- cross-posted to:
- degrowth@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- degrowth@slrpnk.net
You must log in or register to comment.
Here in the Netherlands, the government agency for housing has the figures on how many second homes people own, but refuses to publish it.
Journalists have estimated that the number is about equal to the number of people looking for a house. About 400K on a population of 18M.
The scarcity is artificial.
I don’t think owning a second home per se is wrong or evil. Many people can’t afford buying a house due to the upfront costs. But owning a second home and leaving it empty for years? Owning multiple homes to use as Airbnbs in residential areas? I really wish this was regulated. But it will never be because there’s big bucks being made there.
I’m even ok with them owning a second house - but I think simple, easily understood answers are what’s called for in this day and age (nuance is so easily corrupted) so here’s my pitch
You have a second house? If it’s empty for 6 months, your taxes start going up. By a year it should be more then the house value rises, and it should just keep going up
Same with apartments and any property opening companies. Honestly, I’d be fine saying it all starts when your household owns at least three homes
You can surrender the house to the government to be rented at cost, maybe for a tax write-off for the first 10 years or something, otherwise it should just keep rising to insane levels.
I want people begging for renters. Developers should slash their prices to move units quickly - it’ll incentivize more affordable housing. Hell, I want landlords so desperate they pay people to inhabit them for a fixed time period.
And that’s why I like 3 - you had to move and your house isn’t selling? I don’t want to screw over individuals, there’s easier people to. You have a vacation house? Fine, but if you move you better get your empty house sold.
It’ll cause all kinds of problems, but we have empty homes and homeless people - that’s just uncivilized
Unfortunately this won’t solve the housing problem. It’ll just cause the demolition of perfectly fine houses to avoid increasing costs and new homes would only be built if there are people that signed a tenancy agreement beforehand.
The market would shift from readily available but empty homes to yet to build homes.
Why would they demolish homes? They’d have ways to make some money off them vs none - either they sell at a loss, take a tax write-off to surrender it, or they spend a significant fraction of the construction cost to tear it down to resell the land
It would definitely flip the current real estate development industry upside down, but I don’t see that as a big negative - being a landlord is still very profitable, so investors will still want to do it. But you can’t let units go empty, so they’ll be going for affordable or in demand housing rather than highest profit margin (aka McMansions)
Plus, it’s estimated that up to 1/3 of housing in the US is empty - the homes exist, they’re just sitting empty. I’m not sure if that counts stuff like air BNB or not either.
Eventually, these buildings are going to age out and need to be replaced, which my plan would throw some hiccups into - but that gives us time to fix things without forcing people to die on the streets
Why would they demolish houses rather than selling them? Makes no economic sense.
Who would buy a house that would only cost you?
The homeless wouldn’t magically have money for rent. So the homes stay empty. Nobody would buy them either because then they’ll have to burden the ever increasing costs.
A nominal fee from a heavily discounted sale is still more than spending money on a demolition.
Not to mention demolition requires permitting. Municipalities don’t just hand you a permit just because you asked. If you wanted to demolish a perfectly good house, they’d be asking questions.
I like your thinking. Personally, I prefer easier schemes that are difficult to avoid.
Schemes like yours, while good on paper, are often circumvented through shell companies and foreign residency.
I prefer a scheme where we just tax all real estate at a quite high rate, somewhere in the 1-5% range. Let’s say that a simple apartment would then result in €5K tax. A family home €10K.
Every citizen gets to subtract up to €5K of property tax from their income tax. So a family might pay €20K income tax, but can subtract €10K.
End result is a progressive property tax, which actually decreases tax on normal people.
People with expensive homes, foreign owners of homes and people who own multiple homes would be paying significantly more tax without the possibility to subtract it
I have two problems with that - first, it doesn’t directly address empty homes. Housing could still be commoditized, they just pay a larger tax - if they can make property prices go up even faster it would eat the difference
Second, messaging - people will hear that and ask “what does that mean for my property tax?” endlessly. It doesn’t matter even if every individual would pay less, it’s too mathematical and people won’t do the math - they’ll listen to their favorite voices tell them what it means
The nice thing about my idea is that it would crash the housing market, but it would do it by playing on a sense of justice. How is someone going to stand up and say “why can’t I have a bunch of empty houses while we have homeless camps?”. Many people would resist, but they have to do it while sounding like entitled assholes
Also, I think it would work for foreign investors and shell companies perfectly - see, it doesn’t matter who owns the home, it matters who claims to live in it
A company doesn’t live in a house. A foreigner can’t say they’re living their 6 months of the year when they’re not in the country that long. A resident can claim a house and a secondary home (however that works out), but companies can’t claim any - they need actual people to live in the home or it’s vacant.
You put the fact the house is occupied first, then figure out who to tax and how much after - it doesn’t matter what shell games you play, the only way around that is straight up fraud
Yes, people are sadly dumb and fall for bad messaging. I recognize that as a weakness.
The messaging should therefore be: lower property taxes for normal people by making it progressive and combating tax evasion by foreign investors.
My scheme significantly empowers normal people vs. speculators/investors. Speculators need a positive return to justify their investment.
Therefore, it will basically put a moat around the housing market that greatly benefits owner-occupiers.
There’s also so much bureaucratic pushback to building new houses for all sorts of bullshit reasons. The scarcity is indeed artificial and this is the kind of corruption that we accuse 3d world countries of. Except here it’s called “lobbying”.
Those second homes by the beach usually aren’t where the unhoused need them, and they probably couldn’t afford them anyway
Most of them, along with most houses in general, are in cities where the unhoused do need them.
Are you still talking about the Netherlands? Unless it’s on one of the islands, I don’t see how a house near the beach could be in a bad location
It’s great if you’re vacationing. Not so great when you need to get to work 50 miles away
There are no beaches in the Netherlands that far away from a major city though
Maybe but you get my point. Half if not the majority of the housing problem is where they rather than whether the are
The scarcity is artificial.
Artificial in a way that people don’t want to give their houses for free to a complete strangers?
Related: the idea that everyone needs to work all the time isn’t really true anymore. If we were in like 3000 bce in a small farming village outside Ur, yeah, people gotta pitch in so we don’t get eaten by wildlife, the neighboring tribe, or whatever.
But in 2025ce, where so many jobs have so much filler nonsense? And when the rich can just live on investment income? No, the whole “work or starve” thing isn’t needed anymore.
We should have basic income for all and public housing. Let people pursue what they want. Maybe it’s art. Maybe they just want to take care of the local library. Maybe they just want to be a local barfly that keeps the tavern interesting. Who knows? But wage slavery needs to go.
when the rich can just live on investment income
How do you think they make that money? Primarily off of consumerism. If we all collectively decided to share what we have and stop buying what we don’t need, there could be no passive income, not at the scale it exists today, anyways.
Consumerism is used for wealth redistribution.
Real wealth production occurs when machines create work, saving time. Work = money.
I guess? With enough money you can just buy bonds, which sort of depend on consumerism but indirectly. Some municipal bonds return like 5%. 5% of a shit load of money is enough to live on.
Recommendation: the book Bullshit Jobs
I’ve heard of this one. Maybe I’ll check it out.
The downside of reading a lot of depressing non fiction is I increasingly feel like I’m living in a cuckoo clock, and get frustrated with how everyone else seems oblivious and uncaring.
If you want an understanding of the cuckoo clock and how it came to be, I highly recommend you watch the BBC documentary HyperNormalisation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation
It argues that following the global economic crises of the 1970s, governments, financiers and technological utopians gave up on trying to shape the complex “real world” and instead established a simpler “fake world” for the benefit of multi-national corporations that is kept stable by neoliberal governments.
We haven’t needed to work since the early 1900s. The labor movement was all about getting people to work less and ensuring everyone is taken care of. Consumerism was invented to fight back and has been winning ever since. People are animals and animals can be manipulated.
If not everyone needs to work, then who needs it? Why should you work while others don’t?
We would probably be fine if people who wanted to work just kept working. Or if we had universal basic income, so people could more freely choose if they wanted to trade their time+labor for something else.
Like, if absolutely no one wants to tend the fields then that’s going to be a problem for food. I think there are enough people who would do it because they want to, especially for jobs that are local. But even if not, you could still offer money. Having basic income (or some other mechanism to assure basic needs are met) in place means it’s much less coercive, because it’s no longer a question of labor or suffer
We would probably be fine if people who wanted to work just kept working
And what if we wouldn’t? Is there a statistics on how many people work just for the sake of work?
But even if not, you could still offer money
Not a lot of money, bc taxes are gonna be hella high to sustain universal income.
because it’s no longer a question of labor or suffer
Yeah, it’s a question of labor or just chilling. Who tf is gonna choose labor? Seems like your ideal society’s gonna be supported by useful idiots.
Most people like to be productive.
There is enough money and resources. It’s mostly just consolidated in the hands of the rich. You’ve probably seen https://eattherichtextformat.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ . If you spread that around, you get more economic activity.
Lots of people choose to do stuff instead of just chilling. Go look at all the open source projects that are just made by hobbyists, or community gardens, or any number of other self organized projects. Capitalism with all the profit is theft bits isn’t the only way.
Man that’s bullshit and you know it. Yeah a rich class is not exactly directly subject to work or starve, but people who write stuff like this don’t realize they are in that rich class. I guarantee you’ve never met or heard of anyone starving ain’t an anorexic or lost in the barrens. There has to be people doing the actual work, and people like you doing what amounts to fancy book keeping and service industries for the next class of people it’s very plain you’re envious of.
I’m not sure I follow. What do you think is bullshit?
Someone still needs to do work, but not everyone needs to work all the time.
Amazing how much trouble people have with a clear statement.
Cost of living differs across the world. While you may think that someone living in the US is “rich”, and that might be true compared to the rest of the world, within the US it may mean middle class or borderline lower class depending on the living context.
Say you make $60,000 USD per year as a single adult with no dependents. You’d do ok in Chicago, but would be scraping by in New York City.
Compare that same $60,000 to somewhere outside the US like Rio de Janiero in Brazil, and you’ll see that the you’ll make over 12 times the average living wage there. Conversely, if you took Brazil’s yearly living wage of ~$4,700 and applied it to the US, then you’d be below the average poverty line.
It does us no good to debate how good we have it vs you, or vice versa. (Almost) all of us live under capitalism, and although costs of living vary across the world, this isn’t an argument against UBI. The same issues the US experiences likely are also felt by citizens of many other countries, unless you live somewhere that has already introduced these sorts of safety nets.
Your point about “hard” labor (work done with body) vs “soft” labor (work done with mind and/or little body) doesn’t argue against this either. The economy is greatly stratified. We all don’t have to do the agriculture anymore, like when humans first transitioned from hunter-gatherers to farmers. There are many other things to do and things we can provide for each other, some good some bad. And this also isn’t to say that hard labor is worse than soft labor, or vice versa. They are mainly different kinds of experiences. No judgement need be applied, although many cultures tend to do so. This is one of many reasons why you see and have seen across history labor unions stick up for hard laborers against the “soft laboring” wealthy. This prejudice needs to be uprooted across the world imo.
I 100% agree with you that many formulations of “rich countries” depends on colonizing and extracting wealth from “poor countries”. That is not right. Every country should be able to produce for its own, with help offered in the form of imports/exports of goods & labor to every country. It is not fair that the Global South essentially funds the Global North.
Instead of pointing that out and blaming an entire hemisphere of people for that, we should instead be looking to those in our countries that wield power and make this system the way it is. A farmer in the US Is no different than a farmer in Brazil, at least in terms of the class struggle. It would all benefit us if we see that class divide everywhere in the world, and join together to try to defeat it.
This concept has a name. Artificial Scarcity.
Yeah, scarcity is created artificially by people who don’t want to give their stuff for free to complete strangers.
or maybe by not taxing people who have made much more than they can consume (and deserve) in 10 lifetimes?
Ah, so it’s not that people should willingly give up their belongings. It’s that people with guns don’t forcefully seize their belongings from them.
It doesn’t blow my mind, it infuriates me
We operate under the depression-era assumption that per-capita GDP is some kinda gold-standard metric for evaluating how well a country is doing economically. In reality per-capita GDP is just tracking the trash changing hands. We also overemphasize transactionality because of this. It’s somehow much better from an “economic perspective” to have everyone buying new shirts every week even if it’s the same people buying and then tossing the same fast fashion junk in the trash.
When you consider other metrics we could be judged by such as the OP is kinda pointing at here, our country looks way fucking worse on the leaderboard.
We ought to use the measures of the material conditions of our population to drive policy rather than how much currency has changed hands and how many worthless transactions have occurred.
Yeah that’s how Canada is pretending it’s not been in a recession for years. Out of control housing market has inflated the GDP on paper, when everyone else can basically go fuck themselves I guess according to the government
We don’t have a resource problem, we have a distribution problem.
Resources are constantly being wasted to accelerate the wealth transfer up the chain.
The first thing you say is absolutely correct but I have no idea what you mean by the second
Food being wasted instead of given out. Clothing slashed and tossed away. Housing boarded up and left vacant in the name of investing.
All in the name of maximizing sales and profit. Resources hoarded and wasted.
30% of the worlds resources would be sufficient to meet everyone’s needs if properly distributed.
But it’s not because corporations see a homeless man taking a sandwich out of the trash as a lost sale.
The problem is even if you do give away excess food, next growing cycle, you’ll still adjust to grow less. And there won’t be excess. So donating food is good, but it’s not a long term solution to the distribution problem. Same with houses and clothes and whatnot
Or in a resource based economy, production would be decided by the needs of the community at various scales and not driven by sales or profits.
I think the ideal is a system that provides UBI, Nutritious food distribution, needs based housing, universal healthcare, and job services that provide aptitude testing, training and placement.
If 30% can meet our needs, the other 70% should be sufficient to provide the system and framework and enough left over for consumption, luxury and still have room for meritocracy advancement.
What’s the current wealth distribution? 10% holding 85% leaving the rest of us 15% only half of the 30 we need.
I think that UBI and capitalism can be combined, in a specific way: UBI gives everything a person ever needs for survival and general wellbeing, but is boring. Money isn’t used for survival, but instead to purchase goods that are more suited to an individual’s interests. Instead of the Generic Dress #2 that everyone may order for free, you can spend money on getting a dress with polka dots, made of silk, and so forth.
Capitalism is really good at producing entertaining items, such as music, branded foods with a twist, or Pokemon cards. However, it utterly sucks at ensuring the wellbeing of people. Thus, we should separate the concepts of survival and luxury.
And people think it’s the fault of the poor that they don’t have enough :)
Nooo, how could that be. It’s the fault of the successful wealthy people who refuse to share their stuff for free with complete strangers.
Shout-out to too good to go - an app that aims to minimize food waste by letting restaurants and grocery stores sell “surprise bags” of food at 1/3 to 1/2 off!
Good mythical morning has a few episodes featuring these!
My colleague brought us doughnuts from here today. She got them last night but they were still plenty fresh.
First, I agree with the general sentiment. However, there are some devilish details.
Take a look at some pictures of Gary, Indiana. It’s an entire city that’s been mostly abandoned since the collapse of the industry that built it. There are entire boarded up neighborhoods, and some quite fine large, brick houses where wealthy people used to live. It’s all just sitting there. I’m sure that Gary would love to have people start moving back in, and revive the city.
So, say Gary just eminent-domained all those properties, and said to America: you want a house? All you have to do is come, pick one, and move in. You live in it for 5 years, it’s your’s.
The problem is that it costs money to keep up a home. Home maintenance is stupid expensive, and most of these abandoned homes need repairs: new windows, new roofs, new water heaters, plumbing repairs, electrical repairs. Do you have any idea what a new window costs? And even if it’s sweat equity, and you’re able to repair a roof yourself, you still need materials. Where does this money come from?
Are the homeless in California going to move to Gary, IN? Are the homeless in Alabama? There are homeless employed folks, but they’re tied to their locations by their jobs. They’re not moving to Gary.
Finally, it’s a truism that it’s often less expensive to tear down a house in poor condition and build a new one than it is to renovate. If these people don’t have the money to build a new house, how are they going to afford to renovate a vacant one.
The problem is that people need jobs to live in a house (unless someone else is paying for taxes, insurance, and maintenance). And the places with jobs aren’t the places like Gary, that have a abundance of empty homes. All of those empty homes are in inconvenient places, where the industry and jobs they created dried up.
It may be that a well-funded organization could artificially construct a self-sustaining community built on the bones of a dead one. But I think it’s oversimplifying to suggest that you can just take an empty home away from the owner (let’s assume you can) and just stick homeless people in it and assume it’ll work - that, even given a house, they’ll be able to afford to keep it heated, maintained, powered, insured. Shit, even if you given them a complete tax exemption, just keeping a house is expensive.
I’m sure there are some minority of homeless for whom giving an abandoned home in the area they live would solve their problems. And I’m sure that, for a while at least, having a bigger box to live in would be an improvement for many, even if the box is slowly falling apart around them. But I think it’s naive to be angry about the number of empty homes, and that homelessness could be solved by relocating the homeless to where these places are and assigning them a house - whatever state it’s in.
Removed by mod
called ‘greyhound therapy’-california is warm enough you won’t freeze in winter,
I live in Minneapolis, where we regularly have winter days that reach -30°F. Not frequently that bad, but rarely a winter without one of those, and in the past 7 years I’ve lived here, we’ve had a couple of days where it’s hit -50°. You don’t survive that very long, even with a lot of good clothes; any exposed skin gets frostbite within minutes. It’s not been as bad the past couple of years, what with global warming, but the winters here can well be described as “brutal.” I can’t imagine being homeless here, and if I was, and someone offered me a free trip to California, I’d take it. I grew up in Santa Cruz, and while LA is rather hotter than I prefer, I’d still rather face that than a Minnesota winter.
We have family in Dana Point. Everything around there is stupid expensive. I don’t know about LA housing prices, but I haven’t heard it’s cheap. And you still have to maintain, if you own, especially in apartments, where your problems can trivially become your neighbors’, too.
Removed by mod
I am not defending the practice; I was just saying I wouldn’t be in a rush to come back. I love the cold, I like having seasons, but I would hate it here if I had to live in a drafty house and couldn’t afford to heat it.
Removed by mod
We don’t need to move them, there are vacant homes everywhere. Even in San francisco the residential vacancy rate is 6%. The unhoused in San francisco make up about 1% of the population, so assuming the unhoused population takes up the same amount of housing per person as the housed population, we could house every unhoused person here and still have 5% left over.
That’s the worst case too, the rest of the country has a higher vacancy rate and a proportionally lower unhoused population.
To compound matters, the US is currently moving all the new manufacturing jobs into southern red states, which will be interesting. Red staters are pissed because they are experiencing major cost of living adjustments, particularly in housing prices. Which is partly why they voted maga.
There’s a house on my way to work that’s vacant. I saw an ambulance there about two years ago; I’m betting that the owner died, because it’s now entirely overgrown, with weeds and grass completely overtaking the yard and driveway.
How many of the ‘empty houses’ are places that were abandoned and are in such disrepair that they’re not safe for habitation, and how many of them are places that are second houses and/or bank-owned rentals?
For reference, the house I live in right now was repo’d around 2010, and my partner and I bought it in 2018; it had been vacant for almost a decade, and required a lot of work, almost as much as it cost, to get it safe. And it still needs work; I need to shore up the floor that’s sagging, and the exterior walls need to be opened up from the inside and be fully sealed b/c I can feel breezes inside when it’s windy outside.
There’s no reason to believe that a formerly homeless person wouldn’t put in the effort on a house restoration project if given the chance to live in it permanently.
It is true that there will never be enough to satisfy the greediest among us. Unless there’s some kind of global revolution this will continue until the end
Wow, I didn’t like billionaires very much, but if the alternative is a global revolution, then I guess I can put up with billionaires.
We also dont have enough water, living on a enormous water planet. :)
Why so salty.
I dont think salt is an unsolvable problem. Its just that as usual, it needs to be profitable to solve it. Currently its just being used as a fake resource limitation. That problem would quickly be solved if humanity had to.
That problem would quickly be solved if humanity had to.
…and if humanity existed
People put electrolytes in their water and nobody batts an eye, but when I drink seawater everybody loses their mind
I keep wondering if we have reached or are on the cusp of a post-scarcity society.
Scarcity isn’t just about how much stuff there is, it’s also about how much access people have to stuff. So no, we sadly haven’t got there yet in my opinion
No I agree with the logistics of it. I meant to say the manufacturing and agricultural capacity we already have seems like more than enough.
Oh yeah, almost certainly. Apparently 1/3rd of food produced globally is wasted.
Title
I volunteer with a food suplus redistribution organisation and that’s the figure we use so although I don’t have a specific source, I’m inclined to believe it
An amount we cant even comprehend.
CONSOOOOOOOM
OBEY CONFORM SUBMIT
REDUSTRIBUUUUTE
I agree.
Economic growth on Earth is coming to an end, and it’s important to recognize it and deal with it properly. It doesn’t make sense to scare people into work by telling them “otherwise we don’t produce enough”. We do. Whether people work 60 hours a week or 20 hours. We should just recognize what we really need. Which is the right to self-determination.
