This is funny. I LOLd. But every once in a while I consider that being a legitimate steward of property actually could be a noble profession. Even in a profit-seeking market. It’s that domiciles are treated solely as a commodified asset, and that as economic policy, all assets must always increase in value over time exceeding (cynically, hedging) inflation, which is the true problem.
In a socialist world, making sure that domiciles are always up to date, modern, free of pests, well maintained, etc. Is actually a very important responsibility. And you might even call it a job. If jobs existed in a socialist world.
Edit: to all the downvoters–this very much agrees with Maoist land reform, and if I’m not mistaken Juche.
That’s a real job indeed. People do keep houses clean for money. But they would usually need to keep multiple houses clean in order to pay out one house’s loan, not a single one. That’s just too much money for too little work.
Yes. And this brings to mind common kneejerk solutions that say more than a few houses should be illegal to own. Of course more than 100 is a whole different class of fuckery that should be addressed separately.
But mostly I just lament that something got so perverted. If it weren’t for asset inflation, and I forgot to mention unequal access to mortgage, then instead of all housing being universally shite, there might be a decent market, one where innovation and improvements happens, instead of “what’s the bare minimum I can legally get away with?”
