zedgeistRent is theft
zewm
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]I’m not lol. .world is basically Reddit 2.0, warts and capitalists included 😆
BenderRodriguezYou Tankies live outside of reality.
LadyAutumnBugger off liberal swine. There’s other boots to be licked, hop to it.
MisterFrogApparently not liking capitalism lumps you in with the tankies.
Do you even know what tankie means?
titanicxHey I’m not really worried, my landlord is actually really cool. The place I live in is actually better than the place he lives in. My rent is well well below market rate for what I should be paying. I lived in the same place for the past 11 years and he’s only raised my rent twice for less than $200 total. Not all landlords are bad, not all of them are in it just to get rich. And not all of us would be able to buy a house regardless of paying rent or not. And I’d much rather pay rent to somebody for a nice place to live then be living in a tent by the river.
Nope, gotta kill your landlord and then get in a shootout with the cops when they come to his your house, you heard the tankies. Time to die for their utopia soldier!
Look I’ll be honest, as a renter, I’ve not heard a realistic alternative that I like better. Do I think landlords should be better regulated? For sure. Do I think housing should be a right, and free, high quality housing should be available everywhere to anyone who wants it? Yes, please!
I like the option to rent a place that’s even better than what the baseline option would be. I like that I can move around as I need to. I like that I can get a bigger, better, or just different, place when I have the funds. I like that I never have to deal with broken appliances or roof repairs and get to pick the type of place I want to live in.
Why would you prefer a landlord to just you save that money yourself? Like at best its probably a third of your income if youre working class? At worst its probably 60% or more. If you’re on any kind of social assistance rent is probably almost all of your income. Hurray! No food for you mister, the poor landlord needs that pittance you receive.
You would have effectively 133%-180% of the income you do now. For me that’s an increase of over a thousand dollars a month. I could afford all the appliances and roof repairs in the world with that kind of money. I would still walk away with so much extra money its a joke. You have been entirely misled about how much rent takes out of your income. They will steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from you over your life time, maybe even more depending on what you pay.
Renting exists because renters cannot advocate for themselves. It exists because people who become land owners escape the renting class and pretty much immediately turn their backs on it. No longer their problem. Because propaganda has taught them to not have solidarity with their fellow workers. Homelessness is an entirely preventable issue and is inseparable from the problem of landlords.
This is a comment by someone who went off the deep end, have you ever used a rent vs buy calculator in your life? If I had to bet my life on it, i’d say no.
Renting exists because renters cannot advocate for themselves.
That’s the condescending attitude that makes people hate leftists, I despise what you stand for, you make us look bad.
I am a homeowner and you know what, I do often consider switching to renting.
I know this will be an entirely new dimension opening up to you, but not everyone wants to own their own home.
In fact, I not only have an apartment I have an older house on a bigger lot and you know what? The idea that I become slave to my house and garden upkeep that I would have to cut grass during the weekends instead of having the freedom to do whatever I want frightens the fuck out of me.
In fact, I not only have an apartment I have an older house on a bigger lot and you know what? The idea that I become slave to my house and garden upkeep that I would have to cut grass during the weekends instead of having the freedom to do whatever I want frightens the fuck out of me.
You know what’s worse than “becoming a slave to [your] house”? Having to work as to not become homeless.
What kind of childish ass logic is that? Almost everyone has to work to not become homeless… even if you own 100% of your home and don’t have a mortgage you know you pay property taxes, electricity, water, gas, sewage, trash. those things don’t just magically appear in your house and disappear from them.
Almost everyone has to work to not become homeless.
That’s true. Let’s fix that.
And still: Do you pay 30 to 50% of your income in your own home for that?
How to ‘fix’ that? Someone has to do the work to build and maintain housing? Should they do it for free?
You could get rid of housing being a means for landlords to profit from and hold housing in a usufruct property relation, and/or in common. Building and maintaining housing can be managed by the community (or be payed for by the community).
Who pays the upfront costs? Big taxes?
In a capitalist system, the government could print the money to give out a loan and destroy that money once the loan gets payed back to soften inflation.
But ideally, building housing shouldn’t be done for profit, either. But I guess that would require capitalism to be abolished. Which would be - again - ideal.
Who takes out this loan? The person who wants to live in the home? What if they can’t afford to pay it back? Isn’t paying interest on the loan the same as paying rent, except now you’re stuck without being able to move, and no one else is there to fix your roof when it needs it?
Who takes out this loan? The person who wants to live in the home?
Yup. Or coops.
What if they can’t afford to pay it back?
What if someone can’t afford rent? I’d rather see the government eat the risk than see people go homeless.
Isn’t paying interest on the loan the same as paying rent
No, because if you pay rent, your rent becomes someone else’s capital. If you pay off the debt, you invest in your own property.
except now you’re stuck without being able to move
Who says you can’t transfer the home to someone who buys in? That’s an advantage of coops.
and no one else is there to fix your roof when it needs it?
Landlords usually don’t do that. They hire handymen to do this, so why can’t that be done by the person who lives there?
If a co-op takes the loan, aren’t they just becoming a landlord? And who does the work to organize it - are they paid? Isn’t that just like a landlord taking profit?
If you look at the government as just a collective of the people, then there’s no magical entity ‘eating the risk’ - it just means the people get screwed over and/or someone doesn’t get paid for their work.
Yes, you can use a handyman to fix your roof, but you have to pay them. And if you can’t afford to, you what - take more loan from the government which endlessly prints money?
If you look at the government as just a collective of the people, then there’s no magical entity ‘eating the risk’ - it just means the people get screwed over and/or someone doesn’t get paid for their work.
Yes, you can use a handyman to fix your roof, but you have to pay them. And if you can’t afford to, you what - take more loan from the government which endlessly prints money?
If a co-op takes the loan, aren’t they just becoming a landlord?
No, because the people living in these places own a share in the coop. It’s distributing the load of repaying the loan on several shoulders and once it’s payed off, the rent becomes basically only the upkeep (rather than a source of income for the owners… because the owners are the ones who pay the “rent”).
And who does the work to organize it - are they paid?
Depends on how the coop manages it. But they could theoretically use part of the rent as payment for someone who manages the co-op.
Isn’t that just like a landlord taking profit?
No, cause that’s not profit. That’s part of upkeep. Do you know what “profit” is (i.e the difference between profit and income)?
If you look at the government as just a collective of the people
I don’t agree with that abstraction, but ok.
then there’s no magical entity ‘eating the risk’ - it just means the people get screwed over and/or someone doesn’t get paid for their work.
What are you talking about? Institutions aren’t “magic”. Risk of loss gets easier to manage if more people chip in. That’s the whole reason why insurances exist. And why diversifying a financial portfolio is the best strategy for banks. Yes, some will not be able to pay back their loans. But you can buffer that with interest by the ones that do pay them back.
Yes, you can use a handyman to fix your roof, but you have to pay them. And if you can’t afford to, you what - take more loan from the government which endlessly prints money?
And your alternative is that these people who can’t afford a handyman (or fix the roof themselves) can afford rent? Do you think paying rent every month is cheaper than hiring handymen? And evensif it were like that: how would the landlord afford the handyman? Why would they rent out their property, if rent was lower than the cost of upkeep? Your scenario doesn’t add up.
Do you know the difference between profit and income for a personal landlord? Effectively not much. It’s not just an investment for them, it’s a good chunk of their job and their income. Often they are paying the mortgage with income from another job too.
They can rent their property at a rent lower than upkeep because they are gaining capital that they can eventually sell.
Larger landlords can even do better due to the economy of scale for upkeep costs.
Unfortunately, landlords will often try to make the most and so maximize rent based on the market. The market should balance this out (ie if being a landlord is so lucrative, more people should become landlords and that would increase the competition and costs would go down). But many people don’t want to figure out all the details, borrow large sums of money, take on the risk, take on the stress of managing tenants, etc. - which just shows the value added by the landlord is real. Of course without enough regulations, things can go wonky - like our current system with large corporate landlords. I’m not saying that’s good. Just that the basic landlord concept isn’t inherently flawed.
They can rent their property at a rent lower than upkeep because they are gaining capital that they can eventually sell.
Larger landlords can even do better due to the economy of scale for upkeep costs.
Unfortunately, landlords will often try to make the most and so maximize rent based on the market. The market should balance this out (ie if being a landlord is so lucrative, more people should become landlords and that would increase the competition and costs would go down). But many people don’t want to figure out all the details, borrow large sums of money, take on the risk, take on the stress of managing tenants, etc. - which just shows the value added by the landlord is real. Of course without enough regulations, things can go wonky - like our current system with large corporate landlords. I’m not saying that’s good. Just that the basic landlord concept isn’t inherently flawed.
Do you know the difference between profit and income for a personal landlord?
I was asking about the qualitatve difference, not the quantitative.
Effectively not much.
Citation needed. Im guessing that the minimum is more than a few hundred Euros a month net profit per rented out unit. That’s nothing to sneeze at for one household. Especially considering how low effort one unit is (can’t be more than a few hours a month).
It’s not just an investment for them, it’s a good chunk of their job and their income.
For private landlords: Definetly not. The needed labour for owning a unit is negligible in comparison to a full-time job.
They can rent their property at a rent lower than upkeep because they are gaining capital that they can eventually sell.
This might be an ideal but it contradicts with your statement below. And even if: At some point someone wants to make profit off the property. Your “argument” only kicks the bucket down the road until some buyer (and I wonder who can buy inflated house prices) will increase the rent for profit.
Rent-seeking is the most popular form of gaining income, since it requires no work (except for upkeep) and has virtually no risk, compared to a market.
Larger landlords can even do better due to the economy of scale for upkeep costs.
Those larger landlords want even more return of investment. Don’t tell me you’re so naive to think that no one wants to actually make money of the people with the least power in this dynamic: the tenants.
Unfortunately, landlords will often try to make the most and so maximize rent based on the market.
Aha! So now, we’re leaving this ideal world of yours. Why do you think that’s actually an anomaly of the system?
The market should balance this out (ie if being a landlord is so lucrative, more people should become landlords and that would increase the competition and costs would go down). But many people don’t want to figure out all the details, borrow large sums of money, take on the risk, take on the stress of managing tenants, etc. - which just shows the value added by the landlord is real.
You ignore that the housing market is very inflexible. People always need housing, so there is a natural demand, along with incredibly prohibitive costs of entry. People can’t afford any homes (that’s the housing crisis), because property values are through the roof, driving up rents! You act as if people are too “lazy” to become landlords, but most can’t even afford their own homes!
It intrigues me now, how you would “fix” this and make it so that people don’t have to work to have housing?
I mean as I said in a different comment, we already have social housing in my country.
We have universal healthcare, we have a bunch of social programs for people in need and we have automatic unemployment paid from social insurance. People on disability don’t work, people’s pension is covered by the state.
What measures should we add to make it so you don’t have to work for your home?
I mean I am all for banning private residences being owned by companies, that is something we need to address and if the election goes my preferred parties way, it will be fixed in the next cycle.
However all these things are being paid for, concrete doesn’t pour itself, steel doesn’t manufacture itself, building don’t build themselves, so how do you propose we make it so that we don’t have to pay for our homes?
If I an able bodied person refuse to work I will lose my home and become homeless is that so unfair?
Housing is a human right. We already have gigantic amounts of housing that sits empty, new building projects are not the priority.
The government should be in charge of constructing new housing developments to meet the needs of the community. People can also pool resources together to build those things, in the absence of rent and mortgages people would have substantially higher incomes. Over time this would balance out, but would still be doable in the long term.
No one should be homeless. Even if you are able bodied and refuse to work. The amount of people who are able bodied and refuse to work is microscopic. You have been misled by conservative propaganda to believe that welfare recipients are lazy. Welfare recipients are people who for one reason or another are unable to work. This is almost exclusively people with disabilities.
But yes, I think even if you decide to do literally nothing just cause you dont want to, you should still have shelter. Shelter is a human right; housing is a human right. It is a crime against humanity to deny people housing. And if youre that contrarian, to literally be like har har I wanna make a point about how dumb free housing is so ill do literally nothing, you probably have some problems you should sort through in therapy.
You should probably look into a bit of game theory, specifically the Free Rider’s Dilemma
The government should be in charge of constructing new housing developments to meet the needs of the community.
And the government gets the money for this from where? Does it fall from the money tree? You know that’s not free right? It’s just people who work pay for it, which I am completely fine with for people who NEED it, voluntarily unemployed don’t need it, they made their decision.
People can also pool resources together to build those things
Ah yes, those well known free resources.
The amount of people who are able bodied and refuse to work is microscopic.
Says you… I can say it’s more close to half the population, we both pulled that info from our asses, didn’t we though.
people would have substantially higher incomes. Over time this would balance out, but would still be doable in the long term.
It would balance out really fucking quickly not over time, take a fucking econ 101 class and look at some basic supply-demand charts…
Unless we reach a post scarcity world ala Star Trek what you are describing is a fever dream.
I had a nice long response typed up, but I genuinely do not have the energy to pick through what a thoroughly ridiculous comment this is. You’re not actually here to have a meaningful conversation on this subject either, you are only here to propagandize for capitalists. So I’ll save myself the time and energy.
Yep, I am being paid by Jeff Bezos personally, lmao.🤣
It intrigues me now, how you would “fix” this and make it so that people don’t have to work to have housing?
First things first: there are already a bunch of people who don’t have to work for their housing. A big part of those may have to work for an income so that they can pay for upkeep. But get rich enough and that can get payed by dividends. Or they’re landlords who get enough income from rent. Those rich people don’t have to work at all for their housing.
we already have social housing in my country.
That’s cool for the people who get it. But I’d be surprised if your home country has no homeless people and vacant housing at the same time.
We have universal healthcare, we have a bunch of social programs for people in need and we have automatic unemployment paid from social insurance. People on disability don’t work, people’s pension is covered by the state.
Do those people on social programs actually have a comfortable life, though? Or is it rather “too little to live, too much to die”? I’m quite sure that landlords still make a lot of profit from rent in that country.
What measures should we add to make it so you don’t have to work for your home?
Introduce a usufruct model of owning, where the people who live in a home actually own it (either as a family home, or multiple homes owned by a coop). The important bit is that rent-seeking is abolished in housing. Then you might still need to work for upkeep, but that’s a diminishino part of what people need to pay for rent, nowadays.
and if the election goes my preferred parties way, it will be fixed in the next cycle.
If your country is capitalist, I highly doubt that they will implement this. Profits are still required by capitalist states.
However all these things are being paid for, concrete doesn’t pour itself, steel doesn’t manufacture itself, building don’t build themselves, so how do you propose we make it so that we don’t have to pay for our homes?
I said “work as to not go homeless”. You’re bringing “paying” into it. There’s already a lot of place to live. Ideally, I’d see a communist society where this kind of stuff is planned on the basis of needs, rather than being speculated on in markets for profit
If your country is capitalist, I highly doubt that they will implement this. Profits are still required by capitalist states.
That sounds like an assumption and you know what they say about that.
Introduce a usufruct model of owning, where the people who live in a home actually own it (either as a family home, or multiple homes owned by a coop).
Who decides who owns the house though? Is it first come first serve? How is that not capitalism just with extra steps? If my family lucks into a place that becomes a highly desirable location how is that fair to generations coming after?
Also who paid for this house in the first place and how if not with the fruits of their labor, aka work ?
You didn’t answer the simple question of how you achieve this magical utopia where people don’t have to work to avoid being homeless, you just said a bunch of nice theoretical ideas with no realistic way to implement them?
I’d see a communist society where this kind of stuff is planned on the basis of needs, rather than being speculated on in markets for profit
Okay, do you know what “need” is? Who decides what a need is? Do you need to live in the city you live in currently or do you want to live there? Because if it’s centrally planned enjoy packing your stuff, you are going to bumfuck nowhere if you are not needed where you are, it’s only fair.
Or imagine this, you live in this magic house that you got for free for 30 years, your kids move out and shit hits the fan, your spouse dies, well all of a sudden you don’t really need that house do you? All those memories you have from there, well sorry, someone else needs that house more, time to move out to a housing you actually need.
You see simply disallowing companies from owning private residences and limit the amount of private residences you can own to the number of your “families” ( you + your spouse is 1 then each children you have is 1) would fix most of the housing crisis. I know in the US you also have to take care of the missing middle and the stupid and racist single family home zoning laws, but this issue would absolutely solve itself for the most part without having to centrally micromanage everything.
That sounds like an assumption and you know what they say about that.
I’d be happy to hear which country isn’t currently capitalist. And the other thing is less of an assumption and more of a rule.
Who decides who owns the house though? Is it first come first serve? How is that not capitalism just with extra steps?
… the people who live there own it. Capitalism would require the ability to keep others from using the house while you don’t use it. You wouldn’t be able to sell the house/appartment.
If my family lucks into a place that becomes a highly desirable location how is that fair to generations coming after?
Your family requires a place to live, doesn’t it? You’re describing capitalism, btw. Why should your family be thrown out if they still need the house?
Also who paid for this house in the first place and how if not with the fruits of their labor, aka work ?
The community built it. Or it was already there (houses already exist, you know). I should have specified that I have a problem with wage slavery in order to pay some landlord in order to live somewhere. That’s completely different than investing resources and labour to build a house.
You didn’t answer the simple question of how you achieve this magical utopia where people don’t have to work to avoid being homeless, you just said a bunch of nice theoretical ideas with no realistic way to implement them?
Give people places to live and let the community build housing based on need, rather than profit. Nothing magical about that. I’ll specify again: I don’t want to abolish doing mental/manual labour, but working for a boss so that they pay you a wage based on the profit they made on your labour: Wage slavery. And the answer isn’t simple. Otherwise, we’d be living in this world already.
Okay, do you know what “need” is? Who decides what a need is?
The people do. I think doing so in consumer councils would be a good idea, but I’m not the arbiter of how to achieve this. Do you think that human needs are unknowable?
Do you need to live in the city you live in currently or do you want to live there? Because if it’s centrally planned enjoy packing your stuff, you are going to bumfuck nowhere if you are not needed where you are, it’s only fair.
Who saidanything about central planning?
Or imagine this, you live in this magic house that you got for free for 30 years, your kids move out and shit hits the fan, your spouse dies, well all of a sudden you don’t really need that house do you? All those memories you have from there, well sorry, someone else needs that house more, time to move out to a housing you actually need.
Well, who says that I’d want to live in that place that’s way too big for me now where everything reminds me of my dead spouse? Maybe I’d like to live with my kids, or they move in and I get a place in an outhouse. I’m sure the community and I’ll reach a mutual understanding where they’ll understand my needs/wishes and we’ll reach some form of solution, beneficial to everybody. Is that so much of a stretch, given that I’m part of a community?
IYou apparently had to unmake that whole discussion, huh? :/
All the best to you, @[email protected]
I fould that discussion rather interesting. It’s a shame you didn’t. :/
This comment illustrates very clearly that you are not a renter 😊 we do not have a choice! I cant just decide whether or not to own my own shelter. I am literally not given the choice. That is not how the system is designed. If youre disabled, youre screwed. If you cant afford a higher education, youre screwed. If you have debts, mental health issues, if youre a minority, youre absolutely screwed. You will rent for the rest of your life and it will almost entirely be spent paycheck to paycheck, certainly nowhere even close to daydreaming about owning any kind of home.
All the benefits youre ascribing to renting count for just owning the apartment or condo you live in. Bam. Done. Couldn’t give less of a fuck about grass. I can barely afford food! Think about how insane it is for you to complain about having to cut the grass when renters have to pick between fucking eating and having a place to sleep. Youre not a leftist, youre a bog standard liberal.
No i just live in a country that’s less batshit insane than the land of the “free” that is the USA…
Here you can actually get social housing, you know what they pay for rent? Like 30 euros.
It’s not my fault your country went to shit, doesn’t mean there aren’t other viewpoints than yours…
I do not live in the USA. Housing is a human right and should be free everywhere. It should not be a market. No one should have to pay anything for housing. You have been fed a lifetime of propaganda to make you believe this is fair. It is not. It is one of the major things that contributes to lifelong stress and shortens lifespans. It is one of the major things that keeps people in poverty, having to pay half their income in rent that they never get back.
return2ozmaVienna social housing model is what we need. Nearly 60% lives in public housing there.
Design Tours: The world’s best public housing?
This is exactly why I own. Yeah it sucks dealing with maintenance and HOA bullshit, but, no. I won’t enrich some piece of shit for no gain.
What I don’t like is I worked 3 jobs during school, never went on trip and lived very frugal. I was able to save up and buy a property. I played my cards right and also got some level of luck and was able to leverage the first house to buy a rental property. I do my hardest to treat tenant with fair rent and safe place to live.
Yet on paper, I am a “landlord” and demonized because of some bad apples. I hate it because I worked hard to get were I am and now I’m a problem and don’t want to just hand out my hard work.
I think there needs to be an asterisk on these things because I agree there is generational wealth and billionaires are a problem but damn if I had bought a couple of franchises instead and did well that way maybe I wouldn’t be as hated.
Look man you sound like a decent person, but it’s not really the point. The system, laws, the entire concept that enable owning property and renting it out are barbaric, even if some landlords do their best to be fair and kind. Some slave owners treated their slaves well too.
In my mind, I’d demonise you just as much if you owned businesses instead, for profiting from the labour which others did, and not you, if it’s any solace. But I don’t really believe demonising normal people is really the point either. We’ve all got to live our lives and look after our families and so on. I don’t think anyone can legitimately fault you for that, it’s normal behaviour. But we should really structure things so that it’s simply neither necessary nor allowed for people to do either of these things, and anything less is fundamentally unjust.
For what it’s worth, I’d like to add that I work a regular job still 50hrs a week. I have a single other property and don’t consider myself a “landlord” because it’s not my career or something I base my sole livelihood on.
If the government wants to make housing a human right and take it over with some fair compensation I’d be happy to not own. Property management comes with its own set of trials and challenges with horrible tenants, bad people go both ways.
Nope too bad off with your head.
-Some dickcheesed tankie.
Edit: Lol umad. Fuck them tankies hahaha.
I do not believe that which was created through collective labor should be able to be enclosed, so that the encloser can extort others for access.
The house was not built by its owner. It was erected, decorated, and furnished by innumerable workers–in the timber yard, the brick field, and the workshop, toiling for dear life at a minimum wage.
The money spent by the owner was not the product of his own toil. It was amassed, like all other riches, by paying the workers two-thirds or only a half of what was their due.
Moreover–and it is here that the enormity of the whole proceeding becomes most glaring–the house owes its actual value to the profit which the owner can make out of it. Now, this profit results from the fact that his house is built in a town possessing bridges, quays, and fine public buildings, and affording to its inhabitants a thousand comforts and conveniences unknown in villages; a town well paved, lighted with gas, in regular communication with other towns, and itself a centre of industry, commerce, science, and art; a town which the work of twenty or thirty generations has gone to render habitable, healthy, and beautiful.
A house in certain parts of Paris may be valued at thousands of pounds sterling, not because thousands of pounds’ worth of labour have been expended on that particular house, but because it is in Paris; because for centuries workmen, artists, thinkers, and men of learning and letters have contributed to make Paris what it is to-day–a centre of industry, commerce, politics, art, and science; because Paris has a past; because, thanks to literature, the names of its streets are household words in foreign countries as well as at home; because it is the fruit of eighteen centuries of toil, the work of fifty generations of the whole French nation.
Who, then, can appropriate to himself the tiniest plot of ground, or the meanest building, without committing a flagrant injustice? Who, then, has the right to sell to any bidder the smallest portion of the common heritage?
Kropotkin
Cegorach
super_user_doIt wouldn’t be an issue at all we were paying to a normal person who’s got ex. To pay for their mortgage, for college debt etc. The issue is that we are paying evil corporations and not normal people. We are fueling gentrification and we can’t even boycott them
the majority of landlords aren’t corporations. 8.9 perecent of all resdential housing stock is own by corporate entities.
91.1 percent is owned by individual landlords.
the people i’ve known who rent corporately owned properties are typically well-off. all the corporate owning-housing in my area is largely over market rate and mostly rented out by rich people who can easily afford it.
That’s such a irrelevant/misleading statistic. People aren’t griping the incorporation vs soul proprietorship of landlords. More than half of those individual landlords own multiple rental properties. Thousands of them own enough rental properties (4+ in Canada) to require a property management license, that many do not possess.
Individual landlords are the ones buying up detached homes, hoarding them as extortionate rentals until selling them as land assemblies so that corporations can build overpriced breadboxes.
If you live somewhere without strong tenancy laws than corporations basically get a free pass on colluding to drive up local rental pricing. End of the day they own the apartments around universities and hospitals where demand will meet any price.
Normal people don’t have enough money to buy 15 houses in a really well off area bro. Those people are millionaires and they’re not the kind of “normal people” I am speaking about, because guess what, they’re neither “normal” or not even comparable to the average citizen
Why wouldn’t it be a problem paying rent to a normal person? Being a slave in Rome 2000 years ago, you were a slave regardless of whether you were owned by a small owner with just a few slaves, than one with 200.
Because you don’t live in a cartoon but In a complex and layered world where things have fucking shades blud. I’ll give you my personal experience as an example
My great grandfather from my mom’s side made my grandmother inherit a very small apartment in a neighborhood in the periphery of my city which she gave to us (earlier on we lived with my dad’s parents) . If it wasn’t for that we would either be homeless or be all living in my grandparents’ house. 9 people in a single small apartment isn’t an ideal thing.
Recently a few people nearby have moved away and put their houses on sale and thanks to that we will finally be able to move to a slightly bigger apartment which will allow me and my sister to have our own room and a decent internet connection. Are we the assholes if we rent our house in order not to force my parents to work 200 hours a week since salaries here barely reach 800€ a month? My mom earns 800€ a month, my father it depends according on how many times he will work (he’s gotten many fractures and can’t do much) and I earn 300€ a month. I just want to get educated quickly and move away from this shithole of a region
So we are heartless monsters I guess? We will rent to students for relatively cheap. I understand your frustration but what we need is strong national regulation, not banning renting houses altogether, even because it would make house prices skyrocket even more since the supply of available houses isn’t enough to satisfy everyone right now if we exclude secondo homes and rentable ones. I didn’t know it was that way in America but not all of the world works like that.
AntiOutsideAktionNo, the issue is rent seeking parasites in general. If anything the ‘mom and pop’ landlords are even fucking scummier because YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITH THEM KEEPING YOUR FUCKING HEAD DOWN AND DOING CUSTOMER SERVICE IN YOUR OWN FUCKING HOME YOU’RE FUCKING PAYING FOR
The level of fucking entitlement these people have to treat you literally however the fuck they want is unmatched.
Painting the hallway? Why bother saying anything? It’s my house. Oh, you got paint all over your brand new sweater? Lol. It hasn’t been 3 months yet so ‘if it doesn’t work out’ you’re out on the street same day! Haha!
What? You’re upset at the pile of cat shit that’s been in your bathroom for a whole day because I don’t give my FIVE cats litter boxes? You’re going to talk to me like that?? Pack your bags, loser! My parents were rich!
What the fuck Bro i didn’t know it was this way in America. Here you don’t have to do anything like that
Does this still apply to the apartment building I once lived in which was built and run by an immigrant family as a long term family investment, and they charged a really reasonable price?
Just curious.
immigrants are wonderful and perfect but only if they are struggling and oppressed.
until they own homes. then they are evil oppressors who are destroying society with their greed.
immigrants should just learn place and forever rent and be miserable and poor so they can joint the glorious proletariat revolution! not be evil greedy capitalists who want to provide for their kids!
WraithGearyou are applying immunity of criticism of a persons actions, based on what a person is.
Land lords owning more properties then they need taking them off the market causes systemic harm. at no point in that equation did their status as an immigrant or not, have any bearing on the action nor the outcome.
who determines the number of properties?
what if a landlord buys up 1000 properties and rents them out below market rates, is that systematic harm?
yea…
most of the time the cost of rent is lower then there houses market rate, and it still didn’t change anything about artificially raising that said rate. you didn’t change anything about the problem at all!