|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
I don't understand how people in here think that, just because someone owns something, they're not working. Some people worked to be in the position to own a house or two and are renting them out now to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Some haven't worked and inherited the property and are abusing the privilege of owning.
But to think that you feel 'forced' to live inside a domicile because reasons and then complain about it, is entitlement to the extreme. Go be homeless. Then you have literally the entire world as your home. Or, you can talk (using words) with those that control rent, let them know the situation, and reach some sort of compromise.
It isn't that hard. I've rented my entire adult life and never had one issue with landlords (until this new place, which is piss poor managed). A lot of the complaints here are first world problems.
|
That’s straight availability heuristic bias at work though, I too have never once made a late payment nor treated a rental property poorly, but have had to sue a landlord twice and threaten legal action against another (and I succeeded all three times, btw). Everyone who wants to throw in their 2 cents on this issue should recognize the relatively large universe of situations at hand.
|
On March 31 2020 00:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I don't understand how people in here think that, just because someone owns something, they're not working. Some people worked to be in the position to own a house or two and are renting them out now to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
There are problems with saying things are ok because they worked for it previously. There are a lot of ways to apply work and different work has different results, even if the work was equally "hard". Referencing work isn't really an effective way to justify something. "Work" expresses itself in a lot of different ways and I think a lot more is necessary to show why living off of ownership is an appropriate mechanism in society.
|
On March 31 2020 00:18 farvacola wrote:
That’s straight availability heuristic bias at work though, I too have never once made a late payment nor treated a rental property poorly, but have had to sue a landlord twice and threaten legal action against another (and I succeeded all three times, btw). Everyone who wants to throw in their 2 cents on this issue should recognize the relatively large universe of situations at hand.
I agree. If you can look at yourself in the shoes of the other and understand frustrations/actions, then it'll go a long way to diffusing a tense exchange of ideas. I can see a landlord wanting full payment because that is what is written in the contract, assuming everything else was upheld on their end. I could also see a tenant, faced with this uncertainty we're living in, wanting some kind of ease on demands of rent being paid on time and in full.
With the information at hand, it seems both parties are going to probably wash even at this point, with the tenant making taking a bit more minor loss on this. But if your rent is being frozen for 6 months, you can at least agree to pay 3 months at the very minimum. That's just my dos centavos though. Please, carry on.
On March 31 2020 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2020 00:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I don't understand how people in here think that, just because someone owns something, they're not working. Some people worked to be in the position to own a house or two and are renting them out now to enjoy the fruits of their labor. There are problems with saying things are ok because they worked for it previously. There are a lot of ways to apply work and different work has different results, even if the work was equally "hard". Referencing work isn't really an effective way to justify something. "Work" expresses itself in a lot of different ways and I think a lot more is necessary to show why living off of ownership is an appropriate mechanism in society.
I don't understand the first sentence. If I worked my ass off for a boat and rented it out during the summer for recreation purposes, am I in the wrong for charging for it? The issue is that people without are quick to demonize those with, because they don't have. I capitalized on people wanting a boat to go fish/water ski/party on. Am I evil for it, considering prices to rent are as fair as possible?
|
I'm paying a 100% premium on my rent compared to the legal max for the size, location and quality of the flat due to sheer scarcity of livable flats here in Berlin. To compensate the price it's a tiny flat.
Nevertheless, I feel really lucky having the priviledge to live in that flat.
I can not really challenge the rent because they can just kick me out because they can say they need it again for themselves and then just rent it out again (although that's technically illegal, is it worth the cost and stress of legal action?).
Though probably still less than the median price in Munich, not to speakt of NY or London.
And it's not that bad of a location, albeit far from the city centre.
Anyway, connection to US pol is that if you work full time and cannot live in the city you work in, something's wrong.
Capital gives you more capital and less capital makes you spend everything on living instead of saving / buying so no chance of acquiring capital. This definitely has to be adressed. It's a problem everywhere.
Great examples for that are firefighters in London. I think there's maybe one of them who still lives in the city.
|
On March 30 2020 09:45 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2020 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 08:59 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2020 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 08:28 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2020 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 08:07 ChristianS wrote:
So if your opinion is “fuck all landlords, everybody should just stop paying rent and landlords can figure it out,” I think your opinion sucks. I can understand why you feel that way but you also must see that this is literally something landlords can figure out themselves. I mean in your case you're not really a landlord imo as much as an agent of your landlord (the holder of your mortgage). The role you describe filling exists imo as a way to direct tenants anger at the rent-seeker they see rather than the rent seeker leeching off both of their (and other workers) labor and it gives the agent of the landlord a feeling of marginal social superiority over the tenants as well as practical control over others, vacillating them between petty nobility and freeman serf. How are you determining this distinction then? Most of the “landlords” you’re talking about probably have mortgages, so it’s a bank that really “owns” the property. If you’re calling for all mortgage payments to be cancelled, too, I can see a better argument for it; then it’s mostly the banks getting screwed. But if you’re just saying I’m not a “real landlord” so the policy wouldn’t apply to my situation (but would to the situation Emnjay is talking about), you’re gonna have to clarify how you’re making the distinction/what you’re actually advocating be done in such situations. You may have missed it (totally fair thread moves a lot) but I've expressed I support mortgage relief (not the government just paying banks off) on mortgages for houses where the person with the mortgage lives there. Your specific situation would fall under an "improving the land" category that would need to be handled slightly differently. But someone else paying the bill for the land you live on is what it is (if I understand your situation correctly). On March 30 2020 08:33 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 30 2020 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 30 2020 08:07 ChristianS wrote:
So if your opinion is “fuck all landlords, everybody should just stop paying rent and landlords can figure it out,” I think your opinion sucks. I mean in your case you're not really a landlord imo as much as an agent of your landlord (the holder of your mortgage). and Emnjay808's mom isn't how exactly? This whole rant seems rather silly after this statement. I'm not saying she's not, but land hoarder lackey isn't common parlance here (and might be taken personally rather than as descriptive of the relationship as I see it) so I eased into it. Plus it wasn't completely clear how much of the property is mortgaged in her case based on what I read. She could have 3k worth of mortgages and 12k in rent income which would be significantly different than what ChristianS describes. So what do you do with people that improved the land? Again, I hate to make it personal, so let’s move to a simpler example. A guy bought an empty lot, bought materials, and spent a year building a house on it. Now he’s renting it to a family. What should happen? The family no longer owes rent, and he’s not allowed to evict them. Does he get... anything? Not even reimbursed for his costs, let alone for a year of his labor? If we agree that we shouldn't have land hoarders rent seeking and have to address it, is it fair to suggest the people in that hypothetical situation should be the first to offer up ideas on how they could/should be compensated under the agreed upon premise that we are reorganizing to rid ourselves of land hoarders? If not, I'd wonder why? Because if they don't even have an idea to disagree with, then simply sharing the common man's equitable society is balanced enough for me with consideration for advantages granted them by domestic and foreign policy with horrific consequences. I could come up with something that may or may not be satisfactory to you, but without your own proposal within the agreed premise of "no more land hoarders" (to be reductive), I don't see it as necessary. Now if you are making your recognition that we shouldn't have land hoarders conditional on how this hypothetical person is compensated given their specific circumstances, I think we gotta go back to justifying land hoarders as desirable to make the conditional rational. I admit I don’t have a good idea for the “right” way to reshape the financial system, and agree that as structured presently it’s deeply fucked. I also acknowledge that you’re basically being asked to design a reform that won’t unfairly rob anyone, even though their wealth was previously distributed by a system you consider unfair and immoral. That’s a big request, and probably impossible without retroactively going through everybody’s entire financial history and redistributing wealth based on how valuable their previous labor was to society. Without doing that, inevitably some people are going to either lose/gain unfairly, or be left with unfair gains/losses from the old system. If you want to say people like our hypothetical housebuilder (and maybe myself, too) are regrettable casualties of the transition to a better and fairer system, fair enough. Any systemic change will create winners and losers, and you do what you can to mitigate the worst of it but if the change is better for society overall at some point you have to just go ahead with it. But it’s worth talking about those winners and losers, and acknowledging when you think those outcomes were regrettable. As for ideas for reforming the system, I mentioned one the other day. I don’t think I support it myself, and Belisarius certainly didn’t like it, but I wonder what you’d think of it: a 100% tax on “unearned” increase in property value (that is, appreciation not due to land improvement). That way home ownership would be a way to have a place to live, but it wouldn’t be an investment. There’s a lot of negative side effects that I think probably outweigh the benefits, but it does negate the profitability of land hoarding, no?
such people are casualties of the current system. this is a great deleveraging event. the reason i have little sympathy for the “small time landlords” that will go bust is because they treat leveraged returns in boom times as their right. oh you wanted to become a real estate mogul and own a bunch of properties? you leveraged yourself multiple times and took out 4 or 5 mortgages? welcome to capitalism.
i feel some sympathy for the san diego resident trying to buy a home by renting it out. but is it that different from all the retirees who just lost 30% of their investment portfolio? if you play the game you might lose. the perverse thing is that if you dont play the game you usually lose by default.
people who leverage themselves take advantage of rules and regulations during the boom times. complaining about tenants who avail themselves of pandemic policies is just the obverse of people in boom times complaining they cant get a bank loan. dont worry though, on a long enough time horizon capital lifts all boats.
|
On March 31 2020 00:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2020 00:18 farvacola wrote:
That’s straight availability heuristic bias at work though, I too have never once made a late payment nor treated a rental property poorly, but have had to sue a landlord twice and threaten legal action against another (and I succeeded all three times, btw). Everyone who wants to throw in their 2 cents on this issue should recognize the relatively large universe of situations at hand. I agree. If you can look at yourself in the shoes of the other and understand frustrations/actions, then it'll go a long way to diffusing a tense exchange of ideas. I can see a landlord wanting full payment because that is what is written in the contract, assuming everything else was upheld on their end. I could also see a tenant, faced with this uncertainty we're living in, wanting some kind of ease on demands of rent being paid on time and in full. With the information at hand, it seems both parties are going to probably wash even at this point, with the tenant making taking a bit more minor loss on this. But if your rent is being frozen for 6 months, you can at least agree to pay 3 months at the very minimum. That's just my dos centavos though. Please, carry on.
I've worked as a property manager which is basically a person that does all the work a landlord is supposed to but typically hires/exploits others to do. Some of that work is speaking on behalf of the landlord to the tenants. So I'm quite familiar with both sides of this (friends in lending as well). My check was often contingent on whether I could extract rent from the tenants myself.
I've seen the gamut of landlords and tenants and argued on behalf of all of them. Only after all that can I say I refuse to do landlords/lenders dirty work for them any more and it certainly came at a significant personal QoL cost and some personal relationships
That's just to say I don't approach this from a position of disregard based in ignorance of the experiences of the land owners/lenders.
My point is that this system isn't sustainable because you will simply have cities where the workers it takes to operate them can't afford to work there because even commuting from hours away is implausible and unaffordable. Or you get people living in hamster cages like Hong Kong (which still only buys you some time and isn't sustainable either).
|
On March 31 2020 00:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2020 00:18 farvacola wrote:
That’s straight availability heuristic bias at work though, I too have never once made a late payment nor treated a rental property poorly, but have had to sue a landlord twice and threaten legal action against another (and I succeeded all three times, btw). Everyone who wants to throw in their 2 cents on this issue should recognize the relatively large universe of situations at hand. I agree. If you can look at yourself in the shoes of the other and understand frustrations/actions, then it'll go a long way to diffusing a tense exchange of ideas. I can see a landlord wanting full payment because that is what is written in the contract, assuming everything else was upheld on their end. I could also see a tenant, faced with this uncertainty we're living in, wanting some kind of ease on demands of rent being paid on time and in full. With the information at hand, it seems both parties are going to probably wash even at this point, with the tenant making taking a bit more minor loss on this. But if your rent is being frozen for 6 months, you can at least agree to pay 3 months at the very minimum. That's just my dos centavos though. Please, carry on. Show nested quote +On March 31 2020 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On March 31 2020 00:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I don't understand how people in here think that, just because someone owns something, they're not working. Some people worked to be in the position to own a house or two and are renting them out now to enjoy the fruits of their labor. There are problems with saying things are ok because they worked for it previously. There are a lot of ways to apply work and different work has different results, even if the work was equally "hard". Referencing work isn't really an effective way to justify something. "Work" expresses itself in a lot of different ways and I think a lot more is necessary to show why living off of ownership is an appropriate mechanism in society. I don't understand the first sentence. If I worked my ass off for a boat and rented it out during the summer for recreation purposes, am I in the wrong for charging for it? The issue is that people without are quick to demonize those with, because they don't have. I capitalized on people wanting a boat to go fish/water ski/party on. Am I evil for it, considering prices to rent are as fair as possible?
What I'm trying to point out is that referencing how hard you worked or how it felt to work doesn't really change anything. Think about how hard someone works to dig a huge hole in the ground. Super hard work, but they don't get to rent out the hole. The hole is used for something and the guy digs another hole the next day. One guy works hard for a boat, another works hard for a meal.
People aren't demonizing because they don't have certain things. I think you know that isn't true. There are plenty of reasons to question the ethics of land lords without being jealous. I own my home and don't think it should be legal to own more than 2 pieces of property. Not because I am jealous of people with 3 houses, but because after going from broke to the American idea of successful, I see how utterly fucked it is that people want 3x what I have.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 30 2020 23:54 Simberto wrote:
And now in this crisis, they once again demand to be paid in full for their hard work of owning things, while i can't even work to gain that money. Why can they not be the people who take the hit for once? Why is it always the bottom rank of the ladder who has to shoulder all of the hardship, while the top always comes first when it comes to collecting money, and last when it comes to paying their fair share?
If your problem is with "the wealthy" not doing their fair share, then your ire should hardly be concentrated on small-time landlords. Unless they own enough property such that the net worth of all of their real estate is in the many millions (say, >$21MM), they hardly qualify as wealthy. Most small-time landlords would be able to comfortably afford paying rent on the property that is difficult for you to pay, but still only make like 50-100% more money than you do in your job. Yes, you'll make some pretty solid profit if you keep the business running for 30 years, do a good job of it, and have your property in a desirable area, but that's hardly an unfair outcome in my eyes.
|
Northern Ireland25372 Posts
On March 31 2020 00:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2020 00:18 farvacola wrote:
That’s straight availability heuristic bias at work though, I too have never once made a late payment nor treated a rental property poorly, but have had to sue a landlord twice and threaten legal action against another (and I succeeded all three times, btw). Everyone who wants to throw in their 2 cents on this issue should recognize the relatively large universe of situations at hand. I agree. If you can look at yourself in the shoes of the other and understand frustrations/actions, then it'll go a long way to diffusing a tense exchange of ideas. I can see a landlord wanting full payment because that is what is written in the contract, assuming everything else was upheld on their end. I could also see a tenant, faced with this uncertainty we're living in, wanting some kind of ease on demands of rent being paid on time and in full. With the information at hand, it seems both parties are going to probably wash even at this point, with the tenant making taking a bit more minor loss on this. But if your rent is being frozen for 6 months, you can at least agree to pay 3 months at the very minimum. That's just my dos centavos though. Please, carry on. Show nested quote +On March 31 2020 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On March 31 2020 00:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I don't understand how people in here think that, just because someone owns something, they're not working. Some people worked to be in the position to own a house or two and are renting them out now to enjoy the fruits of their labor. There are problems with saying things are ok because they worked for it previously. There are a lot of ways to apply work and different work has different results, even if the work was equally "hard". Referencing work isn't really an effective way to justify something. "Work" expresses itself in a lot of different ways and I think a lot more is necessary to show why living off of ownership is an appropriate mechanism in society. I don't understand the first sentence. If I worked my ass off for a boat and rented it out during the summer for recreation purposes, am I in the wrong for charging for it? The issue is that people without are quick to demonize those with, because they don't have. I capitalized on people wanting a boat to go fish/water ski/party on. Am I evil for it, considering prices to rent are as fair as possible?
It’s not so much people being pissed over things others have that they don’t, it’s people having things that they realistically cannot have.
As per your boat example the boat I don’t need to live safely, neither has the price of boats increased far beyond wages over the last few decades.
If there wasn’t such a generational gate on things this issue would be less toxic than it is, but so it is. This crisis is just bringing them more into focus, but I recall this discussion occurring plenty of times in this thread way before.
Older folks cheer every increase in house prices over here and are a reliable voting bloc in terms of turnout, policy reflects this and younger people are priced off the ladder. These are real tangible problems from which the millennial/boomer memes do sprout.
One of my older colleagues in grunt retail was able to buy a property on a single income from doing so way back in the day, I’m 30 now and the only friend/acquaintance of mine who has done so was very recently and that was on a combined lawyer/physics researcher salary.
Beyond owning property the rental sector is not fit for purpose if landlords can just leave their properties to be infested with damp and your recourse is ‘if you don’t like it leave.’ Of course not all landlords but horror tales are aplenty here, especially in student accommodation.
|
On March 31 2020 00:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2020 00:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 31 2020 00:18 farvacola wrote:
That’s straight availability heuristic bias at work though, I too have never once made a late payment nor treated a rental property poorly, but have had to sue a landlord twice and threaten legal action against another (and I succeeded all three times, btw). Everyone who wants to throw in their 2 cents on this issue should recognize the relatively large universe of situations at hand. I agree. If you can look at yourself in the shoes of the other and understand frustrations/actions, then it'll go a long way to diffusing a tense exchange of ideas. I can see a landlord wanting full payment because that is what is written in the contract, assuming everything else was upheld on their end. I could also see a tenant, faced with this uncertainty we're living in, wanting some kind of ease on demands of rent being paid on time and in full. With the information at hand, it seems both parties are going to probably wash even at this point, with the tenant making taking a bit more minor loss on this. But if your rent is being frozen for 6 months, you can at least agree to pay 3 months at the very minimum. That's just my dos centavos though. Please, carry on. I've worked as a property manager which is basically a person that does all the work a landlord is supposed to but typically hires/exploits others to do. Some of that work is speaking on behalf of the landlord to the tenants. So I'm quite familiar with both sides of this (friends in lending as well). My check was often contingent on whether I could extract rent from the tenants myself. I've seen the gamut of landlords and tenants and argued on behalf of all of them. Only after all that can I say I refuse to do landlords/lenders dirty work for them any more and it certainly came at a significant personal QoL cost and some personal relationships That's just to say I don't approach this from a position of disregard based in ignorance of the experiences of the land owners/lenders. My point is that this system isn't sustainable because you will simply have cities where the workers it takes to operate them can't afford to work there because even commuting from hours away is implausible and unaffordable. Or you get people living in hamster cages like Hong Kong (which still only buys you some time and isn't sustainable either).
The issue then becomes of decentralizing where the work is. Because the economic center of cities are usually located in the downtown, dense portion, it is understandable that living there is going to cost more because that is where everyone who has work, needs/wants to live. If you spread the workforce out over the vast amounts of land that we have in the US and maximize that with close shopping needs (food, clothes, items, etc) then it doesn't matter where you live as the prices are going to commensurate with the population living there. Some areas, "viable" land is scarce. It's going to cost. That is the sad truth of the matter.
If we changed topics from landlords to efficiently maximizing the workers in appropriately designed urban planning, then we'd get somewhere. But as long as we leave the central power of work in "isolated" areas, this isn't going away.
And to Mohdoo, I understand what you're saying and perhaps demonizing was the wrong term to use. But you understand partially where I'm coming from. You can have your house and another. I think Igne summed it all up rather succintly.
On March 31 2020 00:57 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2020 00:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 31 2020 00:18 farvacola wrote:
That’s straight availability heuristic bias at work though, I too have never once made a late payment nor treated a rental property poorly, but have had to sue a landlord twice and threaten legal action against another (and I succeeded all three times, btw). Everyone who wants to throw in their 2 cents on this issue should recognize the relatively large universe of situations at hand. I agree. If you can look at yourself in the shoes of the other and understand frustrations/actions, then it'll go a long way to diffusing a tense exchange of ideas. I can see a landlord wanting full payment because that is what is written in the contract, assuming everything else was upheld on their end. I could also see a tenant, faced with this uncertainty we're living in, wanting some kind of ease on demands of rent being paid on time and in full. With the information at hand, it seems both parties are going to probably wash even at this point, with the tenant making taking a bit more minor loss on this. But if your rent is being frozen for 6 months, you can at least agree to pay 3 months at the very minimum. That's just my dos centavos though. Please, carry on. On March 31 2020 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On March 31 2020 00:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I don't understand how people in here think that, just because someone owns something, they're not working. Some people worked to be in the position to own a house or two and are renting them out now to enjoy the fruits of their labor. There are problems with saying things are ok because they worked for it previously. There are a lot of ways to apply work and different work has different results, even if the work was equally "hard". Referencing work isn't really an effective way to justify something. "Work" expresses itself in a lot of different ways and I think a lot more is necessary to show why living off of ownership is an appropriate mechanism in society. I don't understand the first sentence. If I worked my ass off for a boat and rented it out during the summer for recreation purposes, am I in the wrong for charging for it? The issue is that people without are quick to demonize those with, because they don't have. I capitalized on people wanting a boat to go fish/water ski/party on. Am I evil for it, considering prices to rent are as fair as possible? It’s not so much people being pissed over things others have that they don’t, it’s people having things that they realistically cannot have. As per your boat example the boat I don’t need to live safely, neither has the price of boats increased far beyond wages over the last few decades. If there wasn’t such a generational gate on things this issue would be less toxic than it is, but so it is. This crisis is just bringing them more into focus, but I recall this discussion occurring plenty of times in this thread way before. Older folks cheer every increase in house prices over here and are a reliable voting bloc in terms of turnout, policy reflects this and younger people are priced off the ladder. These are real tangible problems from which the millennial/boomer memes do sprout. One of my older colleagues in grunt retail was able to buy a property on a single income from doing so way back in the day, I’m 30 now and the only friend/acquaintance of mine who has done so was very recently and that was on a combined lawyer/physics researcher salary. Beyond owning property the rental sector is not fit for purpose if landlords can just leave their properties to be infested with damp and your recourse is ‘if you don’t like it leave.’ Of course not all landlords but horror tales are aplenty here, especially in student accommodation.
And I understand your points. I have no sympathy for those that reach beyond their grasp in this market and burden themselves unduly for greed. I can however understand their perspectives (small owners) of wanting to have what the contract is signed to guarantee them.
If you're unfairly taking advantage of this pandemic at the costs of others, on both sides, then you don't get my sympathy.
|
Northern Ireland25372 Posts
On March 31 2020 00:55 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2020 23:54 Simberto wrote:
And now in this crisis, they once again demand to be paid in full for their hard work of owning things, while i can't even work to gain that money. Why can they not be the people who take the hit for once? Why is it always the bottom rank of the ladder who has to shoulder all of the hardship, while the top always comes first when it comes to collecting money, and last when it comes to paying their fair share? If your problem is with "the wealthy" not doing their fair share, then your ire should hardly be concentrated on small-time landlords. Unless they own enough property such that the net worth of all of their real estate is in the many millions (say, >$21MM), they hardly qualify as wealthy. Most small-time landlords would be able to comfortably afford paying rent on the property that is difficult for you to pay, but still only make like 50-100% more money than you do in your job. Yes, you'll make some pretty solid profit if you keep the business running for 30 years, do a good job of it, and have your property in a desirable area, but that's hardly an unfair outcome in my eyes.
Precluding of course that the landlord doesn’t have some other paying gig too.
Anyway yes small-time landlords aren’t really the issue, larger operations or corporate rental are worse, the mom and pop landlord is just wheeled out to deflect from looking at the larger issues.
|
On March 31 2020 00:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2020 00:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2020 00:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 31 2020 00:18 farvacola wrote:
That’s straight availability heuristic bias at work though, I too have never once made a late payment nor treated a rental property poorly, but have had to sue a landlord twice and threaten legal action against another (and I succeeded all three times, btw). Everyone who wants to throw in their 2 cents on this issue should recognize the relatively large universe of situations at hand. I agree. If you can look at yourself in the shoes of the other and understand frustrations/actions, then it'll go a long way to diffusing a tense exchange of ideas. I can see a landlord wanting full payment because that is what is written in the contract, assuming everything else was upheld on their end. I could also see a tenant, faced with this uncertainty we're living in, wanting some kind of ease on demands of rent being paid on time and in full. With the information at hand, it seems both parties are going to probably wash even at this point, with the tenant making taking a bit more minor loss on this. But if your rent is being frozen for 6 months, you can at least agree to pay 3 months at the very minimum. That's just my dos centavos though. Please, carry on. I've worked as a property manager which is basically a person that does all the work a landlord is supposed to but typically hires/exploits others to do. Some of that work is speaking on behalf of the landlord to the tenants. So I'm quite familiar with both sides of this (friends in lending as well). My check was often contingent on whether I could extract rent from the tenants myself. I've seen the gamut of landlords and tenants and argued on behalf of all of them. Only after all that can I say I refuse to do landlords/lenders dirty work for them any more and it certainly came at a significant personal QoL cost and some personal relationships That's just to say I don't approach this from a position of disregard based in ignorance of the experiences of the land owners/lenders. My point is that this system isn't sustainable because you will simply have cities where the workers it takes to operate them can't afford to work there because even commuting from hours away is implausible and unaffordable. Or you get people living in hamster cages like Hong Kong (which still only buys you some time and isn't sustainable either). The issue then becomes of decentralizing where the work is. Because the economic center of cities are usually located in the downtown, dense portion, it is understandable that living there is going to cost more because that is where everyone who has work, needs/wants to live. If you spread the workforce out over the vast amounts of land that we have in the US and maximize that with close shopping needs (food, clothes, items, etc) then it doesn't matter where you live as the prices are going to commensurate with the population living there. Some areas, "viable" land is scarce. It's going to cost. That is the sad truth of the matter. If we changed topics from landlords to efficiently maximizing the workers in appropriately designed urban planning, then we'd get somewhere. But as long as we leave the central power of work in "isolated" areas, this isn't going away. And to Mohdoo, I understand what you're saying and perhaps demonizing was the wrong term to use. But you understand partially where I'm coming from. You can have your house and another. I think Igne summed it all up rather succintly. Show nested quote +On March 31 2020 00:57 Wombat_NI wrote:On March 31 2020 00:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 31 2020 00:18 farvacola wrote:
That’s straight availability heuristic bias at work though, I too have never once made a late payment nor treated a rental property poorly, but have had to sue a landlord twice and threaten legal action against another (and I succeeded all three times, btw). Everyone who wants to throw in their 2 cents on this issue should recognize the relatively large universe of situations at hand. I agree. If you can look at yourself in the shoes of the other and understand frustrations/actions, then it'll go a long way to diffusing a tense exchange of ideas. I can see a landlord wanting full payment because that is what is written in the contract, assuming everything else was upheld on their end. I could also see a tenant, faced with this uncertainty we're living in, wanting some kind of ease on demands of rent being paid on time and in full. With the information at hand, it seems both parties are going to probably wash even at this point, with the tenant making taking a bit more minor loss on this. But if your rent is being frozen for 6 months, you can at least agree to pay 3 months at the very minimum. That's just my dos centavos though. Please, carry on. On March 31 2020 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On March 31 2020 00:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I don't understand how people in here think that, just because someone owns something, they're not working. Some people worked to be in the position to own a house or two and are renting them out now to enjoy the fruits of their labor. There are problems with saying things are ok because they worked for it previously. There are a lot of ways to apply work and different work has different results, even if the work was equally "hard". Referencing work isn't really an effective way to justify something. "Work" expresses itself in a lot of different ways and I think a lot more is necessary to show why living off of ownership is an appropriate mechanism in society. I don't understand the first sentence. If I worked my ass off for a boat and rented it out during the summer for recreation purposes, am I in the wrong for charging for it? The issue is that people without are quick to demonize those with, because they don't have. I capitalized on people wanting a boat to go fish/water ski/party on. Am I evil for it, considering prices to rent are as fair as possible? It’s not so much people being pissed over things others have that they don’t, it’s people having things that they realistically cannot have. As per your boat example the boat I don’t need to live safely, neither has the price of boats increased far beyond wages over the last few decades. If there wasn’t such a generational gate on things this issue would be less toxic than it is, but so it is. This crisis is just bringing them more into focus, but I recall this discussion occurring plenty of times in this thread way before. Older folks cheer every increase in house prices over here and are a reliable voting bloc in terms of turnout, policy reflects this and younger people are priced off the ladder. These are real tangible problems from which the millennial/boomer memes do sprout. One of my older colleagues in grunt retail was able to buy a property on a single income from doing so way back in the day, I’m 30 now and the only friend/acquaintance of mine who has done so was very recently and that was on a combined lawyer/physics researcher salary. Beyond owning property the rental sector is not fit for purpose if landlords can just leave their properties to be infested with damp and your recourse is ‘if you don’t like it leave.’ Of course not all landlords but horror tales are aplenty here, especially in student accommodation. And I understand your points. I have no sympathy for those that reach beyond their grasp in this market and burden themselves unduly for greed. I can however understand their perspectives (small owners) of wanting to have what the contract is signed to guarantee them. If you're unfairly taking advantage of this pandemic at the costs of others, on both sides, then you don't get my sympathy.
The entire system is unsustainable. But to remain focused on landlords (speaking to the benevolent small timers) my frustration isn't about what they have, it is about how willfully oblivious they seem to me. They are like people in the middle of a multi-level marketing scheme seemingly oblivious or indifferent to the fact that their business is built on scamming people even if they as individuals don't do the most scummy things those pyramid schemes can get away with.
Personally I think people should take advantage of the pandemic to the maximum to exert leverage on a system dependent on keeping them unsustainably and precariously hanging on for dear life. These benevolent landlords should be organizing with tenants for rent and mortgage strikes imo.
|
On March 31 2020 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2020 00:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 31 2020 00:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2020 00:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 31 2020 00:18 farvacola wrote:
That’s straight availability heuristic bias at work though, I too have never once made a late payment nor treated a rental property poorly, but have had to sue a landlord twice and threaten legal action against another (and I succeeded all three times, btw). Everyone who wants to throw in their 2 cents on this issue should recognize the relatively large universe of situations at hand. I agree. If you can look at yourself in the shoes of the other and understand frustrations/actions, then it'll go a long way to diffusing a tense exchange of ideas. I can see a landlord wanting full payment because that is what is written in the contract, assuming everything else was upheld on their end. I could also see a tenant, faced with this uncertainty we're living in, wanting some kind of ease on demands of rent being paid on time and in full. With the information at hand, it seems both parties are going to probably wash even at this point, with the tenant making taking a bit more minor loss on this. But if your rent is being frozen for 6 months, you can at least agree to pay 3 months at the very minimum. That's just my dos centavos though. Please, carry on. I've worked as a property manager which is basically a person that does all the work a landlord is supposed to but typically hires/exploits others to do. Some of that work is speaking on behalf of the landlord to the tenants. So I'm quite familiar with both sides of this (friends in lending as well). My check was often contingent on whether I could extract rent from the tenants myself. I've seen the gamut of landlords and tenants and argued on behalf of all of them. Only after all that can I say I refuse to do landlords/lenders dirty work for them any more and it certainly came at a significant personal QoL cost and some personal relationships That's just to say I don't approach this from a position of disregard based in ignorance of the experiences of the land owners/lenders. My point is that this system isn't sustainable because you will simply have cities where the workers it takes to operate them can't afford to work there because even commuting from hours away is implausible and unaffordable. Or you get people living in hamster cages like Hong Kong (which still only buys you some time and isn't sustainable either). The issue then becomes of decentralizing where the work is. Because the economic center of cities are usually located in the downtown, dense portion, it is understandable that living there is going to cost more because that is where everyone who has work, needs/wants to live. If you spread the workforce out over the vast amounts of land that we have in the US and maximize that with close shopping needs (food, clothes, items, etc) then it doesn't matter where you live as the prices are going to commensurate with the population living there. Some areas, "viable" land is scarce. It's going to cost. That is the sad truth of the matter. If we changed topics from landlords to efficiently maximizing the workers in appropriately designed urban planning, then we'd get somewhere. But as long as we leave the central power of work in "isolated" areas, this isn't going away. And to Mohdoo, I understand what you're saying and perhaps demonizing was the wrong term to use. But you understand partially where I'm coming from. You can have your house and another. I think Igne summed it all up rather succintly. On March 31 2020 00:57 Wombat_NI wrote:On March 31 2020 00:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 31 2020 00:18 farvacola wrote:
That’s straight availability heuristic bias at work though, I too have never once made a late payment nor treated a rental property poorly, but have had to sue a landlord twice and threaten legal action against another (and I succeeded all three times, btw). Everyone who wants to throw in their 2 cents on this issue should recognize the relatively large universe of situations at hand. I agree. If you can look at yourself in the shoes of the other and understand frustrations/actions, then it'll go a long way to diffusing a tense exchange of ideas. I can see a landlord wanting full payment because that is what is written in the contract, assuming everything else was upheld on their end. I could also see a tenant, faced with this uncertainty we're living in, wanting some kind of ease on demands of rent being paid on time and in full. With the information at hand, it seems both parties are going to probably wash even at this point, with the tenant making taking a bit more minor loss on this. But if your rent is being frozen for 6 months, you can at least agree to pay 3 months at the very minimum. That's just my dos centavos though. Please, carry on. On March 31 2020 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On March 31 2020 00:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I don't understand how people in here think that, just because someone owns something, they're not working. Some people worked to be in the position to own a house or two and are renting them out now to enjoy the fruits of their labor. There are problems with saying things are ok because they worked for it previously. There are a lot of ways to apply work and different work has different results, even if the work was equally "hard". Referencing work isn't really an effective way to justify something. "Work" expresses itself in a lot of different ways and I think a lot more is necessary to show why living off of ownership is an appropriate mechanism in society. I don't understand the first sentence. If I worked my ass off for a boat and rented it out during the summer for recreation purposes, am I in the wrong for charging for it? The issue is that people without are quick to demonize those with, because they don't have. I capitalized on people wanting a boat to go fish/water ski/party on. Am I evil for it, considering prices to rent are as fair as possible? It’s not so much people being pissed over things others have that they don’t, it’s people having things that they realistically cannot have. As per your boat example the boat I don’t need to live safely, neither has the price of boats increased far beyond wages over the last few decades. If there wasn’t such a generational gate on things this issue would be less toxic than it is, but so it is. This crisis is just bringing them more into focus, but I recall this discussion occurring plenty of times in this thread way before. Older folks cheer every increase in house prices over here and are a reliable voting bloc in terms of turnout, policy reflects this and younger people are priced off the ladder. These are real tangible problems from which the millennial/boomer memes do sprout. One of my older colleagues in grunt retail was able to buy a property on a single income from doing so way back in the day, I’m 30 now and the only friend/acquaintance of mine who has done so was very recently and that was on a combined lawyer/physics researcher salary. Beyond owning property the rental sector is not fit for purpose if landlords can just leave their properties to be infested with damp and your recourse is ‘if you don’t like it leave.’ Of course not all landlords but horror tales are aplenty here, especially in student accommodation. And I understand your points. I have no sympathy for those that reach beyond their grasp in this market and burden themselves unduly for greed. I can however understand their perspectives (small owners) of wanting to have what the contract is signed to guarantee them. If you're unfairly taking advantage of this pandemic at the costs of others, on both sides, then you don't get my sympathy. The entire system is unsustainable. But to remain focused on landlords (speaking to the benevolent small timers) my frustration isn't about what they have, it is about how willfully oblivious they seem to me. They are like people in the middle of a multi-level marketing scheme seemingly oblivious or indifferent to the fact that their business is built on scamming people even if they as individuals don't do the most scummy things those pyramid schemes can get away with. Personally I think people should take advantage of the pandemic to the maximum to exert leverage on a system dependent on keeping them unsustainably and precariously hanging on for dear life. These benevolent landlords should be organizing with tenants for rent and mortgage strikes imo.
The meandering it took to arrive at this. If you had just said this to begin with, I think we would have had a vastly more fruitful discussion on how this can be achieved, and what these two parties in particular could/should fight for. The scenic route is fine every once in a while but sometimes, just get to the point. (No harshness intended, in case it came across that way.)
I think the perception of value in various parts of owning property is what needs to be addressed. If you can begin the slow process of devaluing possession and in turn bring value to the people who stand to benefit the most, then maybe you'll get a reaction of sorts to fix the system. As it stands, even if you group people together and get some changes made, those within the group are going to see the "value" eventually and the cycles repeats itself. The government cannot, and should not, be involved in every single matter/transaction that occurs between people. It can establish basic practices and rewrite the law so that unduly taking advantage of the workers is punishable by fines and/or loss of property for repeat offenders.
|
On March 31 2020 01:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2020 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2020 00:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 31 2020 00:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2020 00:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 31 2020 00:18 farvacola wrote:
That’s straight availability heuristic bias at work though, I too have never once made a late payment nor treated a rental property poorly, but have had to sue a landlord twice and threaten legal action against another (and I succeeded all three times, btw). Everyone who wants to throw in their 2 cents on this issue should recognize the relatively large universe of situations at hand. I agree. If you can look at yourself in the shoes of the other and understand frustrations/actions, then it'll go a long way to diffusing a tense exchange of ideas. I can see a landlord wanting full payment because that is what is written in the contract, assuming everything else was upheld on their end. I could also see a tenant, faced with this uncertainty we're living in, wanting some kind of ease on demands of rent being paid on time and in full. With the information at hand, it seems both parties are going to probably wash even at this point, with the tenant making taking a bit more minor loss on this. But if your rent is being frozen for 6 months, you can at least agree to pay 3 months at the very minimum. That's just my dos centavos though. Please, carry on. I've worked as a property manager which is basically a person that does all the work a landlord is supposed to but typically hires/exploits others to do. Some of that work is speaking on behalf of the landlord to the tenants. So I'm quite familiar with both sides of this (friends in lending as well). My check was often contingent on whether I could extract rent from the tenants myself. I've seen the gamut of landlords and tenants and argued on behalf of all of them. Only after all that can I say I refuse to do landlords/lenders dirty work for them any more and it certainly came at a significant personal QoL cost and some personal relationships That's just to say I don't approach this from a position of disregard based in ignorance of the experiences of the land owners/lenders. My point is that this system isn't sustainable because you will simply have cities where the workers it takes to operate them can't afford to work there because even commuting from hours away is implausible and unaffordable. Or you get people living in hamster cages like Hong Kong (which still only buys you some time and isn't sustainable either). The issue then becomes of decentralizing where the work is. Because the economic center of cities are usually located in the downtown, dense portion, it is understandable that living there is going to cost more because that is where everyone who has work, needs/wants to live. If you spread the workforce out over the vast amounts of land that we have in the US and maximize that with close shopping needs (food, clothes, items, etc) then it doesn't matter where you live as the prices are going to commensurate with the population living there. Some areas, "viable" land is scarce. It's going to cost. That is the sad truth of the matter. If we changed topics from landlords to efficiently maximizing the workers in appropriately designed urban planning, then we'd get somewhere. But as long as we leave the central power of work in "isolated" areas, this isn't going away. And to Mohdoo, I understand what you're saying and perhaps demonizing was the wrong term to use. But you understand partially where I'm coming from. You can have your house and another. I think Igne summed it all up rather succintly. On March 31 2020 00:57 Wombat_NI wrote:On March 31 2020 00:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 31 2020 00:18 farvacola wrote:
That’s straight availability heuristic bias at work though, I too have never once made a late payment nor treated a rental property poorly, but have had to sue a landlord twice and threaten legal action against another (and I succeeded all three times, btw). Everyone who wants to throw in their 2 cents on this issue should recognize the relatively large universe of situations at hand. I agree. If you can look at yourself in the shoes of the other and understand frustrations/actions, then it'll go a long way to diffusing a tense exchange of ideas. I can see a landlord wanting full payment because that is what is written in the contract, assuming everything else was upheld on their end. I could also see a tenant, faced with this uncertainty we're living in, wanting some kind of ease on demands of rent being paid on time and in full. With the information at hand, it seems both parties are going to probably wash even at this point, with the tenant making taking a bit more minor loss on this. But if your rent is being frozen for 6 months, you can at least agree to pay 3 months at the very minimum. That's just my dos centavos though. Please, carry on. On March 31 2020 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On March 31 2020 00:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I don't understand how people in here think that, just because someone owns something, they're not working. Some people worked to be in the position to own a house or two and are renting them out now to enjoy the fruits of their labor. There are problems with saying things are ok because they worked for it previously. There are a lot of ways to apply work and different work has different results, even if the work was equally "hard". Referencing work isn't really an effective way to justify something. "Work" expresses itself in a lot of different ways and I think a lot more is necessary to show why living off of ownership is an appropriate mechanism in society. I don't understand the first sentence. If I worked my ass off for a boat and rented it out during the summer for recreation purposes, am I in the wrong for charging for it? The issue is that people without are quick to demonize those with, because they don't have. I capitalized on people wanting a boat to go fish/water ski/party on. Am I evil for it, considering prices to rent are as fair as possible? It’s not so much people being pissed over things others have that they don’t, it’s people having things that they realistically cannot have. As per your boat example the boat I don’t need to live safely, neither has the price of boats increased far beyond wages over the last few decades. If there wasn’t such a generational gate on things this issue would be less toxic than it is, but so it is. This crisis is just bringing them more into focus, but I recall this discussion occurring plenty of times in this thread way before. Older folks cheer every increase in house prices over here and are a reliable voting bloc in terms of turnout, policy reflects this and younger people are priced off the ladder. These are real tangible problems from which the millennial/boomer memes do sprout. One of my older colleagues in grunt retail was able to buy a property on a single income from doing so way back in the day, I’m 30 now and the only friend/acquaintance of mine who has done so was very recently and that was on a combined lawyer/physics researcher salary. Beyond owning property the rental sector is not fit for purpose if landlords can just leave their properties to be infested with damp and your recourse is ‘if you don’t like it leave.’ Of course not all landlords but horror tales are aplenty here, especially in student accommodation. And I understand your points. I have no sympathy for those that reach beyond their grasp in this market and burden themselves unduly for greed. I can however understand their perspectives (small owners) of wanting to have what the contract is signed to guarantee them. If you're unfairly taking advantage of this pandemic at the costs of others, on both sides, then you don't get my sympathy. The entire system is unsustainable. But to remain focused on landlords (speaking to the benevolent small timers) my frustration isn't about what they have, it is about how willfully oblivious they seem to me. They are like people in the middle of a multi-level marketing scheme seemingly oblivious or indifferent to the fact that their business is built on scamming people even if they as individuals don't do the most scummy things those pyramid schemes can get away with. Personally I think people should take advantage of the pandemic to the maximum to exert leverage on a system dependent on keeping them unsustainably and precariously hanging on for dear life. These benevolent landlords should be organizing with tenants for rent and mortgage strikes imo. The meandering it took to arrive at this. If you had just said this to begin with, I think we would have had a vastly more fruitful discussion on how this can be achieved, and what these two parties in particular could/should fight for. The scenic route is fine every once in a while but sometimes, just get to the point. (No harshness intended, in case it came across that way.) I think the perception of value in various parts of owning property is what needs to be addressed. If you can begin the slow process of devaluing possession and in turn bring value to the people who stand to benefit the most, then maybe you'll get a reaction of sorts to fix the system. As it stands, even if you group people together and get some changes made, those within the group are going to see the "value" eventually and the cycles repeats itself. The government cannot, and should not, be involved in every single matter/transaction that occurs between people. It can establish basic practices and rewrite the law so that unduly taking advantage of the workers is punishable by fines and/or loss of property for repeat offenders.
I think one problem is that this negotiation doesn't exist in a vacuum and both sides aren't equally logistically or morally culpable for the horrific consequences of the status quo and a slow correction. Another is that "going back to normal" isn't an option and trying to pretend we can only makes everything worse. Emissions are down dramatically during this, good, now we need to make sure it stays that way so long as it doesn't break down essential services. Not figure out how to update the status quo to an even more toxic economy that has new superficial anti-viral features + electrolytes.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 31 2020 01:01 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2020 00:55 LegalLord wrote:On March 30 2020 23:54 Simberto wrote:
And now in this crisis, they once again demand to be paid in full for their hard work of owning things, while i can't even work to gain that money. Why can they not be the people who take the hit for once? Why is it always the bottom rank of the ladder who has to shoulder all of the hardship, while the top always comes first when it comes to collecting money, and last when it comes to paying their fair share? If your problem is with "the wealthy" not doing their fair share, then your ire should hardly be concentrated on small-time landlords. Unless they own enough property such that the net worth of all of their real estate is in the many millions (say, >$21MM), they hardly qualify as wealthy. Most small-time landlords would be able to comfortably afford paying rent on the property that is difficult for you to pay, but still only make like 50-100% more money than you do in your job. Yes, you'll make some pretty solid profit if you keep the business running for 30 years, do a good job of it, and have your property in a desirable area, but that's hardly an unfair outcome in my eyes. Precluding of course that the landlord doesn’t have some other paying gig too.
I usually assume that they do. In practice, you need your properties to be worth at least several millions of dollars to be able to live comfortably off of the rents they bring in; owning just a few is a supplement to income at best.
|
On March 31 2020 01:53 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2020 01:01 Wombat_NI wrote:On March 31 2020 00:55 LegalLord wrote:On March 30 2020 23:54 Simberto wrote:
And now in this crisis, they once again demand to be paid in full for their hard work of owning things, while i can't even work to gain that money. Why can they not be the people who take the hit for once? Why is it always the bottom rank of the ladder who has to shoulder all of the hardship, while the top always comes first when it comes to collecting money, and last when it comes to paying their fair share? If your problem is with "the wealthy" not doing their fair share, then your ire should hardly be concentrated on small-time landlords. Unless they own enough property such that the net worth of all of their real estate is in the many millions (say, >$21MM), they hardly qualify as wealthy. Most small-time landlords would be able to comfortably afford paying rent on the property that is difficult for you to pay, but still only make like 50-100% more money than you do in your job. Yes, you'll make some pretty solid profit if you keep the business running for 30 years, do a good job of it, and have your property in a desirable area, but that's hardly an unfair outcome in my eyes. Precluding of course that the landlord doesn’t have some other paying gig too. I usually assume that they do. In practice, you need your properties to be worth at least several millions of dollars to be able to live comfortably off of the rents they bring in; owning just a few is a supplement to income at best.
How much does it take to "live comfortably" in that estimation, just curious?
|
Northern Ireland25372 Posts
On March 31 2020 00:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2020 00:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2020 00:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 31 2020 00:18 farvacola wrote:
That’s straight availability heuristic bias at work though, I too have never once made a late payment nor treated a rental property poorly, but have had to sue a landlord twice and threaten legal action against another (and I succeeded all three times, btw). Everyone who wants to throw in their 2 cents on this issue should recognize the relatively large universe of situations at hand. I agree. If you can look at yourself in the shoes of the other and understand frustrations/actions, then it'll go a long way to diffusing a tense exchange of ideas. I can see a landlord wanting full payment because that is what is written in the contract, assuming everything else was upheld on their end. I could also see a tenant, faced with this uncertainty we're living in, wanting some kind of ease on demands of rent being paid on time and in full. With the information at hand, it seems both parties are going to probably wash even at this point, with the tenant making taking a bit more minor loss on this. But if your rent is being frozen for 6 months, you can at least agree to pay 3 months at the very minimum. That's just my dos centavos though. Please, carry on. I've worked as a property manager which is basically a person that does all the work a landlord is supposed to but typically hires/exploits others to do. Some of that work is speaking on behalf of the landlord to the tenants. So I'm quite familiar with both sides of this (friends in lending as well). My check was often contingent on whether I could extract rent from the tenants myself. I've seen the gamut of landlords and tenants and argued on behalf of all of them. Only after all that can I say I refuse to do landlords/lenders dirty work for them any more and it certainly came at a significant personal QoL cost and some personal relationships That's just to say I don't approach this from a position of disregard based in ignorance of the experiences of the land owners/lenders. My point is that this system isn't sustainable because you will simply have cities where the workers it takes to operate them can't afford to work there because even commuting from hours away is implausible and unaffordable. Or you get people living in hamster cages like Hong Kong (which still only buys you some time and isn't sustainable either). The issue then becomes of decentralizing where the work is. Because the economic center of cities are usually located in the downtown, dense portion, it is understandable that living there is going to cost more because that is where everyone who has work, needs/wants to live. If you spread the workforce out over the vast amounts of land that we have in the US and maximize that with close shopping needs (food, clothes, items, etc) then it doesn't matter where you live as the prices are going to commensurate with the population living there. Some areas, "viable" land is scarce. It's going to cost. That is the sad truth of the matter. If we changed topics from landlords to efficiently maximizing the workers in appropriately designed urban planning, then we'd get somewhere. But as long as we leave the central power of work in "isolated" areas, this isn't going away. And to Mohdoo, I understand what you're saying and perhaps demonizing was the wrong term to use. But you understand partially where I'm coming from. You can have your house and another. I think Igne summed it all up rather succintly. Show nested quote +On March 31 2020 00:57 Wombat_NI wrote:On March 31 2020 00:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 31 2020 00:18 farvacola wrote:
That’s straight availability heuristic bias at work though, I too have never once made a late payment nor treated a rental property poorly, but have had to sue a landlord twice and threaten legal action against another (and I succeeded all three times, btw). Everyone who wants to throw in their 2 cents on this issue should recognize the relatively large universe of situations at hand. I agree. If you can look at yourself in the shoes of the other and understand frustrations/actions, then it'll go a long way to diffusing a tense exchange of ideas. I can see a landlord wanting full payment because that is what is written in the contract, assuming everything else was upheld on their end. I could also see a tenant, faced with this uncertainty we're living in, wanting some kind of ease on demands of rent being paid on time and in full. With the information at hand, it seems both parties are going to probably wash even at this point, with the tenant making taking a bit more minor loss on this. But if your rent is being frozen for 6 months, you can at least agree to pay 3 months at the very minimum. That's just my dos centavos though. Please, carry on. On March 31 2020 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On March 31 2020 00:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I don't understand how people in here think that, just because someone owns something, they're not working. Some people worked to be in the position to own a house or two and are renting them out now to enjoy the fruits of their labor. There are problems with saying things are ok because they worked for it previously. There are a lot of ways to apply work and different work has different results, even if the work was equally "hard". Referencing work isn't really an effective way to justify something. "Work" expresses itself in a lot of different ways and I think a lot more is necessary to show why living off of ownership is an appropriate mechanism in society. I don't understand the first sentence. If I worked my ass off for a boat and rented it out during the summer for recreation purposes, am I in the wrong for charging for it? The issue is that people without are quick to demonize those with, because they don't have. I capitalized on people wanting a boat to go fish/water ski/party on. Am I evil for it, considering prices to rent are as fair as possible? It’s not so much people being pissed over things others have that they don’t, it’s people having things that they realistically cannot have. As per your boat example the boat I don’t need to live safely, neither has the price of boats increased far beyond wages over the last few decades. If there wasn’t such a generational gate on things this issue would be less toxic than it is, but so it is. This crisis is just bringing them more into focus, but I recall this discussion occurring plenty of times in this thread way before. Older folks cheer every increase in house prices over here and are a reliable voting bloc in terms of turnout, policy reflects this and younger people are priced off the ladder. These are real tangible problems from which the millennial/boomer memes do sprout. One of my older colleagues in grunt retail was able to buy a property on a single income from doing so way back in the day, I’m 30 now and the only friend/acquaintance of mine who has done so was very recently and that was on a combined lawyer/physics researcher salary. Beyond owning property the rental sector is not fit for purpose if landlords can just leave their properties to be infested with damp and your recourse is ‘if you don’t like it leave.’ Of course not all landlords but horror tales are aplenty here, especially in student accommodation. And I understand your points. I have no sympathy for those that reach beyond their grasp in this market and burden themselves unduly for greed. I can however understand their perspectives (small owners) of wanting to have what the contract is signed to guarantee them. If you're unfairly taking advantage of this pandemic at the costs of others, on both sides, then you don't get my sympathy.
Decentralising makes all sorts of sense and I’ve advocated it myself. You could cut living costs in the current urban centres, regenerate deprived regions and have a bunch of QoL improvements in terms of worker commutes and congestion.
The UK’s been crying out for it since the days of Thatcher really, and this crisis has shown the viability of much wider remote working arrangements than employers were willing to countenance.
Of course one roadblock will of course be those whose rental charges or property values would drop via this process.
|
On March 31 2020 01:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2020 01:53 LegalLord wrote:On March 31 2020 01:01 Wombat_NI wrote:On March 31 2020 00:55 LegalLord wrote:On March 30 2020 23:54 Simberto wrote:
And now in this crisis, they once again demand to be paid in full for their hard work of owning things, while i can't even work to gain that money. Why can they not be the people who take the hit for once? Why is it always the bottom rank of the ladder who has to shoulder all of the hardship, while the top always comes first when it comes to collecting money, and last when it comes to paying their fair share? If your problem is with "the wealthy" not doing their fair share, then your ire should hardly be concentrated on small-time landlords. Unless they own enough property such that the net worth of all of their real estate is in the many millions (say, >$21MM), they hardly qualify as wealthy. Most small-time landlords would be able to comfortably afford paying rent on the property that is difficult for you to pay, but still only make like 50-100% more money than you do in your job. Yes, you'll make some pretty solid profit if you keep the business running for 30 years, do a good job of it, and have your property in a desirable area, but that's hardly an unfair outcome in my eyes. Precluding of course that the landlord doesn’t have some other paying gig too. I usually assume that they do. In practice, you need your properties to be worth at least several millions of dollars to be able to live comfortably off of the rents they bring in; owning just a few is a supplement to income at best. How much does it take to "live comfortably" in that estimation, just curious?
I think most people, like my parents, invest in real estate to have a source of income when they are retired. "Live comfortably" cannot be translated into real numbers unless you mention the place. I'm sure that living comfortably in thailand means less money than in france. However we can define it by not living paycheck to paycheck and not having to worry about money.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 31 2020 01:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2020 01:53 LegalLord wrote:On March 31 2020 01:01 Wombat_NI wrote:On March 31 2020 00:55 LegalLord wrote:On March 30 2020 23:54 Simberto wrote:
And now in this crisis, they once again demand to be paid in full for their hard work of owning things, while i can't even work to gain that money. Why can they not be the people who take the hit for once? Why is it always the bottom rank of the ladder who has to shoulder all of the hardship, while the top always comes first when it comes to collecting money, and last when it comes to paying their fair share? If your problem is with "the wealthy" not doing their fair share, then your ire should hardly be concentrated on small-time landlords. Unless they own enough property such that the net worth of all of their real estate is in the many millions (say, >$21MM), they hardly qualify as wealthy. Most small-time landlords would be able to comfortably afford paying rent on the property that is difficult for you to pay, but still only make like 50-100% more money than you do in your job. Yes, you'll make some pretty solid profit if you keep the business running for 30 years, do a good job of it, and have your property in a desirable area, but that's hardly an unfair outcome in my eyes. Precluding of course that the landlord doesn’t have some other paying gig too. I usually assume that they do. In practice, you need your properties to be worth at least several millions of dollars to be able to live comfortably off of the rents they bring in; owning just a few is a supplement to income at best. How much does it take to "live comfortably" in that estimation, just curious?
To try to have at least some cost of living adjustment - let’s say, somewhere around 4-5x the poverty line for your given city.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
