5 ms·
>In the sense that he or she is charging 70% of their monthly income for rent. No. He or she is charging an absolute amount, not a percentage of their payslip.
by thecopy 11y ago
>In the sense that he or she is charging 70% of their monthly income for rent.
No. He or she is charging an absolute amount, not a percentage of their payslip.
>And it's coercion alright if the alternative is being left homeless.
Coercion /koʊˈɜːrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure.
There is no coercion here. Poor people are not mindless sheep, they have their own will, their own goals and their own plans. If they live there it is because they chose it. Not the landlord, and not "the rich".
- YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago>> He or she is charging an absolute amount, not a percentage of their payslip. Here's another analogy. I make this beautiful and unique item that you want to buy. I charge - literally - an arm and a leg over it. Like, the actual body parts. You protest: "You're asking for a part of my body??". I reply "I'm asking for an arm and a leg, not a part of your body". Hey, maybe you can pay me with someone else's arm-and-a-leg, right? That is how absurd it is to say what you just said. >> There is no coercion here. Yeah, there totally is. It's the same kind of coercion the Mafia employes. "You don't want to pay us to protect your establishment? Well, fine, but then something may happen to it". You don't want to pay 70% of your income to stay at my dirty, dilapidated hovel? That's fine, but then you might find yourself homeless. The tactics are similar because the mindset is similar. Pay up or else. It's exactly how it works and it's precisely why it's coercive and morally repugnant. More to the point: I find it morally repugnant because I don't have to pay 70% of my income to stay at a trailer, and I make probably 70 times more than the people who are forced to live there. There is no excuse for that. If I payed 70% of my income to live in a shithole, then I would think, OK, that's how it goes. That's life, see? Except, it's not. I know it's quite easy to get a much better deal, as I got. If someone forced me to live in such conditions, I'd be up in arms. Therefore, I also do mind a lot that other people are living in such conditions.
- forgetsusername 11y ago>I make probably 70 times more than the people who are forced to live there I can only assume you're using all your excess income to build and subsidize homes for the poor?
- YeGoblynQueenne 11y agoOK, the "70 times more" is overdoing it.
- darawk 11y agoThat is not coercion. You fundamentally misunderstand (or apparently disagree with) literally all of western philosophy and economic thought if you think that charging rents in a voluntary exchange is 'coercion'. The simple fact is that, over many thousands of years, humans have evolved a system of voluntary exchange. And we have found that that system produces the greatest benefit for the largest number of people as compared to all other systems we have tried at scale. This means that those with property rent their property to others so that they may live there. If you don't allow the owners of property to rent their property, then there will be no homes for anyone. If you do not allow people to own property, then property will likely not be put to its most productive use (see: communist russia, china, north korea, etc.). If you'd like to propose a better system, i'm all ears. But until then, you need to accept the hard reality that there is no better solution for these people, and that an offer like "pay 70% of your income in rent" is something that they have the right to accept. To suggest that these people are being exploited when they are entering into such an agreement is to suggest that they are incapable of agency, and to deny them the most basic of human rights.
- YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago>> You fundamentally misunderstand (or apparently disagree with) literally all of western philosophy and economic thought if you think that charging rents in a voluntary exchange is 'coercion'. On the one hand, to say that with any authority you have to be a, well, authority, on "western philosophy and economic thought" or at least to have read it. All of it. Have you? On the other hand, I'm not conversing with "all of western philosophy and economic thought" here. I'm disagreeing with you about a very specific thing, which btw is not at all whether "charging rents in a voluntary exchange is a coercion". That's your interpretation of my comments. What I find coercive is charging someone 70% of their income to let them live at a shithole with the unspoken threat of them becoming homeless otherwise looming over their head. Not to mention the threat of kicking them out if they complain about the state of the property, or if somebody calls the cops on them, and so on, as the article reports. The people who rent those properties, far from being "free agents" as you pretend they are, find themselves in dire economic straights and with extremely limited options. They are under immense pressure to find a house and grave consequences if they can't pay the rent. If you consider that "free agency" then you might as well consider extortionate lending, such as practiced by loan sharks, with the threat of having your legs broken by thugs if you can't pay, to be a fair and acceptable exchange. I don't know what "literally all of western philosophy and economic thought" says about extortion, but I do know it's illegal in most of the world- and for good reason.
- collyw 11y agoI am pretty sure there would be legal threats as soon as the rent isn't paid.