• 7 Posts
  • 39 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 6th, 2023
  • Dave@lemmy.worldtoA Boring Dystopia@lemmy.world•Get rid of landlords...
    1·
    6 months ago

    How would you defined a what a landlord does, then?

    I’m happy to use a different word if that would help, but whatever you call it, there is a structure in place that allows people who own property to make money by doing nothing. Call it ‘land lording’, call it ‘passive income’.

    is an inevitable component of life in contemporary society

    Yes, but only if it’s:

    a. Legal, and: b. Some people can accumulate enough wealth to buy up multiple properties, and: c. Some people are too poor to afford any property (or qualify for financing).

    Which is the situation we’re in.

    it’s problematic when excessive and greedy

    Well we can agree on this. But I’d go further and say that’s always going to be the case, because:

    a. Housing isn’t something you can opt out of. b. The people who own the homes have all the bargaining power. c. The more money you can accumulate through renting the more power you have.

  • Dave@lemmy.worldtoA Boring Dystopia@lemmy.world•Get rid of landlords...
    12·
    6 months ago

    Great questions!

    1. Yep, you can sell it* to someone else. Or it’ll just sit there and then I would advocate for some kind of common sense squatters law to take effect.

    2. Short answer: See 1; long answer: you could find somewhere run by e.g. a housing co-op, or a (long-stay) hotel, or a property management company* and stay there.

    3. Yes I’d be fine with that, caveats:

      • You are also benefitting from someone tending to the house while you’re gone, so I’d expect the amount to be commensurate with that*.
      • You’re not going on holiday to another one of many other properties you own which you also rent out when you’re not in them.

    Note: All my answers involve exchanging some kind of value (indicated by *) for money, and that’s my key point. If you’re actually contributing something then I have no problem with that. But that’s not what being a landlord is. A few ways this is evident:

    1. We already have words for all the jobs: Architect, building super, cleaner, designer, engineer, landscaper, manager, plumber. These are useful skills, people should get paid for them, but:
    2. A landlord is different. They make money by rent seeking, per Wikipedia: “the act of growing one’s existing wealth by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth”. They don’t do anything except own a piece of paper (and the blessing of our current laws) which says they can do that.

    Now, the water can get muddied when people are both landlords and do the other jobs (e.g. cleaning), but it’s pretty easy to think of other examples of this:

    I also skim money out of the register, but I also get paid to work in the store. In both cases (rent seeking and skimming) I’m making money, but not actually adding any value.

    Or, to my original example: Scalping tickets. I’m not putting on the show, I’m not the talent, or involved with the venue, I’m not printing or shipping the tickets. I’m not doing anything except gaming the system to make money.

    Just like robbing a bank, just like ponzi schemes, and just like Sam Bankman-Fried: Gaining money, not adding value (aka creating wealth).

    The only difference is we decided (as a society) some are legal, and some are illegal, and I have a good idea why (see Figure 1.).

  • Dave@lemmy.worldOPtoFuck Cars@lemmy.world•'My car is more convenient'English
    4·
    7 months ago

    Well that’s it, it almost always is more convenient (again, assuming you have one, it has fuel, roads are built and prioritize cars etc.), but that completely ignores all the negative externalities.

    Like: it would always be more ‘convenient’ for me to pee against a wall when I need to go, but if everyone starting pissing everywhere it would be objectively worse for everyone.

  • Dave@lemmy.worldtoAsk Lemmy@lemmy.world•In what ways are people today being convinced to spend money beyond their means?
    82·
    9 months ago

    OP using word ‘convinced’ is relevant here because whilst most people in USA ‘need’ a car (because there is no practical alternative to driving), they are being convinced every day that a private car is the only viable solution to transport in general…

    … and then of course you get everyone freaking out when someone has the audacity to suggest that installing a dedicated bike / bus lane would mean less people need a car, and that would save everyone time and money.

    Also while I’m ranting, I’m so over people harping on about how they can’t rely on public transit and that’s why they need a car. Like reliable and affordable public transport is some magical and unobtainable goal.

    But then when gas prices inevitably get crazy high, or they get in a wreck, or traffic is a mess then that’s just The Way It Is and in no way an indication that maybe everyone driving a personal car for every single trip isn’t the most reliable or sustainable way to run a city.