-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
CNN report on evictions in Houston area
- Thread starter cloudy
- Start date
you got receipts that landlords are the ones causing housing prices to go up?
also renting a house is one of the absolute best ways to free yourself with positive cash flow and not being a slave to the man until your dead.
Yes. There are loads of articles pointing to housing developers sitting on landbanks that could be used for much needed housing until the area's rental prices improved and demographics changed (See: Brown people kicked out and white people move in).
Demand for limited-quantity stuff (well-located land in this case) makes price for stuff go up
This is really basic fact of economics
No shit, you just became the man.
Did I say they were limitless? No, I didn't, but you sure as hell built a strawman out of something I didn't say. Er...maybe we should try and prevent the exploitation of people? Wtf
housing developer has nothing to do with landlord. So lets just clear that right up.
So you make more money and then like 91% of Americans by doing a job most Americans can't do and you consider yourself a regular person?
and and people do vilify the banks all the time the banks fucking suck
Housing is two goods:
A fixed-supply one, with demand-dependant pricing (land)
A normal one, with bounded pricing (construction, made up in turn by labor and materials, none of which are particularly supply constrained)
With less money in the supply equation, the cost of construction is more or less constant, but the price of land goes down.
What happens?
That the land, which you probably very well know is the largest part of the costs in the areas we're talking about, is priced accordingly to the normal market - the money available to the people that actually want to live in said place
This is, obviously, in a situation that's not further complicated by messy HOAs and ridicolous owner-friendly zoning laws, which can make the entire housing behave like a fixed-supply market since nothing further can be built in the area
Basically, developers are a normal market process that gets corrupted by being able to sell mostly to landlords, or are not involved in the market at all due to zoning laws
They are the same thing. They hoard up land and then don't sell that land when housing for the area is extremely necessary until it is profitable for them.
Landlords hoard property, and then make money off of the basic necessity of housing.
It's the same goddamn thing. They feed off each other.
This is such myopic way!
You seem to think that only mortgaged landlords exists. If I labored for 10 years to buy a property and rent it out, I did build it with my labor. Just because there's a mortgage on it, doesn't mean someone is not on the hook for all the liabilities it entails. Just because I didn't do things on my own, doesn't mean my labor is not related.
"People being forced to pay for a basic need" sounds like a horrible statement, but basic needs are not satisfied magically and in vacuum.
Let me put it this way
Rent is in the short run always cheaper than owning
Owning is in the long run always cheaper than renting
Also no, if you market goes up, rents go up, if market goes down, rents stop increasing (almost never go down). So no, giving away free houses is only a stop-gap solution, as the market always dries. People do want to move out, make their own families and thrive, this is not some static market.
So when you are renting, you are satisfying your housing need with your own labor at a discounted rate per month. It would take more of your labor per month to get similar housing.
Do you want to give free housing to the people in need? Great! I support that. But that housing should never be seen as a permanent situation, because your labor contribution to society should increase with time or at least your stability should increase enough that you own.
If you hoard too much land, someone, somewhere, will develop other type of housing that will bring your land price down. There is no real monopoly on land, as developers can always build more housing and people start to leave expensive cities to more affordable ones and develop those instead.
I clearly asked, what the limits are. So what are the limits on the human right?
Last edited:
I said basic housing should be a human right. Like everyone should get a decent place to live, let's say baseline is a 1 bedroom apartment with kitchen, bathroom, necessary appliances (stove, fridge, etc). Families should get larger space based on what they need. We do this by building and properly maintaining public housing.
Agreed on this. Public housing has shown to be useless and leads to serious degrading in life quality. So what about UI, temporary rent checks and expansion and better regulation of section 8 housing
So basically your argument is that there's nothing wrong with capitalizing on basic needs because people should be entitled to profit off that need and make people suffer for that need at the whims of a bunch of rich people? That again just sounds like entitlement for sake of profiting and imposing your interests/wills on the local community.
If you agree than why create strawmen about homeowners being kicked out of their living space then? Yes I support giving money directly to people. They still need to be provided with housing though.
propety is the the foundational pillar of inequality.
you can say "oh no that's commie talk" and feel good about yourself but this has been basically accepted in studies of inequality streching back to the enlightenment.
trying to get me to care about landlords is not gonna work, housing is a human right
you can say "oh no that's commie talk" and feel good about yourself but this has been basically accepted in studies of inequality streching back to the enlightenment.
trying to get me to care about landlords is not gonna work, housing is a human right
Because you are pinning the whole of the problem on the service provider, that's lopsided.
What is wrong with capitalizing "basic needs". Labor needs to be done to fulfill those needs, and someone has to pay for that labor. Do you grow your own food? Or make your own medicine?
Profit is not bad.
Unregulated and predatory profiteering is bad.
By saying "abolish landlords" and "landlords hoard land" you are just pinning a complex issue to one kind of service provider.
Well of course. Equality is not a human right though and it is commie talk because if you extend that thought process you get to equality.
I'm rather for better regulations and more social safety nets.
Uh...no I'm pinning the blame on the system, which landlords are a big part of. The 'labor' of landlords is inherently extractive and exploitative. I knew you would start bullshit comparisons with agriculture and other production industries lol, predictable AF. Growing food and making medicine is not inherently exploitative (though under capitalism it often ends up being that way through the use of trafficked labor and practices of drug companies and the medical industry). You can compensate a farmer for his labor fairly, you can compensate a pharmacist or doctor for their labor fairly.
The 'labor' of a landlord is just wielding their capital to buy up housing stock and then use that property to extract wealth from the local populace for as long as possible. They aren't producing a good with their labor or providing a necessary service, instead they are entering into communities and creating adverse situations that they then use to profit. There are definitely people involved in the housing process who do actual labor (like people who do repairs) but that's separate from landlording and would exist without the exploitation of landlording.
You are right. Known Socialist Adam Smith proves how right you are.
Inequality in the Marx isn't you have a shed and i don't so that's evil, it's about the private control of industry and productive wealth.
People can work hard and save for a timeshare or a moped or a GTX 3090 if they fucking want that's not the point.
History weighed in and apparently inequality is *checks notes* a corrosive force which organizes society into an unsustainable hellscape where the majority of people scrape by
so i think it's bad, i think you should to
It's not a complex issue. It's very simple. Capitalism and late stage capitalism in particular is about creating inequality and profiting off that inequality in every facet of society. Property ownership is just another part of that sociopathic system.
If you support that system, you're part of the problem.
You don't think landlords provide a service? I live in an apartment complex and my landlord provides maintenance, lawn care, grounds clean up, they maintain the parking lot, clean the public hallways and the laundry room. They run a pool, maintain a playground. They tow away cars parked illegally and provide security and emergency maintenance 24 hours a day.
What kind of shit landlord do you have that rents property and provides zero service on top of that.
You live in a fucking imaginary bubble guy.
The landlord doesn't directly provide that service. Workers provide that service, but the landlord is the one that receives most of the profits just because they lord over the property.
Most people can't even afford the home they have assuming they even own property, so please forgive us for not feeling sympathetic that some chose to use their money to perpetuate a systemic issue.
" As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. Landlords are the only one of the three orders whose revenue costs them neither labour nor care, but comes to them, as it were, of its own accord, and independent of any plan or project of their own. That indolence, which is the natural effect of the ease and security of their situation, renders them too often, not only ignorant, but incapable of that application of mind"
Fanboy of free-market capitalism, Adam Smith.
Fanboy of free-market capitalism, Adam Smith.
You know based on the thread title I was expecting a longer conversation about how bad renters have it but of course Era has a landlord defense force.
My experience, is that the people (and I'm not one of them) you describe use the equity on their current house to fund the downpayment on a new house and then rent their old home for the adjusted mortgage cost and some overage for upkeep. Buy and stay in a house for 15 years and you have a lot of equity that can be used in interesting ways. Rinse, repeat that for a couple decades and you can have a few properties to your name without ever creating a huge amount of readily accessible liquidity. Cash flow always hovering around expenses because of the rental market. Sure on the books you may be a millionaire, but until you sell your properties for retirement, day to day you are living a pretty normal, regular life. My grandparents had a bit of property but lived extraordinarily frugally (as many great depression era folk do/did), then when my grandfather passed my grandmother sold it and it has allowed her to live on her own for the past 20 years. I don't think these people are your enemies.
Frustrating that the bailout doesn't trickle up.
Where do you live? In Boston we have a ton of landlords that rent out slums to students and low income/early career people that don't maintain shit. Why bother when people don't have a better choice and someone new will pay more for the same broken shit next lease cycle?
It got to be 39F in my bedroom in the winter because my room was an addition with shit insulation. The climate zone was in the hallway (where heat was much better retained) and controlled all the steam radiators in the apartment. They gave me an electric heater from 20 years ago they had laying around and told me to deal with it. Debated calling DHS but it was hard to time exactly when it would happen. Got to pay about 1000 a month for a room share to be freezing
Landlords exist to make profit, some might be alright but it leads to perverse incentives
Where do you live? In Boston we have a ton of landlords that rent out slums to students and low income/early career people that don't maintain shit. Why bother when people don't have a better choice and someone new will pay more for the same broken shit next lease cycle?
It got to be 39F in my bedroom in the winter because my room was an addition with shit insulation. The climate zone was in the hallway (where heat was much better retained) and controlled all the steam radiators in the apartment. They gave me an electric heater from 20 years ago they had laying around and told me to deal with it. Debated calling DHS but it was hard to time exactly when it would happen. Got to pay about 1000 a month for a room share to be freezing
Landlords exist to make profit, some might be alright but it leads to perverse incentives
There's a landlord defense force everywhere, at least in America. It's an extremely touchy subject because so many people either are friends / family with a landlord or are one themselves. At the very hint of criticism of the system that benefits the landlord you immediately encounter resistance.
Yeah, I have family who are landlords. We rent out to other family for a fraction of the prices in the area nowadays, but there isn't really all that much that goes into it. My grandaunt owns a somewhat larger complex, and she just plays majong with her friends all day. It's profiteering off of a housing need, not actual labor.
The landlord doesn't do any of that labor though, they hire workers to do that. Workers that could and would be hired with the absence of the landlord
Adamn Smith hated landlords only because he was jealous and thought they were lazy. You really think he would support public housing??
Exactly.
Also, how do you feel about ACAB? The animosity towards landlords is... Kinda the same as ACAB!
Lol what?? Are you comparing the jealousy of a capitalist who has to work to ACAB???? Really???????
I will get banned for this, but you are not very bright.
In no way I was comparing what Smith thought (also jealousy lmao) to ACAB, but why people who hate landlords think of them as that.
Precinct 1 (the Constable Precinct represented in the now-viral story) has set up a GoFundMe to help people facing eviction after the response to the story posted yesterday.
www.click2houston.com
YMMV when it comes to how you feel about this, of course, but a lot of eyes are now on this issue and that can never be a bad thing.
‘God bless everybody.’: Harris County man whose eviction story went viral thanks people who helped in emotional video
A Harris County man whose eviction story went viral this week after a CNN report showed him being removed from his home with his young children, thanked people from around the world who donated to help him and his family.
www.click2houston.com
YMMV when it comes to how you feel about this, of course, but a lot of eyes are now on this issue and that can never be a bad thing.
Lol, tell me, when a landlord gets sued, do the other landlords come to their rescue to cover the liability up? Because that's the literally the difference between this discussion and ACAB.
You clearly don't know what ACAB really means.
Again, you don't shine, brother. I said it's comparable, not equally the same.
But go off.
See, it's not comparable lol. And i will go off, because the comparison was stupid.
When you paint with a broad brush you're bound to make mistakes. My father for example is a working class man that rented out 4 mobile homes while I was growing up. He worked his tail off to maintain them, doing 90% of the labor himself (with some help from me). His tenants would often take advantage of him and when they couldn't pay they would wreck the place. Not all renters are poor downtrodden folks that are being taken advantage of, the opposite can also be true.
i think people misunderstand what "housing is a human right" means.
right now, under our capitalist system, we view housing as a simple market commodity just like any other good. the right to housing means that the government has the responsibility to intervene in this system and take steps to ensure that everyone has access to affordable housing, which is typically through credits (section 8) or inclusionary zoning (requiring developments to set aside a portion of units for lower income residents). the government also needs to provide remedies to tenants for various problems they may face, like habitability issues or unfair evictions. we face large shortages in housing right now, and i can't really blame the developers for that, because the costs of developing are so high in places like SF, LA, and NYC. the level of government intervention needs to drastically increase if we are to do anything about the millions of homeless in this country.
food and water are clearly human rights too but no one is saying that restaurants should be serving you for free or that you should just be able to take whatever you need from the grocer. instead, we have programs like SNAP (food stamps) to help lower income people get adequate nutrition.
the bottom line is whether you have access to housing shouldn't depend on how much money you have.
right now, under our capitalist system, we view housing as a simple market commodity just like any other good. the right to housing means that the government has the responsibility to intervene in this system and take steps to ensure that everyone has access to affordable housing, which is typically through credits (section 8) or inclusionary zoning (requiring developments to set aside a portion of units for lower income residents). the government also needs to provide remedies to tenants for various problems they may face, like habitability issues or unfair evictions. we face large shortages in housing right now, and i can't really blame the developers for that, because the costs of developing are so high in places like SF, LA, and NYC. the level of government intervention needs to drastically increase if we are to do anything about the millions of homeless in this country.
food and water are clearly human rights too but no one is saying that restaurants should be serving you for free or that you should just be able to take whatever you need from the grocer. instead, we have programs like SNAP (food stamps) to help lower income people get adequate nutrition.
the bottom line is whether you have access to housing shouldn't depend on how much money you have.
Sure, but I'm talking about the system overall. There are exceptions, but if your father only owned four small properties and did 90% of the labor on them...then he was doing labor and thus what I said obviously does not apply to him in terms of that labor. He SHOULD be fairly compensated for home repairs. That doesn't change the fact that the landlording part is extractive though. People still need skilled labor to assist with home repairs without landlords.
It also means all people should be housed. The programs you outlined, while necessary, have not solved the problem of homelessness. We need to do more. Similarly, SNAP has not solved hunger in this country. It's a necessary program but we need to do more.
Obviously restaurants don't need to be free (no one is claiming this, that's skilled labor that should be fairly compensated). Building housing also needs to be fairly compensated. Buying up already built properties and then doing the bare minimum upkeep while driving up rents (what most landlords do) is bad for society. It creates the conditions we have now.
We all need other people to help us and provide essential goods and services. People should not go without food, shelter, education, or healthcare. But as you said the folks who provide these things should be compensated for their time and labor. And as I said previously there are landlords who provide these things themselves.
Not all landlords are LLCs that pay someone to manage their properties who then in turn schedule and pay other people to do essential maintenance and repairs. That is extractive, the people who own that LLC contribute nothing.
The capitalistic ownership of property and production is extractive and exploitative. Does the owner clean the hallways or take out the trash? What service is the owner actually providing when someone else is doing the on the ground work? What makes the owner so special to deserve a large majority of the profits derived from that service?
Right, they should be compensated for labor like repairs. I do not believe that people should own tons of property and use that property to extract wealth from others. Landlording is extracting wealth, providing labor like home repairs is not. There is a pretty clear distinction here.
