WTF was the point of pay people unemployment and stimulus checks, if not to pay their bills/rent?
I can't believe we as society just laughed and robbed all the landlords. This is truly shameful.
I can't believe we as society just laughed and robbed all the landlords. This is truly shameful.
https://slate.com/business/2021/06/blackrock-invitation-hous...
Note, Blackrock is also getting a ton of FED money
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-hires-blackrock-to-help-cal...
Remember, "by 2030: You'll own nothing. And you'll be happy."
https://rumble.com/vdgi1h-world-economic-forum-by-2030-youll...
I've also noticed a lot of people got 'new' cars (financed I'm sure), and are letting their old ones collect dust rather than selling them.
I'm guessing a lot of stuff is going to wind up being sold here shortly.
You were the one who assumed it was new new cars.
Part of the reason that used cars are in such short supply is that so many bought the used ones up.
We had an epidemic in my city of people with cars who never had one before, accidents everywhere. Paper plates were all you saw for months.
The bus lines speak for themselves.
The used cars didn't increase in value until well into the pandemic.
Blah blah sometimes explaining the real world to people in bubbles gets so old.
That's not even close to a free market. They benefited from that government interference, but now they are annoyed that their tenants are getting that support.
Landlords buy something, and then charge someone else more than it is worth to use it- because it is necessary. They are essentially home scalpers. Don’t feel bad for them.
You’re missing the point of what I am saying entirely though. If you treat housing as an investment and the investment goes sideways for whatever reason, why should anyone feel bad for you? It sucks, but that’s how investing works!
You don’t think other legislation/govt intervention impacts non-housing financial investments? Thems the breaks. They took the risk, let them own it. That’s literally the entire freaking point!
Modern landlords are mostly government subsidized (tax abetements, low financing rates for "business", etc).
There are definitely landlords that provide a valuable service, but there's a reason why profiteering landlords are almost universally disliked.
PS: Remember where we get the term "landlord" - the feudal lord that collected tax(aka rent) while providing a very specific service to the peasants on the land plot that was grated to him by the superior nobleman.
It's nothing like that today... Even the losses in their income get socialized - how do you think Donald paid only $750 in federal taxes? The whole system is setup to protect "landlords".
I don't necessarily have issue with someone renting out their second property, but I am starting to think the societal problems with large scale rental operations and the disappearance of land ownership as an achievable goal for so many, outweighs the right of large scale landlords to exist.
The people who are landlords agree to the risk of owning a property and renting it out to someone. Why should I feel bad when the risk comes to fruition? Why should anyone?
Should you be able to just profit endlessly on housing risk free for no dang reason other than you had money before someone else? I don’t know. I don’t really care. I have a feeling these landlords will be just fine.
The landlord didn't assume the risk that they couldn't remove the resident AND the resident wouldn't have to pay.
This was effectively the state seizing property, forcing the landlord to maintain the property and providing it to someone else.
You also probably don't know who most landlords are, but in way of example, say I rent out a room. Should I be subjected to someone living in my house, then lose my house because they aren't paying and I cannot afford to not rent out that room?
This is a common scenario.
That’s not how risk works.
> You also probably don't know who most landlords are, but in way of example, say I rent out a room. Should I be subjected to someone living in my house, then lose my house because they aren't paying and I cannot afford to not rent out that room?
My parents are landlords, god bless their souls. But they know what they got into. I chose to distance myself from their business because I find it morally revolting.
Also; don’t gamble your house away if you can’t afford to lose! That is how this works!
PS: my parents are making fucking bank as landlords right now! Don’t feel bad for any of them! They literally just made an offer on a third lake house.
Then they assumed wrong. National emergencies happen, in this instance a pandemic (that is still very much ongoing) meant that potentially millions of people stood to lose their livelihoods and their place to live. Millions of people with no jobs and no homes, a catastrophe, to put it mildly. Ordinary rules do not apply the same way in extraordinary situations.
How many landlords lost their homes due to this? How many could sell one of their properties and weather the storm with the profits?
>This was effectively the state seizing property, forcing the landlord to maintain the property and providing it to someone else.
No property was seized. The government did its most important job, namely supporting citizens who are unable to support themselves, those who do not have enough capital to weather a storm.
Someone who rents out a room is not going to lose their home from such a moratorium. It is a deliberately misleading argument to frame it like that, and it is not a common situation.
You don't plan, you get out. Maybe then government can find you some tiny box or tent to live in until you can plan and pay.
The rise in property values alone over the last 10+ years should have been more than plenty to cover any landlord's expenses due to the moratorium. They did not plan for the bad times, too bad for them. They had the means to mitigate by preparing, renters living paycheck to paycheck have no such possibility, so the government did its job for once and helped out the under-privileged.
So the landlords can just sell some of their properties, downsize and scale back until better times. They gambled on stability and lost.
Ok then. People who didn't take on the risk to buy a home in 2009 when homes were cheap should not complain that homes are too expensive now, therefore we should not have tax payer funded affordable housing. Those same people didn't take on the risk to go to school and get a better job. Why should I feel bad when someone wants the fruits of risk, but doesn't want to take on any of the risk?
You can argue that much of what we produce nowadays isn’t a fundamental “need” like shelter, but that’s really beside the point, and a function of our relative prosperity as compared to previous eras.
How do you propose housing be managed if not by voluntary exchanges?