ITT: People that have no understanding of nuance, or parasitism versus symbiosis. Some people actually find ownership to be bothersome, some people prefer leasing cars instead of buying, some people have good landlords, some other have shitty landlords. But let the hyperbolic nonsense fly and let’s nuke everyone and everything!
“some homeless people like living on the streets!”
Yeah I put that part about nuance for a reason.
Most people renting are doing so because they believe the houses they can afford “aren’t good enough for them.”
The houses most people can afford would just get destroyed by police during encampment sweeps.
If it would destroy the economy if everyone did it, then it should not be doable in the first place.
That’s true for teachers, too.
If it is a lifestyle that would destroy the economy if everyone had it, then that’s another story.
If everyone went to work every day for 8+ hours for the direct benefit of the members of their community, the economy and the community would both be incredibly healthy.
If everyone purchased the tools that other people need to live and work and decided to rent those out instead of doing their own labor, the economy and community would fail.
This should be incredibly obvious.
Then it should be illegal to have no children, because if everyone had no children, we would literally go extinct.
That’s just the first thing that came to mind, huh? Tell me you wasnt to control women’s bodies without telling me.
This is like saying that if everyone had a small business it would destroy the economy. If you think a rental damages the economy, you have no idea what the economy is, or how it works.
Businesses buy and sell off each other and also create value. But sticking with the “if everyone did this” every one would run a one person business. Not efficient but would work. On the other hand if everyone is renting out houses, they can at most be renting out one (ignoring foe now second houses/holiday apts). Then everyone would be housed and paying each other in a circle. So, no, everyone doing what the post suggests can not work. All but the first house would be empty.
It’s funny that one probably-landlord downvoted this. You know who you are, scum-sucking leech.
It’s kind of a false dilemma to say everyone should do it or nobody should do it. There are a lot of things that would destroy the economy or even the world if everyone did it. I think there is a healthy amount of small family owned rental properties like the one in the meme.
It’s a simplistic statement, but it’s not meant to be that broad, it’s meant to be taken for this type of practice.
If everyone lived off leeching off someone else or from being middlemen, without producing anything, there would only be money moved with no products, labor, or services.
It’s not meant to be applied to something like “what if everyone’s business was just opening a pub?”. The economy would be destroyed without diversification and many kinds of businesses. But being a landlord isn’t anything like that. Particularly those that won’t freaking repair anything wrong with the house, just take their checks and the tenant is on their own.
Hey bro sorry, I need to pay my rent a week late.
What? Your comment doesn’t make sense. If everyone did any profession solely we would destroy the economy. If everyone became doctors, there would be no engineers or pilots. We would still be doomed. A diversity of vocations are necessary regardless of which vocation.
*Edit. I was thinking maybe you mean investments. But the same holds true there. AND because of hedgefunds and private equity it’s becoming more and more of all the money funneling into a handful of companies. All the economists are sounding alarm bells on this. But considering the direction our leaders are taking us, I think this is all part of the plan.
It has little to do with the “profession” and more to do with the distribution of goods. If everyone owned rental properties, nobody would live in these rental properties, meaning for lords to exist there must be serfs.
This is like saying that in order for business owners to exist there have to be people who want the products that that business provides. So what?
Landlording is not a profession.
Handyman is a profession. Real estate management is a profession. Landlording is simply siphoning money through the act of owning something.
The economy can tolerate a finite number of leaches before dying. We currently have too many. The ideal number is zero.
what’s the difference between real estate management and landlording?
Real estate Management is about rent collection, property maintenance, coordination of finding new tenants, etc. There’s labor there.
Many single property landlords are also real estate management and handymen of their own properties. And that part of the situation is actual labor.
In common parlance, people will often conflate these. But I find this dilutes the harm caused by actual landlords, which are mostly large corporations that simply own property and collect income.
actual landlords, which are mostly large corporations that simply own property and collect income.
You can think of a landlord, whether it’s a giant corporation or a family that owns two homes and rents one out, as an investor. They choose to keep their money in a property which they rent to someone else for a profit. But they do this rather than selling the property and investing in a restaurant, a local shop, the stock market, or just blowing the it.
The difference is that housing is a finite, in fact scarce, requirement for life. You could also say that Nestle buying up all the water supplies is simply where they’re choosing to invest. Sure, but it’s still wrong.
It’s an abuse of capitalism to create captive markets for basic necessities where people have no real choice but to purchase your goods. Adam Smith knew this.
Now you could say, “just move”, but the fact is that there is not sufficient affordable housing available in this country to meet demand. And a good portion of that is held by investors.
It’s also not capitalism.
Adam Smith is seen as the person most responsible for coming up with the concept of capitalism, and he hated landlords.
“Landlords’ right has its origin in robbery. The landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for the natural produce of the earth.”
More details about what he thought of rent in his book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
Adam Smith imagined a world with well-regulated capitalism. In that world, a capitalist might invest in a factory to make a widget. They’d take raw materials, use capital (including labour) and end up with a product that people would want to buy. That capitalist would always have to stay on their toes because if they got lazy, another capitalist could undercut them by using their capital better, to either undercut the widget’s price, or to sell it more cheaply. This competition was key, as well as the idea of the capitalist putting in work to continuously improve their processes. A capitalist who didn’t continually improve their processes would lose to their competitors, see their widget sales drop to zero, and go out of business.
In Adam Smith’s time, the alternative to capitalism was feudalism, where a landlord owned a huge estate, had serfs working on that estate, and simply collected a cut of everything the serfs produced as rent. In that scenario, the landlord had to do almost no work. It was the farmers on their estate who did the work. The landlord just owned the land and charged rent. Originally, serfs were even tied to the land, so they weren’t allowed to leave to work elsewhere, and their children were bound to the same land. But, even once that changed, there was still good farmland. The landlord could lower the rent until it was worth it for a farmer to work the land. The key thing is that the landlord didn’t have to do anything at all, just own the land and charge rent for its use.
I think the reason that people are so pissed off with capitalism these days is that what we’re really seeing is a neo-Feudalism, or what Yanis Varoufakis calls technofeudalism.
Think of YouTube. A person puts tons of time and money into making a video, they upload it to the only viable video platform for user-made video, YouTube. YouTube hosts the video, then charges a big cut of any advertising revenue the video generates, basically charging rent for merely being the “land” on which the video lives. In a proper capitalist world, there would be plenty of sites to host videos, plenty of ad companies competing to buy ad spots for a video, etc. But, YouTube is a monopoly, and internet advertising is a duopoly between Google and Facebook. They mostly don’t even compete anymore, each has their own area of the Internet they control and so they’re a local monopoly. This allows them to behave like feudal lords rather than capitalists. There’s no need for them to innovate, no need for them to compete, they just own the land and charge rent. Same with Apple and their app store. There are no other app stores permitted on iPhones, so Apple can charge an outrageous 30%.
It goes well beyond tech though. Say you’re a Canadian and you want to avoid American products, but you love your carbonated beverages. You could buy Coke, but that’s American. Pepsi? That’s American. Royal Crown cola? Sure sounds like it might be Canadian, or British, but no, it’s American. Just look at the chain of mergers for its parent company: “Formed in July 2018, with the merger of Keurig Green Mountain and Dr Pepper Snapple Group (formerly Dr. Pepper/7up Inc.), Keurig Dr Pepper offers over 125 hot and cold beverages.” Sure, if you look you can find specialty things like Jarritos, but the huge brands just dominate the shelves.
Capitalists hate capitalism, they want to be feudal lords, and since the time of Reagan / Thatcher / Mulroney / etc. competition hasn’t been properly regulated, allowing all the capitalists to merge into enormous companies that no longer have to compete, and can instead act as feudal lords extracting rent.
The fact that landlording is bad and not a profession isn’t the point.
The point is that @[email protected]’s argument failed to convincingly argue that because it was logically fallacious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division
In other words, the fact that thing A would “destroy of the economy if everyone did it” is an emergent property of everyone doing it, which doesn’t apply to any single entity doing thing A.
Yes yes. Many people fail to accept hyperbole. You don’t need to explain that you don’t either.
That guy said what I was pointing out. Also, it’s not a hyperbole, it would absolutely destroy the economy if everyone did the same thing regardless of what that thing is. Even if everyone decided eating chicken would be the only protein that we eat would destroy the economy. Which is why I added my edit. It’s not just about a profession, but anything, literally anything done in unison by every other human would wreck an economy.
Are you’re saying that if an economy has an increse the concentration of farming activity then economic ouput will deteriorate as fast as if it were to have instead had the same increase the concentration of parasitic activity? Very interesting idea.
Maybe I’m dense but the only way I can see that working is if the parasites become super-effective livestock and can be turned into food that is either more nutrious or has a longer shelflife than the feedstock.
Huh? I’m saying if everyone dropped whatever it is they normally do and instead all do the same exact thing, it would ruin an economy. We need diversity regardless of whatever else is happening. We couldn’t survive if everyone became farmers and no one become engineers. So ultimately, it’s a pointless statement to say if everyone did anything, such as landlording, the economy would be ruined.
Landlording is simply siphoning money through the act of owning something.
This actually applies to most all investments.
Getting a paycheck automatically means that someone has more money before a product, or service is delivered. So I’m gonna stretch this a little… If we like jobs that pay money then we gotta live with rich assholes. But if we want no rich assholes and truly everyone’s time is worth exactly the same amount, then we need something other than capitalism. We need socialism. But how do we prevent kings or rich politicians in either scenario? Tax them in capitalism for one. In socialism we just downright make that illegal.
Instead of a rich asshole, you can have worker owned cooperatives and such.
everyone’s time is worth exactly the same amount
That’s just objectively not the case. Some people are able to provide more essential or better quality services and labor than others. There are also more and less enjoyable activities.
Everyone’s time can be worth the same amount for the same activity at the same quality level.
how do we prevent kings or rich politicians in either scenario? Tax them in capitalism for one. In socialism we just downright make that illegal.
You will always have people in more powerful positions and some will take advantage of it. What you can do is rotate people with term limits and such. However that can also have downsides in effectiveness and efficiency.
You can also impose limits on how much stuff a person can own. There are ways to circumvent this with non profit NGOs and such.
Socialist economies also need taxes to pay for infrastructure and the operations of the state.
This is basically where not even I believe in myself.
Cooperatives… A few billion of us get together to build a rocket…never gonna happen. A few of us build a power plant…yeah right! Never gonna happen.
What about life? My life, how much is my life worth? Is it worth more than yours or less? Divided into life/second, if I’m worth the same as you are, then I should get paid the same as you no matter what I do… I could be a painter or a seamstress or a cook or a bricklayer. I should be worth the same. Even a bum who wants nothing to do with anyone should be worth the same as the most smartest person to ever live. Its a life. You don’t get to be worth more by being smarter or making more stuff.
I would definitely not want to live in a society where my kids will be homeless even though I am the hardest working worker. If my kids are lazy I still want to ensure they live better than I did. So although I don’t like this consumerism centric capitalistic society, that socialistic society sucks.
I much rather be in a society where you can own things and give them to your kids, and have those things hold some value. I don’t want the government limiting what I can and cannot do. To some extent I think this sort of capitalism is possible, but the billionaires have got to go puff. I would love living a grand life with a big house in a sunny part of California. That’s impossible now no matter what I say or do. Meanwhile some billionaire could just buy California if he wanted to. That sort of money accumulation I’m totally against.
Yeah, it turns out that a system that rewards people for simply having possession of something leads to behaviors that are harmful for society.
The problem isn’t landlords, that’s just the group that most people interact with directly. The problem is that our rules (primarily taxes) are setup to reward that behavior and to add burden to people who actually do work for their income.
If you’re a billionaire you can get your effective tax rate to single digits or zero. If you work for a living you pay way more taxes proportional to your income.
ALL forms of making money from having money need to be abolished completely.
If you’re not creating/selling a product or providing a service, you’re not EARNING money. Furthermore, rich people getting richer through passive income is the #1 thing diminishing the returns from actually worthwhile endeavors.
I somewhat agree with you. And I 150% agree that “rent seeking behavior” doesn’t add to society.
But what if you want to sell a product you designed but can’t afford to create it or to setup a factory for it, so you want funding, so you try to get investments, maybe by selling equity in your company. Is that not valuable to society? The people that take the risk that your product may not sell?
How did anyone do anything before currency was invented?
Your comment implies that what you describe is a requirement for a functioning society
It isn’t.
Before currency was invented might be a stretch— back then, which was a long long long, time ago we likely didn’t even have professions in the same sense. Albeit Dave might have had a knack for fishing, Kendra for making canoes etc.
There was plenty of space in the wilderness you could just go live for free. Now we have a lot of people, we need agriculture to support that population; there isn’t enough land for hunter gatherer societies to exist without a large population collapse first.
Now to your point I suppose we could have a society without money; yet I think there is some freedom in currency even if everyone gets a UBI. It allows two random strangers to come together and have one person buy something without having to trade an item that the other person wants, then the seller can go buy something they want.
Without currency we would have to have a somewhat complex trading system, which inevitably would see certain items of rarity never traded, or traded for so much surplus goods that a new ironically materialistic moneyed class would develop. It would make for an interesting book, but I think so long as people have varied interests and desires, and create creative works, money is a useful thing.
But what if you want to sell a product you designed but can’t afford to create it or to setup a factory for it, so you want funding, so you try to get investments, maybe by selling equity in your company. Is that not valuable to society? The people that take the risk that your product may not sell?
That’s where small business grants from the government comes in.
Helping people thrive without being beholden to ruthless opportunists or run the risk of bankrupting private investors is EXACTLY the kind of thing tax dollars should be spent on in stead of the MIC, subsidies for the most profitable corporations in the world, and other such enriching of the already rich.
So let’s say I’ve saved $100k over the course of 20 years of work. Investing in my friend’s bakery startup (making me a silent partner)… should be abolished??
I don’t think just because people are landlords that makes them bastards though. We’re letting a house out and I think we treat our tenants well. We don’t rip them off, we fix stuff when it’s broken, and since we have a fixed rate mortgage our costs haven’t gone up in several years and so neither has the rent.
Why do you have an extra house when others don’t even have 1?
Why do you have an extra house when others don’t even have 1?
Unless you are from an impoverished area of the world and could barely afford the ten year old phone you’re posting this on, I don’t think you want to go down this path.
Not really. If we’re living at or below a standard that is attainable for us all, then we’re not part of the problem.
We don’t have to go off into the woods or subsistence farm. That’s a distraction put by the ruling class for useful idiots to believe so they think it’s all-or-nothing.
Magnitude matters. Just because you have more doesn’t mean you need to spend more, and that’s what the people you’re defending are doing.
That said, I live a very modest life in a very modest area. I could spend more, if I wanted to. I could make more if I took more advantage of others. I choose not to because that would make me part of the culture we should be trying to change.
ITT: people who want free housing without understanding the costs of owning a house
Or maybe just quality, affordable, public housing?
Look at what Finland has done for an example.
Owning a house isn’t that expensive.
I own one. It’s so much cheaper than renting it’s not even funny. I could pay someone to do all the work I don’t want to and still come out so far ahead it’s not even funny.
Renting is a scam and only useful idiots and scammers defend it.
Owning a house isn’t that expensive. It’s so much cheaper than renting
The good thing is, people who don’t want to rent can buy. I highly encourage people to do exactly that.
Well I hope nothing ever goes wrong with your house’s roof or siding or HVAC or foundation or plumbing or electrical or…
Imagine that, people in the wealthiest nations in the world, wanting to meet their basic needs for survival with dignity. Ha ha ha, when will they ever learn, right my friend?
If nobody is allowed to own more than one property, should everyone be forced buy? Where would renters get apartments from?
Yeah some people desire to be exploited! Send those kids back into the mines! /S
Can you give me a serious answer without the /s
If I inherit my grandmas apartment, can I put it up for rent since it’s a small apartment in a college town and there will be takers.
Or should I sell it so I don’t become a “landlord”, which is bad?
Should all students just buy an apartment for the 4-5 years they spend in the city or will the city be the landlord for them somehow collectively? Or is it less bad if the college is the landlord by offering student housing?
Yes landlords shouldn’t exist. Colleges shouldn’t exist either talk about a cash scam and purely for profit leaches, don’t get me started on student athletes only a real scumbag would take a billion dollar industry and not pay the “workers”.
Not American.
Our colleges and universities are free. There is no student athlete industry over here.
So if your taxes pay for education shouldn’t they pay for basic housing? One of these is required for life, isn’t this taught in university?
You didn’t answer my question:
If I inherit an apartment, am I allowed to rent it or should I sell it to not become a landlord?
What part of landlords should not exist did you not understand?
You could donate it? You could turn it into a shelter. You could let someone live there rent free… Why is selling the only option you can think of?
“Rent free” so I’d pay the costs and someone could just be there for free? I can’t afford that.
No… I specifically said “rent free” instead of “free”… You can charge them what it costs to upkeep with no profit, that’s my point.
…so now being a landlord is ok if you don’t make too much profit?
I seriously can’t keep up.
It’s really not hard. Basic shelter is a human right. Making a profit from providing someone with basic shelter is immoral and unethical.
No rentals, houses will be gifted to everyone and magically conjured out of thin air.
Your sarcastic inability to see a different path does not mean a different path doesn’t exist.
Well, so far all of the “different paths” turned out to be completely crap at working. But surely the next time will do it.
Look into public housing in Finland.
I am from Finland and public housing is shit.
Public housing was shit, maybe.
Or are all of the articles like this staged? And all of the data is made up?
Since its launch in 2008, the number of homeless people in Finland has decreased by roughly 30%,[1] though other reports indicate it could be up to 50%.[7] The number of long-term homeless people has fallen by more than 35%.[3] “Sleeping rough”, the practice of sleeping outside, has been largely eradicated in Helsinki, where only one 50-bed night shelter remains.[3] Analysis of Housing First in Tampere, Finland found that it saved €250,000 in one year.[8] A further study of Finland’s Housing First program found that giving a homeless person a home and support resulted in cost savings for the society of at least €15,000 per person per year, with potentially even higher cost savings in the long term.[7] These cost savings for society are in part a result of reductions in usage of emergency healthcare, police, and the justice system when homeless people are given a home.[9]
So they look like link 1, and they result in that… Seems great.
Giving homeless people homes != “public housing”
We do consider having a place to live a human right, but that doesn’t mean the houses are especially good or well maintained compared to commercial options.
They aren’t always even the cheapest - those can usually be found from private renters who own one or two apartments they rent.
We do consider having a place to live a human right, but that doesn’t mean the houses are especially good or well maintained compared to commercial options.
Ok, so I have your apparent anecdotal experience, vs. hundreds of articles citing a ton of data. I think I’m gonna go with the latter, thanks.
A functioning government?
Ah, so the government is your landlord now?
It’s good, because Americans have so much trust in their government right now.
Good thing I’m not an American.
It’s handy sometimes, isn’t it ;-)
Actually it’s a fucking nightmare having your closest neighbour threaten your sovereignty on a daily basis.
It’s even worse when half the population actually endorses the behaviour.
I don’t hate Americans I’m just disappointed. I hope my children aren’t going to die in a trench on the same field I farm
All so that none of their tenants can afford any of those four things without constantly struggling!
That’s because they haven’t seen that tweet from a money genius who invented the cheat code on life. You just need more money streams for more money. Who knew? Here I was, just sitting with a gazillian dollars stuffed under my mattress nor knowing what to do with them.
My engineering brain is trying to figure out how it would actually be possible… Some kind of reverse scaffolding system that ratchets down instead of up.
Start with a tall platform, build the cap of the pyramid, then build an additional layer under, while also bringing the platform down by one layer. Repeat for each layer.
Cunk is hilarious though…
It’s simple to be successful:
-
have rich parents that can give you money
-
have easy access to loan programs because you’re white and have rich parents
Or have bought pepe right before it went to the moon.
Yeah I guess I left out “lottery winner”
-
Landlords don’t contribute to society
Quite the opposite in fact.
Yeah they contribute a lot of pain and suffering
Of course they do. Imagine that all of the landlords decide to start removing rental properties from the market if their tenants move out. What do you think that does to housing availability over the next 10 years?
Once the homeless population exceed police force, who’ll protect the landlords? Read some history before thinking about hyperboles.
Buy a home, don’t contribute to landlord’s profits.
Yeah, and buy it all cash so you don’t contribute to the banks profits. About as feasible for most, honestly.
Any reason why we can’t just change the tax code to make this thing less viable? We disincentive things all the time. Like we can carve out exemptions for situations and things I’m sure but like, this shouldn’t be how to run a society.
Yep, easiest way to solve the housing crisis is a scaling tax on property ownership and rent. The first property you own is taxed relatively low, with it scaling exponentially as you add more properties.
If you took every property that individual people owned and gave every one of them other people, we would still have a housing shortage with insane prices for a home. Shitty as most landlords are, the real problem is massive companies that buy up houses.
The higher the supply the lower the prices; we need higher housing supply. We need to reduce barriers to building homes and increase government investment in building new homes.
Around where I live they’re slapping up houses literally as fast as physically possible. The infrastructure of the county can’t keep up with the number of new neighborhoods and popping up. Traffic is insane and the schools are beyond busting at the seems. The elementary close to my house isn’t even 10yrs old and it has almost as many classrooms in t buildings as it does in the school itself. And house prices are still insane.
Any reason why we can’t just change the tax code to make this thing less viable
Culture. Too many people think those who have more deserve more and those who have less deserve less.
It’s the same idea that made slavery so accepted in the South. Most Southern whites did not own slaves; they could not afford it. They still supported slavery because they supported the idea of owning slaves, that maybe one day they could get a slave of their own.
Same goes for why we have so many dirt-poor paycheck-to-paycheck useful idiots going to bat for their oppressors; they’re hoping that one day they can be the oppressors. Oh, and they don’t want to admit they’re being taken for a ride.
Until this culture changes, we shouldn’t expect things to get any better.
In this specific example the 4 rental homes likely don’t even pay for themselves. Add up the mortgage, insurance, maintenance averages, and property taxes then divide by units and subtract the average rent (include vacancies in the average): that’s how much you make per tenant.
At most I could see a profitable location with 4 units covering groceries and vehicles, but not vacations. You would need more like 8 or 9 units for that. Bonus points if they’re combined into a single building to reduce maintenance costs and save on heating.
This meme seems to specifically target mom & pop level operations. If the Tenants are really such victims they should just get together buy the property out.
🥱
This person has no idea what he’s talking about and we should all ignore him accordingly.
If the Tenants are really such victims they should just get together buy the property out.
If they could do that, they could probably buy a better place and wouldn’t have to live there.
And if they can’t do that then there are no alternatives to either renting or homelessness.
If a person wants to change the financial system a bit that’s fine, but if they just want to outlaw rentals then they’re an idiot.
Step one: Have a shitton of money to buy property to rent out.
Oh, you don’t have enough money? Hhm, have you tried not being poor?it’s about suggesting that the social order that propped you up and elevated you basically arbitrarily based on birth is a reason you’re cool, and not just some shit that happened. none of this is about actually helping anyone. if they actually believed this shit from the bottom of their hearts, breathing a word of it would be fucking stupid.
The meme specifies Mortgage which means they also don’t have any money. They obtained a loan that they will be paying back for 15 to 30 years, at which point the property will deteriorate to a much lower value if any at all. If they sell the properties then they will owe depreciation recapture which works similar to a capital gains tax, as if it were additional income on top of the actual capital gains tax on the sale of the property itself. Plus closing costs to realtors.
I had to rant in a couple of comments because I drives me crazy when people defend leeching.
On a more constructive note: Housing cooperatives. I think they should be more widespread. Some people come together to build a house and then live in it for the cost it takes to actually support it. No crazy big apartments with a reasonable amount of people (roughly one bedroom per person), shared luxury such as gardens, in house shops, hell even a pool if you want. There is no leeching, just collective ownership.
What if some people do not fit into some pre-made construction of how some dictator imagines a “nice living situation”? Every person is an individual with individual needs. Presuming, that a single bedroom is big or small enough for every single person is absolutely undermining the fact of how diverse people actually are, as are their visions of their own lives.
Cooperatives are democratic, the members vote on what it means to have a nice living situation.
If there are ten people with ten different expectations, they would all vote for something, in summary/conclusion, “in the middle”, which would make nobody happy. The best would be, if everyone could choose for themselves and that is the case right now, except many people perhaps cannot afford, what they’d wish for. Still, better than having a “democracy”, where nobody is truly happy.
The case right now is, if you can’t afford what you want, you can’t choose it. They don’t get to choose for themselves, the market chooses for them!
If I have to choose between market decision making and democratic decision making, I’ll choose democracy. At the very least, a democratic process leaves no one homeless.
The market chooses without discrimination against anybody. Capitalism is inherently anti-racist, for example. If you do the work, you get paid. No questions asked.
In such a “democracy” it’s a different story. Because, for example, if you only have, let’s say, 30 tenants, every single tenant can move a lot through his vote. Now, it only takes a significant amount of these 30 tenants to group up as, for example, Trump lovers and there you have this “democracy” actively discriminating Biden lovers.
Whereas, if you meet a true capitalist, he does not care where you are from, what you do, how you look… As long as you pay, nothing else matters. Only your money matters.
That said, there is only a tiny fraction of people, who really cannot afford something, they actually want or need. Most people are capable to achieve stages in life, where they become very well able to afford, what they want.
The thing about most people is that, if they cannot afford it, they don’t wanna afford it.
For example, if you have no mental and physical disabilities and yet consciously decide to work as a lowly paid cashier for your whole life, then the market didn’t choose shit for you. You chose, presuming you are mentally and physically capable of choice, as the average person indeed is.
They act like everyone could do this.
If everyone did this, the system would fail, because the profit here is scooped off the top with no actual production or service.
It would also require everyone to own 4+ houses which isn’t exactly feasible
It would require a lot of housing density for everyone to own four dwellings (and would kill rent demand well and good), but I wouldn’t call it infeasible. For everyone to have a quarter acre lawn and a 2,000 square foot house that shares no walls with neighbors? With those additional requirements having everyone own four is infeasible, sure, but a belief that’s the only dwelling worth owning is how we have throttled our housing supply in the first place.
The product/service is the use of the property for the specified time.
How is this any different from renting a SeeDo for an hour?
And if everyone did this when they were able to, rents across the board would be dirt cheap.
How is this any different from renting a SeeDo for an hour?
Well, one has to do with recreation, and the other has to do with basic necessities of humans.
I don’t understand. What exactly is the complaint here? That they’re over charging or charging at all?
Or is this just bandwagon hate on a common and ancient business practice?
Because there is nothing immoral or unethical about having multiple rental property.
And don’t give me this shit about how they’re evil for over charging. The middle class holds all the power all we’re lacking is organization and education.
Because there is nothing immoral or unethical about having multiple rental property.
You’re charging someone for you doing nothing so they can have a basic need to survive. It’s very immoral
If you’re gonna try to defend an immoral act with
Or is this just bandwagon hate on a common and ancient business practice?
Then Ill assume you’re pro-slavery and move on
Charging for housing isn’t immoral just because it’s a necessity. By that logic, grocery stores are immoral for charging for food, and doctors are immoral for charging for healthcare. Property ownership and rental markets exist because providing and maintaining housing costs money. If your argument is that the system should be reformed, fine, let’s talk solutions. But calling all landlords inherently immoral is just lazy thinking.
Also your comment on slavery is offensive which I believe is the only reason you added it which makes you sound even more stupid.
Food and housing should be covered as part of basic income. We absolutely have the global production for it. The implementation is all but blocked because of earth-legacy, so I’m not saying it’s practical with today’s society. It would take extreme global change.
People make comments like “then why would anybody work” but that doesn’t take into account how damn efficient our farming and production is. We’re on the cusp of extreme automation and the actual number of workers required is very low. People would still work to own better homes, better food, better cars, better electronics, more access to travel, etc.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not sure how to get there form here, but there’s nothing technical preventing it - only sociological. Which is a bigger hurdle in my opinion. Technology is easy. People are not.
Also your comment on slavery is offensive
So you know your argument works perfectly for slavery, can see how it applies and are embarrassed enough being called out on it to be offended, but not to rethink yourself? That response is actually why I included it: easy way to tell you’re not to be taken seriously
Oh, please. Get off your intellectual high horse. Your ability to string coherent words together doesn’t mean you actually know anything. All you’ve done is throw out a false equivalency and some hyperbole. I present arguments, and you respond with pseudo-intellectual gibberish. The people who take you seriously are the same ones who fart into wine glasses, idiots. I’m so tired of you hipster fucks on Lemmy. You talk about things you don’t understand and convince yourselves you’re enlightened. You’re just short-sighted trash wrapped in $100 words and YouTube rhetoric.
All you’ve done is throw out a false equivalency and some hyperbole
No, I pointed out that your main argument in your original comment was terrible as it was an equally valid defense for slavery, figuring that if you got butthurt at being called out on it that you weren’t worth engaging mentally with, as anyone of any decency would see that and go “oh fuck dude maybe I should rethink at least that part of my stance”, it’s literally what I said in my comment ffs
you respond with pseudo-intellectual gibberish
My point, non-intellectual as it may be (like basically everything I do), wasn’t gibberish to anyone with basic reading comprehension
You’re charging someone for you doing nothing
Go talk to someone who manages a rental, ask them specifically what they do. What do they do when the tenant leaves? What do they do when the tenant doesn’t pay? What do they do when things break? What do they do when there is a squatter? What do they do when there is a bogus complaint to the local government? What do they do when a unit sits empty for an extended period?
The answer to all those questions is most certainly not ‘nothing’.
Because there is nothing immoral or unethical about having multiple rental property.
Wrong. Nobody should have extra houses to “rent out” while hardworking citizens can’t afford a single house of their own.
The reason why we don’t have enough is because they have too much.
Stop being a useful idiot. It’s falling out of fashion.
All of you are missing the point. The middle class holds all the power.
It’s out fault the world is the way it is. We let corporations dictate how much things should cost instead of not paying them what they want.
Cars are expensive because people go to the dealer and say “I’ll take what you got for whatever you want me to pay” instead of “I’ll give you 10k for that f150 take it or leave it.”
Instead people are going out of there way to secure a fucking 100k Tesla with whatever funding they got.
Same with rent. We made the market like this because those snazzy new mixed use developments are so chic. Let me give my left testical to bid on one of those condos as long as I get to tell people I live at the Avalon/halcyon/bridgeford or whatever.
We need to dictate how much we’re going to pay for shit not the other way around. Blaming people that take advantage of the system we allow to exist is the same as barking at the moon.
The complaint is that they’re a leech on society, and proud of it.
It doesn’t matter if a practice is ancient and common. So is organized crime. Being old and normalized doesn’t imply it has value.
There is absolutely huge moral and ethical, and pragmatic, issues with hoarding essential resources, such as housing. Homelessness is a growing problem, and these people are gladly treating it as a money-making scheme. Society would be better if they had productive jobs instead. As a collective, landlords are responsible for systematic preventable homelessness and death. Most moral frameworks consider that very bad!
The middle class? As far as I’m concerned, the two important classes are the worker class and the owner class, and the leeches can’t survive without the host. If there are people tricked into thinking they’re a middle class above us, they’d better figure out that they’re a thousand times closer to us than to them, hopefully before our collective desperation turns to violence.
