13 ms·

Predatory businesses are still exploitation. > Building such a business (and I assume running a 131 unit mobile home park) is absolutely work, the value of whi

Predatory businesses are still exploitation. > Building such a business (and I assume running a 131 unit mobile home park) is absolutely work, the value of which is evident by the paying tenants. Running a sweatshop is still work, the value of which is evident by its customers. Just because someone needs to work or a place to live doesn't make it right or commendable.

sokoloff 11y ago
Let's think in terms of solutions. Concretely, what would you propose to change to make it better? Have you started to raise funds to start and run that business?
- erikpukinskis 11y ago
  To make poverty better? Free job training and placement, with a living stipend.
  - unclebucknasty 11y ago
    Presumably those companies that claim to have openings that they are desperately trying to fill in vain would pay for such training. Why do you think they do not?
    - Tycho 11y ago
      Once someone is trained, they might just leave and work somewhere else.
      - unclebucknasty 11y ago
        That can be contractualized, right?
        Tycho 11y ago
        Hmm not sure, there might be some legal/regulatory barriers there.
        CydeWeys 11y ago
        The entire US is at-will employment. It can't be. About the most you can do is try to claw-back your training expenses if they don't stay for a certain number of years, but you can't squeeze blood from a stone. That money was already spent on basic necessities of life and can't be recovered.
        unclebucknasty 11y ago
        >That money was already spent on basic necessities of life and can't be recovered Presumably, if the training were significant enough to be worth the company pursuing it and the now ex-employee found it economically better to use those skills elsewhere, then there might be significant enough income against which to make a claim.
        CydeWeys 11y ago
        If this worked you'd think it would be more widespread, but instead corporations have consistently pushed in the opposite direction with workers over the past few decades. There used to be a lot more job security, on-the-job training, and apprenticing. Corporations have figured that not having all that stuff is in their favor as by only hiring qualified people they can put the costs of the training on the employees, and then if there aren't enough qualified people, well, off-shore production.
        unclebucknasty 11y ago
        >If this worked you'd think it would be more widespread Yeah, that was my original question. I think what you're saying is true to an extent. At the same time, a lot of companies complain that positions simply go unfilled.
        zdragnar 11y ago
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- darpa_escapee 11y ago
  Subsidized, cheaper or government housing through legislation. > Have you started to raise funds to start and run that business? No, because the incentives to continuously draw a greater profit from your customers goes against the need to provide housing to those who can't afford it.
- petra 11y ago
  Few Ideas: 1. Let a non-profit run those kinds of businesses. The non-profit , before starting would establish clear rules that prevent eviction, discrimination and the other nasty stuff. Financing should be gotten from institutional investors, by promising some fixed rate of return. 2. Let the government run that, it works pretty well in many places around the world , in creating a relatively stable living environment. 3. better regulation to prevent nasty behaviors.
  - cududa 11y ago
    2 and 3 sound like basically section 9 housing. I like 1 - any ideas how you'd get the land for these? Would existing trailer parks be bought out?
    - tmptmp 11y ago
      Get some land off from the existing land-owners who have it in excess over some threshold (by legislating some "ceiling on land-holding" act). Of course, that should not be done entirely in the "communist style" though, i.e. it can be done by giving them reasonable compensation. I guess, some "ceiling on land-holding" act is a must if we want reasonable check on inequality. Currently the US economy stinks of the problems of feudalism - some kings and barons with a lot of land and then some more people down their rank with some land while the rest of the people with almost no land and perpetual poverty.
      - tamana 11y ago
        "Land Value Tax". This is well studied area of economics.
        tmptmp 11y ago
        I am not saying "Land Value Tax", which basically is a levy on the "unimproved" value of land.[1] What I am saying is nobody (including corporations) should be allowed to own land for the sake of renting purposes. If you own more than a threshold, you should just hand it over to the government, for some compensation and then if you think you have any excess land left over that you can rent, you should just sell it. In short, no renting of land at all. I know, there are some issues to it, but I guess, those can be resolved, without much harming the economy of the 99.99% of the people. Please correct me if I am wrong w.r.t. "Land Value Tax" vs "ceiling on land holding". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax edit: added clarification at end.
darawk 11y ago
What is the alternative? These people aren't forced to live there. If there were a cheaper, better alternative available to them, they'd probably take it. Nobody is 'profiting from poverty' here. These landlords would make much more money if these people were wealthier! I'm sure they'd love to make nicer places and charge higher rents with higher margins, but they can't, because that's all these people can pay.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  >they'd love to make nicer places and charge higher rents with higher margins, but they can't, because that's all these people can pay Nicer places require larger capital outlays. The landlords chose their market, not the other way around.
  - OJFord 11y ago
    > The landlords chose their market, not the other way > around. That goes against.. almost all economic thought. You don't choose to make umbrellas for the umbrella market, and just keep churning out umbrellas, perpetually disappointed by the fine weather. This market is profitable, but if it were wealthier, it would be more profitable. There's no incentive for a business-owner in such a place to somehow keep the locals in a state of poverty.
    - unclebucknasty 11y ago
      >You don't choose to make umbrellas for the umbrella market, and just keep churning out umbrellas, perpetually disappointed by the fine weather. You do if people keep buying them, irrespective of the weather. You've misread my comment. I'm not saying that the landlords create the market; simply that the landlords chose a market that requires less capital outlay, and also with full knowledge that the market is not typically upwardly mobile. In other words, it's fairly rare that landlords buy mobile parks with the intent of later upgrading their customers to upscale condominiums.
      - 11y ago
ctdonath 11y ago
OK, say those "exploitive" businesses didn't exist. That doesn't subsequently mean "non-exploitive" alternatives would exist, it just means those customers/employees would have no options (not even "exploitive" ones). Is having no option better than having a bad option, when good options aren't available?
- johnpmayer 11y ago
  I mean, it's all about "for whom" in this question. What's better, widgets and a polluted stream, or no widgets? Depends on whether society values the fish.
  - tamana 11y ago
    ..or the people eating the fish and drinking the water.
- ubernostrum 11y ago
  That doesn't subsequently mean "non-exploitive" alternatives would exist, it just means those customers/employees would have no options (not even "exploitive" ones). The hidden assumption here is that producing the goods and services required to keep a single human being alive in relative comfort (fed, sheltered, educated, healthy) necessarily requires an expenditure of manual effort roughly equivalent to what that human being can do. Or, in other words, the assumption is that it is not and never can be the case that N people can be provided for by the effort of K people, where K < N. And yet that assumption is obviously false: we have, here and now, the ability to feed, shelter, educate and provide health care to every single human being on the planet, and the ability to do so without the need for many of them to work for it. In the western world this has manifested in the explosion of service-oriented industries and administrative roles, which are essentially make-work jobs to give society as a whole the feeling that people are "earning their keep". Even among these affluent, supposedly highly-skilled people, probably the majority of the jobs are simply unnecessary. What's needed is a realignment of our mentality about work: now that we have the ability to provide for everyone, we should simply do it regardless of whether everyone works or not. Will there be free riders as a result? Sure, but they're not actually a problem, and become less of one with every passing day (since the system that produces the necessary goods and services continues to grow in efficiency), and we just need to get over our fear that someone, somewhere might manage to have their needs provided for without working for it (we're already content to do this when someone inherits sufficient wealth to live without working, so this would just be an extension of that attitude: people living now and in the future will "inherit" the wealth of the past of the human species and be provided for out of it).
dragontamer 11y ago
> Predatory businesses are still exploitation. I don't think providing housing for an average of $250 / month is exploitation or predatory. In fact, a number of mobile home communities are beginning to cater towards child molesters only, because child molesters need homes too. (also, the police tend to hang around sex-offenders and check up on them, so they also make good tenants). Win/Win for everyone. Sex offenders get a home, and can start rebuilding their lives (although some sex offenses shouldn't be a permanent black-mark on a person's life, but that's a different story). The entrepreneur gets reliable tenants who are otherwise under-served, and the regular checkups from the Police ensure that the unsavory types stay away. As long as it is profitable, people will build more homes. And as people build homes, the poor and exploited get a chance to rebuild their lives. Now a serious concern is the businesses who exploit their tenants... but if the supply is high enough then the tenants will be able to find new homes / mobile home communities. -------------- The main problem are the towns who are making mobile homes ILLEGAL, because they find that poor people are unsavory and the town wants to forcibly gentrify themselves. Elitists are scared of mobile home communities that explicitly cater to say, sex offenders, or poor people, or other "unsavory" types. Not in my community, hell, not even CLOSE to my community / backyard. Think of the children! That's the problem. Not the people who are building mobile homes, but the fact that mobile homes are slowly becoming straight up illegal in huge portions of communities.
- Noos 11y ago
  It's not about elitism. The towns don't like mobile homes because the value of an individual home is tiny, and doesn't add much to the tax rolls.
  - dragontamer 11y ago
    Do you ever attend a community Town Hall or Home Owner's Association? Meetings rarely talk about the budget, for better or for worse. You'll get legions of concerned mothers talking about the dirty homeless people at the motels and ways to build fences around the motels to protect the kids... or Single-Family homeowners complaining about the black people in the Apartments (I kid you not)... and setting up cameras or paying officers / security firms to patrol those locations. But NEVER have I ever seen anyone complain about low-property taxes of a specific unit at a homeowner's association / town hall. Literally never. People don't give a shit about the budget, they're just too far removed to understand that kind of an issue. Based on my experience, I'm going to call this elitism, not a budget issue.
AlgorithmicTime 11y ago
$250 a month for rent, anywhere in the US, is an absolute song. No reasonable person would consider it exploitative.

sokoloff 11y ago

Let's think in terms of solutions. Concretely, what would you propose to change to make it better? Have you started to raise funds to start and run that business?

erikpukinskis 11y ago
To make poverty better? Free job training and placement, with a living stipend.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  Presumably those companies that claim to have openings that they are desperately trying to fill in vain would pay for such training. Why do you think they do not?
  - Tycho 11y ago
    Once someone is trained, they might just leave and work somewhere else.
    - unclebucknasty 11y ago
      That can be contractualized, right?
      - Tycho 11y ago
        Hmm not sure, there might be some legal/regulatory barriers there.
      - CydeWeys 11y ago
        The entire US is at-will employment. It can't be. About the most you can do is try to claw-back your training expenses if they don't stay for a certain number of years, but you can't squeeze blood from a stone. That money was already spent on basic necessities of life and can't be recovered.
        unclebucknasty 11y ago
        >That money was already spent on basic necessities of life and can't be recovered Presumably, if the training were significant enough to be worth the company pursuing it and the now ex-employee found it economically better to use those skills elsewhere, then there might be significant enough income against which to make a claim.
        CydeWeys 11y ago
        If this worked you'd think it would be more widespread, but instead corporations have consistently pushed in the opposite direction with workers over the past few decades. There used to be a lot more job security, on-the-job training, and apprenticing. Corporations have figured that not having all that stuff is in their favor as by only hiring qualified people they can put the costs of the training on the employees, and then if there aren't enough qualified people, well, off-shore production.
        unclebucknasty 11y ago
        >If this worked you'd think it would be more widespread Yeah, that was my original question. I think what you're saying is true to an extent. At the same time, a lot of companies complain that positions simply go unfilled.
      - zdragnar 11y ago
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
darpa_escapee 11y ago
Subsidized, cheaper or government housing through legislation. > Have you started to raise funds to start and run that business? No, because the incentives to continuously draw a greater profit from your customers goes against the need to provide housing to those who can't afford it.
petra 11y ago
Few Ideas: 1. Let a non-profit run those kinds of businesses. The non-profit , before starting would establish clear rules that prevent eviction, discrimination and the other nasty stuff. Financing should be gotten from institutional investors, by promising some fixed rate of return. 2. Let the government run that, it works pretty well in many places around the world , in creating a relatively stable living environment. 3. better regulation to prevent nasty behaviors.
- cududa 11y ago
  2 and 3 sound like basically section 9 housing. I like 1 - any ideas how you'd get the land for these? Would existing trailer parks be bought out?
  - tmptmp 11y ago
    Get some land off from the existing land-owners who have it in excess over some threshold (by legislating some "ceiling on land-holding" act). Of course, that should not be done entirely in the "communist style" though, i.e. it can be done by giving them reasonable compensation. I guess, some "ceiling on land-holding" act is a must if we want reasonable check on inequality. Currently the US economy stinks of the problems of feudalism - some kings and barons with a lot of land and then some more people down their rank with some land while the rest of the people with almost no land and perpetual poverty.
    - tamana 11y ago
      "Land Value Tax". This is well studied area of economics.
      - tmptmp 11y ago
        I am not saying "Land Value Tax", which basically is a levy on the "unimproved" value of land.[1] What I am saying is nobody (including corporations) should be allowed to own land for the sake of renting purposes. If you own more than a threshold, you should just hand it over to the government, for some compensation and then if you think you have any excess land left over that you can rent, you should just sell it. In short, no renting of land at all. I know, there are some issues to it, but I guess, those can be resolved, without much harming the economy of the 99.99% of the people. Please correct me if I am wrong w.r.t. "Land Value Tax" vs "ceiling on land holding". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax edit: added clarification at end.

darawk 11y ago

What is the alternative? These people aren't forced to live there. If there were a cheaper, better alternative available to them, they'd probably take it. Nobody is 'profiting from poverty' here. These landlords would make much more money if these people were wealthier! I'm sure they'd love to make nicer places and charge higher rents with higher margins, but they can't, because that's all these people can pay.

unclebucknasty 11y ago
>they'd love to make nicer places and charge higher rents with higher margins, but they can't, because that's all these people can pay Nicer places require larger capital outlays. The landlords chose their market, not the other way around.
- OJFord 11y ago
  > The landlords chose their market, not the other way > around. That goes against.. almost all economic thought. You don't choose to make umbrellas for the umbrella market, and just keep churning out umbrellas, perpetually disappointed by the fine weather. This market is profitable, but if it were wealthier, it would be more profitable. There's no incentive for a business-owner in such a place to somehow keep the locals in a state of poverty.
  - unclebucknasty 11y ago
    >You don't choose to make umbrellas for the umbrella market, and just keep churning out umbrellas, perpetually disappointed by the fine weather. You do if people keep buying them, irrespective of the weather. You've misread my comment. I'm not saying that the landlords create the market; simply that the landlords chose a market that requires less capital outlay, and also with full knowledge that the market is not typically upwardly mobile. In other words, it's fairly rare that landlords buy mobile parks with the intent of later upgrading their customers to upscale condominiums.
    - 11y ago

ctdonath 11y ago

OK, say those "exploitive" businesses didn't exist. That doesn't subsequently mean "non-exploitive" alternatives would exist, it just means those customers/employees would have no options (not even "exploitive" ones). Is having no option better than having a bad option, when good options aren't available?

johnpmayer 11y ago
I mean, it's all about "for whom" in this question. What's better, widgets and a polluted stream, or no widgets? Depends on whether society values the fish.
- tamana 11y ago
  ..or the people eating the fish and drinking the water.
ubernostrum 11y ago
That doesn't subsequently mean "non-exploitive" alternatives would exist, it just means those customers/employees would have no options (not even "exploitive" ones). The hidden assumption here is that producing the goods and services required to keep a single human being alive in relative comfort (fed, sheltered, educated, healthy) necessarily requires an expenditure of manual effort roughly equivalent to what that human being can do. Or, in other words, the assumption is that it is not and never can be the case that N people can be provided for by the effort of K people, where K < N. And yet that assumption is obviously false: we have, here and now, the ability to feed, shelter, educate and provide health care to every single human being on the planet, and the ability to do so without the need for many of them to work for it. In the western world this has manifested in the explosion of service-oriented industries and administrative roles, which are essentially make-work jobs to give society as a whole the feeling that people are "earning their keep". Even among these affluent, supposedly highly-skilled people, probably the majority of the jobs are simply unnecessary. What's needed is a realignment of our mentality about work: now that we have the ability to provide for everyone, we should simply do it regardless of whether everyone works or not. Will there be free riders as a result? Sure, but they're not actually a problem, and become less of one with every passing day (since the system that produces the necessary goods and services continues to grow in efficiency), and we just need to get over our fear that someone, somewhere might manage to have their needs provided for without working for it (we're already content to do this when someone inherits sufficient wealth to live without working, so this would just be an extension of that attitude: people living now and in the future will "inherit" the wealth of the past of the human species and be provided for out of it).

dragontamer 11y ago

> Predatory businesses are still exploitation. I don't think providing housing for an average of $250 / month is exploitation or predatory. In fact, a number of mobile home communities are beginning to cater towards child molesters only, because child molesters need homes too. (also, the police tend to hang around sex-offenders and check up on them, so they also make good tenants). Win/Win for everyone. Sex offenders get a home, and can start rebuilding their lives (although some sex offenses shouldn't be a permanent black-mark on a person's life, but that's a different story). The entrepreneur gets reliable tenants who are otherwise under-served, and the regular checkups from the Police ensure that the unsavory types stay away. As long as it is profitable, people will build more homes. And as people build homes, the poor and exploited get a chance to rebuild their lives. Now a serious concern is the businesses who exploit their tenants... but if the supply is high enough then the tenants will be able to find new homes / mobile home communities. -------------- The main problem are the towns who are making mobile homes ILLEGAL, because they find that poor people are unsavory and the town wants to forcibly gentrify themselves. Elitists are scared of mobile home communities that explicitly cater to say, sex offenders, or poor people, or other "unsavory" types. Not in my community, hell, not even CLOSE to my community / backyard. Think of the children! That's the problem. Not the people who are building mobile homes, but the fact that mobile homes are slowly becoming straight up illegal in huge portions of communities.

Noos 11y ago
It's not about elitism. The towns don't like mobile homes because the value of an individual home is tiny, and doesn't add much to the tax rolls.
- dragontamer 11y ago
  Do you ever attend a community Town Hall or Home Owner's Association? Meetings rarely talk about the budget, for better or for worse. You'll get legions of concerned mothers talking about the dirty homeless people at the motels and ways to build fences around the motels to protect the kids... or Single-Family homeowners complaining about the black people in the Apartments (I kid you not)... and setting up cameras or paying officers / security firms to patrol those locations. But NEVER have I ever seen anyone complain about low-property taxes of a specific unit at a homeowner's association / town hall. Literally never. People don't give a shit about the budget, they're just too far removed to understand that kind of an issue. Based on my experience, I'm going to call this elitism, not a budget issue.

AlgorithmicTime 11y ago

$250 a month for rent, anywhere in the US, is an absolute song. No reasonable person would consider it exploitative.