3 ms·

In the end, those who own the apartments and the buildings will always be able to capture a significant part of the economical output of a city or country. All

by akie 5y ago

In the end, those who own the apartments and the buildings will always be able to capture a significant part of the economical output of a city or country. All that clever software that increased the company's revenue by 10%? A large part of those additional earnings ended up in some landlord's pocket. We're all just working around the clock so that landlords can increase their rents and sip cocktails.

mrtksn 5y ago
That’s my main issue with the way our society is structured. There’s a class difference between those who own a property and those who don’t even if they do the exactly same job. I don’t even talk about the people who have not done single contribution to the society and live of on the rent of inherited properties. It’s like the peasants who work all day and have nothing when people from blue blood are having generations living of their backs in castles. Having an elite is fine, it’s even better when class movement is feasible but when you have a large class of people doing nothing or rewarded drastically differently for the same input, things are not fine.
- rightbyte 5y ago
  Ye. You need to own "the means of production", which in eg. New York or SV is the house you live in, since the house is the reason you can work close to the easy money. A friend is thinking about to open a restaurant in a very attractive location, but I said, if you don't own the property the restaurant is in, the land lord will just increase rent until the any profit is barely OK anyways. There is no money in that.
  - caminante 5y ago
    > if you don't own the property the restaurant is in, the land lord will just increase rent until the any profit is barely OK anyways. Then, contract around it with a capped escalation factor? And doesn't this apply to any <insert business> renting space?
    - rightbyte 5y ago
      No, I don't think it applies to all businesses. Like, restaurants are tied to a location and reputation. An office not so much. Bigger corporations like McDonalds or Starbucks probably have more bargain power and a better picture of how much a location will pay out, etc.
  - Delk 5y ago
    Are you sure most restaurants aren't renting their premises in any case? Owning a property sounds like a massive investment before you're even able to do any business. Of course the restaurant business is probably hit-and-miss and risky, and owning the premises might give you more stability, at least if you don't have a large amount of debt. It sounds to me like your stance might be quite cynical in the sense that almost nobody would try starting a restaurant if they considered owning their premises a necessity.

by akie 5y ago

mrtksn 5y ago

That’s my main issue with the way our society is structured. There’s a class difference between those who own a property and those who don’t even if they do the exactly same job. I don’t even talk about the people who have not done single contribution to the society and live of on the rent of inherited properties. It’s like the peasants who work all day and have nothing when people from blue blood are having generations living of their backs in castles. Having an elite is fine, it’s even better when class movement is feasible but when you have a large class of people doing nothing or rewarded drastically differently for the same input, things are not fine.

rightbyte 5y ago
Ye. You need to own "the means of production", which in eg. New York or SV is the house you live in, since the house is the reason you can work close to the easy money. A friend is thinking about to open a restaurant in a very attractive location, but I said, if you don't own the property the restaurant is in, the land lord will just increase rent until the any profit is barely OK anyways. There is no money in that.
- caminante 5y ago
  > if you don't own the property the restaurant is in, the land lord will just increase rent until the any profit is barely OK anyways. Then, contract around it with a capped escalation factor? And doesn't this apply to any <insert business> renting space?
  - rightbyte 5y ago
    No, I don't think it applies to all businesses. Like, restaurants are tied to a location and reputation. An office not so much. Bigger corporations like McDonalds or Starbucks probably have more bargain power and a better picture of how much a location will pay out, etc.
- Delk 5y ago
  Are you sure most restaurants aren't renting their premises in any case? Owning a property sounds like a massive investment before you're even able to do any business. Of course the restaurant business is probably hit-and-miss and risky, and owning the premises might give you more stability, at least if you don't have a large amount of debt. It sounds to me like your stance might be quite cynical in the sense that almost nobody would try starting a restaurant if they considered owning their premises a necessity.