3 ms·

>complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of landlord's motivations and interests...rents are generally set through market forces Should their motivatio

>complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of landlord's motivations and interests...rents are generally set through market forces Should their motivations and interests matter if market forces ultimately decide the outcome, which isn't "as little of their tenant's paycheck every month" as you contend for the average tenant? >People shouldn't be able to use tools or implements of any kind to generate income? This seems to conflate an apartment someone owns to, say, a laptop or another tool which they actively use to generate productive work. I don't agree with the comparison but I do agree that it is more grey than my parent comment portrayed it to be. >than food or water, yet I don't see activists... You haven't seen activists who protest the commoditization and sale of drinking water? >And you wrap up with a statement that is solely based on some version of a landlord that easy for to you to hate, regardless of any relation to reality. You're right, that was a strawman and bad form from myself. But I'm not sure the 17 million vacant homes versus the 200,000 or so recorded unsheltered homeless individuals per the 2019 American census[1] is that unrelated to reality. If you're suggesting that it is removed from reality in that the motivations for those properties remaining empty cannot be outright attributed to malice like I did, I would be open to that assertion but I'm not sure it matters as long as the disparity exists. I still feel it is fundamentally immoral. I appreciate you engaging with the content of my argument in good faith and apologize if I have failed to return the favour. 1: https://checkyourfact.com/2019/12/24/fact-check-633000-homeless-million-vacant-homes/ https://checkyourfact.com/2019/12/24/fact-check-633000-homel... I'll admit a primary source would have been better but this was easier to find on my phone.

bpt3 6y ago
> Should their motivations and interests matter if market forces ultimately decide the outcome, which isn't "as little of their tenant's paycheck every month" as you contend for the average tenant? I don't "contend" that landlords want tenants who can comfortably pay the rent, it's standard best practice and common sense. Regardless, I'm not sure why landlords are solely responsible for the status quo, to the point that you believe they shouldn't exist. > This seems to conflate an apartment someone owns to, say, a laptop or another tool which they actively use to generate productive work. I don't agree with the comparison but I do agree that it is more grey than my parent comment portrayed it to be. Yes, it does conflate the two intentionally. The distinction between housing and other man-made goods seems arbitrary to me. > You haven't seen activists who protest the commoditization and sale of drinking water? The protests I've seen about Nestle and others are generally focused on privatization of water in impoverished nations where people were previously using it as a free resource or centered around the terms of the contract with a water bottler. I don't see activists in the US protesting the water company or telling people not to pay their water bills, which is what I had in mind when I made my previous comment. > You're right, that was a strawman and bad form from myself. But I'm not sure the 17 million vacant homes versus the 200,000 or so recorded unsheltered homeless individuals per the 2019 American census[1] is that unrelated to reality. If you're suggesting that it is removed from reality in that the motivations for those properties remaining empty cannot be outright attributed to malice like I did, I would be open to that assertion but I'm not sure it matters as long as the disparity exists. I still feel it is fundamentally immoral. Fair enough. I don't dispute that there are enough vacant homes to provide shelter to the homeless, but my issue was the assumption of malice (which is the case throughout your original reply to me). > I appreciate you engaging with the content of my argument in good faith and apologize if I have failed to return the favour. Same to you, it's always unclear to me why landlords are vilified and singled out as the one provider of necessary goods and services that are vilified and should be outlawed, so engaging in conversations like these are interesting to me.

bpt3 6y ago

> Should their motivations and interests matter if market forces ultimately decide the outcome, which isn't "as little of their tenant's paycheck every month" as you contend for the average tenant? I don't "contend" that landlords want tenants who can comfortably pay the rent, it's standard best practice and common sense. Regardless, I'm not sure why landlords are solely responsible for the status quo, to the point that you believe they shouldn't exist. > This seems to conflate an apartment someone owns to, say, a laptop or another tool which they actively use to generate productive work. I don't agree with the comparison but I do agree that it is more grey than my parent comment portrayed it to be. Yes, it does conflate the two intentionally. The distinction between housing and other man-made goods seems arbitrary to me. > You haven't seen activists who protest the commoditization and sale of drinking water? The protests I've seen about Nestle and others are generally focused on privatization of water in impoverished nations where people were previously using it as a free resource or centered around the terms of the contract with a water bottler. I don't see activists in the US protesting the water company or telling people not to pay their water bills, which is what I had in mind when I made my previous comment. > You're right, that was a strawman and bad form from myself. But I'm not sure the 17 million vacant homes versus the 200,000 or so recorded unsheltered homeless individuals per the 2019 American census[1] is that unrelated to reality. If you're suggesting that it is removed from reality in that the motivations for those properties remaining empty cannot be outright attributed to malice like I did, I would be open to that assertion but I'm not sure it matters as long as the disparity exists. I still feel it is fundamentally immoral. Fair enough. I don't dispute that there are enough vacant homes to provide shelter to the homeless, but my issue was the assumption of malice (which is the case throughout your original reply to me). > I appreciate you engaging with the content of my argument in good faith and apologize if I have failed to return the favour. Same to you, it's always unclear to me why landlords are vilified and singled out as the one provider of necessary goods and services that are vilified and should be outlawed, so engaging in conversations like these are interesting to me.