3 ms·

Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying it's not plenty profitable. I only mentioned the higher rents thing to illustrate the point that the landlord does not have a

by darawk 11y ago

Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying it's not plenty profitable. I only mentioned the higher rents thing to illustrate the point that the landlord does not have an interest in keeping these people poor. This article is suggesting that these landlords are causing poverty, but then it goes on to not even try to make that case. They may be making money from poor people, and they may even not provide them the level of service they are legally required to, but this article makes no actual case for them causing or being any real part of the poverty cycle. Unless of course you think that the mere fact of asking that their rents be paid is the problem - and if you do, fine, but you're then tasked with proposing an alternative way of housing these people.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
>This article is suggesting that these landlords are causing poverty The landlords are causing poverty by increasing rents to the maximum level the market will bear, removing money from the system and - usually - moving it offshore. Because slum property is so immensely profitable, there's no incentive whatsoever to invest the profits in anything riskier. So you end up with wasteful non-projects like this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3490220/The-Ghost-House-Sussex-40m-mansion-built-property-baron-friend-Robert-Mugabe-31-years-work-started.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3490220/The-Ghost-Ho... Meanwhile renters see their disposable income - in fact their economic freedoms - eroded until they can barely afford housing and food. You now have a deflationary cycle where it becomes harder to find customers for new businesses, and harder to find investment because investors don't believe customers are easy to find. Of course it's not just landlords. But generally economic cultures are designed to be favourable to either increasing or decreasing economic freedom for the low-paid. And if it's the latter, the predictable result is massive inequality and a deflationary uncontrolled descent into terrain which not only does the poor a lot of damage, but also eats away at the sustainable economic value of the assets of the rich.
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >usually - moving it offshore Usually? Yeah, your local slumlord has a Swiss bank account.
- darawk 11y ago
  If this had any economic truth to it, there would be a market in undercutting these overpriced rents. If this were true at all, you should go to your local bank, get a loan, snap up some property, and undercut your local slumlord by 10%. By your logic, you'd have plenty of profit to spare, and you'd be providing an enormous social good. But my guess is that you will not do this. And you will not do this because your analysis of their margins and business is not actually correct, and you and everyone else in the market knows this.

by darawk 11y ago

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

>This article is suggesting that these landlords are causing poverty The landlords are causing poverty by increasing rents to the maximum level the market will bear, removing money from the system and - usually - moving it offshore. Because slum property is so immensely profitable, there's no incentive whatsoever to invest the profits in anything riskier. So you end up with wasteful non-projects like this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3490220/The-Ghost-House-Sussex-40m-mansion-built-property-baron-friend-Robert-Mugabe-31-years-work-started.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3490220/The-Ghost-Ho... Meanwhile renters see their disposable income - in fact their economic freedoms - eroded until they can barely afford housing and food. You now have a deflationary cycle where it becomes harder to find customers for new businesses, and harder to find investment because investors don't believe customers are easy to find. Of course it's not just landlords. But generally economic cultures are designed to be favourable to either increasing or decreasing economic freedom for the low-paid. And if it's the latter, the predictable result is massive inequality and a deflationary uncontrolled descent into terrain which not only does the poor a lot of damage, but also eats away at the sustainable economic value of the assets of the rich.

forgetsusername 11y ago
>usually - moving it offshore Usually? Yeah, your local slumlord has a Swiss bank account.
darawk 11y ago
If this had any economic truth to it, there would be a market in undercutting these overpriced rents. If this were true at all, you should go to your local bank, get a loan, snap up some property, and undercut your local slumlord by 10%. By your logic, you'd have plenty of profit to spare, and you'd be providing an enormous social good. But my guess is that you will not do this. And you will not do this because your analysis of their margins and business is not actually correct, and you and everyone else in the market knows this.