• andrewta@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    8 months ago

    So let me get this straight.

    If I spend my hard earned cash on a house. For any reason I leave for a while. Maybe my work requires I relocate for. (It doesn’t matter what the reason is). Because I’m not there that means you can move in?

    Talk about seriously entitled.

    • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Or you buy a new house, and while your old house is on the market for sale, someone breaks in and claims it as their own while you’re stuck paying for it, can’t sell it, and run the risk of having it completely trashed.

      • tb_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        The expressed sentiment obviously doesn’t apply to regular people trying to sell their previous home.

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I didn’t see that distinction anywhere in the comment and OP was downvoted when they proposed a scenario where a regular person is temporarily gone from their home. This whole idea is quite absurd to be honest and doubly so for the way the proponents here seem to feel so smug and morally superior when suggesting it.

    • rekabis@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      What’s even more entitled is you thinking you have a right to shelter you don’t even use when hundreds of thousands nation-wide cannot afford shelter due to people like you hoovering up unused homes.

      You know what your attitude is called? Parasitical and greedy.

      • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        So a person earns money and spends it on something, and you think that is parasitic. A different person spends no money and uses something someone else paid for, and that isn’t parasitic?

        I agree that housing should be a basic human right. I agree that people owning many homes is problematic. But owning a second house that you use for vacations is not what is causing a housing shortage. Owning 5 homes and Airbnbing 4 of them IS part of the cause. Allowing corporations and foreign citizens to own homes is part of the cause. Me buying empty land and building a vacation house on land that has sat empty for millions of years isn’t causing a housing shortage.

      • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        You do realize that some people get temporarily relocated for work, right? If I have to do a job for 3 months in Minnesota, it isn’t long enough to rent my place in California because renter’s rights won’t allow me to kick them out when I get back. You think that’s me being greedy and parasitical?

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Do you extend this sentiment to vehicles too? If I drive to work and park my car there, is it morally correct for someone to come steal it because they want to drive somewhere or sleep in it but don’t have a car? After all, it’s just sitting there unused, so I must be some entitled asshole for expecting it to be there when I’m ready to head home, right?

        I also find it funny you chose the words parasitical and greedy when these squatters are quite literally feeding off the homeowners and selfishly taking something that doesn’t belong to them. Your argument is not too different from a CEO who wants to cut worker pay and give himself a bigger bonus with the money.

        • andrewta@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I agree with you. How does one apply this logic to homes but not to cars, phones, bikes or anything else?

          • rekabis@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            cars, phones, bikes

            Since when are those essential to life, or whose availability constantly/consistently mean the difference between life and death?

            Food, shelter, and clothing are the essentials that should have a base tier that anyone can leverage at low to no cost. Anything else is superfluous.

      • andrewta@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        In my example what I was talking about was, while I was away I rented a placed for temporary lodging.

        And that is vacuuming up lodging?

        I still say you are entitled.

        But moving on. Have a good day