It makes me mad that people who argue this can't answer the extremely simple and obvious question "so do you think everybody can do this? How does that work if everyone owns two properties, who's renting?" Cause you need at least an equal amount of people renting as there are landlords.

Obviously, the answer is that some people are winners and some people are losers and if you can't own that second property you're obviously a loser who did something wrong to deserve it. But they'll never cop to that, cause there are just so many easy ways to shut that down not to mention it makes them look like monsters. Not the least of which is that if the system necessitates that at least half the people are "losers" then it's not based on merit.

[–] TheSlad@sh.itjust.works 12 points 9 months ago

One of the worst facets of capitalism is that in order to get richer, someone else has to get poorer, and its damn near impossible to stop that someone else from being someone who is already poorer than you. Its just how the system works. The more money you have, the easier it is to keep it, so anyone getting wealthier, even just climbing out of lower class is therefore indirectly pulling the ladder behind them without even knowing it. Capitalism is built upon ladder pulling.

[–] sneezycat@sopuli.xyz 3 points 9 months ago

To be fair you can be a landlord and live on a rented property at the same time. That way everyone can benefit!

But jokes aside, I agree.

[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago

An answer could be: You rent while advancing your career, and eventually become a landlord when you retire, renting to other young people.

Mind, this is not something I believe. Just a reasonable answer to your question I thought of.