Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Radium, Apr 7, 2011.
why is rent expensive? what is the thing that can justify the cost of rent?
i was wondering something perhaps extreme i guess
what if rent, instead of being expensive, was completely free instead? what are the implications of this?
It's only expensive if you don't save money instead of spending it on dumb shit that you don't need.
People buy cellphones, expensive clothes, Iphones, Ipads, rims or other retarded stuff and then wonder why their rent seems expensive? Come on now.
Sure, so why don't you take your savings or take out a loan - buy some property and let people live in it for free while you pay all of the taxes, repairs and possibly - repay the loan + interest.
When you do that - call me, I'll move in to laugh at you.
Radium and Newcentz
When idealism confronts practicality.
Rent would only ever be free if there were a super abundance of property in all those particulars which might make an individual choose one over another. So even if you an infinitely large housing stock there would still arise rental prices if some finite proportion or proportions of that stock differed from the others in relevant ways etc. size/rooms/features/aesthetics/location. There is no conceivable way that rent would ever be free.
Even the socialisation of living accommodation would not result in free rent properly understood. All that would happen is that the government would determine and impose costs unilaterally in whichever way it may choose rather than the cost emerging through the market process via the voluntary transactions of individuals. Selling would be replaced by seizing.
If your real question was what would happen if the government just decided to make rent 'free' i'd imagine a short order spiral into communism and the experience of all its attendant horrors. Even if the government never actually went any further than free housing for all it is such a large intervention it would probably distort the rest of the economy in a highly damaging way. Land use and the location of people is so influential in just about every form of economic activity that to rip it apart from the broader market economy would create massive problems.
Theres got to be some Habitat For Humanity type deal that could be implemented. For example why not have some thing like help build x amount of homes and get a place of residency for low cost. If it was a national program it could eliminate housing problems while at the same time training people and supplying them with jobs and experience.
The inherent problem of course is the Greed of man. Capitalism. Someone always has to be able to make a buck.
thanks everybody for posting.
rent is very interesting. for most people in society, rent is a way we get the necessary-commodity of shelter.
a necessary-commodity is a thing that we need to have to survive.
these things (generally) are:
in this society, these things are necessary requirements; before we can have any other thing, we must have these things.
these things require human effort to constantly create and to repeatedly distribute out to society. so a work force is thus created so that we can work together to constantly create and to repeatedly distribute these things out to each other.
now you might have noticed that there is something very unique about the nature of shelter that makes it very different from these other things:
things like food, water, electricity, gas, clothing are dispensable and thus have a dynamic property; they require constant effort to create and repeatedly distribute.
shelter isn't dispensable (like food, water, electricity, gas, clothing) and thus has a stagnant property which doesnt require constant effort to create and repeatedly distribute like these other things.
large swaths of our society must be put to work to ensure we can constantly grow food, constantly cleanse and distribute water, constantly transport things, and so forth and so on. so to prompt members of society to constantly preform this work so that we can constantly have and enjoy these things - we must constantly pay for these things.
but shelter essentially doesn't require this sort of constant effort from members of society. shelter is stagnant, so essentially, it can do its job on its own, without any constant human effort.
ultimately, its not necessary to constantly pay money out to have shelter in the same way that it would be necessary to constantly pay money out to have food (or some other thing)
so, understanding this, we must be prompted to ask some new questions about the nature of shelter and the nature of rent - and ultimately how these things are handled by society. we must ask if there is another way - perhaps a more efficient way - to handle this task.
noncents, thamk you for posting.
rent is very expensive, actually. in fact rent generally takes up the largest chunk of the money any person earms every month.
so becayse we pay so much money to constantly rent somewhere that we can live, its probably at least fair to ask: where does this money that we constantly pay out actually go?
when we constantly pay for food, our money, presumably, goes to the farmer. the farmer then takes this money to constantly grow this food so that we can constantly eat.
when we constantly pay for electricity, our money, presumably, goes to the workers at the electricity plant. these workers then take this money to constantly make sure everything is working right and that electricity is constantly meted out to us so that we can constantly refrigerate that food that we constantly get from the farmer, among other things.
when we constantly pay out money (the largest chunk of money that we actually make) every month for rent - where does it go?
this money goes to the property owner who charges an arbitrary rate to essentially borrow his shelter for 1 month. he then takes this money that we pay out to him to ultimately....
he keeps the money. as there is no constant effort required for shelter (like there is for food and electricity) he doesnt use that money to constantly pay any workers to constantly create his product.
he simply keeps the money that you send out to him every month. you actually are sending money out to him every month for no real reason. that is, he doesnt use this money to actually create/distribute a product. he simply keeps it for himself.
so i simply wanted to ask: why are we paying so much money for this?
do we even need to pay for it? is there another way?
teq im going to rexpond to your post as it was very well written and completely wrong soon but since i just typed so much i dont want to force readers to go through too many large blocks of my text back 2 back. i just want some breaks between my argument because i think it can be ingested better that way. if you want to interrupt now and post some other things in response to everything i just presented you can and i will respond to your argument as a whole though.
this is wrong because the nature of shelter is such that it isn't dispensable - i guess a better way to say it might be that shelter isn't disposable. this fact is extremely important.
shelter is nopt like slices of cheese that get produced by workers at a factory and are repeatedly dispensed, used, and disposed of, prompting a constant creation of infinitely more and more slices of cheese.
shelter is basically a recyclable and sustainable product: that is, that it can be created once, and then re-used, over and over and over again.
so to say that shelter must be created on an infinitely large scale to be free doesnt make any sense. but i agree that you could have some types of homes that do differ and prompt some kind of rent.
these two things dont cancel each other out though. its too extreme to say that they would. they could even actually work together w great efficacy.
ex: the government allows free homes and a seperate business builds and creates their own homes and charges a price that emerges naturally through the market to anybody who doesnt want a free home and would rather have some other type of home.
i think this would actually be a pretty good idea as it would check businesses/property owners from setting the price of rent too high and still allow the ability to choose your product in a free market
this seems like the pure essence of the hybrid model economy; which seems to generally be agreed upon as being the only way to truly go among developed nations.
yeah i think if the gov uses this system as just a way to make money then ultimately this becomes just another perverse exploitation of a thing that never actually required any (constant supply of) money to begin with. this is very dangerous and youre right to point that out.
youre wrong again though in that youre being too extreme in predicting this fatalistic outcome as being the only necessary outcome.
the point of this thread was ultimately to create a discourse on ways to effectively free up our money on things that actually do prompt work for dynamic products (clothes, entertainment, whatever) vs stagnant products (like shelter)
i believe that there ultimately is a way to do this but the next large step is of course finding a way to do it effectively.
to sum that up:
you must decide right now whether my argument is compelling enough for you to believe like me that there truly is a way to make housing free and then next to try and figure out that way that this could be implemented effectively.
or decide that its just a total impossibility and stop all of your thoughts right here.
i think you sort of decide which way to go here:
i took this as you taking that next step and trying to rationalize a way that this actually could work; only that you were looking only at the possibility of its negative effects once implemented vs its positive effects. this was the big theme of your post.
but youre right to point these things out.
so firstly lets lay out the ideal. as it is in all inventions, we must start always first at the ideal, then after doing that, we must look at the physical world and its limitations, and then work within them.
ideally, the big idea is to ultimately free up more of our money. this is important because it allows us to dedicate more of our money to other things, thus stimulating (basically, unlocking) other parts of the of the economy which are essentially frozen up because we must dedicate so much of our money to one thing: rent. if we can spend more of our money on other things, we can create more markets which previously could not exist. it also has a double effect socially: if we can feasibly drive down the cost of living then we can return back to a period wherein both parents werent required to work full time just to support a family. basically, children in our society can once again actually have the ability to have a parent at home with them at all times instead of being alone at home constantly. also, it dramatically reduces the collective labor pool in society. this means that since not as many people are required to work (because the cost of living has been reduced) less and less people will be competing for the same jobs. this also drives up the labor value again for the worker up from where it is now - zero. it is at zero due to an overabundance of people in the labor pool.
we can do all of this by making housing free. so this is the ideal. next comes the hardest part: establishing this ideal into the physical world.
i believe such a system should be tested out in a remote county within a state somewhere in america over a set period of years and to monitor the effects of the local economy and the quality of life for the individuals there within that span. this allows us to see its effects (positive or negative) within an isolated environment without going all out and forcing it nation-wide. if success is visible, we can then expand this system out to other counties in the state and monitoring those effects. if success remains then we can expand out once again at the stave level.
your fear of this breaking down into a full out socializing of all things is very wise to point out. clearly this wouldnt be a desirable outcome. but i dont believe that socializing shelter (making housing free) should ultimately lead to that. i dont even believe that you actually believe that either - as you have no supporting argument to back up that claim.
anyway if you agree with some things ive said or have any criticisms please post them. please anybody reading this please post what you think too it would mean a lot to me. if we can create a sound enough argument for this then perhaps we can get the ball rolling for a small movement to occur by organizing local community groups to promote this idea wherever we might be living right now. that is, if it could be fleshed out well enough - i certainly would try in mine.
Radium reminds me of the Desteni Cult members.
i like the idea, i don't really know anything about economics to argue whether it would work on a national level or not but i don't think it'd be a bad thing in certain cities with real problems. it would generally probably be positive in those areas to build a bunch of free housing, and also to hire people from that community to work on the construction. i think maybe in a city like new orleans would be a good candidate for this kind of experiment.
i'm reminded of a documentary i saw about some community activist down in miami who would gather up homeless families and they would move in and occupy an abandoned building in miami's poorer section until the cops would come and kick them out, at which point they would protest for more affordable housing in the city.
whats funny is there's an abundance of fancy condos 20 stories high selling for ridiculous prices but always a shortage of decent affordable housing, and south florida in general has this trend where they at the height of the housing bubble, when this activism was happening, they were building these condos faster than people were moving in. and it was at this moment that everyone really started talking about the housing crises, back in 2005 or so, cause they weren't selling any more and people were losing money on investments. i'm talking about 20 story buildings on an island, blocks away from the atlantic ocean. empty.
rents expensive cuz someone wants to make money
thats how the world works right now.
yeah sure, lets make all rent free and even food, free food for all!
how the shit is that gonna work? all them dudes farming will have no money to pay taxes and buy new farm equipment to keep farming.. soon, no more food.
you cant just make rent free without fucking up everything down the line.
like natures food chain. Its all connected.
untill everythings free, then rent wont be free.
Radium, you're not really making sense right now, bruh.
Rent isn't necessary for shelter.
Rent is expensive because property is expensive.
Property is expensive because livable clear space is limited.
Radium a weirdo IMO
there is only one reason communism or pure socialism would never work: greed.
it all comes down to it..as long as there are people who desire to ''have more'' than their next, any socialist or communist system imposing its will on its people is destined to fail. thats why currently free market regulated capitalism is the ssystem that works best, because it reflects the people's current state of mind the most.
ok i guess i am seeing some common themes appear now...
srsly, when i first proposed this i was only half joking. what prompted me to ask why rent was expensive is the reality that our economy (in america) had tanked. that is, the cost of living has increased while our ability to earn wages has decreased.
this impacts rent because rent prices must be derived from true market forces; a renter can only afford to pay so much based on how much they currently make - and the property owner must adjust his prices to whatever that is.
so if we are making less and paying more money for other things; rent must therefore necessarily lower to reflect these true changes that are occurring in the physical world.
yet property owners (speaking for where i live, at least) haven't dropped down prices to reflect these true changes. essentially, they are milking every last drop out of us. consequently the cost of living takes up more space in whatever your earned wages present to you every month. and i basically think this is wrong. the price of rent shouldnt be blown up to some previous ideal that represented a time of prosperity in america because that is ultimately a false ideal that doesn't represent the way america is now. its an ideal that the lets the property owners live in some false world that the rest of us don't.
now i think this argument is good and i think i make a strong point - at least as far as the first question was concerned: why is rent expensive
(another thing i think should be talked about is the cost of college. this has similar traits to my expensive rent argument in that theres no reason why it should be so expensive right now too)
the next question came to me pretty much right away after i posted the 1srt one. i wasn't even thinking about it at 1rst! i guess i had never really thought about it before because it seems so outrageous that we never actually had a need to ever pay any type of rent! but i think this was just a bias for the past when previous systems that were used in america during its run as the premier power was the reality. this is no longer true; these previous systems that worked in the past are now no longer working.
new systems have to be created in response to these systems that are failing and no longer represent what is happening in the physical world. the first impulse is to reject that because those previous systems are the only things that we know. its hard to let go of things (even when you really have to sometim4s) because venturing into the unknown is scary. at least, an honest discourse looking at the physical reality and what we can do in it should be created then.
so to everybody reflexively rejecting my argument - i m saying, at least consider it. because it might be wrong but then again it might actually be right. i think more accurately i probably am in fact onto something, but whatever i have is incomplete and needs more work to really flesh out.
i m going to try to rexpond to everybody too so wait up
Separate names with a comma.