Link to the listing

[Image description: a dining room with teal blue walls, with a pink neon sign saying “let them eat cake” written in cursive.]

      • FaeDrifter@midwest.socialEnglish
        102·
        1 year ago

        Watching a basic human need go unrealistically out of reach for average hard working people should radicalize just about anyone.

          • D1G17AL@kbin.social
            91·
            1 year ago

            Its so simple for you but for those of us that actually grew up in places like California we don’t want to move 800 miles just to afford a house. We don’t want to move away from our friends and family members just to be able to afford a house in the middle of butt-fucking nowhere.

          • asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
            5·
            1 year ago

            Well I mean some people have to live in California, New York, Ontario and other obscene high COL areas. There are also a lot of jobs that really ONLY exist in Los Angeles in any meaningful way. Doesn’t have to be 18m but go ahead and try to find a house in one of those regions within your budget and imagine having no alternative.

            Plus they are nice places to live with more progressive state laws and protections some people don’t feel safe leaving. I know what you’re trying to say and I understand. Just want to point out that people are able to look at RIDICULOUS real estate to laugh at or daydream or cure curiosity, and then get frustrated because honestly all their options feel just as ridiculous and unachievable.

            • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              21·
              1 year ago

              The mansion isn’t taking the place of affordable housing. It’s taking the place of an art collection, a yacht, or some other status symbol that rich celebrities might want. The price of mansions doesn’t affect anyone except those rich celebrities, and they want mansions to be expensive because that makes them better status symbols.

              • FaeDrifter@midwest.socialEnglish
                3·
                1 year ago

                Mathematically, there is a finite limited number of resources on the planet.

                Why are resources going into social status symbol when not everyone has their basic human needs met?

                Why is it a higher priority that a rich person have a mansion to show off how rich they are, then have many other people get a roof over their head at night?

                • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  21·
                  1 year ago

                  You have a point, but status symbols are positional goods so often their high cost doesn’t correspond to a large use of resources. If one rich guy buys a painting from another rich guy, ten million dollars changes hands but that’s it; ten million dollars worth of stuff isn’t being used up.

                  This isn’t always the case - I presume an expensive yacht really does take a lot of resources to build. And this mansion took resources to build too. Still, the most valuable thing about the mansion is its location - the same mansion but not in Beverly Hills might be worth ten times less. I think it’s more like the painting than like the yacht.

                  • FaeDrifter@midwest.socialEnglish
                    2·
                    1 year ago

                    If the value is all about location, then by your logic, for each homeless person we can simply build a Beverly Hills style mansion out in the Midwest, and now it’s affordable housing.

                    You know, because the value is not in the mansion, it’s just in the Beverly Hills location.