> This amount of scumminess is mind boggling.
It is, unfortunately, the natural result of insufficiently regulated capitalism.
It is, unfortunately, the natural result of insufficiently regulated capitalism.
There are very few poultry processors largely because it is difficult and expensive to comply with consumer regulations and maintain food safety standards. That, in itself, is fine. But once you have very few (or only one) processor(s), there needs to be regulation on how they pay and treat both their workers and their suppliers. For the most part, there is neither.
Even the local artisan bread-baker must pay workers less than their economic output. This isn't to say that the owner is exploitive and treating people with subsistence. But the pay/surplus split is still there as exploitation.
Reforming capitalism also doesn't work either. Hell, people can't get past page 30 of Adam Smith's treatise that discusses all the 'reforms needed' to instill capitalism. Turns out monied interests has always wanted to strip controls from the get-go.
No, its time to relegate capitalism to the dustbin of history. It was tried. As it lifted some up, more and more were ground into a gritty paste to feed the machine.
I don't know what to replace it with either. But whatever it is has to not have weird effects of infinite or 0 cost breakdowns (like copying software and data), and also aware of how to handle algorimthic labor (LLMs), amongst other concerns.
How are you so convinced that there is a better solution than capitalism if you can’t even articulate what that solution would be? How do you know that capitalism, for all it’s flaws, is not still the least-worst among an array of bad options?
In fact, its the complete financial ideation of rentals and homes. That's what's even pushed 2 earner homes to even afford a house.
But those who have, can get a house loan, rent it out for 150% of the total mortgage and paracitize off the public. And nobody is the better, except for the paracite class (landlords).
Rent controls would also do a great deal. But we hear howls from the libertarian types over controls ala Adam Smith.
And progressive heavy taxation on more than 3 houses would also help the situation of houses being bought for rental or AirBNB purposes. Again, those are parasites on all of us.
Of course, all these mean housing number go down. And those who own a large stake will definitely complain. But these are steps that would help, alongside building more with a rent-controlled and reasonable cost.
And reforming how banks are required to provide loans (proof of X rent = proof of covering x mortgage). But really? This country is going the opposite way of the common person, and has been for decades. Now, that strategy has been ramped up to extremes.
No, its not, restrictive zoning preventing actually building housing is. Which is why the mess is most acute in places which have the most such restrictions, and least in places that have less of them, wven when they are similar across all the dimensions you suggest are the real issues.
> Rent controls would also do a great deal.
At further reducing supply of housing by discouraging development? Yes, they would do a great deal of that.
Are you confusing home ownership vs renting with total housing supply?