• SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    The point is that there are beds that nobody are using while people are forced to sleep on the ground. Because, yes, a store is unused at night.

    It’s about resources not being used as efficiently as they could be, because we are looking at the situation from a capitalist ideology point of view.

    • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I don’t think the beds are the problem. Housing a single person takes much more resources than just a single bed. Those resources are scarce.

      • hswolf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        They are not, we have everything we need for all the 8 billion people living on this rock

        https://sharing.org/information-centre/articles/enough-everyone

        The first problem is the word “profit”, most people who can make astronomical differences, wont move a finger if there’s no profit in It.

        The second problem is logistics, it’s hard to get things around the globe in an organized fashion, and this is usually overcome with big incentives, which brings us to the first problem again.

    • crashfrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      The point is that there are beds that nobody are using while people are forced to sleep on the ground.

      If you let a guy sleep on it, then you can’t sell it. Who would buy it? The bed isn’t “not being used”, it’s not being used as a bed.

      It’s about resources not being used as efficiently as they could be

      There’s nothing inefficient about this allocation of resources.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          The chances that person has bedbugs is non-zero. The chances they haven’t showered are also not exactly low. Putting them in a showroom bed could ruin it.

          I really want a solution to house people because it’s an untenable situation, but ‘let them sleep in a bed showroom’ is not a good solution.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              The problem there is that sometimes ownership of a property is either lost or unclear. The woman across the street from us died. Her house has sat empty for years. No one seems to have claimed ownership of it. I doubt anyone is paying property taxes on it because whoever does own it doesn’t seem to be aware of it.

              • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Oh I realize that proposal is unreasonable and unrealistic. I’m just sick and tired of the people who are trying to make things better for others being the only ones that are supposed to compromise and “be reasonable.” The opposition has chosen violence and intransigency.

                Far as that woman’s house is concerned, sounds like a good place to put a homeless squatter, who can then gain lawful ownership since no one else wants the place

      • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Eh, bed stores are a particularly ridiculous waste of resources. The average bed store sells like 6-8 mattresses a month, which is inefficient and dumb.