Even the best monarchs do not justify monarchy; it is a position inherently created for abuse. You may have a good king, or two, or ten - even kings who WILL put your wellbeing before their own interests - but invariably they will always be outnumbered by those who seek the position for the sake of abuse, or who succumb to the structure of the position which encourages abuse. Likewise with landlording. The problem isn’t with individuals, the problem is with the system.
Yeah. Benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient government type. The only problem is the odds of getting benevolence plus the impossibility of keeping it.
It’s way worse than that. Any dictator (monarchs included) has to balance interests to keep their head. They literally can’t distribute wealth more freely without their top general taking over.
No king rules alone. So yes, a dictator has to keep his key positions happy. Money spent on useless citizens is money not spent for your ruling infrastructur. And uneducated hungry citizens make bad revolutuonarys.
I like this answer - succinct and to the point, but the last sentence is vague because “bad revolutionary” could mean “incompetent revolutionary” or “evil revolutionary” (am I missing a third meaning?). I’m assuming you didn’t mean evil, but even so, an “incompetent” revolutionary could have issues with the execution of the revolution (eg. lack of courage) or with the desired outcome (eg. rallying behind a populist cause blindly). Would you care to clarify?
I believe they were paraphrasing part of a CGP Grey video, and if so, then “bad revolutionary” would mean a revolutionary not fit to revolt. Either by hunger, general weakness, or incompetence.
Reminds me of the rules for rulers video by cgp grey
Every landlord I’ve had has been “nice” and “friendly.” Unless you need something or they’re not happy with something you did.
Because they don’t see you as a person … they see you as either a benefit or detriment to their wealth. You are an extension of their wealth and their only interest is in watching to see if that wealth increases or decreases.
I mean yeah if they’re assholes sure. And many (most?) are no doubt. Yet I have friends who are landlords and they’re not fucking monsters or I wouldn’t be friends with them.
I think this reductive take of yours feels good to type but if we want to address the problems of housing, I think a more nuanced understanding is needed.
If you’re like a friend of mine, it’s just a family that owns a couple extra houses (withholding judgment on that) and let’s say the husband is out of work the wife makes like $50k/yr, and you’re on the hook for two mortgages (say $5000) and now the sewer pipe to the sewer main needs replacing at a cost of $15,000, your car breaks and needs $1000 of repairs.
If it comes to it and you don’t have the cash or credit to deal with it, nobody is going to prioritize the tenant’s sewer over their kids having a house to live in and food to eat. When times are so desperate you have to choose, you’re choosing your own family. (The assholes always choose themselves under all circumstances of course)
Idk wtf the answer is but housing is a human right and the idea that anyone should be unsheltered is fucked.
Both friends bought another house and rented their original. Some inherit a house. Because putting your money in savings like we used to in the 70s and 80s when you got rock solid perfectly safe 2-5% return hasn’t been a thing for 20+ years.
Then you have corporations with the capital to be able to snap up houses after the 2008 predatory lending fiasco (thanks to unregulated capitalism). With low interest rates that ended up being the best play and then that ended up pricing out regular people.
Yeah we need more supply but the equation there doesn’t really favor building affordable housing because reasons I don’t understand well enough to try to talk to. Some claim too much regulation but that claim is usually the kind of bullshit that corpos/rich and their shills spout to be able to deregulate and better screw us peons. So I’m skeptical.
Idk what the solution is because I don’t understand the very complex problem well enough. But I know that “landlords eat babies” isn’t that helpful because the whole housing thing (rental, ownership) is a train wreck systemically.
If you can’t afford to maintain a house you are renting out then you shouldn’t be a landlord. Your friends could just as easily sell the house to a family and invest in a way that doesn’t require them to maintain an asset they cannot afford, but instead they choose to keep it and profit as much as they can. Landlords are assholes.
This view kinda confuses me, I’m not a landlord don’t worry! If people can’t afford a house then what are they expected to do? It’s all well and good saying if you can’t afford the repairs then you shouldn’t be a landlord but if you can’t afford a house, what then, does the same sentiment apply?
It seems to me it’s very much a problem with the ‘system’ . Aiming your hate at landlords in general makes no sense when they aren’t the reason you don’t own a house in the first place. Obviously some people do take advantage of others, that’s not what I mean.
What is the solution here?
If I could wave a magic wand, I’d limit the number of houses people could own and how much wealth any 1 person could have…
But the problem still stands, people need enough money to get a house in the first place… So how does that work?
Aiming your hate at landlords in general makes no sense when they aren’t the reason you don’t own a house in the first place.
They are, in some cases, the reason people don’t own houses. Not in every case of course, but certainly in some. I think there have even been “rent-to-own” scams by some landlords.
I honestly don’t know what the landscape would look like without landlords, but that’s not a prerequisite to hating on and moaning about greedy landlords and their greedy ways.
Landlords were not a problem 30 years ago and suddenly, they are. The problem is not landlord. Removing landlords won’t magically fix everything for you. This view is radical and unproductive. This will lead the community no where near a real solution to this crisis.
Removing landlords won’t magically fix everything for you.
Funny that, because I bought a condo and removed landlords from my life and it did actually fix everything for me.
The problem isn’t just the landlords, it’s a regulatory and policy environment that has shifted since Reagan toward the well off at the expense of everyone else in just about every facet of life including housing. People are pissed at this point because it’s completely unaffordable to live while some of you (I’m going to assume you’re a landlord because of your tone) are hording tons of houses to profit off of.
I think my landlord sees us as people, he’s just fundamentally incapable of understanding what it means to live in a lower income bracket. He’s selling the house we live in and seemed genuinely confused why we, as a single earner household paying significantly below market rent, would be worried because “there’s only a few situations where they can kick you out”. Yes and if they invoke one, which they will because we’re a bad investment, we’re SCREWED.
Meanwhile he thinks he’s being generous by listing for below appraisal when it’s still at least double what he paid a couple years ago. Just living on a totally different planet.
All of this is starting to remind of Charles Dickens from 150 years ago.
He probably thought we’d be way past his generation by now … we are in many ways but in some ways we are no different than our ancestors 10,000 years ago … this may be the 21st century but human greed and the ignorance of man never changes
If that’s what you think, your life must suck ass. Landlord wants to pay their expense and that’s it. If a tenants destroys the place or ask stupid shit all the time, that sucks. That’s just being normal human being. Stop dehumanizing people.
You needing something is fair as it “should” be part of the agreement you have with the landlord. Even if unspecified, the landlord agreed to provide a place that is fully functioning and comfortable livable. So they can’t removed if you need something.
On the other hand, you are renting their property and you agreed, even if unspecified, to care for their property during your stay and return it in the same state as you received it. You fucking up their shit in any way gives them the right to removed. Both scenarios are a breach of agreement, written or not.
PS: Landlords require tenants to get credit checks etc. in order to ensure that the tenant can pay. Tenants should have the right to require landlords to hold adequate insurance that would protect and accommodate the tenant.
That sounds good in theory, but in practice, I’ve had to ask multiple times and then just begrudgingly get the plumber called in or whatever. Landlords hold all the power.
Took the best part of a year to convince our landlord to replace the ancient, breaking fridge. Still also in a pitched battle with him to get the boiler fixed properly or replaced rather the sending his mate around. Landlords are bastards.
Landlords should be required to hold certain types of insurance before they can rent. This includes home warranties. If your fridge and boiler were dying, the landlord might be less of a shit if all it took was a call to a toll-free number.
I agree and fear that I didn’t make my point well. The reasons tenants get screwed all the time is because all of the requirements and restrictions are on the tenant side. If people were required to hold insurance that protects the tenant, and certain regulations existed and were enforced, before said people could be allowed to rent a property, then maybe the power dynamic could be brought closer to equilibrium.
I get it now. And yes, I agree.
My landlord lives in the same house as me. Things get fixed very quickly, especially when it comes to anything leaky. Might also be especially connected to their mother living one flat below mine.
landlord is just living within the system he was put in.
if you wanna hate someone stop hating the individual and hate the system that forces this behavior.
except THIS IS AMERICA we cant have beneficial economic decisions
That’s not landlord/tenant that’s just people/people.
Yeah that’s what I was thinking. You could swap in most relationships and it’d still be as reasonable.
“Not saying your tutor is a bad person, but they have interests that oppose your own”
“Not saying your doctor is a bad person, but they have interests that oppose your own”
Etc
Different is not necessarily oppositional.
My doctor does not benefit from me being sick. My tutor does not benefit from me flanking.
My landlord does benefit from me living paycheck to paycheck because they have extracted the maximum possible cash from me.
Doctors do benefit from you being sick, I’d imagine that funds a large majority of the industry.
Guess I don’t know the tutor business well, but if they are paid, they don’t benefit from you not needing them
Look at Kaiser; they run a vertically integrated shop. They’re fanatical about
-
not paying for any elective treatments even if it would improve quality of
-
preventive care to cover all the diseases they’re legally required to cover
-
minimizing org-to-org friction
-
using the cheapest means of communication whenever possible (text > video >> in-person)
I never had my blood pressure and lab work more scrutinized, never had more help offered to lose weight, etc, than when I was a KP patient.
Turns out I have special medical needs and there is a specialist clinic near me, so I switched insurance. But I always felt that my doctor wanted to keep my ass out of the hospital because that is where his bonus came from.
Now SURGEONS, that’s a different story.
So, some doctors suck, some don’t?
Bet you can apply that logic across the board to all walks of life tbh. Some landlords are dickheads, some are just other people trying to get by.
and I say that with a dickhead landlord
If you can afford to buy 2 houses you’re no longer “getting by”, you’re a 1%'er.
deleted by creator
-
Wait, what? How does it benefit your landlord if you live paycheck to paycheck?
They want the most they can get, of course. I just don’t quite understand what you mean?
You living paycheck to paycheck doesn’t affect your landlord unless you miss a payment. And in those instances landlords don’t have any kind of human empathy for the situation their tenant is in.
It does affect your landlord. Lower income means higher risk of non-payment.
That’s why some places require credit checks. The ideal tenant is rich and willing to pay whatever.
The ideal tenant is rich and willing to pay whatever.
The ideal tenant is rich enough to pay increasing rent in perpetuity, undemanding enough to not demand costly repairs, and too poor to buy their own housing unit.
Okay I’m not sure if you just have zero reading comprehension, or if you’re just being intentionally obtuse, so let me restate.
Again, you living paycheck to paycheck DOES NOT affect your landlord, UNLESS you miss a payment. I’m not sure how you could possibly say otherwise when you presented zero actual argument for why this statement is untrue.
MANY MANY people are excellent renters, never miss a payment, and live paycheck to paycheck.
If you live paycheck to paycheck and pay rent every month, it makes no difference to your landlord. $2k/mo in their pocket is $2k/mo in their pocket, no matter how much u have in the bank after paying it.
The ideal tenant is rich and willing to pay whatever.
Yes, that is true. That is an ideal tenant. That has nothing to do with whether someone living paycheck to paycheck affects their landlord.
That’s why some places require credit checks.
Yeah no shit landlords use credit checks to see if ur a high risk of non-payment. That’s called credit history. Has nothing to do with whether ur living paycheck to paycheck. I know ppl who live paycheck to paycheck with ~800 credit scores.
What ur describing is credit scores, not whether or not someone lives paycheck to paycheck. Try again.
“Not saying your tutor is a bad person, but they have interests that oppose your own”
Not really.
“Not saying your doctor is a bad person, but they have interests that oppose your own”
Not really.
You could say that if they were ruthlessly in pursuit of money above all other interests, maybe, and then only if they were short-sighted enough to think that keeping you stupid or sick was the best way to make the most money.
Doctors have other goals and are paid salary. Tutors are often working temporarily and part time. I don’t think either of these groups actually oppose your interests.
A landlord, on the other hand, directly opposes tenant interests in multiple ways. Every dollar they spend on repairs is a dollar less profit. Every dollar of rent increase they can get you to pay is a dollar more in their pocket. Every competing housing development being built threatens the value of their asset as well as the future profitability of their current housing stock due to the competition.
Of course there are “good” landlords that don’t maximize their own interests just like there are shitty doctors (mostly holistic, to be fair) out there that want to milk you dry and never cure anything. But that doesn’t change the calculus much. They’re just the exceptions that prove the rule.
You can do the same justifications for landlords that you did for tutors and doctors though.
Tutors don’t want to spend money on supplies to help teach… doctors don’t want to buy new equipment for the office, etc.
The fact is everyone’s different. My boss is rents out a house. He split it in 3rds and charges 450 a person a month. He’s a good dude.
My landlord is a dick who hasn’t fixed any issues in a year.
You can do the same justifications for landlords that you did for tutors and doctors though.
Kind of, maybe, if a high percentage of landlords was in it to “provide housing”…which I didn’t see any evidence of in my decade and a half of renting.
I’m also a bit of a weirdo too. So, I had a lot more opportunity to see any of that. I probably moved over 10 times in my ~15 years renting because I couldn’t stand the yearly rent increases they were trying to force on me and was stupid/stubborn enough (and well off enough) to vote with my feet.
I imagine a large percentage of doctors work behind the scenes rather than directly help patients
I have this thought that Big Pharma isnt in it to “provide health” ha
deleted by creator
People/people made worse by the system. The system that created the landlord/tenant roles.
I realize that I may be in the minority here, but I used to be a landlord. I never charged full market rate, and I always took care of my tenants. I never kept any security deposit money. One tenant had a breakup, and I showed up that evening with a locksmith to change her locks so he wouldn’t be a problem. That cost me some money but it didn’t cost her anything. I mean, they’re paying for service you need to provide service.
I remember people like you. It’s always appreciated but eventually a corporation gets every building.
You did it right, but the only thing keeping most people honest is regulation. Until pro-tenant behavior is properly incentivized for landlords, most will remain shitty and selfish.
Most ? Where is your statistics? What kind of bullshit statement is this.
My statistic would be the totality of humanity acting like shit whenever they’re not forced otherwise
-gestures broadly at the history of the entire human species-
I’m not a misanthrope, but humans haven’t exactly earned a gold star for behavior.
When the system incentivizes greed, then there will always be a sway toward the profit motive.
And because of that, you made less money. A bastard landlord would make more money and be able to invest that money into buying more properties. Those properties would bring even more money, allowing them to buy even more property and so forth. This dynamic is why the vast majority of landlords (and capitalists in general) are bastards.
Capitalism is a system where the selfish and greedy will always triumph over the selfless and charitable. It is designed from the ground up to incentivize selfish behavior.
I was OK making less money. The place was paid for, no mortgage. The only reason I sold was because of our horrible medical system.
deleted by creator
You’re assuming the market has other options for those tenants and that moving for a tenant is a viable option. Many many people live paycheck to paycheck for rent let alone saving up for down payments and moving costs
Sincerely thank you for being a good person in a harmfully flawed system. You probably won’t get rewarded for it. Most likely you’ll be punished for it. But someone out there probably thinks you’re pretty cool for doing it.
Who wouldn’t put their income before your wellbeing when push came to shove?
Socialists
Funny thing is when socialists make some money they stop being socialists.
It’s almost like their class interests changed and class interests influence behavior.
Almost like it’s proving their point. Capitalist critique is not about individual “bad” people but about a system with perverse and harmful incentives.
(granting your claim for sake of argument - feel free to support it with data)
Imaginary altruistic socialists after murdering everyone that doesn’t support socialism?
Context matters. Would you choose to go make a little bit of money or help someone who was about to be killed?
You just invented a scenario where the landlord stands to lose very little and the tenant stands to lose their life.
In every scenario the stakes vary between involved individuals.
That’s the point I was making.
In any of the systems we’ve tried since the species got agrarian—especially Capitalism whenever it’s Fascism Hammer Time—not the average person that’s for a certainty.
They’re too busy surviving.
In a proper society where we (the collective We, but really ~2k dragons) used the same tools we used to separate us to instead expand the sense of the tribal umbrella so that the species innate selfish altruism could shine?
A whole lot more folks whose part would be exactly like in the fabric of society, comfortable and without a thought of want for they know We got their backs too.
But also many of them will make someone homeless just because they couldn’t provide an extra ten percent of profit this year.
So yeah.
Almost all people will put their own well-being above yours. This isn’t a trait exclusive to the upper-class.
Yeah if we’re both in the same situation maybe but my income Vs your well-being is a different thing isn’t it?
I can accept to be a bit less comfortable to help you live in less horrible conditions.
In an ideal world we’d all treat each other how we wish to be treated. I try to do that in every interaction, not always successfully. But we saw during covid that there are hundreds of millions of selfish-ass people. People that wouldn’t even temporarily give up haircuts or Starbucks to potentially save someone’s life. Hell man, they wouldn’t even wear a thin piece of cloth across their mouth and nose to potentially save people’s lives.
I guess I’m saying that I agree with you, but many people don’t… at least not in practice.
That’s true. However.
The owning class has interests directly opposed to the working class, which makes that “natural” trait toxic to the working class. In addition, the owning class has a lot more power.
Your landlord wants to make as much money as possible for as long as possible. (fair enough right?) The problem is that for that to happen
- demand needs to stay high or go higher which means that
- supply needs to stay low which means that (at the level of class interests, not personal belief)
Your landlord doesn’t want new affordable housing to be built in your area. They want you to never own a house, never have any cheaper rent options. They don’t want to have to keep renting to you at the price you are paying now.
They don’t want to have to invest money in making your apartment/house safe or comfortable.
The problem is not that people will put their own wellbeing above yours, it’s that their wellbeing is in conflict with yours. A conflict of interests between classes… class conflict… class warfare. And they have all the guns.
It doesn’t have to be this way.deleted by creator
You’re missing the point.
The “villain” in this situation is a system that allows a minority of people to attain huge amounts of wealth and power and incentivizes them to keep increasing both as much as possible without regards for others. It’s not the people that follow the incentives.
Unfortunately one of the incentives when you’re part of the owning class is wanting to perpetuate the system: it’s working pretty well for you.Individual members of the owning class can be great people. But as the original comment stated: most people will usually put their own interests above yours. The problem isn’t that they do so, the problem is that their interests are in opposition to yours.
The analysis isn’t (as you seem to think) at the level of “you’re part of the owning class, therefore you’re evil and we hate you”, but “there should be no owning class, its existence leads to needless conflict and suffering”.
Let’s not get it twisted though: while the real villain is capitalism, it’s always one class that does all the stealing, and the lying, and the gaslighting, and the manipulating, and the cheating.
Power corrupts.deleted by creator
I want to first point out that the government being corruptible is not a problem that capitalism just solves. Almost all countries today are capitalist, and that doesn’t prevent their governments from being totalitarian or corrupt or mismanaging their resources (Russia as an example).
The government still has all the power. But now there’s a small group of people who can influence that power (let’s not kid ourselves - mainly through corruption) to the detriment of everyone else.A centrally managed economy is not the only alternative.
Workers of an organization can be the owners of that organization, rather than a few wealthy elites or the government. That way, they see the fruits of their labor rather than it being syphoned off. They have a say in how the organization is run, they can vote on who manages it and replace them when the way it’s managed is bad for the workers.
Let’s say ownership of a company automatically goes from its founders to all workers (this might well include the founders) when it reaches a certain size.
What would incentivize anyone to try to start a company in such an environment? Why not guarantee the founders a certain percentage of the profits even if they decide to stop working when the company changes ownership? Where does the capital come from to build a company in the first place? Government - hear me out. Taxes still exist, and continue to pay for things like infrastructure and healthcare and education and housing (these things are probably better managed by government than markets). And part of the tax revenue goes into an investment fund that is managed locally (think city, and/or county level). Citizens have direct voting power over what projects get financed with their taxes.More pragmatically, a first (I would say reasonable) step would be to limit the amount of power an individual can get. Nobody needs a billion dollars to live, much less hundreds. Change the incentives: implement aggressive progressive taxes.
Heavily tax vacant houses and invest in affordable housing. Stop subsidizing the aviation industry and the fossil fuel industry and the meat industry and instead invest in healthcare and education and public transport and farmers.Capitalism is a nightmare without regulation. Simply start by adding more (good) regulation and enforcing it consistently.
You make some good points, but I’m confused by your statement that they have all the guns. Do you mean they control the police? I’m not sure where you live, but in the USA there are literally hundreds of millions of guns owned by the lower and middle class. In 2017, there was estimated to be near 400 million guns in the United States between police, the military, and American civilians. Over 393 Million (Over 98%) of those guns are in civilian hands, the equivalent of 120 firearms per 100 citizens.
“They have all the guns” is a metaphor in the context of class warfare.
I mean that they have the means to employ force (usually through police, but not exclusively) in their interest as well as having the entire power of the state behind them (disproportionate wealth means they have disproportionate political influence which means they can lobby for laws to be adjusted in their favor. Even when the law seems just, it is rarely applied in the same way to wealthy people in practice).
Not to mention that they can and do buy influence over the media apparatus, controlling narratives and tricking the working class into acting against their own interests.
Within the framework of class conflict, those are the “guns”.
Lol appreciate the sentiment but that was a huge woosh
More descriptive title next time please :)
I love lemmy, but these titles make it feel like everything is posted by bots
Yup
Didn’t see anything in the about section requiring a descriptive title, mighy want to put something there if a descriptive title is required for posting on this instance…
Firstly, even without rules ‘yup’ is a terrible post title.
Also if you look at every other post in this community, just try and do something similar. Even a single relevant word is fine.
It helps to know youre human and worth my time reading… but ehhh… whatever
My landlords wife yelled at the plumber for sealing our bathroom wall back up when the shower spigot was still leaking, and then her husband comes in and says “honey stop we don’t need to pay to fix the valve if we don’t have to”. So my shower still leaks and they really fixed nothing because they didn’t want to spend $1000 (less than half our rent) to redo the shower.
Wouldn’t the leak cause more damage to their property over time?
Yes, but here you are expecting a landlord to actually think about the future.
A passive income earner is definitely going to think about the future, and realize that tens of thousands of dollars in damage is likely going to cost more than the income from renting.
No matter how much you disagree with a demographic, they are still human. Maybe we’d have better chances at improving things if we started seeing each other as human again.
I don’t see it happening though after these last few decades of internet caused radicalization
Right. The entire reason they purchased an investment property is because they’re thinking about the future. But there are slum lords that’ll invest the least possible money and milk it for everything they can, then just condemn the place and move on.
Hey, that is my landlord. He spun a story to my wife when we rented about having caught illegal subletting in the house we rent and that is why he padlocked the finished basement and attic, but the longer we have been here the more we are pretty sure there is a serious mold infestation in both that should make the house unlivable and he just wants to charge us a grand a month until we die.
The house needs serious work, the floors are deforming, there is cracks along door frames and buckles in the plaster from where the structure is slowly collapsing. Unfortunately, the rent is so high that we cannot afford to escape. I am wholeheartedly planning on leaving him with code enforcement coming in and dropping a bunch of fines on him when we go to leave.
FYI, pad locks are seriously easy to defeat without breaking the lock. A few minutes of YouTube videos, an aluminum can, and scissors are all you need to get in. If you’re worried about mold, I’d strongly advise that, or an official inspection.
Yeah shims are great for cheap locks. I learned how to pick a 5 pin lock in a few hours, so you can always do that too if the shim won’t fit.
Thanks for the advice. I am working on it from the other, stronger, angle. Getting a better job so I can afford to get out of here and into something better while I find a house for myself. I am well aware of the ease a padlock can be defeated. I will likely pick them when I find new employment as right now I don’t want to risk retribution. It’s illegal, but I cannot afford to fight him. He also put some shady (illegal) clauses in the lease trying to circumvent the eviction laws, which again, I cannot fight if he decided to exercise them. We moved here in an emergency, we don’t want to move out in one as well.
My old landlord ignored a water mark hole in the ceiling below the bathroom until the leak got to the point they had to tear out all the drywall in the bathroom, and probably should have replaced all the framing too.
(It was there when we moved in, and we mentioned when we noticed it getting bigger)
So no. Unless they are a “professional” landlord they tend to not act on issues until it costs them more than early action would have. All while making life a pain in the ass for the tenant.
It’s hard to know what terms OP used correctly, but sounds like maybe the bath spigot is leaking a bit while the shower is on. If that’s the case, it wouldn’t cause damage to not fix, the shower water pressure would just suffer. And AFAIK, you wouldn’t typically need access to inside the wall, unless they did something stupid and tiled in a way that you can’t access the diverter stem nut to replace it.
IANAP, just DIY and have had to replace shower stems due to failing gaskets
deleted by creator
Of all the anti-landlord arguments this has to be one of the dumbest. Of course a person is going to try to protect their income. I’m not a landlord but I’m not going to let anyone jeopardize my job.
“Job”
Imagine relying on labor for income under capitalism lmao
Edit: /s
Why did you put the word job in quotations?
Because landlord isn’t a job, and many don’t go through the effort of even pretending it is.
If they’re a landlord that also does carpentry jobs on a house, that’s what they are. The landlord part isn’t a job.
If they just collect rent and occasionally pay contractors, they’re just as unemployed as a welfare collector that occasionally pays for a therapist or prostitute.They’re absolutely not self-employed.
They’re just holding housing hostage for ransom.
I never called it a job.
How is it a dumb argument? The fact that protecting your income means potentially pushing people out of their home and onto the street is not good, that’s a problem with the system.
And? Do you donate all the excess money you have at the end of the month to the homeless?
I don’t have excess money at the end of the month, but i still give it whenever I can. How is that relevant to landlords evicting people to save money? There shouldn’t be homeless people in the first place, let alone homeless families. But when a tenant misses rent, the landlord wont bat an eye and kicking the tenants onto the streets - that is a bad thing that shouldn’t have to happen. This has nothing to do with the landlords personal choices, or how “good” of a landlord they are, our system puts them in a position where making someone homeless is the rational decision.
Now, can you tell me what was so dumb about the original argument? Do you want to explain to me how this isn’t a systemic problem?
It’s dumb as fuck. The original argument is if a landlord doesn’t take on the financial burden and give their property to someone for free then they are somehow evil. It’s so stupid. And I don’t know what the law is where you are but in the UK a landlord can’t evict without a court order and that takes time.
No, you are misunderstanding. The point isnt that they are evil for not providing free housing, but that them pushing people onto the streets in order to protect their income is indicative a fundamental failure of our economic system. No one should be homeless.
deleted by creator
The fact that protecting your income means potentially pushing people out of their home and onto the street is not good, that’s a problem with the system.
A lot of what you’re saying is true, but I dont see how any of this refutes what the OP says, and what i said previously.
I dont agree with that bit about a landlord being more vulnerable. if you’re being evicted, theres a good chance you wont be able to afford rent anywhere else. The landlord would ideally be able to sell extra properties to protect themselves and keep their home, renters dont usually own property. Where do you think people go when they can’t afford a place to live?
This is a systemic problem that wont go away unless we make housing more equitable. I mean, why should a landlord with a mortgage be able to take out multiple mortgages if a few bad tenants would actually make them homeless? No one should be homeless, banks dont need a house to live in. And as i said previously… “The fact that protecting your income means potentially pushing people out of their home and onto the street is not good,”
deleted by creator
I dont care whether or not they like evicting people, neither do the people being evicted. The effect is the same, and people end up homeless.
The problem is capitalism, landlords shouldnt exist. Hence why i keep saying “Its a problem with the system” - the system is capitalism, which allows people to acquire more land than they need for their gain, while those who cant afford a home are exploited. I dont care how hard it it is for the landlord. I’ve listened to my mom talk about tenants she’s evicted, and no matter how shitty they are, they need a place to live. Thats the point of the post, not that landlords need to provide free housing. Its that they shouldnt exist.
deleted by creator
I really only commented because the op in the thread seemed to be completely missing the argument of the meme, I’m not sure why that means i also have to solve Capitalism. But off the top of my head…
We could start by re-appropriating land, buildings, and housing thats is being sat on without anyone living on it, offer it to people who dont own a home at a fixed rate of some % of their current income, convert existing unused buildings to assist in the construction of social housing. We have the land, resources, and means to provide everyone with housing, it’s just an issue of distribution. Ideally, you would be provided with a home that fits your needs once a social housing system has been fully established.
Collecting rent as an income is different than having a job.
So?
deleted by creator
They are also a bad person
True story.
For those interested I recommend Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents by Isabel Wilkerson. An amazing breakdown of the history and why. Eye opener at the very least.
Edit: Curious: Why the down votes?
history of what
Class and caste systems.
That’s true of literally any transactional relationship. Everyone is trying to get as much as they can for as little as possible. Including employees trying to get as much pay for as little work. It’s normal.
Yeah. It also pretends like a landlords income isn’t related to their wellbeing. In some cases it might not be, but for most mom and pop landlords it directly is.
Also: I’m a renter with zero interest in owning real estate. I know many people with rental properties (who are therefore landlords) that I am significantly wealthier than. A lot of people are struggling to pay rent and I get that, but believe it or not so are a lot of these land owners. So there’s just a lot of unbridled rage towards against anyone they have to pay rent to, especially around here.
I think its clear that what we are seeing is the result of decades of exponential growth. No shit houses have quadrupled in price in the last generation or so, what do you think is going to happen with 10% ROI per year? That’s just how it works. Not the landlords fault at all. Idk who to blame or how to fix it but, well, uh, there it is.
There sure are a lot of landlords on Lemmy.
And so will you.
Ah yes those pesky poors, looking out for themselves.
