6 ms·

I'm not keen to report my neighbor, but my landlord is not my neighbor. They could hardly be more not my neighbor if they tried. When my rent skyrockets amid l

I'm not keen to report my neighbor, but my landlord is not my neighbor. They could hardly be more not my neighbor if they tried. When my rent skyrockets amid lots of vacant new construction (I'm not in CA, we're actually building around here), "gee, I'd like to help these fine fellows cheat on their taxes" is not the first thought to cross my mind.

wilg 3y ago
Of course, some people's landlords actually are their neighbors.
- cdchn 3y ago
  I wonder what the ratio of tenant landlords to corporate rentseekers is?
  - kevindamm 3y ago
    I don't have hard figures on this but I've been in the sphere long enough to gather some knowledge.. in NYC there are a few orders of magnitude more apartments owned by corporate rentseekers than there are tenant-landlords, but there are a few orders of magnitude again between the number of tenant-landlords greater than the number of corporate rentseekers.
- jdewerd 3y ago
  One pays deadweight loss, the other receives deadweight loss. If they are literal neighbors, they are not metaphorical neighbors.
- kalleboo 3y ago
  Our landlord lives downstairs from us, and we have two preschoolers. He is a saint.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Are they actually the landlord or just an onsite manager? I've seen both, but the onsite manager has been much more common in my experience
    - kalleboo 3y ago
      Actually the landlord. He hires a separate management company that we deal with for maintenance, but when they've messed up we've dealt with him directly. It's a small building - just 4 units. (This is in Japan)
      - bugglebeetle 3y ago
        Japan is a special case where housing is largely a depreciating asset and small-time landlording isn’t a very profitable business. Small-time landlords in Japan couldn’t collude to screw over renters like they did in the US with RealPage even if they wanted to. There are also strong renter protections relative to the US, including fairly limited ability (by law) to raise rents on existing tenants without justification.
roenxi 3y ago
It is saying remarkable things about the human condition that we have a tenant and a landlord, their only interactions are to organise the world so that there is somewhere for the tenant to live, and the default relationship is adversarial. Landlords do have an unfair advantage; see also Georgism. Trying to make a land value tax work will get good results. Reporting people to mother will lead to a lot of fighting and the economic market rates are still going to win in the end.
- jdewerd 3y ago
  The system is run by the rich, for the rich. The unfair advantage is the entire point. You will run face-first into a titanic wall of money if you try to deprive capital of the various rent-seeking advantages it grants itself. Sometimes naïvety is a superpower, so godspeed on the Georgism but I will not hold my breath and I will enjoy my wins where I can find them, thank you very much.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    The 3-step plan you just outlined is: (1) Identify a group of people with insurmountable, systemic advantages that you don't expect can be overcome. (2) Develop an adversarial relationship with them. (3) Assume you're going to get some wins from time to time. You should reflect on that. There are a surprising number of problems in the approach you're going with there - both logical and strategic. Picking fights is actually a political tactic for preserving the status quo; it creates a force to oppose the change you want. If you don't like the status quo you should avoid taking adversarial stances. Like setting up hotlines to report people to the government; it rarely ends well.
    - jdewerd 3y ago
      > The 3-step plan you just outlined Speak for yourself. > (1)... Holy shit your fevered imagination came up with a bad plan. But they are your words, not mine. Your plan, not mine. You should reflect on that. There's nothing insurmountable about the fights I'm picking and that's the entire point. > Picking fights is actually a political tactic for preserving the status quo > If you don't like the status quo you should avoid taking adversarial stances Oh, tell me about your plan for winning without picking a fight. I'll wait. Fights are inherent to good political strategy, it's quite silly to suggest otherwise. Politics when people agree isn't politics, it's administration. Strategy is about picking the correct fights or inducing your opponent to pick the wrong fights. Georgism and socialism and other causes that strike at the heart of the ownership issue are the wrong fights because the opposition is too entrenched. You will lose. If you win it will be by destroying the country, but realistically speaking, you will lose. If I wanted to be politically ineffective, I might join you in your cause, because in principle we agree, but I don't want to be ineffective. Instead, I will continue to go after the tax and zoning laws. There is a lot of good to be done on that front. It's messy, dirty, non-utopian, and has no use for someone afraid of a fight -- but these are fights that can be won and that makes them infinitely better fights to pick.

wilg 3y ago

Of course, some people's landlords actually are their neighbors.

cdchn 3y ago
I wonder what the ratio of tenant landlords to corporate rentseekers is?
- kevindamm 3y ago
  I don't have hard figures on this but I've been in the sphere long enough to gather some knowledge.. in NYC there are a few orders of magnitude more apartments owned by corporate rentseekers than there are tenant-landlords, but there are a few orders of magnitude again between the number of tenant-landlords greater than the number of corporate rentseekers.
jdewerd 3y ago
One pays deadweight loss, the other receives deadweight loss. If they are literal neighbors, they are not metaphorical neighbors.
kalleboo 3y ago
Our landlord lives downstairs from us, and we have two preschoolers. He is a saint.
- dylan604 3y ago
  Are they actually the landlord or just an onsite manager? I've seen both, but the onsite manager has been much more common in my experience
  - kalleboo 3y ago
    Actually the landlord. He hires a separate management company that we deal with for maintenance, but when they've messed up we've dealt with him directly. It's a small building - just 4 units. (This is in Japan)
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      Japan is a special case where housing is largely a depreciating asset and small-time landlording isn’t a very profitable business. Small-time landlords in Japan couldn’t collude to screw over renters like they did in the US with RealPage even if they wanted to. There are also strong renter protections relative to the US, including fairly limited ability (by law) to raise rents on existing tenants without justification.

roenxi 3y ago

It is saying remarkable things about the human condition that we have a tenant and a landlord, their only interactions are to organise the world so that there is somewhere for the tenant to live, and the default relationship is adversarial. Landlords do have an unfair advantage; see also Georgism. Trying to make a land value tax work will get good results. Reporting people to mother will lead to a lot of fighting and the economic market rates are still going to win in the end.

jdewerd 3y ago
The system is run by the rich, for the rich. The unfair advantage is the entire point. You will run face-first into a titanic wall of money if you try to deprive capital of the various rent-seeking advantages it grants itself. Sometimes naïvety is a superpower, so godspeed on the Georgism but I will not hold my breath and I will enjoy my wins where I can find them, thank you very much.
- roenxi 3y ago
  The 3-step plan you just outlined is: (1) Identify a group of people with insurmountable, systemic advantages that you don't expect can be overcome. (2) Develop an adversarial relationship with them. (3) Assume you're going to get some wins from time to time. You should reflect on that. There are a surprising number of problems in the approach you're going with there - both logical and strategic. Picking fights is actually a political tactic for preserving the status quo; it creates a force to oppose the change you want. If you don't like the status quo you should avoid taking adversarial stances. Like setting up hotlines to report people to the government; it rarely ends well.
  - jdewerd 3y ago
    > The 3-step plan you just outlined Speak for yourself. > (1)... Holy shit your fevered imagination came up with a bad plan. But they are your words, not mine. Your plan, not mine. You should reflect on that. There's nothing insurmountable about the fights I'm picking and that's the entire point. > Picking fights is actually a political tactic for preserving the status quo > If you don't like the status quo you should avoid taking adversarial stances Oh, tell me about your plan for winning without picking a fight. I'll wait. Fights are inherent to good political strategy, it's quite silly to suggest otherwise. Politics when people agree isn't politics, it's administration. Strategy is about picking the correct fights or inducing your opponent to pick the wrong fights. Georgism and socialism and other causes that strike at the heart of the ownership issue are the wrong fights because the opposition is too entrenched. You will lose. If you win it will be by destroying the country, but realistically speaking, you will lose. If I wanted to be politically ineffective, I might join you in your cause, because in principle we agree, but I don't want to be ineffective. Instead, I will continue to go after the tax and zoning laws. There is a lot of good to be done on that front. It's messy, dirty, non-utopian, and has no use for someone afraid of a fight -- but these are fights that can be won and that makes them infinitely better fights to pick.