You're viewing a single thread.
Your housing budget shouldn't be 2/3 of your income.
Landlords pay property taxes that comes out of the rent, and the bank fees and other costs. The building is also maintained, which costs 3% /yr of the value of the building.
If you owned your own building, it would be on you to pay the taxes and fees, maintain the building and appliances, and service the bank loan.
I'm not saying that landlords are not doing it for profit, but silly arguments borne from ignorance of economics do not help the discussion. Same with the whole "late stage capitalism" circlejerking from people that propose no viable alternatives.
Your housing budget shouldn't be 2/3 of your income.
Many people have no choice in the matter.
Expert personal finance advice from chucklefuck bootlicker banner80: "just don't be poor lol"
I find that most people that say that refuse to address it. And I'm not being callous. Yes, there are many people that struggle to find a job and already live as small as possible renting a room in a cheap part of town. But that's not who I'm talking about, and it's also usually not the person making a song and dance about their income going to landlords or "the man."
Most people in America live in a house or apartment larger than they need, saddled with credit card debt they chose, many drive a car they can't afford, and some then complain about how hard it is to maintain their current living standards they set for themselves.
People outside of the US are puzzled by what Americans do, from politics to consumerism and living arrangements.
Most Americans complaining about the cost of living and housing could lower and share their expenses if they were serious about it. But blaming others is easier when we know the system is not perfect. There's always someone else we can accuse of our problems and choices.
The truth is that the US is one of the richest countries in the history of the world, Americans as a whole are among the wealthiest and luckiest people in history, and living here is easier than almost anywhere else in the world. Even at the bottom incomes, the people complaining about earning $15/hr in the US should learn about India, China, Brazil, Russia, and find out what bottom level salaries pay there. But the people here on about "late stage capitalism" do not want to have that conversation.
"Comparison is the thief of joy" - People that want to complain are always comparing themselves against those that are doing better. But if you live in the US, you were born in the lucky 10%. If you have normal American problems and are struggling with expenses, take a moment to stop comparing yourself against the 9% above you, and take a look at how the other 90% live. We can all pick up a few cost-saving/sharing habits from them.
Also, this is not to say we don't have policy problems. Vote for leaders that care about the middle class and have policies to make life better for people not corporations.
That is the worst take I’ve seen all week.
It should give a person pause when they feel blindsided by a fact-based perspective that's rooted in well-understood and easily demonstrable economics and data.
I knew as I commented that bringing actual economics and finance into this sub is a recipe for chaos. But I had 20 minutes to burn, and some people might be serious enough to benefit.
Sorry, my bad. I had not noticed that you had labeled us chuds and you the Chad.
I didn't use any labels. In matters of informed discourse on policy and proven economics, this sub labels itself. We are currently at trying to get the locals to understand that abstaining from voting because of whatever they think is happening in Gaza is not the moral flex they think it is. The bar is set very low around here.
Most people in America live in a house or apartment larger than they need
The only one in a position to determine that are the people that live in those apartments. Additionally, I doubt that most people choose apartment size as a deciding factor. With the cost of rent, price of the apartment is the much bigger factor.
saddled with credit card debt they chose
Most people didn't choose credit card debt. They were forced into it because they couldn't afford basic needs.
Most Americans complaining about the cost of living and housing could lower and share their expenses if they were serious about it
That's total bullshit. Over 60% of Americans can't afford the cheapest house in the cheapest state to live in. The living wage in this country is at the very least $25/hr and the minimum wage hasn't increased in over a decade, but we'll discuss wages much more later.
living here is easier than almost anywhere else in the world
Tell that to homeless people. Did you forget about them, or do they not count?
Even at the bottom incomes, the people complaining about earning $15/hr in the US should learn
Newsflash, suffering elsewhere doesn't minimize suffering for you. Now let's talk wages. Everywhere, there's a cost associated with basic living called a survival wage, and a cost to live a dignified life that can accommodate hardship and enjoyment in equal measure known as a living wage.
The living wage for a given area has a lot of factors, but it's relatively easy to calculate. Where I live, the living wage is $27/hr. I also happen to live in a state with a minimum wage larger than federal and tied to inflation, putting it at $11.13/hr. That's an annual difference of $33k dollars between a living wage and the state minimum. I can't tell you how I managed to conjure $3k to assist a single coworker once, let alone $30k on top of it every year for the foreseeable future.
Don't forget that there are millions of people working on the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr. In Memphis TN, the living wage is $20/hr and the minimum wage is federal. There are people working for minimum wage that can't even afford to rent a broom closet. This all also assumes everyone has a job, so it totally excludes anyone who can't work or can't find a job. These people exist too and still deserve a dignified life, even without an income.
All of what you said is a bullshit non sequitur that has nothing to do with the actual problem. If you thought you were clever for "looking at the obvious", you were wrong.
I urge you to revisit this take, because it seems based only on a cartoonish vision that exists in your head. Let's take seniors for example, who live on a fixed income and are often the most vulnerable to rent increases. How does anything that you said address the very real problems they are facing?
Landlords are an inherently monopolistic position over an incredibly inelastic good. That's not good for a market economy.
You don't have to defend them.
I'm not defending "landlords," I'm calling for math and logic. We'll never make any progress in crafting sound economic policy when the argument is rooted in nonsense.
There is nothing inherently evil with someone owning a building and renting it out to a willing tenant. The real conversation then is about social policies and economic incentives to manage the economic activities and participants.
Houses cost something, they are not free. Someone has to pay. Everyone wants to live in a nice city, in a nice apartment, and for it to be cheap. Why should nice stuff be cheap? There are 330 million people in the US, and they all want something nice. The people that have the money to pay for nice are willing to bid more. In the US, the median household income is $81k. So plenty of people can afford to bid for what they want.
Laws of nature. If we live in a wealthy country, nice things are priced accordingly. People think that what they are asking for is merely "decent." No, people want nice. And they want it at discount prices. If they saw how the 90% of the world lives, those equivalent to the economic status elsewhere, they'd say that's beneath them. There's no honesty in this discussions. People that came to complain are not willing to look inward.
Detroit was giving away buildings for free and nobody went over there to collect them. People want the city or town they like, in a part of town that's not bad, near their job that pays the most they were able to find. That's the nice stuff. The comfy stuff close to where I can make the most money and be as comfortable as I can make it. Yes, that's what everyone wants, so we are all in a bidding competition for the same spots. I can find you a cheap apartment in a minute if I get to pick the location.
Landlords are not some magical entity that somehow amasses all the wealth. They don't control the financial markets, they can't stop anyone from buying a house. It's not the landlord's fault or problem if you want a house but can't afford one or can't get credit for one.
Landlords pay taxes, pay for maintenance, pay bank interests, and take on risks. Like any business. They turn a profit, like any business. The profit is not that great either. Landlording doesn't rank high in business returns compared to anything else an investor could do with their money.
You're right, there's nothing inherently evil about renting, however it's inherently unequal. Now your home is in the precarious situation of being at the whims of someone whose only motive is profit. You're also assuming capitalism is a law of nature. It's not, and trying to frame it as such is a tired trick. Why do your strawmen have control over how a human right is provided? Why did you pick an example of extreme systemic injustice as an argument against providing housing instead of the litany of successful housing-first programs?
Houses wouldnt be so expensive if it werent for landlords
Not to mention, no one will lease to you if the rent is 2/3rds of your income.
Do you think people only have one job their entire lives?