this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2026
1009 points (94.9% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

15341 readers
1891 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hobovision@mander.xyz 32 points 17 hours ago (7 children)

Look I'll be honest, as a renter, I've not heard a realistic alternative that I like better. Do I think landlords should be better regulated? For sure. Do I think housing should be a right, and free, high quality housing should be available everywhere to anyone who wants it? Yes, please!

I like the option to rent a place that's even better than what the baseline option would be. I like that I can move around as I need to. I like that I can get a bigger, better, or just different, place when I have the funds. I like that I never have to deal with broken appliances or roof repairs and get to pick the type of place I want to live in.

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

The renter system is fine in my opinion

It's the result of the power imbalance that creates the problems. Specifically that property owners hold all the power and have structured society in such a way that housing is artificially scarce and more difficult to build than it should be, which has led to inflated prices

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Vienna social housing model is what we need. Nearly 60% lives in public housing there.

https://youtu.be/MxuACFQBwxs

[–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Paying half if not more of your monthly salary for a shitty place to live is horse shit

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 7 points 8 hours ago

I like the option to rent a place that's even better than what the baseline option would be. I like that I can move around as I need to. I like that I can get a bigger, better, or just different, place when I have the funds. I like that I never have to deal with broken appliances or roof repairs and get to pick the type of place I want to live in.

You are describing either a "land contract" or a "condominium". With either, you gain equity in the property.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world -1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

that's what everyone wants.

that's also why housing is so expensive. people are willing to pay a lot of money to live in high quality housing. you are too.

and people who can't afford the high quality housing have to live in the places with broken/old appliances.

if you want those things, you have to get enough money to be able to afford them.

[–] SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (2 children)

Do it 1970s style. You own a home but pay less than half of what you do now. The extra savings go toward home maintenance and lifestyle improvement. You gain equity over time and actually get something for what you paid instead of lining someone else's pockets.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

It really depends on how often he is really using that "I want to move" option.

Various fees associated with the purchase of a houae will blow away likely equity gains over a year or two. Over a short time period housing can actually go down, and you sell for less than you paid. Selling the house is a potential exposure that may leave you stuck for months with it, and if you needed to immediately move, you have to own two properties and the associated taxes, insurance, and likely loan payment. If you had to borrow and moved within a year. The interest owed probably outpaced your theoretical equity gains.

So if you are only staying in one place for say 4 years or less, renting may actually make sense. If you are planning longer than that, purchasing almost always makes more sense.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 hours ago

The time cost, too. Huge hassle to buy, move, sell. Inspections, agents, viewings… big pressure end to end.

purchasing almost always makes more sense.

I remember the San Francisco Bay Area threw this old truism off when purchasing became so expensive, it was just about a wash whether you wanted to rent or buy.

These tiny little homes starting at a million bucks or something…

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

buying doesn't make sense unless you live in a place for 5-10 years.

i am now 5-6 years into my place. it is just starting to 'profit' in terms of equity vs costs.

renting is cheaper and better and has far fewer opportunity costs. i had way more disposable income as a renter and a lot more free time. i see no 'shame' in being a renter, but there is a lot of dumbass cultural bias that 'owning' is always better than renting.

same is true for cars. but people love to flip out at you for how 'stupid' leases are. cars are deprecating assets... which makes it an even stupider argument. but leases can be really great if you know what you are doing and your circumstances. leasing worked out great for me and i ended up buying my car out and making a hefty profit off it. some leasing deals are actually far better than owning the car, too.

most people just look at upfront costs and end costs. they don't see all the costs in the middle. hence why they buy a crappy car like a Jeep, when they should lease it... and end up boned from all the maintenance bills. a house is a lot more than the cost of buying it and the cost of selling it.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

I will say that as an owner, I have a lot more disposable income and pretty much all the free time I had as a renter.

I paid of my mortgage early, so now that's just on the ground.

House maintenance is a thing, but it's not as scary as people sometimes act like it is. Cleaning is far more work than maintenance/repairs and I had to do that either way. I have had three relatively big repair bills that I had to pay for, but that's over decades, and I could have paid a company some monthly fee if I wanted more predictability (though the home warranty companies tend to be scammy). I have a lawn to mow, but that's more a function of detached housing rather than renting/owning, renters of detached housing have to mow their lawn too, and a friend who owns a townhouse doesn't mow but has to pay big HOA fees that include landscaping services.

But absolutely, between closing costs and interest rates and risk of the housing market having a short-term dip, you aren't going to reliably and meaningfully gain equity in under 5 or 4 years. One could make a persuasive argument that a different system wouldn't have that much overhead to a purchase, but within the system we have, that's the timeframe where owning doesn't make any sense.

Of course, that said, there needs to be healthy choice in the market, so that people aren't stuck renting when it doesn't make sense for their situation.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world -4 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

do you want all the negative externalizes of 1970s too? like leaded gasoline? a much more racist and sexist and hateful society? only 3 major tv stations and no internet?

[–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago

What does that have to do with affordable housing?

[–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Why would you prefer a landlord to just you save that money yourself? Like at best its probably a third of your income if youre working class? At worst its probably 60% or more. If you're on any kind of social assistance rent is probably almost all of your income. Hurray! No food for you mister, the poor landlord needs that pittance you receive.

You would have effectively 133%-180% of the income you do now. For me that's an increase of over a thousand dollars a month. I could afford all the appliances and roof repairs in the world with that kind of money. I would still walk away with so much extra money its a joke. You have been entirely misled about how much rent takes out of your income. They will steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from you over your life time, maybe even more depending on what you pay.

Renting exists because renters cannot advocate for themselves. It exists because people who become land owners escape the renting class and pretty much immediately turn their backs on it. No longer their problem. Because propaganda has taught them to not have solidarity with their fellow workers. Homelessness is an entirely preventable issue and is inseparable from the problem of landlords.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 9 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

This is a comment by someone who went off the deep end, have you ever used a rent vs buy calculator in your life? If I had to bet my life on it, i'd say no.

Renting exists because renters cannot advocate for themselves.

That's the condescending attitude that makes people hate leftists, I despise what you stand for, you make us look bad.

I am a homeowner and you know what, I do often consider switching to renting.

I know this will be an entirely new dimension opening up to you, but not everyone wants to own their own home.

In fact, I not only have an apartment I have an older house on a bigger lot and you know what? The idea that I become slave to my house and garden upkeep that I would have to cut grass during the weekends instead of having the freedom to do whatever I want frightens the fuck out of me.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

You can pay people for maintenance and upkeep. Like everything what you have to be careful of scammy companies, but you also have to be wary of scammy landlords.

I think if you are staying for a long time in one residence, you really are better off owning it, and buying services for it. Hell you can hire the exact same maintenance service that a landlord uses, that they pay for out of your rent.

If you have temporary need though, renting is certainly the best option.

[–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

This comment illustrates very clearly that you are not a renter 😊 we do not have a choice! I cant just decide whether or not to own my own shelter. I am literally not given the choice. That is not how the system is designed. If youre disabled, youre screwed. If you cant afford a higher education, youre screwed. If you have debts, mental health issues, if youre a minority, youre absolutely screwed. You will rent for the rest of your life and it will almost entirely be spent paycheck to paycheck, certainly nowhere even close to daydreaming about owning any kind of home.

All the benefits youre ascribing to renting count for just owning the apartment or condo you live in. Bam. Done. Couldn't give less of a fuck about grass. I can barely afford food! Think about how insane it is for you to complain about having to cut the grass when renters have to pick between fucking eating and having a place to sleep. Youre not a leftist, youre a bog standard liberal.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 10 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

No i just live in a country that's less batshit insane than the land of the "free" that is the USA...

Here you can actually get social housing, you know what they pay for rent? Like 30 euros.

It's not my fault your country went to shit, doesn't mean there aren't other viewpoints than yours...

[–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 hours ago

I do not live in the USA. Housing is a human right and should be free everywhere. It should not be a market. No one should have to pay anything for housing. You have been fed a lifetime of propaganda to make you believe this is fair. It is not. It is one of the major things that contributes to lifelong stress and shortens lifespans. It is one of the major things that keeps people in poverty, having to pay half their income in rent that they never get back.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world -2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

life isn't fair.

some people have to rent forever, yes. some people are ok with renting forever. If you want to not rent forever you need to make lifestyle or career changes such that you are on an economic path to doing so. That might involve some short term difficulty.

You had choices. You made them. I grew up in a poor town, with working class parents. I choose to go to college, by studying my ass off and getting scholarships and loans. Then I chose to pay back those loans as fast as I could once I got a job after graduating. By 30 I was debt-free. by 35 I was able to buy a modest place. I did not choose high-paying job either, I work in non-profit research where my salary is about half what it might be if i worked for a corporation.

Not everyone chose that. I have had many friends who choose otherwise, and are now 40+ with mountains of debt and will rent forever and are bitter about it. But they also used to tell me what a loser i was for not traveling partying and 'living it up'. And they are still doing that. One person I know makes 40K a year working in a bicycle shop, and yet they spend 5-8K traveling each yeah, and they feel like someone should just give them an house and are super angry at the world. if you dare suggest maybe they stop working in a bike shop and get a better career, they tell you you are a hateful fascist.

and on the flip side I know people making 500K+ a year who also say they can't afford to buy a house, because they have delusional expectations. and refuse to 'lower' themselves by buying something in their price range.

[–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Man FUCK YOU as someone who does alright now but struggled you really just love the smell of your own shit and pulling up the ladder behind you. Fuck you how about you just shut the fuck up instead of posting this absolute drivel

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 6 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

In fact, I not only have an apartment I have an older house on a bigger lot and you know what? The idea that I become slave to my house and garden upkeep that I would have to cut grass during the weekends instead of having the freedom to do whatever I want frightens the fuck out of me.

You know what's worse than "becoming a slave to [your] house"? Having to work as to not become homeless.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

It intrigues me now, how you would "fix" this and make it so that people don't have to work to have housing?

I mean as I said in a different comment, we already have social housing in my country.

We have universal healthcare, we have a bunch of social programs for people in need and we have automatic unemployment paid from social insurance. People on disability don't work, people's pension is covered by the state.

What measures should we add to make it so you don't have to work for your home?

I mean I am all for banning private residences being owned by companies, that is something we need to address and if the election goes my preferred parties way, it will be fixed in the next cycle.

However all these things are being paid for, concrete doesn't pour itself, steel doesn't manufacture itself, building don't build themselves, so how do you propose we make it so that we don't have to pay for our homes?

If I an able bodied person refuse to work I will lose my home and become homeless is that so unfair?

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 hour ago

It intrigues me now, how you would "fix" this and make it so that people don't have to work to have housing?

First things first: there are already a bunch of people who don't have to work for their housing. A big part of those may have to work for an income so that they can pay for upkeep. But get rich enough and that can get payed by dividends. Or they're landlords who get enough income from rent. Those rich people don't have to work at all for their housing.

we already have social housing in my country.

That's cool for the people who get it. But I'd be surprised if your home country has no homeless people and vacant housing at the same time.

We have universal healthcare, we have a bunch of social programs for people in need and we have automatic unemployment paid from social insurance. People on disability don't work, people's pension is covered by the state.

Do those people on social programs actually have a comfortable life, though? Or is it rather "too little to live, too much to die"? I'm quite sure that landlords still make a lot of profit from rent in that country.

What measures should we add to make it so you don't have to work for your home?

Introduce a usufruct model of owning, where the people who live in a home actually own it (either as a family home, or multiple homes owned by a coop). The important bit is that rent-seeking is abolished in housing. Then you might still need to work for upkeep, but that's a diminishino part of what people need to pay for rent, nowadays.

and if the election goes my preferred parties way, it will be fixed in the next cycle.

If your country is capitalist, I highly doubt that they will implement this. Profits are still required by capitalist states.

However all these things are being paid for, concrete doesn't pour itself, steel doesn't manufacture itself, building don't build themselves, so how do you propose we make it so that we don't have to pay for our homes?

I said "work as to not go homeless". You're bringing "paying" into it. There's already a lot of place to live. Ideally, I'd see a communist society where this kind of stuff is planned on the basis of needs, rather than being speculated on in markets for profit

[–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 hours ago

Housing is a human right. We already have gigantic amounts of housing that sits empty, new building projects are not the priority.

The government should be in charge of constructing new housing developments to meet the needs of the community. People can also pool resources together to build those things, in the absence of rent and mortgages people would have substantially higher incomes. Over time this would balance out, but would still be doable in the long term.

No one should be homeless. Even if you are able bodied and refuse to work. The amount of people who are able bodied and refuse to work is microscopic. You have been misled by conservative propaganda to believe that welfare recipients are lazy. Welfare recipients are people who for one reason or another are unable to work. This is almost exclusively people with disabilities.

But yes, I think even if you decide to do literally nothing just cause you dont want to, you should still have shelter. Shelter is a human right; housing is a human right. It is a crime against humanity to deny people housing. And if youre that contrarian, to literally be like har har I wanna make a point about how dumb free housing is so ill do literally nothing, you probably have some problems you should sort through in therapy.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 0 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

What kind of childish ass logic is that? Almost everyone has to work to not become homeless... even if you own 100% of your home and don't have a mortgage you know you pay property taxes, electricity, water, gas, sewage, trash. those things don't just magically appear in your house and disappear from them.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world -3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

dude, people like this don't think those things exist, because they have never had to pay for them.

they also don't understand what a payroll tax is. because if they don't pay it, it must not exist and is just some made up thing!

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 2 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Almost everyone has to work to not become homeless.

That's true. Let's fix that.

And still: Do you pay 30 to 50% of your income in your own home for that?

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

How to 'fix' that? Someone has to do the work to build and maintain housing? Should they do it for free?

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

You could get rid of housing being a means for landlords to profit from and hold housing in a usufruct property relation, and/or in common. Building and maintaining housing can be managed by the community (or be payed for by the community).

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 24 minutes ago

Who pays the upfront costs? Big taxes?

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago

Between the mortgages and everything? Yeah I do.

That's true. Let's fix that.

Go ahead