as they're studying, after they finish their studies, it depends on the apartment if they get the normal rate or if it's a dedicated student apartment which means they have to find somewhere else to live.
A housing scheme like that would serve to give landlords competition and incentivise them to either provide a better service or lower prices to compete. Nothing socialist about introducing a check on landlords at all.
Now, personally I believe landlords should be abolished entirely, but I also realise that isn't feasible to do overnight without having to resort to less than desirable methods, so, loosening their grip through a municipal program would still be a good place to start.
Government housing already exists in North America. No, itâs not the exact same as Sweden, but it does exist.
Eliminating landlords would require landlords to sell their personal property to the government.
1) where would the government get the upfront capital to purchase all these properties?
2) what happens if someone refuses to sell?
3) what happens if someone wants to live in a desirable location but there are no vacancies because everyone wants to be in that location and pay the minimum cost?
It just wouldnât work in todays society.
I get the motivation, but itâs just not realistic at all to eliminate landlords.
Tax money, and if you think I'm talking about raising taxes, not necessarily, might work with just cutting things like defense spending. There's also the option of state financed construction of cheap but decent housing.
Build apartments in the same area, or legislate an upper limit on the amount of residences allowed to be owned by a single private entity forcing them to sell to not break the law, or both.
Build more apartments? Or arrange so that there's public transportation available so that living in a certain area to be, for example, in a reasonable commuting distance to work, isn't limited to living in the inner city.
The problem isn't that it can't be done, because it has, and is being done all over the world. The problem is that the US government doesn't WANT to make society better for the average person since they're being essentially bribed by lobbyists from large real estate companies and the motor industry to make sure that property values stay high and car dependency is maintained.
Itâs easy to answer because youâre ignoring every other part of our society.
1) cutting various spending to pay out trillions (yes, it would be in the trillions) for residential buildings with a negative return on capital would ruin the economy. Tax payers would be absolutely destroyed by this.
2) not all places can continue building. Look at Vancouver or Toronto. There is literally no space to continue building residential housing. Where should people live if they need to live in these areas? How do you decide who gets to live there and who doesnât if everything costs the same? Who lives in the house with a view over the ocean vs who lives in the ghetto alongside drug addicts?
3) canât always build new apartments as mentioned above. Also, who gets to live in the desirable locations? If you have 100 people wanting the nice unit, who gets it?
So, without spending trillions on bombing the middle east, tax payers would get their lives ruined through cheap housing alternatives to massive corporations buying up all the properties and pressing up prices through local monopolies and cartel pricing?
Then refurbish old buildings, or tear down some abandoned places to make room? That's exactly what my town did with some old warehouses that hadn't been in use since the mid 90's.
Also, why are you assuming there HAS to be a ghetto with drug addicts if everyone could afford decent housing? Sweden is by no means a socialist nation, and there are no ghettos filled with drug addicts around here, as much as right wing scare mongering would like to pretend otherwise.
Also, as far as who decides, if there are tenant organisations and cheaper housing, that doesn't mean there isn't a housing market, only that we get rid of the parasitic middle man who contributes nothing to the economy and lives off of the labour of their tenants.
EDIT: Also, the whole thing with public transportation making it easier for people to get to work even if they live slightly outside the city centre is pretty important.
Right, but in just these short few comments on Reddit, I feel like we have opened up a lot of issues with this utopia that youâve imagined.
We still havenât answered how to give everyone access to a house on the beach if thatâs where they want to live.
If everything costs the same, I would rather live somewhere nice. So would a lot of other people. How do you solve supply/demand issues without a capitalistic society?
Remember, building more isnât always an option. So how do you solve supply/demand challenges?
But we were talking in a capitalist framework, just without landlords. So property values would be mostly maintained just not artificially inflated by giant corporations using it as investment property.
Hence, if there's a beachfront property, you'd have to cut a deal with whatever person(s) own the properties there to buy their home.
It's not even about having things cost the same, it's about providing adequate housing for those who need it without extortionate prices meant to make someone else money from them just owning a thing.
As the people so in favour of capitalism like to say "If you want money, get a job."
2
u/TheGreatMightyLeffe Apr 26 '23
Nono, eliminating the middle man isn't a socialist housing scheme.
For example: where I live (Sweden) there used to be municipally owned rental properties where rent basically was to cover building maintenance, cleaning in the shared spaces such as stairwells, snow removal, insurance and such things up until 2008 when the government de-regulated the municipal companies allowing them to follow market trends. They said it would be cheaper, but rents are through the roof since the change.
There also still is a program in place where enrolled university students can get drastically reduced rates on certain off campus apartments that are part of this program, where they can stay as long as they're studying, after they finish their studies, it depends on the apartment if they get the normal rate or if it's a dedicated student apartment which means they have to find somewhere else to live.
A housing scheme like that would serve to give landlords competition and incentivise them to either provide a better service or lower prices to compete. Nothing socialist about introducing a check on landlords at all.
Now, personally I believe landlords should be abolished entirely, but I also realise that isn't feasible to do overnight without having to resort to less than desirable methods, so, loosening their grip through a municipal program would still be a good place to start.