• SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The point is that there are beds that nobody are using while people are forced to sleep on the ground. Because, yes, a store is unused at night.

      It’s about resources not being used as efficiently as they could be, because we are looking at the situation from a capitalist ideology point of view.

      • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think the beds are the problem. Housing a single person takes much more resources than just a single bed. Those resources are scarce.

        • hswolf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          They are not, we have everything we need for all the 8 billion people living on this rock

          https://sharing.org/information-centre/articles/enough-everyone

          The first problem is the word “profit”, most people who can make astronomical differences, wont move a finger if there’s no profit in It.

          The second problem is logistics, it’s hard to get things around the globe in an organized fashion, and this is usually overcome with big incentives, which brings us to the first problem again.

      • crashfrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        The point is that there are beds that nobody are using while people are forced to sleep on the ground.

        If you let a guy sleep on it, then you can’t sell it. Who would buy it? The bed isn’t “not being used”, it’s not being used as a bed.

        It’s about resources not being used as efficiently as they could be

        There’s nothing inefficient about this allocation of resources.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            The chances that person has bedbugs is non-zero. The chances they haven’t showered are also not exactly low. Putting them in a showroom bed could ruin it.

            I really want a solution to house people because it’s an untenable situation, but ‘let them sleep in a bed showroom’ is not a good solution.

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

                The problem there is that sometimes ownership of a property is either lost or unclear. The woman across the street from us died. Her house has sat empty for years. No one seems to have claimed ownership of it. I doubt anyone is paying property taxes on it because whoever does own it doesn’t seem to be aware of it.

                • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Oh I realize that proposal is unreasonable and unrealistic. I’m just sick and tired of the people who are trying to make things better for others being the only ones that are supposed to compromise and “be reasonable.” The opposition has chosen violence and intransigency.

                  Far as that woman’s house is concerned, sounds like a good place to put a homeless squatter, who can then gain lawful ownership since no one else wants the place

        • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Eh, bed stores are a particularly ridiculous waste of resources. The average bed store sells like 6-8 mattresses a month, which is inefficient and dumb.

    • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Capitalism is when 27 empty houses per a homeless person, that are used as investments for the rich to play around with their imaginary numbers, while 99% of population struggle to survive.

        • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m glad that the only problem with my comment you have is that number. Yeah, it might be described as slightly less than that, depending on how you define struggling, some people are perfectly fine with being one medical emergency away from a bankruptcy, and not struggling at all about it. But for the broader point it doesn’t matter, really.

        • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The society would be better if we collectively eat everyone who is hoarding money above some level. Physically, literally, eat them, with mustard and mayo.
          But since that probably isn’t happening anytime soon, we have to make them stop playing their stupid fucking games with things that humans need to survive, like, for example, housing. Let them buy and sell and invest and shortly squeeze to the moon whatever bullshit people don’t use, yachts for example. But when they do it with real life stuff it’s harmful for the humanity

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

      “I interpreted the picture overly literally to the point it loses its meaning. I’m very smart”