Fucking leeches
Fucking leeches
You're viewing a single thread.
308 comments
-
I don't understand. What exactly is the complaint here? That they're over charging or charging at all?
Or is this just bandwagon hate on a common and ancient business practice?
Because there is nothing immoral or unethical about having multiple rental property.
And don't give me this shit about how they're evil for over charging. The middle class holds all the power all we're lacking is organization and education.
-
Because there is nothing immoral or unethical about having multiple rental property.
Wrong. Nobody should have extra houses to "rent out" while hardworking citizens can't afford a single house of their own.
The reason why we don't have enough is because they have too much.
Stop being a useful idiot. It's falling out of fashion.
-
All of you are missing the point. The middle class holds all the power.
It's out fault the world is the way it is. We let corporations dictate how much things should cost instead of not paying them what they want.
Cars are expensive because people go to the dealer and say "I'll take what you got for whatever you want me to pay" instead of "I'll give you 10k for that f150 take it or leave it."
Instead people are going out of there way to secure a fucking 100k Tesla with whatever funding they got.
Same with rent. We made the market like this because those snazzy new mixed use developments are so chic. Let me give my left testical to bid on one of those condos as long as I get to tell people I live at the Avalon/halcyon/bridgeford or whatever.
We need to dictate how much we're going to pay for shit not the other way around. Blaming people that take advantage of the system we allow to exist is the same as barking at the moon.
-
-
The complaint is that they're a leech on society, and proud of it.
It doesn't matter if a practice is ancient and common. So is organized crime. Being old and normalized doesn't imply it has value.
There is absolutely huge moral and ethical, and pragmatic, issues with hoarding essential resources, such as housing. Homelessness is a growing problem, and these people are gladly treating it as a money-making scheme. Society would be better if they had productive jobs instead. As a collective, landlords are responsible for systematic preventable homelessness and death. Most moral frameworks consider that very bad!
The middle class? As far as I'm concerned, the two important classes are the worker class and the owner class, and the leeches can't survive without the host. If there are people tricked into thinking they're a middle class above us, they'd better figure out that they're a thousand times closer to us than to them, hopefully before our collective desperation turns to violence.
-
Because there is nothing immoral or unethical about having multiple rental property.
You're charging someone for you doing nothing so they can have a basic need to survive. It's very immoral
If you're gonna try to defend an immoral act with
Or is this just bandwagon hate on a common and ancient business practice?
Then Ill assume you're pro-slavery and move on
-
You’re charging someone for you doing nothing
Go talk to someone who manages a rental, ask them specifically what they do. What do they do when the tenant leaves? What do they do when the tenant doesn't pay? What do they do when things break? What do they do when there is a squatter? What do they do when there is a bogus complaint to the local government? What do they do when a unit sits empty for an extended period?
The answer to all those questions is most certainly not 'nothing'.
-
Charging for housing isn't immoral just because it's a necessity. By that logic, grocery stores are immoral for charging for food, and doctors are immoral for charging for healthcare. Property ownership and rental markets exist because providing and maintaining housing costs money. If your argument is that the system should be reformed, fine, let’s talk solutions. But calling all landlords inherently immoral is just lazy thinking.
Also your comment on slavery is offensive which I believe is the only reason you added it which makes you sound even more stupid.
-
Food and housing should be covered as part of basic income. We absolutely have the global production for it. The implementation is all but blocked because of earth-legacy, so I'm not saying it's practical with today's society. It would take extreme global change.
People make comments like "then why would anybody work" but that doesn't take into account how damn efficient our farming and production is. We're on the cusp of extreme automation and the actual number of workers required is very low. People would still work to own better homes, better food, better cars, better electronics, more access to travel, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not sure how to get there form here, but there's nothing technical preventing it - only sociological. Which is a bigger hurdle in my opinion. Technology is easy. People are not.
-
Also your comment on slavery is offensive
So you know your argument works perfectly for slavery, can see how it applies and are embarrassed enough being called out on it to be offended, but not to rethink yourself? That response is actually why I included it: easy way to tell you're not to be taken seriously
-
Oh, please. Get off your intellectual high horse. Your ability to string coherent words together doesn’t mean you actually know anything. All you’ve done is throw out a false equivalency and some hyperbole. I present arguments, and you respond with pseudo-intellectual gibberish. The people who take you seriously are the same ones who fart into wine glasses, idiots. I’m so tired of you hipster fucks on Lemmy. You talk about things you don’t understand and convince yourselves you’re enlightened. You’re just short-sighted trash wrapped in $100 words and YouTube rhetoric.
-
All you’ve done is throw out a false equivalency and some hyperbole
No, I pointed out that your main argument in your original comment was terrible as it was an equally valid defense for slavery, figuring that if you got butthurt at being called out on it that you weren't worth engaging mentally with, as anyone of any decency would see that and go "oh fuck dude maybe I should rethink at least that part of my stance", it's literally what I said in my comment ffs
you respond with pseudo-intellectual gibberish
My point, non-intellectual as it may be (like basically everything I do), wasn't gibberish to anyone with basic reading comprehension
-
-
-
-
-
308 comments