[ravenstine]

I don't get that argument. Going by your logic, housing itself is classist because people who aren't at least in the middle class can't afford houses much of the time. And maybe it is, but then what? Are we supposed to abolish classism because some people are less fortunate?

[skor]

I can give you an example. A cheap-to-rent apartment in a central part of an old popular city in Europe, is now a pricy Airbnb.

This means that students, young families, people with lower income have to move out of a suburb they we born, studied, have friends, etc. And now have to find a place elsewhere on the outskirts, where tourists don't want to go.

This is apart from arriving at your buildings front door and having some stranger stand behind you while you turn the key.. a very irritating situation.

[cactus2093]

Airbnb makes the problem 10-20% worse, but almost no cities are building net positive housing compared to their growth. People getting priced out will continue to happen with or without Airbnb, until cities take housing seriously and build more.

[legitster]

I think the idea that that apartment was cheap-to-rent is likely a stretch. It was likely a middling apartment that got upclassed. Low income housing in the bad part of town doesn't really show up on Airbnb.

[kstenerud]

That's right. Only the middle class can afford houses, so the lower classes live in apartments. And what happens when the middle class takes the apartments as well? Should the less fortunate build shanty towns to live in?

This isn't about people monopolizing some conveniences; access to housing is a human right (article 25), which is why governments regulate it.

[emptysongglass]

Leasing property should be out of the hands of regular regular folks because regular folks don't know how to handle it ethically. I define regular folks as pretty much anyone not heavily regulated for ethical performance.

The problem with leasing property is that once you've bought the property to lease, you the landlord (good god the feudal nature of the word itself should be setting off alarm bells) are now in possession of a basic need of humans (shelter) that you can dole out as you please. This property is also fairly easy to manage without it going down in flames so the next step is maximizing your own comfort at the top of your middle-class existence at the cost of some poor other unfortunate. This poor other unfortunate must clamber up to the top of the shit-pile racing against time as you bleed them dry so they too can afford a property to squeeze out the next unfortunate.

It's a pyramid scheme of the worst kind. But its practice is widespread and common enough that we don't bat an eye. And you don't have to look far to see abuses everywhere veiled in legal frameworks. My wife, for example, was recently thrown out of a Scandinavian country because we didn't have a strong enough case for residency. Her landlords were a man and a wife both very well-off living downstairs. We thought it was an amicable living arrangement until, on moving out, they politely informed her she'd be paying two months of rent after her departure to "give them enough time to find a replacement". This was in a city swarming with desperate people willing to kill their pet if it meant they could be move in the same day. My own experiences with landlords in the US have been of the same awful caliber.

We, as human beings, have allowed these abuses because there are no sufficient checks and balances to our own greed. It's all Self-first and damn the others. I feel a kind of hollowness eating me out from the inside every day I get a little older wondering where the Hell we all went wrong.

[wolco]

Can you name and shame the country?

[emptysongglass]

Norway, specifically the city of Høvik, which is practically a part of Oslo being as close as it is to the Oslo city center.

[officemonkey]

It depends on what you think the best use of housing is. Is housing meant to "make money for the owner" or "provide housing for people?"

There, I've just taken class out of the equation. Your answer?

[skulpter]

Are clothes meant to “make money for manufacturers” or “provide warmth for people”

Is food meant to “make money for producers” or “provide nutrition for people”

None of these things are mutually exclusive. Otherwise, where do you draw the line?

[officemonkey]

The problem is "Housing" is not simply a consumable like food or (mostly) clothes.

The owner can consume the housing or rent it. But if it's not used to house people, then is it really housing? Or just real estate?

[matz1]

Best use of housing is whatever the owner think its best for. There is no single answer.

[kstenerud]

The best use of housing is what the government defines, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (specifically, article 25) for all United Nations members.

[matz1]

Disagree, government interest is not be universal.

[peteradio]

> abolish classism

Do you think that is the fairest interpretation of your opponents argument?