6 ms·

Is your definition of landlord also includes mom and pop who only own 1 property (on which they rent some of the rooms out)?

claudeganon 6y ago
Yes?
- christiansakai 6y ago
  Can you explain why this is fair? I might misunderstood your point.
Daishiman 6y ago
Yes.
Arbalest 6y ago
That sounds reasonable, but even this little bit causes wealth transfer by setting home ownership just a little bit more off limits to the majority by increasing the supply of slightly too cheap rooms. Thus creating an incentive to the wider more moneyed classes to increase demand on the stock of housing. So while the language used is evokative, the reality is, at scale, all those mom's and pops end up being a very large and powerful group with aligned interests, whose actions also enable even bigger players.
- christiansakai 6y ago
  I’m not sure I understand. If I were in their situation I won’t want that to be applied to me. What about you?
  - Arbalest 6y ago
    Of course people want money, everyone else does. But it doesn't matter what they feel, and it doesn't matter what I would feel, nor how you would feel. What matters is how those who are most vulnerable are treated. It's not fair to say, well those mom's and pops would be worse off, when the people who were already poor would be even worse off otherwise. When rent becomes involved, the system becomes pretty close to zero sum.
    - christiansakai 6y ago
      This is stale discussion already, but going by that logic, why would you sacrifice the majority mom and pop (average person who also lives paycheck to paycheck) for the minority poor? For example right now in NYC, most people find it really hard to buy their first home (not everyone is SWE in FAANG). It isn't like they have spare money to buy bigger toys. Once they worked hard for that why take that away? I'm not saying not help the poor. We should treat our most vulnerable people, but economically I think it doesn't work out. The poor will always be there, the sick will always be there, the unemployed will always be there no matter what. Even if you help them, they will always be there.
      - Arbalest 6y ago
        Well, the poor need the most government handouts, and if you make the people who need the most government handouts have to give away most of their income in this manner, you've essentially just taken government debt and given it to the landlords. That doesn't make economic sense either. As for discussion being stale, I have children, my ability to monitor threads is impaired. It might not be much of a discussion easily visible to outsiders, but we are both continuing to engage. Or will up to a point.
cosmodisk 6y ago
We are renting a small flat in London. We would barely afford a mortgage on it despite my income being twice of a nation average.My landlord bought it in 2001 for a price that is less than a half of its today's value,adjusted to inflation. So back then,you could buy it even with a modest income,while now you need to either own a business or be a director to be able to do so.
- mixmastamyk 6y ago
  Due to lack of supply, a lot of such folks are in on the joke.
  - cosmodisk 6y ago
    It's not the supply. It's not that London wasn't packed then and everyone not needed somewhere to live. All the craziness started when banks were allowed to jump on a mortgage bandwagon.It used to be only building societies before that. I'm commenting the UK situation,but I think it's similar in other countries too.
    - mixmastamyk 6y ago
      It is supply—restrictions on development, investors and AirBNB snapping up units, which increase vacancy rates. Yes, low interest rates are also a big factor. Not sure if they have a mortgage tax deduction over there. More folks want to live in the city these days as well, suburbs have lost some of their appeal. All these factors => very expensive housing.
- christiansakai 6y ago
  But that’s not their fault to blame?

claudeganon 6y ago

Yes?

christiansakai 6y ago
Can you explain why this is fair? I might misunderstood your point.

Daishiman 6y ago

Yes.

Arbalest 6y ago

That sounds reasonable, but even this little bit causes wealth transfer by setting home ownership just a little bit more off limits to the majority by increasing the supply of slightly too cheap rooms. Thus creating an incentive to the wider more moneyed classes to increase demand on the stock of housing. So while the language used is evokative, the reality is, at scale, all those mom's and pops end up being a very large and powerful group with aligned interests, whose actions also enable even bigger players.

christiansakai 6y ago
I’m not sure I understand. If I were in their situation I won’t want that to be applied to me. What about you?
- Arbalest 6y ago
  Of course people want money, everyone else does. But it doesn't matter what they feel, and it doesn't matter what I would feel, nor how you would feel. What matters is how those who are most vulnerable are treated. It's not fair to say, well those mom's and pops would be worse off, when the people who were already poor would be even worse off otherwise. When rent becomes involved, the system becomes pretty close to zero sum.
  - christiansakai 6y ago
    This is stale discussion already, but going by that logic, why would you sacrifice the majority mom and pop (average person who also lives paycheck to paycheck) for the minority poor? For example right now in NYC, most people find it really hard to buy their first home (not everyone is SWE in FAANG). It isn't like they have spare money to buy bigger toys. Once they worked hard for that why take that away? I'm not saying not help the poor. We should treat our most vulnerable people, but economically I think it doesn't work out. The poor will always be there, the sick will always be there, the unemployed will always be there no matter what. Even if you help them, they will always be there.
    - Arbalest 6y ago
      Well, the poor need the most government handouts, and if you make the people who need the most government handouts have to give away most of their income in this manner, you've essentially just taken government debt and given it to the landlords. That doesn't make economic sense either. As for discussion being stale, I have children, my ability to monitor threads is impaired. It might not be much of a discussion easily visible to outsiders, but we are both continuing to engage. Or will up to a point.

cosmodisk 6y ago

We are renting a small flat in London. We would barely afford a mortgage on it despite my income being twice of a nation average.My landlord bought it in 2001 for a price that is less than a half of its today's value,adjusted to inflation. So back then,you could buy it even with a modest income,while now you need to either own a business or be a director to be able to do so.

mixmastamyk 6y ago
Due to lack of supply, a lot of such folks are in on the joke.
- cosmodisk 6y ago
  It's not the supply. It's not that London wasn't packed then and everyone not needed somewhere to live. All the craziness started when banks were allowed to jump on a mortgage bandwagon.It used to be only building societies before that. I'm commenting the UK situation,but I think it's similar in other countries too.
  - mixmastamyk 6y ago
    It is supply—restrictions on development, investors and AirBNB snapping up units, which increase vacancy rates. Yes, low interest rates are also a big factor. Not sure if they have a mortgage tax deduction over there. More folks want to live in the city these days as well, suburbs have lost some of their appeal. All these factors => very expensive housing.
christiansakai 6y ago
But that’s not their fault to blame?