6 ms·

Well I think the main issue is investors in real estate to then rent out are taking a business risk. There is no zero risk income. The renter on the other hand

Well I think the main issue is investors in real estate to then rent out are taking a business risk. There is no zero risk income. The renter on the other hand has no choice but to rent shelter. This is justified in my opinion.

int3 6y ago
Renting is a choice. Choosing a particular apartment at a given price point to rent is also a choice.
- andrei_says_ 6y ago
  Like breathing is a choice? Where are the minimum-wage-affordable apartments in nyc? “Choice”
  - krapp 6y ago
    Choosing to live in a city you can't afford in a nation with nearly 4 million square miles worth of other options is also a choice.
    - geofft 6y ago
      Choosing to be a landlord in a city you can't afford is quite the choice, too.
    - machello13 6y ago
      The ignorance on HN always astounds me. Not everyone is a young software engineer making $100k who can move anywhere they want. You realize there are people in this country who can barely afford food, right? Let alone picking up and moving to a whole other city?
      - krapp 6y ago
        Someone who can "barely afford food" but somehow also manage to live in NYC can very likely afford a bus ticket. People move to follow work all the time, very few of them making anywhere near $100k.
        WalterGR 6y ago
        What does the person who can barely afford food do after they've bought the bus ticket? They board the bus, they ride it to the destination. Then what do they do?
        krapp 6y ago
        I don't know, find one of the many thousands of people who've done it and ask them. If people could manage stepping off the boat at Ellis island with maybe a suitcase but not a scrap of English or a dollar to their name a hundred years ago, people can manage a trip out of the city or out of the state today. Hell, today there's probably a subreddit and series of Youtube tutorials that will lay the plan out for you step by step. I'm not saying it would be easy, but it's obviously not impossible. Being able to move isn't a sign of privilege in modern society, stability is privilege. The poor are always at risk of losing what little they have and needing to move on or start over.
        WalterGR 6y ago
        Well, I mean, you said that people today in that situation (right? Not the early 1900s?) can simply buy a bus ticket. I figured that implied that you know what they're supposed to do next. Otherwise you wouldn't have given that advice, since simply buying a bus ticket doesn't save them from barely even being able to afford food. Right?
        krapp 6y ago
        You're being unnecessarily pedantic.
        6y ago
vmception 6y ago
I'm renting in two places right now, and have relocated twice in the pandemic because I felt like it. Don't speak for me or try to quantify a probability that you can't. I'm already double counted in whatever stat you find, so good luck. If the state willingly makes their market unattractive for "people that can take a risk", then that can be criticized holistically as well. But just saying "they took a risk" and allowing for any outcome because of that is cognitively negligent.
- beiller 6y ago
  I rent as well and I think it's smart. Below a certain wage however, in any city, there is a large cohort who can't afford to purchase so they are forced into renting. These are the people I mean when I say no choice. To reply to your edit, to take a risk and have a control on the bad outcomes kinda makes it not taking a risk.
  - vmception 6y ago
    again, simply saying thats true for “any risk” and turning your brain off is just negligent
refurb 6y ago
If it’s the government that is coming in and changing the rules then the government should help those affected.
djbebs 6y ago
Do you think sovereign risk is something that businesses should account for? Would you hold that same opinion for other things as well? Say you own your house, and suddenly the local government mandates that you give it to them with no compensation. Would you say "that's just a risk of owning a house"? Let's be reasonable here, having a clear, consistent and enforced legal system is a key requirement to make long term investments in anything. If you want to have a stable country and strong economy you must have such a legal system
- beiller 6y ago
  Replace the word house with land. Does that change anything? Who owns the land? The "government" is just people. And if there is not enough land because one person owns it all, absolutely I would be in favor of taking it and giving it back to the people. That is actually a normal risk of ANY business - government passing legislation that makes you less profitable. ISP? Google? Cable Companies? All face government pressure. And they also lobby the governments to get their way. No different from REITs also probably lobbying hard to force rents up, and force money to be spent on shelter instead of productive uses like investment, buying goods and services, hiring employees. I think you have a bit of reverse logic there, thinking that by kicking renters out and protecting landlords, we are "improving the economy".

int3 6y ago

Renting is a choice. Choosing a particular apartment at a given price point to rent is also a choice.

andrei_says_ 6y ago
Like breathing is a choice? Where are the minimum-wage-affordable apartments in nyc? “Choice”
- krapp 6y ago
  Choosing to live in a city you can't afford in a nation with nearly 4 million square miles worth of other options is also a choice.
  - geofft 6y ago
    Choosing to be a landlord in a city you can't afford is quite the choice, too.
  - machello13 6y ago
    The ignorance on HN always astounds me. Not everyone is a young software engineer making $100k who can move anywhere they want. You realize there are people in this country who can barely afford food, right? Let alone picking up and moving to a whole other city?
    - krapp 6y ago
      Someone who can "barely afford food" but somehow also manage to live in NYC can very likely afford a bus ticket. People move to follow work all the time, very few of them making anywhere near $100k.
      - WalterGR 6y ago
        What does the person who can barely afford food do after they've bought the bus ticket? They board the bus, they ride it to the destination. Then what do they do?
        krapp 6y ago
        I don't know, find one of the many thousands of people who've done it and ask them. If people could manage stepping off the boat at Ellis island with maybe a suitcase but not a scrap of English or a dollar to their name a hundred years ago, people can manage a trip out of the city or out of the state today. Hell, today there's probably a subreddit and series of Youtube tutorials that will lay the plan out for you step by step. I'm not saying it would be easy, but it's obviously not impossible. Being able to move isn't a sign of privilege in modern society, stability is privilege. The poor are always at risk of losing what little they have and needing to move on or start over.
        WalterGR 6y ago
        Well, I mean, you said that people today in that situation (right? Not the early 1900s?) can simply buy a bus ticket. I figured that implied that you know what they're supposed to do next. Otherwise you wouldn't have given that advice, since simply buying a bus ticket doesn't save them from barely even being able to afford food. Right?
        krapp 6y ago
        You're being unnecessarily pedantic.
        6y ago

vmception 6y ago

I'm renting in two places right now, and have relocated twice in the pandemic because I felt like it. Don't speak for me or try to quantify a probability that you can't. I'm already double counted in whatever stat you find, so good luck. If the state willingly makes their market unattractive for "people that can take a risk", then that can be criticized holistically as well. But just saying "they took a risk" and allowing for any outcome because of that is cognitively negligent.

beiller 6y ago
I rent as well and I think it's smart. Below a certain wage however, in any city, there is a large cohort who can't afford to purchase so they are forced into renting. These are the people I mean when I say no choice. To reply to your edit, to take a risk and have a control on the bad outcomes kinda makes it not taking a risk.
- vmception 6y ago
  again, simply saying thats true for “any risk” and turning your brain off is just negligent

refurb 6y ago

If it’s the government that is coming in and changing the rules then the government should help those affected.

djbebs 6y ago

Do you think sovereign risk is something that businesses should account for? Would you hold that same opinion for other things as well? Say you own your house, and suddenly the local government mandates that you give it to them with no compensation. Would you say "that's just a risk of owning a house"? Let's be reasonable here, having a clear, consistent and enforced legal system is a key requirement to make long term investments in anything. If you want to have a stable country and strong economy you must have such a legal system

beiller 6y ago
Replace the word house with land. Does that change anything? Who owns the land? The "government" is just people. And if there is not enough land because one person owns it all, absolutely I would be in favor of taking it and giving it back to the people. That is actually a normal risk of ANY business - government passing legislation that makes you less profitable. ISP? Google? Cable Companies? All face government pressure. And they also lobby the governments to get their way. No different from REITs also probably lobbying hard to force rents up, and force money to be spent on shelter instead of productive uses like investment, buying goods and services, hiring employees. I think you have a bit of reverse logic there, thinking that by kicking renters out and protecting landlords, we are "improving the economy".