3 ms·

>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 landl

by 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"
jlokier 6y ago
>>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? The one currently in the building. This is quite clear cut, the two tenants are not equivalent. Rationale: The one that could move in and pay straight away almost certainly has a place to live already. It's possible they are currently homeless and yet able to start paying immediately and convince you it's sustainable, but it's very unlikely. The one being asked to leave is likely to end up homeless, in a pandemic. Unless your place is significantly above market rates and there's a realistic cheaper place available to them. Even if there's a cheaper place they could move to, with all the checks in place, most potential new landlords will reject a tenant who just got kicked out of somewhere for non-payment of rent. There may also be high competition for a small number of "last resort" places to live which accept people in this situation. And moving when you have no money is also very difficult, sometimes impossible and they will lose their possessions too. So if the value being prioritised here is to minimise avoidable homelessness, then priority should be given to the person who would be made homeless, not the person who wouldn't.

by cwhiz 6y ago

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"

jlokier 6y ago

>>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? The one currently in the building. This is quite clear cut, the two tenants are not equivalent. Rationale: The one that could move in and pay straight away almost certainly has a place to live already. It's possible they are currently homeless and yet able to start paying immediately and convince you it's sustainable, but it's very unlikely. The one being asked to leave is likely to end up homeless, in a pandemic. Unless your place is significantly above market rates and there's a realistic cheaper place available to them. Even if there's a cheaper place they could move to, with all the checks in place, most potential new landlords will reject a tenant who just got kicked out of somewhere for non-payment of rent. There may also be high competition for a small number of "last resort" places to live which accept people in this situation. And moving when you have no money is also very difficult, sometimes impossible and they will lose their possessions too. So if the value being prioritised here is to minimise avoidable homelessness, then priority should be given to the person who would be made homeless, not the person who wouldn't.