this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
350 points (95.6% liked)

solarpunk memes

3839 readers
388 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 20 minutes ago

I think technically people that own their own homes are landlords too, but I get what you mean.

[–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 15 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (6 children)

We'd have a lot of empty houses and maybe cheaper houses.

Look. Personally, I love renting. Its fleksible.i can move whenever i want to and not think about selling. Also i can live in places where houses are practically unsellable and not worry that I can't sell once I want to live somewhere else

Also, I don't have to worry about repairing and maintaining the house. If I window breaks, I call the landlord. If a pipe breaks a leak, I call the landlord. For me, renting is great!

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 22 minutes ago

I'd be happy to rent if the value of houses didn't double every decade.

Here in Australia you really just work so you can pay your mortgage. The wealth you accrue through your life is mostly the value of your house rather than the money you save.

[–] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 4 points 3 hours ago

Government housing

[–] magnus@venner.network 20 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

@cosmicrookie @stabby_cicada you could still have rental houses in a system with no landlords

[–] magnus@venner.network 13 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

@cosmicrookie @stabby_cicada I mean for example with housing cooperatives

[–] anzo@programming.dev 1 points 11 minutes ago

Just imagine paying the half of it, for supporting local workers for maintenance and fixups instead of a random nobleman's holidays in paradise...

[–] drkt@scribe.disroot.org 14 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

wow look at mister lives in the good part of town over here where landlords pick up the phone

[–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world -3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I just add nuance to a point that all landlords should not exist.

[–] drkt@scribe.disroot.org 4 points 2 hours ago

We can have low-commitment apartments without landlords. Landlords are an unnecessary medium between you and a roof over your head. That doesn't mean you have to be responsible for the roof over your head, just that the landlord is milking you for more than the roof is worth.

One way is we could just have a system where you sign up for the type of housing you want and the government gives it to you when one such becomes available. If you want to live in a detached home with 3 bedrooms where you're more responsible for fixing stuff, you sign up for that. Maybe families are given priority for those. If you want to live in an apartment where you have to sign a waiver to put a nail in the wall, then you sign up for that. The landlord is only here to siphon money out of your pocket and into his. If the rent instead went to a country-wide pool that paid for house maintenance and new construction, rent would be significantly cheaper for everyone except maybe rural farms but that's a weird case where exceptions can be made because farmers work the land they live on so it's different.

The point is: your landlord is useless. It might seem like a good deal if you can't think beyond the systems we live in, now, but it isn't.

[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 17 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

My brother in Christ you're the one paying for those repairs and more yourself, it's not like the landlord does it personally. Some might to save a buck, but you're still paying the bill.

Oh and all those repairs are tax deductible so they will pay less than you will on taxes usually.

Oh and if they would have to pay taxes, you're paying the taxes for them.

[–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 11 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

This is how everything you buy works. When you buy bread from the store you're paying more than it costs to make.

My point is, that I am willing to pay the landlord, to handle these responsibilities and risks

Edit: and inconvenience

[–] JustJack23@slrpnk.net 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Saying that you add nuance with that comment, is like saying anti-vaxers add nuance with their views.

It is proven time and time again that when something is done against landlords the normal people benefit. See Vienna for example, or the early ccp or the whole movement of and views of Henry George.

You can also see full video about the topic in Britain here

[–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Sure. But no matter how many videos I watch or how many articles I read about how terrible landlords can be, it won't change the fact that I dont want to own a property and also that there are people who are unable to buy. There are also people who are not in that stage of life where they want to have ties to a house.

Its not black or white.

Hence nuanced

I might be in the wrong place, discussing and interesting topic though.

[–] JustJack23@slrpnk.net 4 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

You are having a false dichotomy here, it is not either no landlords or no rental properties.

That is the whole point, you can have all the benefits and more without landlords.

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

You might be right. I can't see it though, besides public housing, which imo isn't a long term viable solution. At least not to me.

The thus is, that I live in a country where landlords have been strictly regulated and there are rules to how much rent they can take, how much they can raise it and over what period of time.

[–] JustJack23@slrpnk.net 5 points 4 hours ago

public housing, which imo isn't a long term viable solution.

Why not? And also where is the line between heavily regulated private sector and a public one?

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 7 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Thing is, someone owns those houses and it's certainly not poor people like me. Also we need more housing in most western countries and private entities are definitely not going to build it if they can't rent it out. We need to figure out a way to force public entities like the state to build more housing.

A communist (or similar) revolution might take care of it, but that's a lot more involved than "all landlords disappear".

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

We'd have more houses, they gotta live somewhere too

[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 points 6 hours ago

In the number of houses available, yes