7 ms·

> If 61% of the US population is living paycheck-to-paycheck, it isn't because they need to. Consumers can share blame for not living below their means, needle

> If 61% of the US population is living paycheck-to-paycheck, it isn't because they need to. Consumers can share blame for not living below their means, needless wealth signaling, and financial illiteracy. But predatory entities are part of the problem, too - car dealers obscuring true costs of borrowing ("how much do you want to pay per month?"), credit card issuers jacking up rates to 37%, and real estate "investors" jacking up rents after buying mom & pop mobile homes and senior rental units knowing that tenants have nowhere else to go. Here's one example from Montana: “I can’t tell you how many calls I got from folks that were older, like older than 55 or 60, that had lived in their same house for decades, had the same owner for decades who never raised the rent,” Huey said. “Then all of a sudden they lost their housing.” Huey and other providers across the state have heard countless stories of homeowners turning their rental property into Air-BnBs or evicting their long-term tenants in order to house their own children in increasingly affluent communities. https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-regional/montana-seniors-newly-homeless-long-term-care/article_0edbdcd4-330a-11ee-ae9e-d369414779d0.html https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-regional/montana-seni...

clbrmbr 3y ago
Re: predatory landlords: if they are not breaking the law, are they really blameworthy? Seems like the previous landlord was naïve, or at least operating on an outdated worldview where local reputation mattered. (Hard to show up at the local Chamber or Elks or church when you are getting old folks kicked out of their homes). How to solve… I’d like to find a model to apply in my HOA to slow or reverse the corporate takeover of my community…
- renonce 3y ago
  They are blameworthy for not getting public and sharing profits with regular people, rigging regular people by inflation
- inkcapmushroom 3y ago
  >Seems like the previous landlord was naïve, or at least operating on an outdated worldview where local reputation mattered Or maybe was an individual with a conscience who didn't want the old couple that had been in their property for 30 years living on the street. I guess you could call that naivety though.
  - clbrmbr 3y ago
    “Conscience”, there’s a word I haven’t heard in a while. If an act is “unconscionable” well then it’s legally indefensible. But the broader idea of “having a conscience” seems to have receded, to the point I don’t really know what it means.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      This doesn't strike me as true at all. Honestly, it sounds like an excuse for a personal unwillingness to develop your own moral center. Even if you were right - which I don't think you are! - that other people "having a conscience" has receded, who cares what they're doing?, you're not them, make your own, better choices.
  - clbrmbr 3y ago
    Btw I love inky caps. Just had a marvelous flush of shaggy manes in the yard here, fed by wood chip paths.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  Just because the law allows it doesn't mean you should do it.
- jchw 3y ago
  > if they are not breaking the law, are they really blameworthy? This mindset needs to die. Yes. If you do something ostensibly immoral, it's still bad even if it's legal. It's still bad even if other people were going to do it if you didn't, anyway. It's still bad even if there's negative incentives that ultimately led to it. It's just still bad in general. If you have a reasonable decision and you choose to do a bad thing, you still chose to do it. It doesn't matter either, if a single person made this decision, or if a corporate board made this decision, or if a bunch of people in an angry mob collectively decided something. What you can do is explain why it happened, but that doesn't mean that there is absolutely zero social responsibility to have. All that something being legal means is that it's legal. Something being legal doesn't necessarily mean it's good. Something being illegal doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. We've conflated what we've come to expect from corporations to the standards we must hold them to. The standard that a corporation should live up to is indeed much higher and significantly more nuanced than "technically not breaking the law." I'm not suggesting that I believe in no regulation. Regulation is clearly valuable in many cases, but I believe that it is clearly not inherently good (duh, bad regulation is everywhere) nor is it inherently the only solution to any class of problems. Believing that companies should not simply maximally exploit what is technically legal while still regulating them when they do abuse the system is possible and I'm pretty sure if we don't start thinking that way, we're even more screwed than we think we are. Even if some corporations amass unthinkable amounts of influence and power and fundamentally escape the pressures of social responsibility through this, I still think that it's necessary to fight the learned-helplessness mindset. If absolutely nothing else, I think everyone is at least responsible for ensuring the bar doesn't drop so low as to allow this kind of thought process to remain "normal". It should always be thought of as abnormal, and as the threat to liberty and democracy that it clearly can be.
  - ChuckMcM 3y ago
    Completely concur with the notion that if something is "perfectly legal" then there is no basis for judging the bad actor poorly. There absolutely is of course as judgement in this context is a moral choice, not a legal one. The other one I wish would die is: "It is not illegal if you don't get caught."
  - 3y ago
- conradev 3y ago
  Colorado legislators and legislators from other states were drafting legislation to give communities right of first refusal to buy the property from the owner (i.e. a loan secured against the land, financed by residents), not sure where that went. It was focused on mobile home communities, I believe
- yCombLinks 3y ago
  You're the "I'm not touching you" kid.
- josh3736 3y ago
  > I’d like to find a model to apply in my HOA to slow or reverse the corporate takeover of my community… I'm on the board of my condo building's HOA. 5 or 6 years ago, we passed a rule that requires 50% of units building-wide to be owner-occupied. Once the limit is reached, there's a waiting list for anyone who wants to rent their unit. (Meaning you must wait until an owner moves back in or sells their unit.) There's also a hardship waiver at the board's discretion. The PE/RE investment firms won't touch units with this rule in place; a unit they can't rent makes no revenue and is a waste of capital for them. Note that this (or any kind of arrangement meant to discourage these kinds of buyers) gets contentious when someone is selling, especially if they're struggling to find a buyer. We recently had someone who needed to sell quickly, had interest from some kind of firm, but no offers from normal buyers (ie human people) due to the soft market. The firm made an offer contingent on the HOA rescinding the rental rule. We were very much not inclined to do so, so there was a lot of tension until the sellers finally got an offer from humans. (This is not meant to insinuate that PE firms are run by non-humans. Evidence remains inconclusive.) Of course, this rule can also spook human buyers, but IME once the details and reasoning for the rule is explained, it isn't usually a blocker.
  - clbrmbr 3y ago
    Thanks! I really appreciate your sharing your experience.
- soulofmischief 3y ago
  > if they are not breaking the law, are they really blameworthy? Every horrible thing which decent humans no longer allow was once legal.
- Broken_Hippo 3y ago
  Legality isn't morality. It was completely legal to have slaves. It was completely legal to fire women when they were pregnant and/or married. It was completely legal to send your kid off to work. We've been jailing folks for weekend pot smoking for decades. Back in the 90s, you could get discharged from the US military for having consensual sex with the same sex. Or giving a blowjob - sodomy laws were still in effect. Obviously, you can get blame even though you are doing something legal. Legality doesn't make you good.
- dfxm12 3y ago
  Re: predatory landlords: if they are not breaking the law, are they really blameworthy? Yes. Many things that fall short of "illegal" are blameworthy (that you don't even push back on calling them predatory is telling). Our legal system is not meant to be a moral system (and almost always favors people with more money). Also keep in mind, these folks have money to contribute to local politicians who then bend laws/regs in their favor anyway.
- m_0x 3y ago
  > if they are not breaking the law, are they really blameworthy? Do you think the law and regulations fell out of sky? Or maybe we saw some shitty and bad-faith actions from powerful entities and then the people demanded to enact some laws to prevent that behavior in the futuer? Which one is more likely?
drewcoo 3y ago
> Consumers can share blame for not living below their means, needless wealth signaling, and financial illiteracy That's a claim that marketing does not work and we know that's not true. It regularly defeats "personal responsibility" or no one would pay the marketers.
conductr 3y ago
Expecting your rent to stay constant for decades sounds predatory too.
- Broken_Hippo 3y ago
  If the mortgage price doesn't go up, I'd not expect large increases in rent even if the cost of fixing it goes up. Most fixes are minor things.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    You're competing with other renters for the unit though. If someone offers the landlord more you think they should say no?
    - Broken_Hippo 3y ago
      Yes, I do - I do not think landlords should have a no-fault eviction. I don't think they should be able to refuse to renew your lease in a lot of situations. Once you are living there, you should have rights to stay so long as you pay and so on. This keeps people stable. If the unit is free, I don't think there should be bidding. The price listed is the price it goes for. It is on the landlord to make sure they are asking a fair price that is enough. If competition is fierce, obviously there isn't enough housing.
      - HDThoreaun 3y ago
        > If competition is fierce, obviously there isn't enough housing. Well we agree on that. The problem with taking away people's property rights is that it fucks incentives to actually fix the problem by creating new things. The solution here is building new housing, that won't happen if you take away landlords rights. Your policy means that it's impossible to move to in demand areas unless you're willing to buy.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  If the government is willing to back a long term fixed rate mortgage, it’s hard for me to understand why those with that mortgage shouldn’t be highly restricted in the rent they can charge.
m_0x 3y ago
> car dealers obscuring true costs of borrowing ("how much do you want to pay per month?") That I would blame the consumer. Think about it. I'd bet consumers looking for a car start at "What car do I like?" or "What do I need in my next car?" I'd bet pretty much no one starts by asking themselves "How much can I afford?" And if they ask that question is always on a month-to-month basis, because that matters. The now and today. Once they know what they want, they try to get it no matter the cost. If it's more than their budget, they go for paying more in the long run but less month-to-month. Hell I'd even say that if a salesman tells them that their so-wanted car is out of their limtis, the consumer will get mad and go all-karen on them.

clbrmbr 3y ago

Re: predatory landlords: if they are not breaking the law, are they really blameworthy? Seems like the previous landlord was naïve, or at least operating on an outdated worldview where local reputation mattered. (Hard to show up at the local Chamber or Elks or church when you are getting old folks kicked out of their homes). How to solve… I’d like to find a model to apply in my HOA to slow or reverse the corporate takeover of my community…

renonce 3y ago
They are blameworthy for not getting public and sharing profits with regular people, rigging regular people by inflation
inkcapmushroom 3y ago
>Seems like the previous landlord was naïve, or at least operating on an outdated worldview where local reputation mattered Or maybe was an individual with a conscience who didn't want the old couple that had been in their property for 30 years living on the street. I guess you could call that naivety though.
- clbrmbr 3y ago
  “Conscience”, there’s a word I haven’t heard in a while. If an act is “unconscionable” well then it’s legally indefensible. But the broader idea of “having a conscience” seems to have receded, to the point I don’t really know what it means.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    This doesn't strike me as true at all. Honestly, it sounds like an excuse for a personal unwillingness to develop your own moral center. Even if you were right - which I don't think you are! - that other people "having a conscience" has receded, who cares what they're doing?, you're not them, make your own, better choices.
- clbrmbr 3y ago
  Btw I love inky caps. Just had a marvelous flush of shaggy manes in the yard here, fed by wood chip paths.
PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
Just because the law allows it doesn't mean you should do it.
jchw 3y ago
> if they are not breaking the law, are they really blameworthy? This mindset needs to die. Yes. If you do something ostensibly immoral, it's still bad even if it's legal. It's still bad even if other people were going to do it if you didn't, anyway. It's still bad even if there's negative incentives that ultimately led to it. It's just still bad in general. If you have a reasonable decision and you choose to do a bad thing, you still chose to do it. It doesn't matter either, if a single person made this decision, or if a corporate board made this decision, or if a bunch of people in an angry mob collectively decided something. What you can do is explain why it happened, but that doesn't mean that there is absolutely zero social responsibility to have. All that something being legal means is that it's legal. Something being legal doesn't necessarily mean it's good. Something being illegal doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. We've conflated what we've come to expect from corporations to the standards we must hold them to. The standard that a corporation should live up to is indeed much higher and significantly more nuanced than "technically not breaking the law." I'm not suggesting that I believe in no regulation. Regulation is clearly valuable in many cases, but I believe that it is clearly not inherently good (duh, bad regulation is everywhere) nor is it inherently the only solution to any class of problems. Believing that companies should not simply maximally exploit what is technically legal while still regulating them when they do abuse the system is possible and I'm pretty sure if we don't start thinking that way, we're even more screwed than we think we are. Even if some corporations amass unthinkable amounts of influence and power and fundamentally escape the pressures of social responsibility through this, I still think that it's necessary to fight the learned-helplessness mindset. If absolutely nothing else, I think everyone is at least responsible for ensuring the bar doesn't drop so low as to allow this kind of thought process to remain "normal". It should always be thought of as abnormal, and as the threat to liberty and democracy that it clearly can be.
- ChuckMcM 3y ago
  Completely concur with the notion that if something is "perfectly legal" then there is no basis for judging the bad actor poorly. There absolutely is of course as judgement in this context is a moral choice, not a legal one. The other one I wish would die is: "It is not illegal if you don't get caught."
- 3y ago
conradev 3y ago
Colorado legislators and legislators from other states were drafting legislation to give communities right of first refusal to buy the property from the owner (i.e. a loan secured against the land, financed by residents), not sure where that went. It was focused on mobile home communities, I believe
yCombLinks 3y ago
You're the "I'm not touching you" kid.
josh3736 3y ago
> I’d like to find a model to apply in my HOA to slow or reverse the corporate takeover of my community… I'm on the board of my condo building's HOA. 5 or 6 years ago, we passed a rule that requires 50% of units building-wide to be owner-occupied. Once the limit is reached, there's a waiting list for anyone who wants to rent their unit. (Meaning you must wait until an owner moves back in or sells their unit.) There's also a hardship waiver at the board's discretion. The PE/RE investment firms won't touch units with this rule in place; a unit they can't rent makes no revenue and is a waste of capital for them. Note that this (or any kind of arrangement meant to discourage these kinds of buyers) gets contentious when someone is selling, especially if they're struggling to find a buyer. We recently had someone who needed to sell quickly, had interest from some kind of firm, but no offers from normal buyers (ie human people) due to the soft market. The firm made an offer contingent on the HOA rescinding the rental rule. We were very much not inclined to do so, so there was a lot of tension until the sellers finally got an offer from humans. (This is not meant to insinuate that PE firms are run by non-humans. Evidence remains inconclusive.) Of course, this rule can also spook human buyers, but IME once the details and reasoning for the rule is explained, it isn't usually a blocker.
- clbrmbr 3y ago
  Thanks! I really appreciate your sharing your experience.
soulofmischief 3y ago
> if they are not breaking the law, are they really blameworthy? Every horrible thing which decent humans no longer allow was once legal.
Broken_Hippo 3y ago
Legality isn't morality. It was completely legal to have slaves. It was completely legal to fire women when they were pregnant and/or married. It was completely legal to send your kid off to work. We've been jailing folks for weekend pot smoking for decades. Back in the 90s, you could get discharged from the US military for having consensual sex with the same sex. Or giving a blowjob - sodomy laws were still in effect. Obviously, you can get blame even though you are doing something legal. Legality doesn't make you good.
dfxm12 3y ago
Re: predatory landlords: if they are not breaking the law, are they really blameworthy? Yes. Many things that fall short of "illegal" are blameworthy (that you don't even push back on calling them predatory is telling). Our legal system is not meant to be a moral system (and almost always favors people with more money). Also keep in mind, these folks have money to contribute to local politicians who then bend laws/regs in their favor anyway.
m_0x 3y ago
> if they are not breaking the law, are they really blameworthy? Do you think the law and regulations fell out of sky? Or maybe we saw some shitty and bad-faith actions from powerful entities and then the people demanded to enact some laws to prevent that behavior in the futuer? Which one is more likely?

drewcoo 3y ago

> Consumers can share blame for not living below their means, needless wealth signaling, and financial illiteracy That's a claim that marketing does not work and we know that's not true. It regularly defeats "personal responsibility" or no one would pay the marketers.

conductr 3y ago

Expecting your rent to stay constant for decades sounds predatory too.

Broken_Hippo 3y ago
If the mortgage price doesn't go up, I'd not expect large increases in rent even if the cost of fixing it goes up. Most fixes are minor things.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  You're competing with other renters for the unit though. If someone offers the landlord more you think they should say no?
  - Broken_Hippo 3y ago
    Yes, I do - I do not think landlords should have a no-fault eviction. I don't think they should be able to refuse to renew your lease in a lot of situations. Once you are living there, you should have rights to stay so long as you pay and so on. This keeps people stable. If the unit is free, I don't think there should be bidding. The price listed is the price it goes for. It is on the landlord to make sure they are asking a fair price that is enough. If competition is fierce, obviously there isn't enough housing.
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      > If competition is fierce, obviously there isn't enough housing. Well we agree on that. The problem with taking away people's property rights is that it fucks incentives to actually fix the problem by creating new things. The solution here is building new housing, that won't happen if you take away landlords rights. Your policy means that it's impossible to move to in demand areas unless you're willing to buy.
CogitoCogito 3y ago
If the government is willing to back a long term fixed rate mortgage, it’s hard for me to understand why those with that mortgage shouldn’t be highly restricted in the rent they can charge.

m_0x 3y ago

> car dealers obscuring true costs of borrowing ("how much do you want to pay per month?") That I would blame the consumer. Think about it. I'd bet consumers looking for a car start at "What car do I like?" or "What do I need in my next car?" I'd bet pretty much no one starts by asking themselves "How much can I afford?" And if they ask that question is always on a month-to-month basis, because that matters. The now and today. Once they know what they want, they try to get it no matter the cost. If it's more than their budget, they go for paying more in the long run but less month-to-month. Hell I'd even say that if a salesman tells them that their so-wanted car is out of their limtis, the consumer will get mad and go all-karen on them.