“forcing people to give up large portions of their income while building absolutely no equity in it simply to not be homeless due to policies we lobbied for isn’t exploitative!”
No one’s forcing anyone to rent any specific place. People have a choice. There’s thousands of rentals. They can live with family or friends.
If people want to build equity in something, they can buy their own property.
There’s nothing exploitative about trading money for a service. People trade money for services every single day. You want your oil changed for you? You pay someone to do it. You pull your car into their facility, they use their tools, and you gain a service – for a price.
Large groups of landlords/property management companies buy the majority of residential buildings in an area -> theres essentially nowhere else left to live -> they collude to increase prices
This would make sense if we were talking about something that is inherently optional for anyone to purchase.
We aren’t though. Housing is a basic necessity for everyone, and the hard reality is that working full time does not mean you can afford to purchase housing, so you have to rent or be homeless. It’s exploiting specifically the poor because they can’t purchase housing, so they have to make a choice between renting or being homeless (which is also the more expensive option).
It’s not exploitation because people have a choice of where to live. There’s hundreds of rentals in any given area and millions of rentals across the country. There’s not just one place for people to live. There’s also the option of living with family or friends.
It’s not exploitation because people have a choice of where to live.
That does not follow logically. You have a choice who gets to exploit you, but unless you have the capital to purchase housing, you are being exploited.
This is simply because renting prices are effectively almost exclusively profits for the owner of the rented space. Nobody is generating an equivalent in value through work. When people say they’re the main breadwinner in their landlords family, that is actually the objective truth.
Being a landlord is a job. There’s no exploitation with renting out properties. People expect to get paid for their job. This is an extremely simple concept. I can’t fathom why you’re not understanding. Maybe I need to make it even simpler?
Landlord = self employed
Self employed = Charges for services rendered
Rent = Payment in exchange for services
renting prices are effectively almost exclusively profits for the owner of the rented space
Because society agrees it is. Society also once agreed that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction with no factual indication to.
Maybe I need to make it even simpler?
I asked you to explain the logical holes in your ideas, you ignored them. Funny you think the problem is that those simple concepts go over my head when you’re refusing to explain away basic logical problems.
This is simply because renting prices are effectively almost exclusively profits for the owner of the rented space.
I don’t think that’s true in all cases. If you think about the price of properties and know how much a credit costs. Properties in cities easily cost a million dollars so with 3% interest that’s 30 000$ a year you have to get just to pay interest on your loan.
There’s no exploitation. Paying rent is simply trading money for a service.
“forcing people to give up large portions of their income while building absolutely no equity in it simply to not be homeless due to policies we lobbied for isn’t exploitative!”
No one’s forcing anyone to rent any specific place. People have a choice. There’s thousands of rentals. They can live with family or friends.
If people want to build equity in something, they can buy their own property.
There’s nothing exploitative about trading money for a service. People trade money for services every single day. You want your oil changed for you? You pay someone to do it. You pull your car into their facility, they use their tools, and you gain a service – for a price.
-> landlords buy buildings -> less buildings available for sale -> price goes up -> people cant afford buying homes -> people rent
Do you imply that everyone would be able to afford buying a home without landlords?
No, not every landlord is horrible and renting definitely has it’s place, but it shouldn’t be the only option you get unless you want to spend 700k
Like the other comment said, it becomes a problem when large groups are buying up all properties
Landlords buy buildings --> More available rentals so people have more choices on where to live
Then there’s the real world.
Large groups of landlords/property management companies buy the majority of residential buildings in an area -> theres essentially nowhere else left to live -> they collude to increase prices
This would make sense if we were talking about something that is inherently optional for anyone to purchase.
We aren’t though. Housing is a basic necessity for everyone, and the hard reality is that working full time does not mean you can afford to purchase housing, so you have to rent or be homeless. It’s exploiting specifically the poor because they can’t purchase housing, so they have to make a choice between renting or being homeless (which is also the more expensive option).
It’s not exploitation because people have a choice of where to live. There’s hundreds of rentals in any given area and millions of rentals across the country. There’s not just one place for people to live. There’s also the option of living with family or friends.
That does not follow logically. You have a choice who gets to exploit you, but unless you have the capital to purchase housing, you are being exploited.
This is simply because renting prices are effectively almost exclusively profits for the owner of the rented space. Nobody is generating an equivalent in value through work. When people say they’re the main breadwinner in their landlords family, that is actually the objective truth.
Being a landlord is a job. There’s no exploitation with renting out properties. People expect to get paid for their job. This is an extremely simple concept. I can’t fathom why you’re not understanding. Maybe I need to make it even simpler?
This isn’t even true either.
Because society agrees it is. Society also once agreed that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction with no factual indication to.
I asked you to explain the logical holes in your ideas, you ignored them. Funny you think the problem is that those simple concepts go over my head when you’re refusing to explain away basic logical problems.
Because we’re using very basic factual definitions.
Job = performing work
There are no logical holes in my ideas. I’m explaining basic facts.
I don’t think that’s true in all cases. If you think about the price of properties and know how much a credit costs. Properties in cities easily cost a million dollars so with 3% interest that’s 30 000$ a year you have to get just to pay interest on your loan.