• dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Many people have problems related to income inequality. We went to college, got good jobs, and we still don’t have enough money to maintain the lifestyle we were promised. We don’t live in a socialist country, we live in a capitalist country.

            • irmoz@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              some of those 30% choose to not own a house

              [citation needed]

              And even if true, what do you think is driving that decision? Decisions aren’t made in a vacuum. I posit - it’s the financial burden.

                • irmoz@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  there’s always a significant additional bureaucratic cost when selling a house and buying another one.

                  This really only affects landlords and estate agents. Most people looking for a home are looking for a place to stay for life, and any “bureaucratic cost”, if you’re purely talking about red tape, form-filling, phone calls etc, is more than worth it for a lifetime home. Again, citation needed. If you’re talking about a literal monetary cost… whoa, look at that - capitalism!

                  renting has at least a single clear benefit beyond just being able to afford it: greater flexibility

                  “Flexibility” is a daft measure, only useful for people who plan to move often, which, again, is not common, except in the case of people needing to move often for work, which - hey, it’s capitalism again!

                  Also, the financial risk is almost zero when you rent.

                  “Almost” is doing a lot of work in this sentence. The risk of being made homeless by your landlord for petty reasons is a pretty clear risk. Having your rent hiked is a financial risk. Having to bite the bullet and choose an expensive place to rent because it’s the only one reasonably close to work is a financial risk. Being under someone’s thumb to provide them income is itself an inherent financial risk.

                  And by the way - what do you think causes the financial risk of home ownership, since you’re so intent on proving my point for me?

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Now do the home ownership rate in socialist countries

          (Hint, the “American dream” of owning a home is much easier under socialism)

    • Kichae@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s also clear that people who deny the extent to which capitalism actually makes the world worse either a) don’t know what capitalism is, or b) are rent seekers

        • Cowbee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          What history? What economics? Vague gesturing and feigning superiority without actually saying anything is peak.

          Edit: turns out the economics was just Sowell all along, lol. Guess we have an AnCap over here.

            • Cowbee@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              You weren’t replying to the meme, you were replying to someone else in the origin of this fork of the comment chain. I’m implying that you in particular have no nuance.

                • Cowbee@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Fair enough, but again, you somehow had even less nuance and pulled the classic bit of feigning superiority.

                  Edit: oof, you unironically suggest Sowell in another comment as a good resource. Looks like I’m correct, the superiority was indeed completely unfounded.

                  • HardNut@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Instead of berating him for not leaving a robust enough comment for your taste, why don’t you ask for more information? Calling capitalists uninformed or rent seekers is way more unfair than alluding to historical or economic evidence to the contrary. The latter clearly leaves itself more open to good faith discourse, getting nothing out of it has simply been a failure on your part

        • kaffiene@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          Or not. Adam Smith - the father of Capitalism recognised the problem of Rent Seeking behaviour.