3 ms·

Most landlords don't accept partial rent if your salary isn't earning you enough.

CrispyKerosene 2y ago
I can tell which side of the track you grew up on. It's called surviving and we do it because the other outcome is death.
verall 2y ago
I'm not sure what your point is - most people will go extreme distances to avoid becoming homeless: - commuting from a lower cost area >60m away - using food banks or not paying less critical bills (like utilities you usually have a few months before they start shutting things off) - begging or selling themselves on the internet - negotiating with their landlord who is often happy to have less money than an onerous eviction None of these are positive things - they all have nasty negative externalities. Jobs that give money but not enough at all to live on leave desperate people in a terrible limbo.
- klabb3 2y ago
  Not to mention crime like theft, fraud, burglaries. But yes, a perpetual underclass has giant negative externalities. The status quo is deeply ingrained to the American psyche - the risk of someone taking advantage of handouts trumps all other concerns. Not having public bathrooms, but clean up shit from the streets. Not having preventative health care, but still providing legally mandated ambulance rides and critical care. Letting poor people who get an unexpected expense (say medical or car breaks down) fall into unemployment, homelessness and crime or – costliest of all – the prison industrial complex. Paying the bill isn’t the problem. People are happy to overspend public funds, so this isn’t related to small government or just general tax aversion. The problem is simply that someone might get something they didn’t deserve. So in a perverted way, it’s a kind of a moralistic obsession with fairness.
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
Landlords are part of the problem though; due to landlords, property managers, investors, etc, the cost of housing / rent / owning a house has gone up, meaning that a job that would get you a decent apartment 20, 30 years ago is no longer enough. I'll accept that inflation is a fact of modern economies, but rent and the cost of housing has gone up faster than inflation, and income has not kept pace with inflation: the US minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 since 2009, while inflation never stopped. And minimum wage itself as it is today is broken; on the one side, it seems to be more of a suggestion anyway, given that the service industry does not need to conform to it (because the assumption is that wage is stipended by tips). And the other thing to consider is that if an employer pays you minimum wage, they would pay you less if they were legally allowed to.
- talldatethrow 2y ago
  If there weren't land lords, where would renters live? Would they build shacks in the forest and fields? Would they build custom homes on lots in the desert? Im not sure if most are capable nor well funded enough. Do we give them houses?
  - dirtyhippiefree 2y ago
    In a perfect world…wait, we’re clearly not in a perfect world… “Wouldn’t it be nice” is no way to live a life…FWIW…
- yojo 2y ago
  I think there’s an interesting question of why housing has outpaced inflation, but I’m not sure you can just pin it on “landlords.” A small, individual landlord has no pricing power. They’re competing in a market against all others. You’d have to control a substantial fraction of a local market to be able to raise prices above the going rates and still rent your units. I think the most likely answer is a combination of several factors. 1) Not enough new housing being built in desirable areas (supply), cause by some combination of drastic increase in cost of labor and materials, and NIMBY regulations. 2) Actual collusion to fix prices. There have been a few recent court cases about collusion mediated by price setting software (RealPage Yield Star). 3) The appearance of “mega landlords” that control a meaningful share of supply in a metro. At the end of the day, having the option to rent instead of own is one I think we want to have in our society, for reasons of mobility, risk aversion, etc. That necessitates the existence of either public housing, or landlords. We can argue about the lesser of two evils, but in my mind it’s probably landlords, hopefully with some substantial regulation reform to eliminate opportunities for price fixing.

I can tell which side of the track you grew up on. It's called surviving and we do it because the other outcome is death.

verall 2y ago

I'm not sure what your point is - most people will go extreme distances to avoid becoming homeless: - commuting from a lower cost area >60m away - using food banks or not paying less critical bills (like utilities you usually have a few months before they start shutting things off) - begging or selling themselves on the internet - negotiating with their landlord who is often happy to have less money than an onerous eviction None of these are positive things - they all have nasty negative externalities. Jobs that give money but not enough at all to live on leave desperate people in a terrible limbo.

klabb3 2y ago
Not to mention crime like theft, fraud, burglaries. But yes, a perpetual underclass has giant negative externalities. The status quo is deeply ingrained to the American psyche - the risk of someone taking advantage of handouts trumps all other concerns. Not having public bathrooms, but clean up shit from the streets. Not having preventative health care, but still providing legally mandated ambulance rides and critical care. Letting poor people who get an unexpected expense (say medical or car breaks down) fall into unemployment, homelessness and crime or – costliest of all – the prison industrial complex. Paying the bill isn’t the problem. People are happy to overspend public funds, so this isn’t related to small government or just general tax aversion. The problem is simply that someone might get something they didn’t deserve. So in a perverted way, it’s a kind of a moralistic obsession with fairness.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago

Landlords are part of the problem though; due to landlords, property managers, investors, etc, the cost of housing / rent / owning a house has gone up, meaning that a job that would get you a decent apartment 20, 30 years ago is no longer enough. I'll accept that inflation is a fact of modern economies, but rent and the cost of housing has gone up faster than inflation, and income has not kept pace with inflation: the US minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 since 2009, while inflation never stopped. And minimum wage itself as it is today is broken; on the one side, it seems to be more of a suggestion anyway, given that the service industry does not need to conform to it (because the assumption is that wage is stipended by tips). And the other thing to consider is that if an employer pays you minimum wage, they would pay you less if they were legally allowed to.

talldatethrow 2y ago
If there weren't land lords, where would renters live? Would they build shacks in the forest and fields? Would they build custom homes on lots in the desert? Im not sure if most are capable nor well funded enough. Do we give them houses?
- dirtyhippiefree 2y ago
  In a perfect world…wait, we’re clearly not in a perfect world… “Wouldn’t it be nice” is no way to live a life…FWIW…
yojo 2y ago
I think there’s an interesting question of why housing has outpaced inflation, but I’m not sure you can just pin it on “landlords.” A small, individual landlord has no pricing power. They’re competing in a market against all others. You’d have to control a substantial fraction of a local market to be able to raise prices above the going rates and still rent your units. I think the most likely answer is a combination of several factors. 1) Not enough new housing being built in desirable areas (supply), cause by some combination of drastic increase in cost of labor and materials, and NIMBY regulations. 2) Actual collusion to fix prices. There have been a few recent court cases about collusion mediated by price setting software (RealPage Yield Star). 3) The appearance of “mega landlords” that control a meaningful share of supply in a metro. At the end of the day, having the option to rent instead of own is one I think we want to have in our society, for reasons of mobility, risk aversion, etc. That necessitates the existence of either public housing, or landlords. We can argue about the lesser of two evils, but in my mind it’s probably landlords, hopefully with some substantial regulation reform to eliminate opportunities for price fixing.