• n2burns@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not sure how much of the housing was supposed to be for mid to low income so I’m not sure if it’s bad for housing as well.

    Even if building exclusively “luxury apartments”, it’s going to help the housing market by upping total supply and pushing older apartments to lower income tenants.

    • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In theory sure. But there would need to be constant new construction for this to be the case. And that’s assuming no remodeling construction.

      As we’ve seen, when investment blocks are allowed to own large segments of supply they’ll happily let units sit empty to artificially protect or inflate the price on the rest. Nimbys accomplish the same thing but voting down new development to protect the value of their homes.

      Exactly the same way ghost hiring works to keep employees in line. And why the unemployment goal is 5% not 0%. It’s not about building self sufficient people, it’s about having just enough threat to be replaced to corral dignity, demands for decency and suppress wages. It’s “sustainable” exploitation.

      The efforts of our labor, our vitality, which we substitute money for to make trade easier, is being systematically farmed away from us, with just little tweaks to increase efficiency in the operation

      Ah. Capitalism.

      • n2burns@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If nobody is moving into luxury apartments, why would they get built? It makes no economic sense for developers to build something they can’t sell/rent.