this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2025
1676 points (100.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

7072 readers
3433 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 71 points 1 day ago (3 children)

This concept has a name. Artificial Scarcity.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 92 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Related: the idea that everyone needs to work all the time isn't really true anymore. If we were in like 3000 bce in a small farming village outside Ur, yeah, people gotta pitch in so we don't get eaten by wildlife, the neighboring tribe, or whatever.

But in 2025ce, where so many jobs have so much filler nonsense? And when the rich can just live on investment income? No, the whole "work or starve" thing isn't needed anymore.

We should have basic income for all and public housing. Let people pursue what they want. Maybe it's art. Maybe they just want to take care of the local library. Maybe they just want to be a local barfly that keeps the tavern interesting. Who knows? But wage slavery needs to go.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

If not everyone needs to work, then who needs it? Why should you work while others don't?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 day ago (3 children)

when the rich can just live on investment income

How do you think they make that money? Primarily off of consumerism. If we all collectively decided to share what we have and stop buying what we don't need, there could be no passive income, not at the scale it exists today, anyways.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (9 children)

We also need to outlaw landlords. Owning land is not a job and it's certainly not a business.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

Only raccoons could be owners of land :D

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Hard Agree.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Recommendation: the book Bullshit Jobs

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

Also Graeber’s Debt.

So many of Graeber’s ideas are right on the dot. Those two books helped me understand economics better than fucking Milton Friedman ever could.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

We haven't needed to work since the early 1900s. The labor movement was all about getting people to work less and ensuring everyone is taken care of. Consumerism was invented to fight back and has been winning ever since. People are animals and animals can be manipulated.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 19 hours ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago

REDUSTRIBUUUUTE

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago

OBEY CONFORM SUBMIT

[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 day ago (5 children)

We don't have a resource problem, we have a distribution problem.

Resources are constantly being wasted to accelerate the wealth transfer up the chain.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 161 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Here in the Netherlands, the government agency for housing has the figures on how many second homes people own, but refuses to publish it.

Journalists have estimated that the number is about equal to the number of people looking for a house. About 400K on a population of 18M.

The scarcity is artificial.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 1 day ago (20 children)

I don't think owning a second home per se is wrong or evil. Many people can't afford buying a house due to the upfront costs. But owning a second home and leaving it empty for years? Owning multiple homes to use as Airbnbs in residential areas? I really wish this was regulated. But it will never be because there's big bucks being made there.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 day ago (14 children)

I'm even ok with them owning a second house - but I think simple, easily understood answers are what's called for in this day and age (nuance is so easily corrupted) so here's my pitch

You have a second house? If it's empty for 6 months, your taxes start going up. By a year it should be more then the house value rises, and it should just keep going up

Same with apartments and any property opening companies. Honestly, I'd be fine saying it all starts when your household owns at least three homes

You can surrender the house to the government to be rented at cost, maybe for a tax write-off for the first 10 years or something, otherwise it should just keep rising to insane levels.

I want people begging for renters. Developers should slash their prices to move units quickly - it'll incentivize more affordable housing. Hell, I want landlords so desperate they pay people to inhabit them for a fixed time period.

And that's why I like 3 - you had to move and your house isn't selling? I don't want to screw over individuals, there's easier people to. You have a vacation house? Fine, but if you move you better get your empty house sold.

It'll cause all kinds of problems, but we have empty homes and homeless people - that's just uncivilized

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

There's also so much bureaucratic pushback to building new houses for all sorts of bullshit reasons. The scarcity is indeed artificial and this is the kind of corruption that we accuse 3d world countries of. Except here it's called "lobbying".

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We all lie to ourselves in various ways - like thinking we need a supercomputer in our pocket so we can see what's trending while we sit on the toilet.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"The problem with the American economy is too many pocket computers", I say while sitting on the toilet in the Bigger Bombs factory at Raytheon.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I keep wondering if we have reached or are on the cusp of a post-scarcity society.

[–] Worx 13 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Scarcity isn't just about how much stuff there is, it's also about how much access people have to stuff. So no, we sadly haven't got there yet in my opinion

[–] [email protected] 5 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

No I agree with the logistics of it. I meant to say the manufacturing and agricultural capacity we already have seems like more than enough.

[–] Worx 6 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Oh yeah, almost certainly. Apparently 1/3rd of food produced globally is wasted.

TitleI volunteer with a food suplus redistribution organisation and that's the figure we use so although I don't have a specific source, I'm inclined to believe it

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

It is true that there will never be enough to satisfy the greediest among us. Unless there’s some kind of global revolution this will continue until the end

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Wow, I didn't like billionaires very much, but if the alternative is a global revolution, then I guess I can put up with billionaires.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 day ago (4 children)

First, I agree with the general sentiment. However, there are some devilish details.

Take a look at some pictures of Gary, Indiana. It's an entire city that's been mostly abandoned since the collapse of the industry that built it. There are entire boarded up neighborhoods, and some quite fine large, brick houses where wealthy people used to live. It's all just sitting there. I'm sure that Gary would love to have people start moving back in, and revive the city.

So, say Gary just eminent-domained all those properties, and said to America: you want a house? All you have to do is come, pick one, and move in. You live in it for 5 years, it's your's.

The problem is that it costs money to keep up a home. Home maintenance is stupid expensive, and most of these abandoned homes need repairs: new windows, new roofs, new water heaters, plumbing repairs, electrical repairs. Do you have any idea what a new window costs? And even if it's sweat equity, and you're able to repair a roof yourself, you still need materials. Where does this money come from?

Are the homeless in California going to move to Gary, IN? Are the homeless in Alabama? There are homeless employed folks, but they're tied to their locations by their jobs. They're not moving to Gary.

Finally, it's a truism that it's often less expensive to tear down a house in poor condition and build a new one than it is to renovate. If these people don't have the money to build a new house, how are they going to afford to renovate a vacant one.

The problem is that people need jobs to live in a house (unless someone else is paying for taxes, insurance, and maintenance). And the places with jobs aren't the places like Gary, that have a abundance of empty homes. All of those empty homes are in inconvenient places, where the industry and jobs they created dried up.

It may be that a well-funded organization could artificially construct a self-sustaining community built on the bones of a dead one. But I think it's oversimplifying to suggest that you can just take an empty home away from the owner (let's assume you can) and just stick homeless people in it and assume it'll work - that, even given a house, they'll be able to afford to keep it heated, maintained, powered, insured. Shit, even if you given them a complete tax exemption, just keeping a house is expensive.

I'm sure there are some minority of homeless for whom giving an abandoned home in the area they live would solve their problems. And I'm sure that, for a while at least, having a bigger box to live in would be an improvement for many, even if the box is slowly falling apart around them. But I think it's naive to be angry about the number of empty homes, and that homelessness could be solved by relocating the homeless to where these places are and assigning them a house - whatever state it's in.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The problem is that people need jobs to live

QFT

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Don't get me started on that one.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago

We don't need to move them, there are vacant homes everywhere. Even in San francisco the residential vacancy rate is 6%. The unhoused in San francisco make up about 1% of the population, so assuming the unhoused population takes up the same amount of housing per person as the housed population, we could house every unhoused person here and still have 5% left over.

That's the worst case too, the rest of the country has a higher vacancy rate and a proportionally lower unhoused population.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

so, the biggest reasons why the california unhoused population is so big are because social workers from the rest of the country send their high needs people our way. it's called 'greyhound therapy'-california is warm enough you won't freeze in winter, nobody thinks about heat stroke, and a bus ticket is better than a month of shelter beds. we also get all the children they throw away for being queer, at least the ones who don't just join the military, which isn't going to be a thing anymore, for pretty similar reasons.

so the opposite of that actually happens. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would like to go home.

except... even in los angeles, there are so many empty units. I don't just mean for turnover-the half dozen or so big landlording companies make more money keeping a unit empty and recursively leveraging it like tesla stock than renting it out to a tenant with good income and dubious credit. so we are being stared at by a thousand blind windows at all times. many of them in large buildings that are partially occupied, and even the single family residences are well maintained, because they exist as financial instruments. I doubt it's enough, but not everybody actually wants to live in los angeles-the food is great, the culture is good, I adore the mild winters, and so much else, but the hills, the traffic, the ground constantly shaking, the noise, the fact one of our seasons is just 'fire' and the smoke sometimes drops the temperature by a degree or two so it's not even a net negative every time, the amount of funding we give to the gangs, and the fact it's just so fucking big and so fucking city just isn't for everyone. I'm sure there are people who miss snow.

the concept is more sound than you would think, and it's not like there's any down side.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 72 points 1 day ago

It doesn't blow my mind, it infuriates me

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And people think it's the fault of the poor that they don't have enough :)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago

Nooo, how could that be. It's the fault of the successful wealthy people who refuse to share their stuff for free with complete strangers.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 day ago (4 children)

That's capitalism baybe. The expectation of infinite growth in a finite system based around the infinite sales of infinite products that have a price because they say they are finite.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago

Shout-out to too good to go - an app that aims to minimize food waste by letting restaurants and grocery stores sell "surprise bags" of food at 1/3 to 1/2 off!

Good mythical morning has a few episodes featuring these!

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›