Skip Navigation
Political Memes @lemmy.world Flying Squid @lemmy.world

Not exactly helping the proles.

278

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
278 comments
  • You're joking right? https://www.statista.com/statistics/257364/top-lobbying-industries-in-the-us/

    From your own source. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/02/oil-and-gas-industry-spent-124-4-million-on-federal-lobbying-amid-record-profits-in-2022/#:~:text=The oil and gas industry,slightly when adjusted for inflation.

    And for you last point about NAR, I have doubts. I could see home builders and home buyers benefitting from zoning changes. It would drive down costs of a new home, open up more choices for home buyers, and put construction companies to work. Realtors are middle men who work off commissions. The more they can sell a house for the more commission they make. Realtors have a vested interest keeping the market balanced in their favor.

    • Realtors with more property to sell make more than realtors with less property to sell. Do you know actual realtors? The vast majority are not selling a few multi-million houses and calling it a year.

      Look at what they lobby for: https://www.nar.realtor/advocacy/federal-advocacy/all-federal-issues

      A recent NAR study estimates that the U.S. has developed an "underbuilding gap" of at least 5.5 million housing units over the last 20 years. This translates into more than $4 trillion in underinvestment in housing. Even relatively modest steps taken now to reduce this gap will unleash tremendous economic activity and create millions of new jobs.

      Multi-family housing proposals are a core plank of their program, for instance - and yet politicians don't listen to them because their constituents don't want them to

      I'm not sure what you think you're arguing when you call me out my link then share data that agrees with my link.

      Your preconceived notions are incorrect, and lying about data doesn't make it correct

      • Yes I do. None of them are selling affordable single family homes.

        As a matter of fact multi-family housing is leading a housing construction "boom" as of articles published 6 days ago.

        Here's a quote from MReport:

        Further, almost two-thirds of the apartments build during the pandemic are clustered in just 20 high-growth metropolitan areas, which make up about 41% of the total renter population in the U.S. Therefore, for many other places, the new supply barely made a dent in the existing supply. What's more, around 89% of the apartments completed in the last three years are high-end and, thus, target upper-middle- and high-income buyers and renters.

        So they are building "multi-family homes", but targeting, wait for it, people with lot's of money.

        So you quit lying.

        Come to think of it, you're singling out the and focusing on the real estate angle pretty hard. Why is that?

        • It doesn't matter who they're targeting, because they're increasing supply

          You're so desperate to have all lobbyists be inherently bad that you're not thinking things through.

          Real estate is easy because local ordinances prevent building, and congresspeople are held accountable locally. We can discuss any lobbying if you'd like and are willing to learn.

          I'm a climate lobbyist, for example.

          • Continuing with the real-estate discussion (I know, now I'm focusing on it ;-) ), I whole heartedly disagree. When ignoring the needs of the lower 75% of the country's wage earners, and focusing your efforts on the upper 25%, something is glaringly, obviously wrong, and saying things like,

            It doesn’t matter who they’re targeting, because they’re increasing supply.

            shows a level of privilege that most people in the US cannot fathom or afford, myself included. That statement says...a lot, but I don't want to devolve into ad hominin bs because now you've piqued my interest.

            Honestly, and I genuinely mean this, yes, I would love to know what a climate lobbyist does.

            I know tone doesn't translate via text very well, but I can assure you I'm not desperate to have all lobbyists be inherently bad. Am I angry? Yes, but never desperate, and I'm not angry without reason. I've seen it directly, more than once in my lifetime, politicians and policy be influenced by the efforts of lobbyists and their money. Not just something I read in the news, heard on the radio, or saw on a website. I've seen funding pulled from one project to another because of lobbyists. Not because the project the funding was being pulled from wasn't worthy, but our lobbyists weren't as good (or willing to donate as much) as their lobbyists.

            It's a system that allows to much room for abuse, is abused every single day. Even if for something as noble as a climate lobbyist, the quote "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I would think still rings true (religious connotations notwithstanding).

            Now don't ask me how to fix it all because I have no clue. Maybe it's the best we have. I dunno. 😂 I just choose, like I said earlier never to trust a politician. They're all owned in some way by the money that puts them in power.

            Edit: I do want to say, I am enjoying this discussion. Thank you for making a long day at the office a little bit more interesting.

278 comments