I'm not sure what I was expecting, but this person is just giving them good advice on how to run a business.
Sadly these businesses are outliners now. Nowadays MBAs are hired as CEOs and then Boeing happens in nursing homes. They are in fact bad businesses but no one seems to care.
Returning to the article. The home owner didn’t care a little bit about having principles or trying to run a business that provides value to society. The argument was purely profit based. If there was a way to pre-file for eviction that was legal and costed 900 usd. They would have taken that instead of giving the 1k
A landlord who lives in one unit of a 40 unit apartment building that he owns is closer to the small business, especially if he provides the maintenance.
The nice thing about the small business is that the profit is practically capped - once the owner has "everything he could want" he will basically stop trying to get more. But shareholder corporations never hit that point.
i believe the purpose of life itself is to contribute to an ever advancing civilization. actions and intentions are measured against that goal.
there is a reason why many countries do not pay off terrorists. It encourages more terrorists.
If you pay off illegal squatters and evicted tenants instead of going through the legal channels, you are encouraging and rewarding that behavior.
Personally, I think that obtaining a secure and safe place to live, and having certainty over living conditions deserves more than that. From a renters perspective it’s not a business transaction. The stakes are incredible from an emotional and quality of life perspective.
* I’ve seen enough landlord forums to conclude that there is an astonishingly high concentration of shitty people.
As a society we should despise landlords and make them feel like the scum they are.
Suggestion, only the government is allowed to rent out homes to individuals. Many cities already have government owned homes that are rented out at 1/3rd the market price to people in need, like single parents and co. I see no reason why this couldn't work at scale.
Kekd.
It doesn't work for the simple reason that if you don't have enough homes, no matter how you shuffle people around and divide costs, someone is going to get the short end of the stick in some way. There are many places with elaborate systems of rent control and social housing, usually the effect is waiting lines and discrimination.
Yes, having to pay a lot for rent sucks, but you know what sucks even more? Applying for social housing and then being told that you should've started thinking of such things at the age of 4, now it's too late. That's how the Netherlands functions, despite having the highest ratio of government housing in Europe.
from what i have seen, this is not the case because other places do not provide enough incentive to build new homes. vienna is growing faster than some other cities. it's not easy to find good numbers. maybe this helps: in 2021 in all of germany about 260000 new apartments were built. that's one apartment per 323 inhabitants. in vienna in 2015 11500 apartments received building approval. that is 1 apartment per 165 inhabitants. of these only one third were built with government support. while in the same year 100million euro of government support remain unused. but apparently, since 2020 it is not allowed to have more than 1/3rd of any new building project without government subsidies and rent control. unlike germany subsidies continue for the lifetime of the building and so they can't be used for speculation and thus ensure a steady supply of affordable housing.
because of viennas growth i suspected that vacancy rates should be low. what i found is that from 900000 apartments in 2015 35000 were empty. that's 3.8%. this is from a statistic made by the city. others claim estimates from 80000 or even 100000. in 2017 9000 out of 2009000 city owned apartments were empty (4.3%). most of those empty places are available on the market.
i could not find anything good on financing. apparently most of the money comes from rent-income, so it seems to be mostly self-financing, although critics claim that the city also does not spend enough on maintenance. the city can also save money because they already own the properties they build on.
so it looks to me like a successful non-profit operation.
I always had multiple roommates and we split the rent and happily had access to a much nicer home and neighborhood than we had any right to.
One landlord I had lived just one street over, in a similar house, so his family wasn't getting rich by any means. Another was some SE Asian immigrant woman and she was just getting by but the rental house was her retirement plan instead of a 401k.
When I eventually bought my first house at 26, I had a roommate come with me for a couple years until I had my first kid. Technically I was a landlord in that scenario, so does that make me scum too? I mean he was incredibly happy with the situation despite knowing I was turning some modest profit.
But in reality the ideal is that landlords are considerate and decent towards renters. And, for when that fails, there are enough protections that renters aren’t at the mercy of a petty and vindictive landlord.
The examples you provide could be applied in spirit to child labour. Is every instance of child labour immoral? I don't think so. But using the example of, how you as a 15 year old mowed some lawns to defend systemic child exploitation seems to miss the mark for me. I believe not all instances of landlordism are bad, but as a whole its effects on society are very negative. And that remains true even if all landlords were friendly and full of good intentions. The systemic effects remain the same.
This talk for example while focused on a different topic covers some of the large scale effects https://youtu.be/ZuXzvjBYW8A.