• Amadou_WhatIWant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    When you say “doing the former” what specifically do mean?

    Empirically, building more housing does lower the cost of rent. See Austin for an example. But yeah there is more that could be done for sure.

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      No to deporting immigrants. Yes to banning landlords. For everything else, see my original comment.

      And it’s not that building more housing doesn’t help, but on its own it will never be a solution.

      As long as housing is an investment, there has to be a housing crisis. Because if the price of housing isn’t on a constant upward trend then it no longer functions as an investment, and the only way to ensure that the price of housing constantly increases is for the supply to be insufficient to meet demand. No matter how much housing you build, wealthy investors will always ensure that it is insufficient to meet demand, because they’d be bad investors if they didn’t.

      • Amadou_WhatIWant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        37 minutes ago

        As long as housing is an investment, there has to be a housing crisis.

        100% Agree

        I’m not sure how banning landlords works though. Like everybody has to own their own house? What about apartment buildings or people living somewhere for the short-term? Or are you think like where the government is the landlord for everybody - sort of like Vienna?