Hacker News Reader

Comment by cr__ | Hacker News Reader

Do you have any evidence that they did this because the government assisted them with their housing payments?

If you read OP, he chose not to renew their lease and this caused them to do damage. I think the suggestion here is if a landlord chooses not to renew the lease of qualified tenants, the tenants will voluntarily leave.

No, but the point was to ensure people pay what they're expected to pay. Not to give them a handout.

That's on OP to decide for themselves, though, not you.

What counts as a handout these days? A tech job that pays $50k-$100k over productivity? ("The company has been losing money since its founding, but we need a rockstar engineer so we can survive long enough to get bought by Facebook.")

I'm not sure we have any idea of the real value of things these days, including what work is worth. Credit has distorted the system; just because someone who is work full-time (however many jobs that takes) can't pay the rent rate the market seems to be dictating doesn't mean someone stepping in to fill the gap is giving them a "handout".

That is actually the literal definition of a handout.

It is not. They are not "needy." The market, pardon my language, fucked up either their compensation, or the rental rate, or both. This is the failure of an economic system to properly account for a worker's labor and deliver the shelter designated in the social contract, not an oversight or negligence on the worker's part. Especially with unions defanged or non-existent.

It's not charity, it's account-settling.

The idea that 'anyone who labors is ipso facto entitled to shelter' is new to me in the context of social contract theory. Where does this idea originate?

A lot of people would consider it an example of basic humanity.

Widespread homelessness is a bad look for any culture that likes to see itself as civilised.

...Locke's social contract. This is its basic premise. People consent to performing labor not directly related to their survival, and in exchange, the state resolves to provide the necessities that are not guaranteed by that specialized labor. If I work full time and can't afford food and shelter, why would I continue to work? Further, if there are structures preventing me from subsisting, away from a state which will not secure my livelihood in exchange for my labor, why would I not dismantle those structures?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com