• Jochem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Back in the 1800s, the employer WAS the house lord as well. This meant not only the home was affordable for factory workers, the quality was good enough, so workers would show up at work well rested enough.

  • Rozaŭtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I like the idea, but realistically those bastards would probably find some backdoor deal so they can both profit off of you.

    Capitalism doesn’t need to be fixed, it needs to be dismantled.

    • evidences@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Either that or companies like Walmart would buy a 6 unit building in any town they had a store then rent them for like 250 bucks a month so they had to pay like 4 bucks an hour.

      • lad@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Was also thinking about how they could bring the average down by offering near uninhabitable rooms for $10/month. Rooms need to be 2 m² and have a communal bathroom on each floor, of course.

  • lens17@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Companies would start to buy houses that they can rent for cheap, but never fix anything in that house. I confidently believe that this idea would worsen the situation.

    • Mandarbmax@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I want reddit to pay the server costs for hosting the image while letting lemmy people enjoy it and I wanted to include the Tumblr commentary too. Is there a better way to accomplish this goal?

  • davidgro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Hmm. I like the concept but think there are practical issues: Suddenly everyone who owns apartments or other rental property in a major city immediately sells it (even if just to be demolished) and kicks out the current renters. Mass homelessness affecting disproportionately those worst off. Perhaps the cost of Buying a home would drop due to all that property for sale - especially if the apartments can be sold as condos, but I’m not sure if it would compensate enough, and would be a huge mess for some time.

    • Kelly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Suddenly everyone who owns apartments or other rental property in a major city immediately sells it (even if just to be demolished) and kicks out the current renters.

      Why? Paying for demo would be costing them more money. Same with sitting on it without tenants.

      • davidgro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        What I mean is that they couldn’t afford to keep it in any way and may end up selling it at just the land value (if that)

        • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          The flip side is that it would be sold to people looking to buy one.

          It wouldn’t push up homelessness, just more who rent would instead own

  • Sarmyth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I think an interesting side effect would be the massive reduction of houses being bought as rental properties. If you had no real way to cover a mortgage or even some of the absurd property taxes with the rent you could get, your wouldn’t invest unless you really believe in the area or are buying to fix and sell.

    It would basically tank the housing market and put everyone who owns a house with a mortgage under water. Would suck for me, and I’m not a landlord.

    • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      The unfortunate risk you take owning a property. Likewise, is there really any way for the next generation to be ok with the current one not taking a hit?

    • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      See that’s the odd balance

      Not all people who’d lose out by going balls to the walls on affordable housing is a landlord, in fact most of them are working class people who have no investment vehicle but their home.

      The process of decomodifying housing is necessarily going to be a long and bitterly unpopular one in its time.

    • somethingsnappy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Oh noes! We’re so worried for the lords of land and property owners. If you have owned your property for more than 3 years please step out of the conversation.

  • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    See I thought of this from the other direction

    The minimum wage shall be the lowest hundredth dollar in a month which is still greater than three times the state’s median rent for a single bedroom apartment.

    That’ll actually stoke class division between landlords and bosses since driving up rent will bump wages just as much.

  • Hillock@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Just implement good old rent control that limits the price per square meter/square foot.

    There wouldn’t even be a class warfare because bosses are landlords. We are seeing this now already, bosses are forcing people back into office because their real estate is losing in value. So they would fight the law just as they are doing with rent control.

    And the second proposed system could even be heavily abused and create a worse situation for everyone. For example, landlords have 0 incentive offering bigger units anymore. So they mostly offer the legal minimum to fulfill all regulations. Bigger homes would become “benefits” offered by your job. But obviously if you lose your job, you will lose the housing provided.

    • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Doesn’t work - this also eliminates any investment and repairs into a property that has already reached that cap. This is where you get slum lords and no future builds.

      On the other hand, put in a mass government housing development program that is rent controlled and doesn’t need to profit would both increase housing stock, improve investment in quality to attract tenants and lower rent prices.

  • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    In addition to the many other downsides listed here, renting anything other than a pokey, one bedroom apartment would become impossible.

  • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    That’s a good recipe for local companies now also owning your house. You get fired, you lose your appartment

  • underisk@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    They wouldn’t fight the landlords because a lot of them are landlords.

    They would simply lobby to have the law repealed or, more likely, vetoed before passing. Failing that, they would exploit every loophole and edge case to take advantage of it and cry to lawmakers and voters that the law is the problem rather than their circumvention of it.

    • Transporter Room 3@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      There’s a wooden and steel contraption that uses gravity and a 5 gallon bucket for just such occasions.

      The bucket is just for easy cleanup, you can omit it or use a trash can.

        • qwertilliopasd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          I thought we were against putting trash in our water. I think bucket -> compost is better. There are plenty of strong backs that would love to put in the work for the benefit.

          • Krackalot@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            I personally think the fear of your brain becoming fish food might help motivate behavior change,but keeping micro plastics out of the ocean is pretty important.

  • supangle@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    this sounds nice hut big companies would create a refugee camp like buildings in town and rent them for dirt cheap and give you unlivable wages if they want

  • diffusive@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    A milder version of this is what there is in Switzerland. In Switzerland a person cannot rent an house/apartment that costs more than 1/3 of what they earn.

    While clearly there are more and less expensive areas, it kills the race to unreasonable prices (like, let’s say, NY or London or… everywhere) and allows essentially everyone to have an house (and who cannot still afford there are social helps but that is for another post)