5 ms·

If you own all options and the renter needs to have some sort of housing, they'll pay anyway. The end result is that the owner will start collecting a larger p

If you own all options and the renter needs to have some sort of housing, they'll pay anyway. The end result is that the owner will start collecting a larger percent of the renter's earnings.

recursive 5y ago
I'd give up housing before food. There's a limit to how high that percentage can be.
- briefcomment 5y ago
  The point is that landlords will be able to suck up the income that you spend on non-essentials and luxuries.
  - rhodozelia 5y ago
    Only when demand exceeds supply and people have that extra income. Edit: which is common in desirable places with lots of well paying jobs. There are cheap places to rent and buy in the fly over states but not as much opportunity, hence the price
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  > I'd give up housing before food. Lack of food can be fixed in a day. Lack of housing can be impossible to overcome ever.
  - recursive 5y ago
    I don't get this. Both things could be fixed in a day. Also, both of them could be impossible to overcome ever. What's the distinction you're trying to draw. If it comes down to an acute situation where I had to choose, I (and most I think) would choose to eat. I understand in the real world, there probably wouldn't be such a clear choice.
mullen 5y ago
When you make housing too expensive, people just get up and move. People are not surfs and are not trapped or stuck living in a house they can't afford. It might not happen overnight but populations do migrate due to housing costing too much.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  > When you make housing too expensive, people just get up and move. Not when all the jobs in that household are here. > People are not surfs and are not trapped or stuck living in a house they can't afford. They are when all the jobs in that household are here. > It might not happen overnight but populations do migrate due to housing costing too much. People who are facing homelessness this year aren't thinking about market corrections that are decades away.

If you own all options and the renter needs to have some sort of housing, they'll pay anyway. The end result is that the owner will start collecting a larger percent of the renter's earnings.

recursive 5y ago

I'd give up housing before food. There's a limit to how high that percentage can be.

briefcomment 5y ago
The point is that landlords will be able to suck up the income that you spend on non-essentials and luxuries.
- rhodozelia 5y ago
  Only when demand exceeds supply and people have that extra income. Edit: which is common in desirable places with lots of well paying jobs. There are cheap places to rent and buy in the fly over states but not as much opportunity, hence the price
WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> I'd give up housing before food. Lack of food can be fixed in a day. Lack of housing can be impossible to overcome ever.
- recursive 5y ago
  I don't get this. Both things could be fixed in a day. Also, both of them could be impossible to overcome ever. What's the distinction you're trying to draw. If it comes down to an acute situation where I had to choose, I (and most I think) would choose to eat. I understand in the real world, there probably wouldn't be such a clear choice.

mullen 5y ago

When you make housing too expensive, people just get up and move. People are not surfs and are not trapped or stuck living in a house they can't afford. It might not happen overnight but populations do migrate due to housing costing too much.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> When you make housing too expensive, people just get up and move. Not when all the jobs in that household are here. > People are not surfs and are not trapped or stuck living in a house they can't afford. They are when all the jobs in that household are here. > It might not happen overnight but populations do migrate due to housing costing too much. People who are facing homelessness this year aren't thinking about market corrections that are decades away.