5 ms·

I agree. I often hear "landlords need to make an income too" as an argument against rent relief / freezes. However: a) Many landlords have financing at their d

I agree. I often hear "landlords need to make an income too" as an argument against rent relief / freezes. However: a) Many landlords have financing at their disposal that renters don't: loan forbearance, mortgage freezes (and yet rent freezes are unfair?), etc. b) In good times, the defense for landlords raising rents is "they're taking a financial risk by renting out their property others" -- if that's the case, then why is it the government's priority to protect them more than the tenants these landlords are evicting? You invested in the opportunity to generate income. Not the guarantee. If you lose your shirt, that's on you -- nothing prevented you from putting the money in savings or less risky account. This may be my own subjective view and politics coming through, but I firmly believe that if you're wealthy enough to afford a property to rent out to the less wealthy, the needs of the tenants trump the needs of the landlords; similarly, the needs of the landlords should trump the needs of the banks. The economy is hurting, everyone is hurting, yes. But why is it the people at the bottom have to hurt the most?

happytoexplain 6y ago
>why is it the people at the bottom have to hurt the most? The people above them would have it that way. In a functioning democracy, the will of the people would naturally prevent that, but many of the people have been convinced that those in low places "deserve it".
toast0 6y ago
> In good times, the defense for landlords raising rents is "they're taking a financial risk by renting out their property others" -- if that's the case, then why is it the government's priority to protect them more than the tenants these landlords are evicting? It's one thing if the risk is tenants don't pay, and the landlord won't get the rent, plus they'll have to pay legal fees and what not to evict, plus they may need to fix damages that they will be unlikely to recoup from the departing tenant and then have the uncertainty of finding a new tenant. That's the risk they signed up for in becoming a landlord. It's another thing if the government says hey, we know people can't/aren't paying rent, but you can't evict them cause it's a bad situation for everyone. If the landlords then have trouble paying the mortgage and employees/contractors and what not, if there's no consessions that's going to be a problem. Maybe you tell the banks not to forclose and the banks have to eat it, because they're banks and universally reviled. It seems easier to drop helicopter money and keep most bills paid, and maybe just slow down the courts rather than prohibit evictions and foreclosure. But helicopter money has to be federal, and states can block evictions and foreclosures, so that's what we get without agreement at the federal level.
fierarul 6y ago
> You invested in the opportunity to generate income. Not the guarantee. They may still have the opportunity to get income from another tennant but you want them to be responsible for the tenant that can't/won't pay. The state would effectively offload any social responsibility it has. Also, who says the living conditions have to be the same under crisis? The state could sub-rent out some places but double the density. After all, if you are staying for free a shared bathroom is not the end of the world. > But why is it the people at the bottom have to hurt the most? The $1200 stimulus was probably the most generous in the world. Seems to me everybody is pretending it didn't happen.
- seized 6y ago
  $1200 one time was laughable. CERB in Canada was $2000 a month for months on end.
  - smnrchrds 6y ago
    CERB was a temporary alternative to EI (what unemployment benefits are called in Canada) for people who did not qualify for EI. It was not given to everyone, just to people who lost their jobs due to COVID.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    The US also had a $2400/mo unemployment benefit, like CERB but more money (and in USD not lower value CAD). Of course Canada has other benefits like socialized medicine.
- thebradbain 6y ago
  As a one time payment, maybe (though as noted above Canada is offering the equivalent of $1400 USD every month). Yet most other wealthy countries opted for a recurring payment or subsidy of some sort -- on top of an expanded social safety net, which, by and large in Europe, were already much more robust than the US's to begin with.
  - fierarul 6y ago
cwhiz 6y ago
>If you lose your shirt, that's on you -- nothing prevented you from putting the money in savings or less risky account. ...except you are preventing the landlord from making money. Presumably there is another potential tenant that would pay rent. It is pretty interesting for you to argue that landlords shouldn't be able to evict people and also if landlords "lose their shirt" it is their own fault. >the needs of the tenants trump the needs of the landlords Which tenant? The one that is currently in the building, or the one that could move in and pay rent? >But why is it the people at the bottom have to hurt the most? The US gave everyone a $1,200 check and an additional $600 PER WEEK in unemployment benefits. People were making $60,000+ annualized during the peak of covid. There is also an eviction moratorium. How much more do you think people need?
- mjevans 6y ago
  A supply side correction rather than a market one. The market is relatively inelastic in it's needs. More money in goes right through to the other side. Those extra 600 per week did not get banked, it got spent. Granted, I didn't see any of it because I'm thankfully still working; but I'm under zero illusions that it didn't pay for things like TV, cable, maybe a computer; and most probably some touchless delivery meals.
- thebradbain 6y ago
  How much do I think people need? I think all people deserve a place to call home; food; water; electricity; education; healthcare; a reliable means of transportation; a guaranteed retirement plan or pension. Even with an above-minimum-wage job, or even two, this is no longer feasible for so many citizens of the US: you either end up compromising or forgoing some options entirely. I don't believe having access to these things should be a standard to aspire to that many struggle to achieve -- rather, this should be the bare minimum that, were you to lose your job tomorrow and have almost no savings (as is the situation for so many people in the US), you would have no fear of losing. But if you want to attach a number to it (which I think is the wrong way to put it into terms, as money focuses the conversation on short term cost, when really it's a long term investment), let's start at $5000/mo. $60,000 per year, annualized, all the time, in perpetuity. Per adult. Afraid someone who is otherwise able to work is abusing the system? Start up a large national public works program: I think we can all agree there's SO much to rebuild, fix, and improve in the US and in our communities. FDR envisioned something close to this when he signed minimum wage into law: "No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By ‘business’ I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of decent living"

happytoexplain 6y ago

>why is it the people at the bottom have to hurt the most? The people above them would have it that way. In a functioning democracy, the will of the people would naturally prevent that, but many of the people have been convinced that those in low places "deserve it".

toast0 6y ago

> In good times, the defense for landlords raising rents is "they're taking a financial risk by renting out their property others" -- if that's the case, then why is it the government's priority to protect them more than the tenants these landlords are evicting? It's one thing if the risk is tenants don't pay, and the landlord won't get the rent, plus they'll have to pay legal fees and what not to evict, plus they may need to fix damages that they will be unlikely to recoup from the departing tenant and then have the uncertainty of finding a new tenant. That's the risk they signed up for in becoming a landlord. It's another thing if the government says hey, we know people can't/aren't paying rent, but you can't evict them cause it's a bad situation for everyone. If the landlords then have trouble paying the mortgage and employees/contractors and what not, if there's no consessions that's going to be a problem. Maybe you tell the banks not to forclose and the banks have to eat it, because they're banks and universally reviled. It seems easier to drop helicopter money and keep most bills paid, and maybe just slow down the courts rather than prohibit evictions and foreclosure. But helicopter money has to be federal, and states can block evictions and foreclosures, so that's what we get without agreement at the federal level.

fierarul 6y ago

> You invested in the opportunity to generate income. Not the guarantee. They may still have the opportunity to get income from another tennant but you want them to be responsible for the tenant that can't/won't pay. The state would effectively offload any social responsibility it has. Also, who says the living conditions have to be the same under crisis? The state could sub-rent out some places but double the density. After all, if you are staying for free a shared bathroom is not the end of the world. > But why is it the people at the bottom have to hurt the most? The $1200 stimulus was probably the most generous in the world. Seems to me everybody is pretending it didn't happen.

seized 6y ago
$1200 one time was laughable. CERB in Canada was $2000 a month for months on end.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  CERB was a temporary alternative to EI (what unemployment benefits are called in Canada) for people who did not qualify for EI. It was not given to everyone, just to people who lost their jobs due to COVID.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  The US also had a $2400/mo unemployment benefit, like CERB but more money (and in USD not lower value CAD). Of course Canada has other benefits like socialized medicine.
thebradbain 6y ago
As a one time payment, maybe (though as noted above Canada is offering the equivalent of $1400 USD every month). Yet most other wealthy countries opted for a recurring payment or subsidy of some sort -- on top of an expanded social safety net, which, by and large in Europe, were already much more robust than the US's to begin with.
- fierarul 6y ago

cwhiz 6y ago

>If you lose your shirt, that's on you -- nothing prevented you from putting the money in savings or less risky account. ...except you are preventing the landlord from making money. Presumably there is another potential tenant that would pay rent. It is pretty interesting for you to argue that landlords shouldn't be able to evict people and also if landlords "lose their shirt" it is their own fault. >the needs of the tenants trump the needs of the landlords Which tenant? The one that is currently in the building, or the one that could move in and pay rent? >But why is it the people at the bottom have to hurt the most? The US gave everyone a $1,200 check and an additional $600 PER WEEK in unemployment benefits. People were making $60,000+ annualized during the peak of covid. There is also an eviction moratorium. How much more do you think people need?

mjevans 6y ago
A supply side correction rather than a market one. The market is relatively inelastic in it's needs. More money in goes right through to the other side. Those extra 600 per week did not get banked, it got spent. Granted, I didn't see any of it because I'm thankfully still working; but I'm under zero illusions that it didn't pay for things like TV, cable, maybe a computer; and most probably some touchless delivery meals.
thebradbain 6y ago
How much do I think people need? I think all people deserve a place to call home; food; water; electricity; education; healthcare; a reliable means of transportation; a guaranteed retirement plan or pension. Even with an above-minimum-wage job, or even two, this is no longer feasible for so many citizens of the US: you either end up compromising or forgoing some options entirely. I don't believe having access to these things should be a standard to aspire to that many struggle to achieve -- rather, this should be the bare minimum that, were you to lose your job tomorrow and have almost no savings (as is the situation for so many people in the US), you would have no fear of losing. But if you want to attach a number to it (which I think is the wrong way to put it into terms, as money focuses the conversation on short term cost, when really it's a long term investment), let's start at $5000/mo. $60,000 per year, annualized, all the time, in perpetuity. Per adult. Afraid someone who is otherwise able to work is abusing the system? Start up a large national public works program: I think we can all agree there's SO much to rebuild, fix, and improve in the US and in our communities. FDR envisioned something close to this when he signed minimum wage into law: "No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By ‘business’ I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of decent living"