top 95 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 142 points 4 months ago (60 children)

Good. The way it should be. Housing is not wealth storage, it's a place to live.
Let's hope this fall spreads out of China.

  • source
  • hideshow 60 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    That does assume the Chinese housing market is the same as in many western countries though. But if so, bring it on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago

    It fits somewhat with American sunbelt cities where there is significant growth and large developers building new houses. One issue which is common across borders is that real estate was a common way for people to invest their retirement savings; wiping out a lot of the savings of people near or at retirement isn't healthy. One issue that is more local to China is that Chinese provinces and municipalities have little ability to raise taxes, so they've been using development as a way to raise money; a lot of these governments have a lot of debt and few good ways to pay it back.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (29 children)

    It's great for people who want to buy a house, great for ultra rich that want to buy out more property, but absolutely fucking people who just bought a house not too long ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    If you just bought (assuming standard 30 yr mortgage), all you have to do is hold through it. Refinance if that becomes favorable.

    The only losers are those who are free and clear or toward the end of their mortgage AND looking to utilize the equity they built up, OR anyone looking to sell. The solution is time, which can kinda suck, but it's vastly preferable to not having a place to live.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 4 months ago (24 children)

    I feel like people forget that a significant portion of America lives in a place where the cost-of-living isn’t ridiculously high. A housing crash might make houses slightly more affordable in San Francisco, but it would be economically devastating to the interior of the country.

    Honestly it probably wouldn’t even be that great for people who wanted to buy a house. Banks aren’t likely to start handing out mortgages to people who couldn’t afford the house a couple weeks ago in what is now a volatile market, and you would still be competing with companies who could pay cash.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    Actually when things are less expensive they are easier to buy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    For everyone… not just poor people who need a loan, but people who can pay cash too… which is what I said.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    That is how supply and demand works, though. If the prices drop, and suddenly cash buyers start pouring out of the woodwork, that will drive prices back up.

    When you see prices fall, it necessarily means the cash buyers are not just swooping in and grabbing everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    Yes which would mean that the cash buyers would have all the houses and the people who needed loans wouldn’t. Which was my point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    That is not what that means.

    I promise I understand what you're saying. I'm saying the fault in your logic is misunderstanding the upward pressure of cash buyers.

    When prices fall, it isn't chum in the water for corporate cash buyers. What it means is that those same buyers were ALWAYS there, and are now leaving. The absence of thier buy pressure is the cause of the prices falling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (5 children)

    The fault in your logic is thinking there won’t be more cash buyers if prices dropped.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    But then the prices go up again.

    The price of anything is the balance of buyers and sellers.

    The price TELLS you where the equilibrium is. It is the OUTPUT of the function.

    Houses aren't Hienz Ketchup. Head office doesn't just decree a house price. You're imagining the housing market works like Taylor swift tickets from ticket master.

    You don't even have to hypothesize on this because housing markets have been swinging around for decades. People on the sidelines were able to buy houses after 2008 that they'd never have been able to afford otherwise. It worked out GREAT for people who has been sidelined.

    I entered the market at the brief but violent housing downturn in late 2019. I never would have been able to otherwise.

    They suck for people who own a home and are depending on thier equity. It sucks for people who own a home and the banks get nervous.

    Whenever I hear people saying to people without homes "be careful what you wish for" when they are wishing houses were cheaper... I just hear my old boss telling me how I shouldn't want a raise because it'll "bump me into a higher tax bracket".

    It's bullshit half-truths which sound just plausible enough to convince you to not act in your own best interests.

    If you own a property, its in your own financial best interests to have the value increase. If you do not own property, but want to, you want the price to go down.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (3 children)

    You’re oversimplifying. Obviously if I want to buy a house I want the price to go down. What we are talking about here is that cheaper housing isn’t the only consequence of lower housing prices. And I’m not sure that comparing it to saying a higher tax bracket is in any way an adequate comparison given the tax brackets just don’t work that way at all. Like I wouldn’t even call that a half truth.

    I’m also not saying that nobody would benefit, what I’m trying to point out is that the net gain wouldn’t be the same as say legislation that actually increased the housing supply. If your end goal is to be able to own a house wishing for a housing market crash isn’t the best wish you can make. Private equity firms bought more houses after the 2008 crash than the people sitting on the sidelines.

    At the end of the day what you’re actually wishing for is one last housing crash otherwise you’re just hoping that it crashes again for other people after you buy your house and you’re stuck there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Ok, I can accept what I think I just read:

    "Although a drop in housing prices would provide a reprieve to those who do not own, the fundamental structure of housing as a commodity is the greater beast that must be defeated"

    Now, that's true, I'm 100% on board.

    I do feel like people sometimes let perfect become the enemy of good. "The homeless guy doesn't need a handout, he needs a job", they mutter as they walk on by.

    If you wanna think that long term, I actually don't think you've gone far enough. Government supply initiatives? A start, but still a bandaid. Massive increasing tax rates on multiple ownership. Cap on residential property that can be owned by Corporations. Rent controls. Pull no punches to establish that housing is not a viable speculative investment. You build to sell to people who will live there.

    What about the equity you're about to decimate? Government needs to get back big time into the pension game. Big time. How will I live? Eat? Get medical care as I age? Needs a fix.

    Until those broad changes occur, I'll still be cheering every dip.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (12 children)
  • [–] -3 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    I didn’t realize only rural areas had a lower cost of living than San Francisco…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    I didn't realize San Francisco is the only city in the US. Rent in every single urban area is out of control. A two bedroom apartment that I rented in Lexington, KY from 1996-2011 for $500 a month is now $1,800.

    A studio apartment that I rented in Altoona, PA from 2011- 2013 for $700 a month is now $1200.

    I could keep looking, as I have rented places in 38 states.

    No where that isn't rural is cheap in the US anymore. Even the most "affordable" cities are boasting about 1 br apartments that are $1,000+ a month.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • Yeah, I moved out of my parents’ place in the early 2010’s. My rent was $1000. It was a shithole, but I could at least afford it. I just checked that area, and found that my old unit is up for rent. They’re demanding $2100 for it now.

    It’s not just going up due to inflation adjustments. Adjusting for inflation from 2010 to now would have it closer to $1500. And that’s being generous (I added a few years to the inflation calculation) because I moved out in the early 2010’s, not exactly in 2010.

    And looking at the photos they have posted for the unit, it’s still a shithole. I’m pretty sure the awful stove/oven in the kitchen photos is the exact same one I used back in the early 2010’s. The stove even has the scuffed dent in the corner from when a dumbbell weight rolled off the top of the fridge and landed on it. So it’s not like they’re actively reinvesting that money back into the units to increase value to the tenants.

    So somehow the slumlords have managed to tack on an extra ~$7200 in annual profit per tenant. that’s a significant amount of cash, especially when you consider how long the prices have been inflated.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    I hate to break it to you but those prices are barely more than inflation. $700 in 2011 is $1065 today. And I didn’t say anything about San Francisco being the only city in the US now you’re just reaching.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    Not reaching, just using your own hyperbole in reverse.

    I hate to break it to you, but inflation hasn't done a thing to minimum wage, or wages in general.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    In what way was pointing out that there are places in America with a lower cost of living than San Francisco that aren’t rural hyperbole?

    I never said it did, in fact that has absolutely nothing to do with what I’m talking about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (5 children)

    San Francisco isn't the only place where housing is unaffordable. That's how it's hyperbole.

    Ahh, so you're fine with price gouging in the name of inflation, but fuck the workers that have to pay those prices. Got it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    I never said it was. Why are you just making shit up?

    No I never said that either… seriously what the fuck is your problem?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (3 children)

    I feel like people forget that a significant portion of America lives in a place where the cost-of-living isn’t ridiculously high.

    I never said it did, in fact that has absolutely nothing to do with what I’m talking about.

    If inflation has nothing to do with wages, than it shouldn't have anything to do with prices. You said fuck workers by logical extension.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    OK… Now where in that sentence do I say that San Francisco is the only city in America or the only place with a high cost of living, or that I’m OK with price gouging?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    I edited my previous comment, so I will copy the relevant part to answer your second question.

    Since according to you, inflation should be tied to housing prices, but is irrelevant to wages, you just said "fuck the workers," by logical extension.

    As far as you saying that San Francisco is the only city in America, you did that with your hyperbolic statement that indicated that you think that San Francisco is the only place that is unaffordable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (20 children)

    The problem is that a lot of Chinese elderly used housing as a storage of wealth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (19 children)

    A few years ago in China a guy went viral on billibilli (their version of YouTube) for covering how hard it was to be retired in China. The CCP took his Channel away and censored him. Funnily enough in the years since the CCP has made strides in increasing the payout of their social security system.

    So they censored him and then responded to the criticism anyway.

    Honestly --minus the censorship-- I wish the US would handle it this way. Stop relying on 401ks and housing value to backstop peoples retirement and increase social security payouts. The elderly have earned their right to take a break from the grind of capitalism. They should be relaxing and passing on what they've learned from their time on earth to the next generation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago* (13 children)

    My relaxation plan is suicide. Just like other millineals. Even though I've done way above average, there is no way I'll ever retire. It's literally illigical for me to not commit suicide. Who wants to be exhausted with nothing to look forward to?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    That would make the wealthy very happy if you did that. They wouldn't have to pay taxes for your retirement.

    My advice -- if you can't overcome your cynicism, go on to spite those fuckers who refuse to pay you enough for a comfortable retirement. To spite those who have denied you hope for the future, who want to work you to the bone and throw you in the trash.

    Fuck those people, every breath you take is one less breath for Elon.

    Having said that, we can organize and fight for a kinder world, that includes better social security that can pay for a comfortable retirement with people you care about. Don't let your cynicism devour you.

    A better world is possible, take action. Join DSA or start a union or join another org. Mamdani has proven the system is not invincible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    I have tried and tried. Got three STEM degrees and 20 years experience, and still never known job security. Now I'm about to be laid off again. I'm tired boss. My family can survive if I check out, but might not if I don't. It's a bit of a situation.

    It's not spite to continue being exhausted so a few assholes can be rich. I feel like it's more harmful to live. I'm also coming to terms that I'm a miserable person, so maybe I was never meant to be here in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    It sounds like you have people around you who care about you. I don't know how much I, a random stranger on the internet can help. But know you're not alone in your feelings. Consider seeking out professional help if you're able to.

    It may very well be irrational to keep on going. The universe doesn't guarantee us a happy existence. But understand it's irrational from a place of ego. Other people need you for their emotional well being if nothing else.

    Hope is a thing with feathers, it may return someday. We must embrace hope long past time when it is rational, so that someday it may pirch again. Even if not for us.

    This video has helped me work through these feelings some.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    Friend, there are millions of us millennials out here who are in the same boat. You are not alone. I am confident we will, as a generation, improve living conditions for all of us in this lifetime. Capitalism is in its death throes and it sucks that we have to deal with all of the side effects of that, but we have the power to forge new ways of living, and will likely have no choice but to do just that in the near future.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (8 children)

    Just need to be extremely careful.

    When you topple the existing power structure, it doesn’t guarantee that the next one is whichever you try ushering in. As propaganda-riddled as these points remain, the USSR a China are good examples. They went for communism but got something else in return.

    Second point is that you will have to deal with propaganda. People will point to the dynamics of a power vacuum and blame the failures of handling that directly onto communism itself. So you’ll hear that communism leads to dictatorship. The truth is, change is dangerous. Communism alone doesn’t deserve the blame.

    Third point is that you won’t be able to trust many people. If you have a good idea, some adversaries will try to convince you that it’s a bad one. If you have a bad idea, some adversaries will make you out to be the devil so that you loose support. Other adversaries might try to convince you that your bad idea is a good one. Either way, the goal is the same—your failure. These adversaries want their preferred way of life, not yours, and so you’re now competing.

    Handling all of this is tough. If you die, who knows what person with what narrative takes your place? Assuming you dismantled the power structures that preserved the prior status quo, there’s now nothing left to steer the ship toward the good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (7 children)

    All of these points are making the assumption that the system we currently have is just hunky dorey. Millions die of poverty and treatable illnesses in the US every year. Isn’t that dangerous? We are all subject to the whims of a tiny minority of sadistic billionaire warmongers and business owners who have captured our news and social media and all of the branches of government. Isn’t that dangerous? You’re just going to accept that we live in a country in which there is ever growing homelessness and preventable death because you’re afraid that a people’s revolution might not turn out as expected?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (6 children)

    That’s not at all what I said. I’m not scared. In fact, I wish I could be the one to lead it. Because I know that I would respect the risks. I can’t say that I fully understand them, but I have something more than many people from the past… I have knowledge of their results. I know that I could be careful, that I could pour my life blood into such a project and ensure its successful completion at the expense of every fiber in my body. I’d educate myself, I’d hire experts, I’d build telemetry and run tests… I’d have a damn good plan, because it would take me years in the making. I have confidence there.

    My concern is that I’m actually just a nobody. So, however such a revolution should take place, I point back to what I actually said…

    Just need to be extremely careful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (5 children)

    That's cool but you're coming from a very individualistic perspective. Any kind of revolution would be futile without the support of a mass labor movement that encourages workers to stand up for themselves and organize, something which needs to be the left's main objective before we can even think of revolution. A future disciplined vanguard party will serve the role you are talking about. But without a mass movement, any revolution would be crushed by the overwhelming power of the capitalist police state.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (4 children)

    A future disciplined vanguard party will serve the role you are talking about.

    Would the correct illustration be,

    Leftist party leads workers in organizing
      ↓
    Leftist party grows stronger at negotiating with workers being an organized expression of solidarity behind them
      ↓
    The capitalist police state resists. I assume the police state is capitalistically empowered and enforced, but not capitalist in itself. Meaning it won’t sanction the leftist party, but it will use taxpayer funds investigate, legislate, harass, and sell propaganda which advanced its agenda.
      ↓
    Worker solidarity survives a bureaucracy that, in its default state, is procedurally guiding you toward any condition where you have less autonomy. Forms a disciplined vanguard in cooperation with the left to further resist the state.
      ↓
    Leftist party demands legislative change that would actually threaten the status quo, e.g., demanding an end to the Iran war, or demanding Buckley v. Valeo be amended to set spending limits on candidates, getting rid of dark money, etc.
      ↓
    The capitalist state refuses, rejecting the authority of any such party. Declares the vanguard a terroristic entity, investigates its members, threatens to sanction the leftist party if efforts continue. The argument is, you ought pass you legislation the old fashion way.
      ↓
    A voter revolution, by electing someone from the Leftist party to pardon the vanguard members and issue legislation to protect worker solidarity.
      ↓
    If the vote fails, rough… if it doesn’t, the pardons pass but the legislation gets locked up in one of the best mannerisms of preventing change the system has: the system itself. The president tries forcing it through with tactics like Executive Orders, but that just fuels Rightist propaganda that the socialists are taking over. They’ll get the Trump defects too, claiming this is what Trump tried for fascism.
      ↓
    The right forms their own vanguard, largely with internal help from the military, FBI, and other entities. Their goal is to “preserve democracy” or whatever. To them, the Leftist party is threatening communism — something they believe leads to dictatorship.
      ↓
    Both sides believe they’re doing the right thing, adamantly believing the other is wrong. The risk of civil war is high. The president is seen with the responsibility of preventing civil war, but also knows this is his one shot to enact change. They probably shuffles into a lame duck position.
      ↓
    The economy remains functional, which helps stave off a civil war. The president has accepted the pardons and recovery of the left vanguard as a win. To include having prevented executive action against the leftist party. The president is credited with having avoided a civil war for this long, though mostly by not stirring the pot much. Legislation remains locked up, but that’s considered the least of our worries by election time and we get them a second term.
      ↓
    The second term is mostly a repeat of how the first one ended. Civil war concerns have died down quite a bit, though both vanguards still exist. Some on the Left have grown complacent, some frustrated with the feeling that nothing has actually changed.
      ↓
    By the end of the second term, the Right has promoted some figure as The Man to end your woes by ensuring we go back to how things were. They’ll speak of traditional values, simpler times, and foreign threats that we should stay unified against. They’ll get elected.
      ↓
    The three branches of government are suddenly working fluidly again and President The Man finds some novel way to fuck up the economy. We now have our traditional political problems, but with opposing vanguard infrastructure and knowledge at the ready.
      ↓
    Individual states begin organizing support for one another, forging relationships to protect themselves with the aid of whichever vanguard their politics are aligned. There are three main factions to consider now: the left, the right, and the weakening federal government.
      ↓
    The Left eventually do something to piss the Right off. Probably withholding taxes, moving their economic assets / supply lines out of red states entirely, or maybe it’ll be water wars by then… maybe the threat of secession.
      ↓
    The President, aligned with the Right, try enforcing their will in the situation. The Left use their vanguard to prevent such measures. We’re perhaps one shot fired away from full on civil war.
      ↓
    The second American Civil War occurs, because why wouldn’t it in conditions like that?
      ↓
    God knows who wins. The rest of the world will move on by then. Western allies will hope we don’t turn out like Russia. Foreign adversaries will be hoping we destroy ourselves in this process. Who knows who intervenes and how…
    
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    Not sure what this AI slop is lol, but this is definitely not what I'm talking about. I recommend reading "How Marxism Works" by Chris Harman if you want to learn more to get a better idea of what I'm talking about. You can read it for free at this link: https://www.marxists.org/archive/harman/1979/marxism/

    You're missing the whole part about the revolution. It's not a revolution brought about by voting or legislation. And it's also not about left vs. right. It's about the majority of people, the working class (farmers, factory workers, delivery drivers, teachers, healthcare workers, anyone who works for a wage and has a boss over them but also including small business owners in a lot of cases), engaging in a mass labor movement against the ruling class (bosses, large business owners, billionaires) in order to provide enough support to the vanguard party (see below) to take power and protect the movement/overwhelm the most likely violent reaction of the minority, wealthy, militaristic ruling class. This is all to achieve a government for the people by the people (to eradicate things like homelessness, mass job layoffs, and exorbitant home, food, and healthcare prices). We want a govt without the influence of billionaires, mega corporations, and the bourgeois political parties (like the Democrats & the Republicans).

    Vanguard party (defined by ProleWiki):

    The vanguard party, also called the vanguard, is the political party that is the most able to organize the proletariat and other popular classes (such as the peasantry) into a revolutionary party, and thus bring socialism to their country. The vanguard plays an important role in instilling revolutionary class consciousness amongst the proletariat and plays a critical role in the dictatorship of the proletariat in consolidating ties with the proletariat of other nations and maintaining the alliance of the workers and peasants. The vanguard is not a name a party gives themselves or gets bestowed upon them. A party becomes the vanguard when it proves to be the most capable at organizing the proletariat and achieving results. This also means the status of the vanguard can be lost if the party suddenly stops achieving results, or another party achieves even better results towards socialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    Not sure what this AI slop is lol

    Awe shucks, I actually used my brain for that one. It was just a fun story.

    I misunderstood what vanguard party is.

    I just have a hard time believing such a party will organically manifest. Who else is going to organize the working class but a party, and why would any of our parties organize the working class if it meant aiding the creation of a vanguard party? Our parties are too self-preservationalist.

    Not to mention, there’s so much propaganda that not everyone buys into socialism. There will be resistance within the working class, and therefore less organization.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    And as for a vanguard communist party coalescing, don't worry about that. DSA, which is democratic socialist not communist (and likely would never be able to fill the shoes of a vanguard party), is super popular now, and socialism and communism in general are gaining popularity among younger people. The more people who are interested in and study socialism and communism and get organized and involved, the likelier we are going to have more and more people willing to come together and form a competent party. Socialism for All (S4A), a youtube channel that publishing educational videos for people wanting to learn Marxist theory and analysis of current events, has seen exponential growth in subscriptions and engagement in the past ten years, as another example.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Our current bourgeois parties would certainly not have any part in organizing the working class or creating a vanguard party. It is up to the people to organize/be organized in a mass movement outside of a political party that is controlled by and beholden to the rich guys in power. There are third parties in existence now (like the Green Party, Peace & Freedom Party in California, and DSA, if it ever decouples from the Democratic Party) that can help organize workers into a mass movement to support a future vanguard party and worker revolution. But it could also be a mass movement akin to what we saw in Minneapolis, people on the ground from a bunch of different groups (and people from no groups) coming together to oppose ICE. This is all usually spurred on by a sheer drop in living conditions, like we are witnessing right now, and which will only be exacerbated by the growing AI data center trend, which will destabilize water supplies, cause huge electrical service disruptions, and which may cause pollution on a scale we have not experienced in our lifetimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    So they censored him and then responded to the criticism anyway.

    Being criticized meant they were losing face. Saving face is very important in many Asian cultures.

    Stop relying on 401ks and housing value to backstop peoples retirement and increase social security payouts

    Not gonna work in an aging society unfortunately. Social security payouts come from current taxes. If you don't have enough young people, you can't really fund social security. If you have a national pension fund that collects money for your retirement as YOU work, it's not too different from a 401k, the only difference is who has control over it. Most countries don't do that though.

    Fun story: My country has a system similar to 401k (it has deferred taxation, reduced taxation and government matching, so basically free money), but you couldn't take money out of it until retirement... Until a few years ago when conservatives changed it, so now you can take money out, but if you do, you pay full taxes and you can't resume payments for 10 years. At least a third of the country took that opportunity. Our equivalent of social security hasn't been significantly increased and in fact retirement age is being raised by roughly a month a year currently because otherwise the system would become unaffordable. At this point I'm considering cashing mine in in a few years only because I'm afraid that if the conservatives get enough power they'll manage to pass some stupid ass law taking away everyone's funds and using it to fund increased social security for their current old voters, at which point I'll just lose all of it unlike the people who have taken theirs out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago

    All forms of retirement are funded by current workers. Social security is just more honest about it. A retired person is still consuming goods and services produced by the working without producing anything themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    You're presenting your argument as if it were fact. Which is how conservatives always try to frame their arguments around social security.

    Basic question, if its so impossible for it to work why is China able to do it?

    Basic answer, it's not impossible -- it just requires a progressive taxation for social security where the rich pay into it more. Which is why conservatives are so against it.

    Look man, money is fake the only question that ultimately matters is 'can we produce enough stuff?'. Which in the context of modern industrial production the answer is 'in most cases, yes'.

    Certainly in terms of producing enough housing and food for the elderly the answer is yes. The only place where there might be a limitation for the elderly is healthcare. If you gotta problem with that maybe we should adopt Cuba's healthcare system. They have more doctors per capita than any other nation on earth in spite of decades of crippling sanctions. Before Trump reintroduced the blockade they also had higher life expectancy than the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Increase social security payouts with what?

    Yes, everyone should have a pension plan, but you have to pay into that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    No you don't, money is fake, we made it up.

    Maybe a pension system should be managed that way for inflationary reasons. But money does not exist until the state spends it into the economy. Dollars do not exist in nature.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -18 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Building and renting out should be profitable. Else nothing is built for renters. Problem is companies buying homes (not building) and try to bribe local politics to upgrade zoning laws for more profitable housing (more flats per m2 land, less living quality). There are cases where lots should be merged for upgrading zonings but this should come from the communities needs not companies' greeds.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    The result is property developers buying up swathes of land and leaving it vacant until the market reaches a frenzy and they can charge an unholy price for their crappy tract homes built by subcontractors under extreme cost reduction pressures. It doesn’t meet market demand, not remotely.

    Zoning and local councils are certainly complicit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago

    Building and renting out should be non-profit based. It should cover it's cost, but not be attractive to investors - that keeps the prices from rising. Doesn't mean that the people doing this work shouldn't be able to live a decent life, but non-profits can pay normal salaries too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 44 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Sounds great, normalisation is required for many housing markets. Prices of a basic utility inflated due to speculation is the actual dangerous condition we are very comfortable with and viewed as security in many countries.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -25 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Unfortunately, in China housing is the only thing they're legally allowed lowed to "invest" in. There is no stock market, you can't own land, you can't buy land in foreign countries (legally). So when their market crashes 20% that's the equivalent of the NSDAQ, housing, and subsidies markets all crashing 20% in a day, which is like beginning great depression type stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 4 months ago

    That's quite exactly the opposite of what's true actually.

    The Beijing Stock Exchange and Shanghai Stock Exchange are in fact stock markets, and they can buy land legally in many countries (there's no Chinese law prohibiting it at least, local laws in some countries may ban foreigners from buying land). They (their rich, not common people) buy housing in other countries because it's viewed as a better and safer investment (also because buying a home in China is a 70 year lease)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 64 points 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    The Chinese government made this happen to help the lower classes with home ownership. So, maybe we could use our unique rights structure to convince those with the levers here, to pull them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago

    I'll have what they're having.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 4 months ago

    Oooh, could we get some of that?

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    liberals crying lmfao

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    It peaked in 2021, so apparently prices have been declining for 5 years, and are still declining!!
    The Chinese economy may be weird, but I don't get how prices can fall below what they were 20 years ago, when China is much richer today than they were back then? We were told for a long time China was in a huge housing bubble, but this is crazy!
    This will guaranteed ruin many peoples economy for decades even for the rest of their lives. And many will be tied to their house because it's impossible to sell at a price that will clear the debt, so they can't afford to move.
    In a normal market it's nice to own your own house, but a market like this, if you bought 5 years ago, it's a nightmare.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    China was building housing like crazy, and companies kept the prices artificially inflated, even though that created literal ghost towns and a number of buildings had to be demolished due to safety reasons...

    Now with the bubble popped, prices are resetting to market value, and since this means a new swathe of newly affordable housing, that availability drives prices down even further.

    Think of it like this: you're sitting on 3 million tonnes of apples. You're selling each apple for $50. Nobody but a few idiots are buying them. Then you suddenly need the cash, and start dropping the prices - you have to go below market rates to offload all those apples to raise capital. And the raw amount of supply means you're going way under market prices, dragging other sellers with you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Yes I know all that, bubbles result in stupid projects and poor quality, and banks stupidly believing growth will continue, so loaning to buy a house is easy. that's the same here. I know how bubbles work.
    But China has had an economic growth rate on an average of 10% many years of that period, it's slowed down a bit in recent years but is still high.
    But let's say 15 years with 10% growth, that means the economy has grown 4 times in 15 years!!
    So it's crazy that prices fall back to less than when the economy was only 25% of what it is now.
    Your description doesn't explain that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    The housing market is different in China. Most home are paid entirely at sale without a loan.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    You’re also not truly buying the land, because private land ownership is illegal in China. Instead, you’re buying land usage rights for a long period (usually 70 years). Then it gets returned to the state (or the local farming collective, if you’re in a rural area that is managed locally) after your lease is up.

    Basically, you can own your house, (the materials used to build it, the items inside of it, etc), but not the land it is built on. So after that 70 year lease is up, you (or more likely, your descendants) will need to either move off the land or sign a new land use contract with the applicable government (either local or state level).

    And there’s always a chance that the government goes “actually we need to use that land for the public interest” and they can refuse to re-sign the lease. Maybe they want to turn it into a public park, or build a railway through the area, or use it for extra farmland. The same way the US government can seize an American’s land via eminent domain, the Chinese government can revoke a land use agreement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago*

    But having an expected time the city can have the land back do helps with planning with development, or modernize run down buildings.

    It being a lease means you also can very easily plan ahead your maintenance by funding it through the sale of the land upfront, not that much difference than collecting property tax except it is actually valued based on the land not the building on top of it.

    It's better if land is not owned by an estate forever.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (13 children)

    I wonder how many people on Lemmy want to move to China based on what they've heard about it on this collective network or in their own circles. How many of those people would be sorely disappointed if they did?

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] 8 points 4 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    That's nice. When I was a kid my dad worked in China, and they confiscated our passports, so we literally had to flee the country.

    So there's also that side of the coin.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 4 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    My dad had a work visa for a company and when his contract was up they held his passport saying he was to continue working for the company.

    So no. Not like ICE.

    Also, we're talking about China, not how shit America is right now. Maybe try and stay on topic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 4 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Because you're pretending like China is some fucking paradise when they literally tried to keep my family from leaving the fucking country?

    We had to hide in a shipping freighter to get out of the country. But sure, go ahead and move to China, citizen.

    If you don't want people to respond to your room temperature take on something don't post it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Time to buy a vacation home in China?

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Breaking news, looks like I'm applying for Chinese citizenship.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›