• the_q@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes it’s normalizing it. You’re doing it in your comment talking about what’s obvious about the value.

    • theragu40@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      So what is your contention? That people should just say that land doesn’t cost what it actually costs? I don’t understand.

      • the_q@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well it would be nice if people wouldn’t participate in the charade as a get rich scheme. Or if land had some kind of flat price or homes… That’d be nice.

        • theragu40@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          But surely some land or homes have more desirable features? Should an acre of beautiful lakefront property command the same value as a dirt lot next to a dirty industrial park?

          Either way, let’s say your idea for how land and homes should be valued is executable in the real world. I still don’t understand why acknowledging the way things are in reality as things stand right now is the same as normalizing it. Ignoring something doesn’t get it changed.

          • the_q@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why? Because it’s nicer to look at? Who’s deciding what’s nice to look at anyway? The dirt lot shouldn’t be near a dangerous industrial area to begin with. It’s just more of the same wealthy land owner maximizing profits at the risk of a poor person’s health.

            Because shelter shouldn’t be a commodity. It shouldn’t be a form of financial growth or security. It’s a need, a requirement. Normalizing it as I’ve called it keeps shelter unavailable for some and a hindrance to others all to keep landlords rich. Talking about it as “just how it is” continues the cycle.