this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2026
1293 points (94.6% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

16713 readers
202 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
[–] jabberwock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What about cases where the move is only temporary? Should people sell every time and hope there is a place to live when they return?

In the private lender case, do you see that as different from someone who starts their own company and manages the property themselves while the renter pays them directly?

The earning equity piece isn't necessarily incorrect, what the owner is losing is potentially the opportunity to move at all. This assumes they can afford a mortgage + whatever it costs to live somewhere else.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What about cases where the move is only temporary?

In their initial phase, land contracts are, effectively, a rental agreement, including for short-term. (With one difference: the payment is fixed for the life of the agreement; it doesn't increase year over year) When "temporary" turns into "long term", (as it so often does) a land contract already has you covered, by locking rent through the initial phase, then gaining you equity through the final phase.

In the private lender case, do you see that as different from someone who starts their own company and manages the property themselves while the renter pays them directly?

Vastly. One includes conveyance of equity; the other does not.

The landlord/property manager retains 100% equity throughout the life of the rental agreement. The private lender retains only the value of the loan. With a land contract, the seller/lender retains 100% of the equity for a couple years, before the agreement automatically converts to a private mortgage.

The earning equity piece isn't necessarily incorrect, what the owner is losing is potentially the opportunity to move at all.

Completely false. Absolute worse case scenario, they abandon their equity and return title to the lender/seller. Terminating the loan/purchase agreement in this absolute worse case scenario is functionally identical to renting. At its best, renting gives you this outcome, and creates new, worst-case possibilities: where the landlord absconds with security deposits and charges additional fees.

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 months ago

I have to ask: in which country do things work like that? Because definitely not in mine.