|
United States43380 Posts
On April 09 2020 03:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
GH, you're idea is stupid and you are too.
Artfully put.
If you wanted to get keen you could elaborate upon why it's stupid (Americans think they control their economic circumstances and therefore conclude that anyone struggling is lacking a key virtue while they themselves, not currently struggling (lack of retirement savings and maxed out credit cards excepted), must be extremely virtuous). You could talk about all the times in the past when the state has crushed socialist movements. You could talk about the lack of political representation for any kind of collectivist movement in the US. All of these would be fine approaches to take.
Just as long as we're all past "but GH, have you considered that the owners might retaliate against the strikers?"
|
On April 09 2020 03:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2020 03:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
GH, you're idea is stupid and you are too. Artfully put. If you wanted to get keen you could elaborate upon why it's stupid (Americans think they control their economic circumstances and therefore conclude that anyone struggling is lacking a key virtue while they themselves, not currently struggling (lack of retirement savings and maxed out credit cards excepted), must be extremely virtuous). You could talk about all the times in the past when the state has crushed socialist movements. You could talk about the lack of political representation for any kind of collectivist movement in the US. All of these would be fine approaches to take. Just as long as we're all past "but GH, have you considered that the owners might retaliate against the strikers?"
This has been done to death before when people take GH to task over his idealism. It goes literally nowhere. Anyway, I've said what I wanted and got what I expected from the discussion. Stay Healthy.
|
On April 09 2020 03:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2020 03:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
GH, you're idea is stupid and you are too. Artfully put. If you wanted to get keen you could elaborate upon why it's stupid (Americans think they control their economic circumstances and therefore conclude that anyone struggling is lacking a key virtue while they themselves, not currently struggling (lack of retirement savings and maxed out credit cards excepted), must be extremely virtuous). You could talk about all the times in the past when the state has crushed socialist movements. You could talk about the lack of political representation for any kind of collectivist movement in the US. All of these would be fine approaches to take. Just as long as we're all past "but GH, have you considered that the owners might retaliate against the strikers?"
It isn't easy to do the reconciling you've done (but seem to waver from occasionally). People like to think more highly of themselves and their grip on self-determination (myself included). It isn't easy on this side either though for the reasons you list among others.
I can respect people on both sides for doing so. What I find pestering are those that refuse to do the reconciling while projecting that as a virtuous position. Particularly when it is only a thin veil for an expectation to fall in line despite their refusal to do that reconciling.
If people are against collective bargaining and striking or think significant change in the US comes from something else they should argue that, it'd be wrong (everything from not chained inside the workplace to weekends and overtime took people dying in the street to get), but at least it'd be a real argument.
|
On April 09 2020 02:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2020 02:13 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2020 02:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 09 2020 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 01:34 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 09 2020 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 01:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Then why gamble? liberation is always a risk. Snappy one liner you got there. You asked why gamble, and with liberation it isn't a choice. Liberation and the status quo means many people are gambling with their lives to make it to the next day. The system is already protecting their landlords whether they pay them or not (the existing legislation gives them up to a year of interest/penalty- free deferral), and I expect even more to go their way. Without demand/struggle, power concedes nothing and renters are not seeing that same relief. Many landlords, knowing they don't have to pay their mortgages are demanding payment and threatening eviction in conflict with state legislation. Without organized direct mass action renters are just going to get screwed over anyway so there isn't a choice without risk. On April 09 2020 01:44 KwarK wrote:
Y'all acting like you've got no idea what a revolutionary social organizer does and are completely unfamiliar with the concept. Not even disagreeing with his revolution, instead insisting that the entire idea is alien to you.
Imagine someone encouraging workers to join a union and engage in collective bargaining. This is that, but instead of exchanging their labour for money they're exchanging their money for somewhere to live. also this of course. When you respond to my posts, I'd appreciate it if you include and respond to the entire thing, instead of picking out the parts that are easiest for you to answer. Everything is a choice. And liberation is no different. Where we differ and will continue to differ is the end game. You seem to want everything to burn today without a thought about tomorrow. You get these renters their "union" and then the next day (because it wasn't codified in law and probably won't be), they get evicted. Now these people, who put their trust in you, are screwed not only by the status quo, but also by the "liberator'. The landlords and prop management companies are coming out ahead of this, I will agree. But that still doesn't make it the best solution. You can't opt out of a legally binding contract because "pandemic." Most cases will either be a negative mark on rental history, a small claims court brought by the landlord/prop management company, and a heavy hit on their credit rating. This all accumulates into more problems than they had if they hadn't "liberated" themselves from paying rent. And you should take into account, that not every state has a law saying rents are frozen for the foreseeable future. Only evictions and mortgage payments. So you can choose to not pay rent. You're also choosing to be evicted when the company/person isn't at risk or lawsuits. The point of the matter that I'm trying to make, is that you are offering these suggestions and rallying these people, but if your little "unionizing of the proles" don't work, and they lose their place to live, where are you? Is your place open to the people? All of these arguments are just as valid against unionization of employees. If you encourage workers to not go to work then they're risking getting fired and the organizer won't pay all their paychecks until they find new work. You're not making a new argument, you're just describing how collective bargaining works and the inherent risks of it that everyone already understands. Your entire post can be dismissed with "Yes, that's how it works, everyone understands that's how it works. The goal is through collective bargaining to avoid punitive responses by the exploitative party on the other side of the collective bargaining by demonstrating that their need for us is greater than our need for them because their profits are ultimately rooted in our labour. However the risk of failure exists and is exacerbated by the use of state force to break the strike as has been used countless times in the past". Your arguments against it amount to an entry level description of how it works. It's like you're arguing against military intervention by saying "but what if someone gets hurt, did you think of that?" But this is living. Not labor. You're exchanging money for a roof over your head. Not a place to work. You can point to the similarities all you want, but the difference is, it's easier to find a different job than it is to find a different place to live. If I am misunderstanding this entire thing, fine. But what I'm not understanding is how this is going to change anything in the long term. You're fucking with families over a month or two of rent. If you're not getting "landlords, property management companies, and leasers cannot evict residents due to unforeseen pandemics or other calamities (word it however)" into the legal framework of contracts STATE/NATION wide, then you're just setting these people to be out on the streets come July/August. Dismiss my posts however you want. Stay healthy. Show nested quote +On April 09 2020 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 01:55 Vivax wrote:
Best of luck in your endeavour. Bunch of anarchs, alternatives punks etc. occupied a building in Vienna a few years back and made their own pizza in there. 19 occupants and a dozen another visitors. They sent 1700 cops to evict them. Yeah, bunch of disabled people occupied government buildings for weeks in part to get landlords to make their properties ADA compliant so it's really about the "which side are you on?" question. We know which side the police is on. @zero, besides you just making the same argument bosses do against unionization I don't think you're appreciating that my efforts are primarily aimed at people who can't pay rent anyway and are just stressed the fuck out about feeling powerless to stop themselves and their family from being put on the street by landlords who have already been protected from the same through legislation. Also organizing against generic slumlords otherwise. I don't expect most of the people you describe to show class solidarity and risk their own housing to fight for other's. My point is that since millions of people simply can't pay rent through no fault of their own organizing with them is a more receptive process. And my issue is that you want to do it now, when the people you need out there, can't afford to take that calculated liberation risk. Why not wait until they have money in their pockets and some kind of security they can fall back on? Instead, you're picking at hollowed humans who hardly have enough as it is, to further your fantasy of being the great liberator. And, for the last damn time, I agree that the people hoarding "power" over others are getting by. And I agree that things need to change in regards to that. But I don't see how your method of doing it at their almost absolute worst time, is the best option here. I paid my rent. Next month, we'll see. Maybe I can, maybe I won't. But I have peace of mind knowing I have a roof for another month at the very least.
It's actually much easier to find to a place to live than to find a job. Have you seen unemployment recently?
|
On April 09 2020 10:45 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2020 02:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 09 2020 02:13 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2020 02:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 09 2020 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 01:34 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 09 2020 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 01:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Then why gamble? liberation is always a risk. Snappy one liner you got there. You asked why gamble, and with liberation it isn't a choice. Liberation and the status quo means many people are gambling with their lives to make it to the next day. The system is already protecting their landlords whether they pay them or not (the existing legislation gives them up to a year of interest/penalty- free deferral), and I expect even more to go their way. Without demand/struggle, power concedes nothing and renters are not seeing that same relief. Many landlords, knowing they don't have to pay their mortgages are demanding payment and threatening eviction in conflict with state legislation. Without organized direct mass action renters are just going to get screwed over anyway so there isn't a choice without risk. On April 09 2020 01:44 KwarK wrote:
Y'all acting like you've got no idea what a revolutionary social organizer does and are completely unfamiliar with the concept. Not even disagreeing with his revolution, instead insisting that the entire idea is alien to you.
Imagine someone encouraging workers to join a union and engage in collective bargaining. This is that, but instead of exchanging their labour for money they're exchanging their money for somewhere to live. also this of course. When you respond to my posts, I'd appreciate it if you include and respond to the entire thing, instead of picking out the parts that are easiest for you to answer. Everything is a choice. And liberation is no different. Where we differ and will continue to differ is the end game. You seem to want everything to burn today without a thought about tomorrow. You get these renters their "union" and then the next day (because it wasn't codified in law and probably won't be), they get evicted. Now these people, who put their trust in you, are screwed not only by the status quo, but also by the "liberator'. The landlords and prop management companies are coming out ahead of this, I will agree. But that still doesn't make it the best solution. You can't opt out of a legally binding contract because "pandemic." Most cases will either be a negative mark on rental history, a small claims court brought by the landlord/prop management company, and a heavy hit on their credit rating. This all accumulates into more problems than they had if they hadn't "liberated" themselves from paying rent. And you should take into account, that not every state has a law saying rents are frozen for the foreseeable future. Only evictions and mortgage payments. So you can choose to not pay rent. You're also choosing to be evicted when the company/person isn't at risk or lawsuits. The point of the matter that I'm trying to make, is that you are offering these suggestions and rallying these people, but if your little "unionizing of the proles" don't work, and they lose their place to live, where are you? Is your place open to the people? All of these arguments are just as valid against unionization of employees. If you encourage workers to not go to work then they're risking getting fired and the organizer won't pay all their paychecks until they find new work. You're not making a new argument, you're just describing how collective bargaining works and the inherent risks of it that everyone already understands. Your entire post can be dismissed with "Yes, that's how it works, everyone understands that's how it works. The goal is through collective bargaining to avoid punitive responses by the exploitative party on the other side of the collective bargaining by demonstrating that their need for us is greater than our need for them because their profits are ultimately rooted in our labour. However the risk of failure exists and is exacerbated by the use of state force to break the strike as has been used countless times in the past". Your arguments against it amount to an entry level description of how it works. It's like you're arguing against military intervention by saying "but what if someone gets hurt, did you think of that?" But this is living. Not labor. You're exchanging money for a roof over your head. Not a place to work. You can point to the similarities all you want, but the difference is, it's easier to find a different job than it is to find a different place to live. If I am misunderstanding this entire thing, fine. But what I'm not understanding is how this is going to change anything in the long term. You're fucking with families over a month or two of rent. If you're not getting "landlords, property management companies, and leasers cannot evict residents due to unforeseen pandemics or other calamities (word it however)" into the legal framework of contracts STATE/NATION wide, then you're just setting these people to be out on the streets come July/August. Dismiss my posts however you want. Stay healthy. On April 09 2020 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 01:55 Vivax wrote:
Best of luck in your endeavour. Bunch of anarchs, alternatives punks etc. occupied a building in Vienna a few years back and made their own pizza in there. 19 occupants and a dozen another visitors. They sent 1700 cops to evict them. Yeah, bunch of disabled people occupied government buildings for weeks in part to get landlords to make their properties ADA compliant so it's really about the "which side are you on?" question. We know which side the police is on. @zero, besides you just making the same argument bosses do against unionization I don't think you're appreciating that my efforts are primarily aimed at people who can't pay rent anyway and are just stressed the fuck out about feeling powerless to stop themselves and their family from being put on the street by landlords who have already been protected from the same through legislation. Also organizing against generic slumlords otherwise. I don't expect most of the people you describe to show class solidarity and risk their own housing to fight for other's. My point is that since millions of people simply can't pay rent through no fault of their own organizing with them is a more receptive process. And my issue is that you want to do it now, when the people you need out there, can't afford to take that calculated liberation risk. Why not wait until they have money in their pockets and some kind of security they can fall back on? Instead, you're picking at hollowed humans who hardly have enough as it is, to further your fantasy of being the great liberator. And, for the last damn time, I agree that the people hoarding "power" over others are getting by. And I agree that things need to change in regards to that. But I don't see how your method of doing it at their almost absolute worst time, is the best option here. I paid my rent. Next month, we'll see. Maybe I can, maybe I won't. But I have peace of mind knowing I have a roof for another month at the very least. It's actually much easier to find to a place to live than to find a job. Have you seen unemployment recently?
Recently. Historically, it is easier to find another job. Might not be as good as the last, but you can find one.
|
On April 09 2020 12:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2020 10:45 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2020 02:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 09 2020 02:13 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2020 02:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 09 2020 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 01:34 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 09 2020 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 01:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Then why gamble? liberation is always a risk. Snappy one liner you got there. You asked why gamble, and with liberation it isn't a choice. Liberation and the status quo means many people are gambling with their lives to make it to the next day. The system is already protecting their landlords whether they pay them or not (the existing legislation gives them up to a year of interest/penalty- free deferral), and I expect even more to go their way. Without demand/struggle, power concedes nothing and renters are not seeing that same relief. Many landlords, knowing they don't have to pay their mortgages are demanding payment and threatening eviction in conflict with state legislation. Without organized direct mass action renters are just going to get screwed over anyway so there isn't a choice without risk. On April 09 2020 01:44 KwarK wrote:
Y'all acting like you've got no idea what a revolutionary social organizer does and are completely unfamiliar with the concept. Not even disagreeing with his revolution, instead insisting that the entire idea is alien to you.
Imagine someone encouraging workers to join a union and engage in collective bargaining. This is that, but instead of exchanging their labour for money they're exchanging their money for somewhere to live. also this of course. When you respond to my posts, I'd appreciate it if you include and respond to the entire thing, instead of picking out the parts that are easiest for you to answer. Everything is a choice. And liberation is no different. Where we differ and will continue to differ is the end game. You seem to want everything to burn today without a thought about tomorrow. You get these renters their "union" and then the next day (because it wasn't codified in law and probably won't be), they get evicted. Now these people, who put their trust in you, are screwed not only by the status quo, but also by the "liberator'. The landlords and prop management companies are coming out ahead of this, I will agree. But that still doesn't make it the best solution. You can't opt out of a legally binding contract because "pandemic." Most cases will either be a negative mark on rental history, a small claims court brought by the landlord/prop management company, and a heavy hit on their credit rating. This all accumulates into more problems than they had if they hadn't "liberated" themselves from paying rent. And you should take into account, that not every state has a law saying rents are frozen for the foreseeable future. Only evictions and mortgage payments. So you can choose to not pay rent. You're also choosing to be evicted when the company/person isn't at risk or lawsuits. The point of the matter that I'm trying to make, is that you are offering these suggestions and rallying these people, but if your little "unionizing of the proles" don't work, and they lose their place to live, where are you? Is your place open to the people? All of these arguments are just as valid against unionization of employees. If you encourage workers to not go to work then they're risking getting fired and the organizer won't pay all their paychecks until they find new work. You're not making a new argument, you're just describing how collective bargaining works and the inherent risks of it that everyone already understands. Your entire post can be dismissed with "Yes, that's how it works, everyone understands that's how it works. The goal is through collective bargaining to avoid punitive responses by the exploitative party on the other side of the collective bargaining by demonstrating that their need for us is greater than our need for them because their profits are ultimately rooted in our labour. However the risk of failure exists and is exacerbated by the use of state force to break the strike as has been used countless times in the past". Your arguments against it amount to an entry level description of how it works. It's like you're arguing against military intervention by saying "but what if someone gets hurt, did you think of that?" But this is living. Not labor. You're exchanging money for a roof over your head. Not a place to work. You can point to the similarities all you want, but the difference is, it's easier to find a different job than it is to find a different place to live. If I am misunderstanding this entire thing, fine. But what I'm not understanding is how this is going to change anything in the long term. You're fucking with families over a month or two of rent. If you're not getting "landlords, property management companies, and leasers cannot evict residents due to unforeseen pandemics or other calamities (word it however)" into the legal framework of contracts STATE/NATION wide, then you're just setting these people to be out on the streets come July/August. Dismiss my posts however you want. Stay healthy. On April 09 2020 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 01:55 Vivax wrote:
Best of luck in your endeavour. Bunch of anarchs, alternatives punks etc. occupied a building in Vienna a few years back and made their own pizza in there. 19 occupants and a dozen another visitors. They sent 1700 cops to evict them. Yeah, bunch of disabled people occupied government buildings for weeks in part to get landlords to make their properties ADA compliant so it's really about the "which side are you on?" question. We know which side the police is on. @zero, besides you just making the same argument bosses do against unionization I don't think you're appreciating that my efforts are primarily aimed at people who can't pay rent anyway and are just stressed the fuck out about feeling powerless to stop themselves and their family from being put on the street by landlords who have already been protected from the same through legislation. Also organizing against generic slumlords otherwise. I don't expect most of the people you describe to show class solidarity and risk their own housing to fight for other's. My point is that since millions of people simply can't pay rent through no fault of their own organizing with them is a more receptive process. And my issue is that you want to do it now, when the people you need out there, can't afford to take that calculated liberation risk. Why not wait until they have money in their pockets and some kind of security they can fall back on? Instead, you're picking at hollowed humans who hardly have enough as it is, to further your fantasy of being the great liberator. And, for the last damn time, I agree that the people hoarding "power" over others are getting by. And I agree that things need to change in regards to that. But I don't see how your method of doing it at their almost absolute worst time, is the best option here. I paid my rent. Next month, we'll see. Maybe I can, maybe I won't. But I have peace of mind knowing I have a roof for another month at the very least. It's actually much easier to find to a place to live than to find a job. Have you seen unemployment recently? Recently. Historically, it is easier to find another job. Might not be as good as the last, but you can find one.
I mean it's been that way since the 90s or even before.
I hope you are not implying by that "you can find one" a minimum wage retail job. Going from some middle class salary (let's say 70k) to minimum wage shift work is a huge crisis. Far worse I think than having to move to a new place.
|
On April 09 2020 12:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2020 10:45 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2020 02:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 09 2020 02:13 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2020 02:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 09 2020 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 01:34 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 09 2020 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 01:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Then why gamble? liberation is always a risk. Snappy one liner you got there. You asked why gamble, and with liberation it isn't a choice. Liberation and the status quo means many people are gambling with their lives to make it to the next day. The system is already protecting their landlords whether they pay them or not (the existing legislation gives them up to a year of interest/penalty- free deferral), and I expect even more to go their way. Without demand/struggle, power concedes nothing and renters are not seeing that same relief. Many landlords, knowing they don't have to pay their mortgages are demanding payment and threatening eviction in conflict with state legislation. Without organized direct mass action renters are just going to get screwed over anyway so there isn't a choice without risk. On April 09 2020 01:44 KwarK wrote:
Y'all acting like you've got no idea what a revolutionary social organizer does and are completely unfamiliar with the concept. Not even disagreeing with his revolution, instead insisting that the entire idea is alien to you.
Imagine someone encouraging workers to join a union and engage in collective bargaining. This is that, but instead of exchanging their labour for money they're exchanging their money for somewhere to live. also this of course. When you respond to my posts, I'd appreciate it if you include and respond to the entire thing, instead of picking out the parts that are easiest for you to answer. Everything is a choice. And liberation is no different. Where we differ and will continue to differ is the end game. You seem to want everything to burn today without a thought about tomorrow. You get these renters their "union" and then the next day (because it wasn't codified in law and probably won't be), they get evicted. Now these people, who put their trust in you, are screwed not only by the status quo, but also by the "liberator'. The landlords and prop management companies are coming out ahead of this, I will agree. But that still doesn't make it the best solution. You can't opt out of a legally binding contract because "pandemic." Most cases will either be a negative mark on rental history, a small claims court brought by the landlord/prop management company, and a heavy hit on their credit rating. This all accumulates into more problems than they had if they hadn't "liberated" themselves from paying rent. And you should take into account, that not every state has a law saying rents are frozen for the foreseeable future. Only evictions and mortgage payments. So you can choose to not pay rent. You're also choosing to be evicted when the company/person isn't at risk or lawsuits. The point of the matter that I'm trying to make, is that you are offering these suggestions and rallying these people, but if your little "unionizing of the proles" don't work, and they lose their place to live, where are you? Is your place open to the people? All of these arguments are just as valid against unionization of employees. If you encourage workers to not go to work then they're risking getting fired and the organizer won't pay all their paychecks until they find new work. You're not making a new argument, you're just describing how collective bargaining works and the inherent risks of it that everyone already understands. Your entire post can be dismissed with "Yes, that's how it works, everyone understands that's how it works. The goal is through collective bargaining to avoid punitive responses by the exploitative party on the other side of the collective bargaining by demonstrating that their need for us is greater than our need for them because their profits are ultimately rooted in our labour. However the risk of failure exists and is exacerbated by the use of state force to break the strike as has been used countless times in the past". Your arguments against it amount to an entry level description of how it works. It's like you're arguing against military intervention by saying "but what if someone gets hurt, did you think of that?" But this is living. Not labor. You're exchanging money for a roof over your head. Not a place to work. You can point to the similarities all you want, but the difference is, it's easier to find a different job than it is to find a different place to live. If I am misunderstanding this entire thing, fine. But what I'm not understanding is how this is going to change anything in the long term. You're fucking with families over a month or two of rent. If you're not getting "landlords, property management companies, and leasers cannot evict residents due to unforeseen pandemics or other calamities (word it however)" into the legal framework of contracts STATE/NATION wide, then you're just setting these people to be out on the streets come July/August. Dismiss my posts however you want. Stay healthy. On April 09 2020 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 01:55 Vivax wrote:
Best of luck in your endeavour. Bunch of anarchs, alternatives punks etc. occupied a building in Vienna a few years back and made their own pizza in there. 19 occupants and a dozen another visitors. They sent 1700 cops to evict them. Yeah, bunch of disabled people occupied government buildings for weeks in part to get landlords to make their properties ADA compliant so it's really about the "which side are you on?" question. We know which side the police is on. @zero, besides you just making the same argument bosses do against unionization I don't think you're appreciating that my efforts are primarily aimed at people who can't pay rent anyway and are just stressed the fuck out about feeling powerless to stop themselves and their family from being put on the street by landlords who have already been protected from the same through legislation. Also organizing against generic slumlords otherwise. I don't expect most of the people you describe to show class solidarity and risk their own housing to fight for other's. My point is that since millions of people simply can't pay rent through no fault of their own organizing with them is a more receptive process. And my issue is that you want to do it now, when the people you need out there, can't afford to take that calculated liberation risk. Why not wait until they have money in their pockets and some kind of security they can fall back on? Instead, you're picking at hollowed humans who hardly have enough as it is, to further your fantasy of being the great liberator. And, for the last damn time, I agree that the people hoarding "power" over others are getting by. And I agree that things need to change in regards to that. But I don't see how your method of doing it at their almost absolute worst time, is the best option here. I paid my rent. Next month, we'll see. Maybe I can, maybe I won't. But I have peace of mind knowing I have a roof for another month at the very least. It's actually much easier to find to a place to live than to find a job. Have you seen unemployment recently? Recently. Historically, it is easier to find another job. Might not be as good as the last, but you can find one.
Your claim is completely unintuitive, and I doubt it has ever been true. Fed sources indicate that at the best of times (when they started measuring at the end of the 40s), average unemplyment lasted 8 weeks. Can you source anything that would indicate average homelessness after eviction would be higher than this, or something else to back up your claim?
I would go further: not only is finding a place to rent much easier than finding a place to work, but finding a new tenant much easier than hiring a new worker. GH's renters association may be able to negotiate something right now because there's been an income shock that's common to almost everyone, including potential new tenants, but in regular times, I would see no hope of it going anywhere.
|
On April 09 2020 20:29 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2020 12:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 09 2020 10:45 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2020 02:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 09 2020 02:13 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2020 02:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 09 2020 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 01:34 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 09 2020 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 01:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Then why gamble? liberation is always a risk. Snappy one liner you got there. You asked why gamble, and with liberation it isn't a choice. Liberation and the status quo means many people are gambling with their lives to make it to the next day. The system is already protecting their landlords whether they pay them or not (the existing legislation gives them up to a year of interest/penalty- free deferral), and I expect even more to go their way. Without demand/struggle, power concedes nothing and renters are not seeing that same relief. Many landlords, knowing they don't have to pay their mortgages are demanding payment and threatening eviction in conflict with state legislation. Without organized direct mass action renters are just going to get screwed over anyway so there isn't a choice without risk. On April 09 2020 01:44 KwarK wrote:
Y'all acting like you've got no idea what a revolutionary social organizer does and are completely unfamiliar with the concept. Not even disagreeing with his revolution, instead insisting that the entire idea is alien to you.
Imagine someone encouraging workers to join a union and engage in collective bargaining. This is that, but instead of exchanging their labour for money they're exchanging their money for somewhere to live. also this of course. When you respond to my posts, I'd appreciate it if you include and respond to the entire thing, instead of picking out the parts that are easiest for you to answer. Everything is a choice. And liberation is no different. Where we differ and will continue to differ is the end game. You seem to want everything to burn today without a thought about tomorrow. You get these renters their "union" and then the next day (because it wasn't codified in law and probably won't be), they get evicted. Now these people, who put their trust in you, are screwed not only by the status quo, but also by the "liberator'. The landlords and prop management companies are coming out ahead of this, I will agree. But that still doesn't make it the best solution. You can't opt out of a legally binding contract because "pandemic." Most cases will either be a negative mark on rental history, a small claims court brought by the landlord/prop management company, and a heavy hit on their credit rating. This all accumulates into more problems than they had if they hadn't "liberated" themselves from paying rent. And you should take into account, that not every state has a law saying rents are frozen for the foreseeable future. Only evictions and mortgage payments. So you can choose to not pay rent. You're also choosing to be evicted when the company/person isn't at risk or lawsuits. The point of the matter that I'm trying to make, is that you are offering these suggestions and rallying these people, but if your little "unionizing of the proles" don't work, and they lose their place to live, where are you? Is your place open to the people? All of these arguments are just as valid against unionization of employees. If you encourage workers to not go to work then they're risking getting fired and the organizer won't pay all their paychecks until they find new work. You're not making a new argument, you're just describing how collective bargaining works and the inherent risks of it that everyone already understands. Your entire post can be dismissed with "Yes, that's how it works, everyone understands that's how it works. The goal is through collective bargaining to avoid punitive responses by the exploitative party on the other side of the collective bargaining by demonstrating that their need for us is greater than our need for them because their profits are ultimately rooted in our labour. However the risk of failure exists and is exacerbated by the use of state force to break the strike as has been used countless times in the past". Your arguments against it amount to an entry level description of how it works. It's like you're arguing against military intervention by saying "but what if someone gets hurt, did you think of that?" But this is living. Not labor. You're exchanging money for a roof over your head. Not a place to work. You can point to the similarities all you want, but the difference is, it's easier to find a different job than it is to find a different place to live. If I am misunderstanding this entire thing, fine. But what I'm not understanding is how this is going to change anything in the long term. You're fucking with families over a month or two of rent. If you're not getting "landlords, property management companies, and leasers cannot evict residents due to unforeseen pandemics or other calamities (word it however)" into the legal framework of contracts STATE/NATION wide, then you're just setting these people to be out on the streets come July/August. Dismiss my posts however you want. Stay healthy. On April 09 2020 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 01:55 Vivax wrote:
Best of luck in your endeavour. Bunch of anarchs, alternatives punks etc. occupied a building in Vienna a few years back and made their own pizza in there. 19 occupants and a dozen another visitors. They sent 1700 cops to evict them. Yeah, bunch of disabled people occupied government buildings for weeks in part to get landlords to make their properties ADA compliant so it's really about the "which side are you on?" question. We know which side the police is on. @zero, besides you just making the same argument bosses do against unionization I don't think you're appreciating that my efforts are primarily aimed at people who can't pay rent anyway and are just stressed the fuck out about feeling powerless to stop themselves and their family from being put on the street by landlords who have already been protected from the same through legislation. Also organizing against generic slumlords otherwise. I don't expect most of the people you describe to show class solidarity and risk their own housing to fight for other's. My point is that since millions of people simply can't pay rent through no fault of their own organizing with them is a more receptive process. And my issue is that you want to do it now, when the people you need out there, can't afford to take that calculated liberation risk. Why not wait until they have money in their pockets and some kind of security they can fall back on? Instead, you're picking at hollowed humans who hardly have enough as it is, to further your fantasy of being the great liberator. And, for the last damn time, I agree that the people hoarding "power" over others are getting by. And I agree that things need to change in regards to that. But I don't see how your method of doing it at their almost absolute worst time, is the best option here. I paid my rent. Next month, we'll see. Maybe I can, maybe I won't. But I have peace of mind knowing I have a roof for another month at the very least. It's actually much easier to find to a place to live than to find a job. Have you seen unemployment recently? Recently. Historically, it is easier to find another job. Might not be as good as the last, but you can find one. Your claim is completely unintuitive, and I doubt it has ever been true. Fed sources indicate that at the best of times (when they started measuring at the end of the 40s), average unemplyment lasted 8 weeks. Can you source anything that would indicate average homelessness after eviction would be higher than this, or something else to back up your claim? I would go further: not only is finding a place to rent much easier than finding a place to work, but finding a new tenant much easier than hiring a new worker. GH's renters association may be able to negotiate something right now because there's been an income shock that's common to almost everyone, including potential new tenants, but in regular times, I would see no hope of it going anywhere.
I looked for some sources but the only thing they seem to measure is whether you're homeless or not, what type of shelter you are seeking, and so on. They found the average time for men is 175 and 196 for women in transitional housing. Source
I can find a job easier than I can an apartment somewhere decent at a rate I can afford to pay. And depending on the job you do, yes, you can stay in the same field and make the same amount of money. When I was doing architecture, I could have changed jobs in KC and kept my starting wage. Here in Chicago, I could have done the same within a month or less. Finding an apartment after being evicted would be a red flag to most places.
But again, I've backed out of this conversation.
|
Data showing 31% of people were unable to make rent in April is expected to increase in May with millions of people paying ~50%+ of their income for housing and ~40% of people unable to cover an unexpected $400 expense.
According to the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, a quarter of the nation’s 44 million renter households paid more than half their income in rent in 2018. Separate research from the Federal Reserve showed four in 10 Americans would have difficulty covering a sudden $400 expense, suggesting that tens of millions of tenants are just a week of missed work away from falling behind on their housing bills.
For the past four years, rent increases have helped stir a nationwide tenant uprising that led to the biggest expansion of tenants’ rights in decades. Rent control laws were enacted in New York, Oregon and California, and tenants organized mass actions, like a group of mothers in Oakland who occupied an empty house for two months to protest house flipping.
Now, after years of coordination, organizers see the coronavirus pandemic as a galvanizing force. Last week, the Right to the City Alliance, a national coalition of tenant and racial-justice organizations, held a digital #CancelRent rally to call for rents to be eliminated as long as people can’t work. Homes Guarantee, a national tenants’ campaign, has been holding weekly strategy calls. On Wednesday, a caravan outside US Bank Plaza in Minneapolis honked horns and waved signs to demand rent and mortgage relief.
“This is a moment of clarity about a broken system in which 11 million people were already paying over 50 percent of their income on rent,” said Tara Raghuveer, a tenant organizer in Kansas City and director of Homes Guarantee.
These factors among others has encouraged people to organize and even some people to strike in solidarity
Ms. Thomas, the renter refusing to pay in Oakland, is a member of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, an activist group associated with the house-occupying mothers. For weeks she has been trying to organize her building in a rent strike, and has gotten tenants in three other units to join her.
One is her upstairs neighbor Andrew Yen, a data scientist at an agriculture company who still has a job and isn’t worried about making his $2,500 monthly rent. He and Ms. Thomas had been discussing some sort of coordinated action, but after weeks of job losses, and walking around his neighborhood seeing “rent strike” posted on telephone poles or spray-painted on utility boxes, he decided the time was now, so he is striking in solidarity.
“I feel like rent striking is the least somebody like me can do,” he said. “I’m the tenant the landlord wants to keep, so the worst-case scenario is eviction, but I probably have a lot more wiggle room than that.”
www.nytimes.com
|
According to a new ProPublica story, quite a few landlords accross the US are proceeding with evictions in spite of the eviction ban:
Landlords in at least four states have violated the eviction ban passed by Congress last month, a review of records shows, moving to throw more than a hundred people out of their homes.
In an effort to help renters amid the coronavirus pandemic and skyrocketing unemployment, the March 27 CARES Act banned eviction filings for all federally backed rental units nationwide, more than a quarter of the total.
But ProPublica found building owners who are simply not following the law, with no apparent consequence, filing to evict tenants from properties in Georgia, Oklahoma, Texas and Florida. The scores of cases ProPublica found represent only a small slice of the true total because there’s no nationwide — or, in many cases, even statewide — database of eviction filings.
Four landlords said they were reversing eviction filings after being contacted by ProPublica and informed the filings were illegal. National real estate trade groups, however, are already lobbying to limit the scope of the ban.
link
Yet another reminder that everything is presumptively legal, and legal protections presumptively don’t exist, unless and until a court is willing to enforce them.
Other things I learned:
-Evictions are very difficult to track, since the filings happen in local courts that may or may not make their records. available online.
-Even erroneous eviction filings can still have significant consequences for tenants, including significant fees and getting them blacklisted by other landlords.
-A lot of landlords haven’t heard about the eviction ban (or at least, claim they hadn’t when contacted by ProPublica).
|
So, something kind of interesting. I asked some landlord friends how they're doing with April's rent so far. Anecdotally, that 30 percent non-payment seems to be right about in line with their own personal experiences, and that seems to be bad for business but for the moment quite survivable. For ones with a larger pool of properties, tenants seem to largely be split into three groups by payment:
1. Around 10 percent pay as normal with no questions asked.
2. Around 60 percent are looking not to pay, but will pay if prodded in the same way that ZeroCool was.
3. Around 30 percent are in the can't pay / won't pay crowd. Some were about to be evicted before this all started, but just got a freebie for several months.
Some are worse off, some are better off. Most are worried that May will be worse.
Hardly a "plight of the landlords" story at the moment, but with those numbers business is marginal at best. I'm sure some will fail.
|
On April 17 2020 03:20 LegalLord wrote:
So, something kind of interesting. I asked some landlord friends how they're doing with April's rent so far. Anecdotally, that 30 percent non-payment seems to be right about in line with their own personal experiences, and that seems to be bad for business but for the moment quite survivable. For ones with a larger pool of properties, tenants seem to largely be split into three groups by payment:
1. Around 10 percent pay as normal with no questions asked.
2. Around 60 percent are looking not to pay, but will pay if prodded in the same way that ZeroCool was.
3. Around 30 percent are in the can't pay / won't pay crowd. Some were about to be evicted before this all started, but just got a freebie for several months.
Some are worse off, some are better off. Most are worried that May will be worse.
Hardly a "plight of the landlords" story at the moment, but with those numbers business is marginal at best. I'm sure some will fail.
May will definitely be worse in the US because congress won't even meet for part 4 of the emergency aid stuff till May 4 (but most of the checks won't have arrived to for the people that need it most), and they don't know how they are going to do that.
Hopefully more of their tenants have organized by then 
|
I can't shake the feeling that the underlying issue here is lack of worker protection, not "horrible Landlords". How is it possible for so many people to basically get fired on the spot and losing all their income?
If i would get fired i IIRC would have my full salary for at least 3 months, with some bitching/going to court if I feel like it probably even longer.
That rent becomes an issue in a crysis such as this, yes sure. It becoming a big problem in month two for so many people seems really weird to me.
|
On April 17 2020 03:20 LegalLord wrote:
So, something kind of interesting. I asked some landlord friends how they're doing with April's rent so far. Anecdotally, that 30 percent non-payment seems to be right about in line with their own personal experiences, and that seems to be bad for business but for the moment quite survivable. For ones with a larger pool of properties, tenants seem to largely be split into three groups by payment:
1. Around 10 percent pay as normal with no questions asked.
2. Around 60 percent are looking not to pay, but will pay if prodded in the same way that ZeroCool was.
3. Around 30 percent are in the can't pay / won't pay crowd. Some were about to be evicted before this all started, but just got a freebie for several months.
Some are worse off, some are better off. Most are worried that May will be worse.
Hardly a "plight of the landlords" story at the moment, but with those numbers business is marginal at best. I'm sure some will fail.
For the record, I paid my rent because I could afford to. I wasn't "prodded" by the letter I posted.
|
Highly dependent on state, but generally speaking:
1. Seems like that 70% number is relatively steady for May as well for payment. Stimulus probably helped, along with the fact that paying for housing is a high priority for a lot of folks.
2. Evictions seem to be... slowly turning back on. It's very logistically difficult to evict someone when the courts are under lockdown, even when it can be legally done. The simple overarching threat of evictions existing does have the effect of pushing people to pay if they otherwise would try not to.
I also am a little unsure what to think about all the talk of "don't worry about your next few mortgage payments - it'll just get rolled up on the end of the loan!" For one, the creditor of the loan loses more than half of the value of those payments by just deferring it like that, so it's hardly something they're going to do willingly. And the legal mechanism seems extremely unclear there. Is it a legally mandated subsidy for mortgage holders? Something that is just floated as if it's that easy, but that has to be done through a mortgage modification or refinance agreement? Dependent on your situation? I get highly conflicting answers wherever I look on this one.
|
On May 23 2020 14:38 LegalLord wrote:
Highly dependent on state, but generally speaking:
1. Seems like that 70% number is relatively steady for May as well for payment. Stimulus probably helped, along with the fact that paying for housing is a high priority for a lot of folks.
2. Evictions seem to be... slowly turning back on. It's very logistically difficult to evict someone when the courts are under lockdown, even when it can be legally done. The simple overarching threat of evictions existing does have the effect of pushing people to pay if they otherwise would try not to.
I also am a little unsure what to think about all the talk of "don't worry about your next few mortgage payments - it'll just get rolled up on the end of the loan!" For one, the creditor of the loan loses more than half of the value of those payments by just deferring it like that, so it's hardly something they're going to do willingly. And the legal mechanism seems extremely unclear there. Is it a legally mandated subsidy for mortgage holders? Something that is just floated as if it's that easy, but that has to be done through a mortgage modification or refinance agreement? Dependent on your situation? I get highly conflicting answers wherever I look on this one.
Same things I'm seeing. Organization efforts have had mixed success depending on location.
As far as mortgage modifications, what I've seen in practice is that it is like a lot of the other programs in that it's expected to be sorted out by the parties named rather than a process explicitly spelled out in the legislation. During that process they basically high-pressure sales you into not changing your terms and coming up with your payments/eating fractional penalties if you don't.
"You gave us your word you would make these payments, are you so foolish and poor you can't keep that promise?" kinda stuff. Same kinda stuff from landlords but typically with their own sob story to take more of the edge off.
EDIT: Going to be a mess if there's 40 million+ newly unemployed people and the police are busy kicking them out of their homes in the next few months though.
|
let you all in on a secret: majority of the newly unemployed people are making more money from handouts then when they were employed
|
On May 23 2020 19:34 Kokujin wrote:
let you all in on a secret: majority of the newly unemployed people are making more money from handouts then when they were employed
[citation needed]
(not that I know anything about the US situation, but that's a strong statement and needs some more than a throw away one-liner post to support it)
|
It's blatantly misinformation. Most of the people who were in retail/service industry may be making more. For a short period of time. There are other workers not working that aren't getting close to what they could be getting. Meat packing plants. Vehicle manufacturers, some government jobs, etc. This isn't a one size fits all scenario. There are architects I know barely hanging on and it's only a matter of time before they're furloughed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
