Nope.
There are two separate points about whether or not itâs immoral. Some people just have the take that earning money with money is immoral and thus investing in any company is immoral. I donât agree with that - not in all cases anyway. I think investing in companies that do immoral things is immoral though.
Habitual liars can take nothing on faith, Iâve found. And studies show conspiracy theorists are more likely to regard conspiratorial actions as reasonable or necessary, nicely exhibited by the Flat Earthers covering up the distressingly round experiment results and pretending everything was cool in that Netflix doc.
This is probably the best post of the entire thread as far as reasoning goes.
Still, the mechanism that landlords have in place to mitigate risk of non-payment is late fees, non-payment notices, and evictions, but those tools have been taken away.
If they knew going in that they might be buying a building where nobody pays rent and they werenât allowed to kick those people out, weâd be having a different discussion.
âIf they researched their investmentâ, you mean. Depending on who you listen to, as many as a third of Irish landlords are trying to exit the market. Boring to explain, but this was most of their problem, too. Sympathy levels sub-zero and only apt to fall.
again, why are landlords any different than any other investor who failed to do their due diligence and consider the risks of a pandemic?
They arenât?
Why are renters different from anyone else who signs a contract promising to pay for a service they receive. Its fine for them to stop paying and continue to live in the place?
1 Like
What a ridiculous statement to make after I give you props for the first one.
The risk weâre talking about here is non-payment and the remedy is eviction. No landlord is going to bake, âWhat if one day the government just decides that Iâm no longer allowed to evict peopleâ into their decision making process. Who wouldâve ever thought that to be a possibility?
You should and you should also plan for much worse possibilities.
Okay, well while youâre hiding under a mattress in your basement, the rest of us will live our lives.
Landlords purchase insurance policies for other âAct of Godâ type events and the government simply suspending the breach provisions in possibly the most common type of private contract in the country wasnât one of them. That includes the insurance companies themselves, who were quick to contact everyone to say that the Government has gone mad and none of this is covered, so donât ask.
Yes, letâs make this crystal clear.
The necessary mechanism for landlords to extract these unearned absentee profits is violence.
Itâs all just a protection racket, flat out, full stop. All the rest about magically âcreatingâ housing/etc is 100% bull-shit, and obvious bull-shit, and itâs only purpose is to distract from this reality.
Right now, how many people are homeless because of evictions? How many of those are going to die, needlessly, from Covid? FYI: in the US today, about 1/3 of homeless are children.
1 Like
Approximately how many drugs are you taking right this very second?
2 Likes
Lol
I actually think it would be great if there was a lot more public housing that was both available and not designed to simply be slum warehouses for the lower class.
There is no reason why increasing public housing should equal âprivate rental arrangements should be illegal.â
5 Likes
Iâm going to respectably suggest that discussions regarding housing policy more belong in the âAbolish Landlordsâ thread -vs- in this thread.
I totally agree. I just donât think socializing rental housing requires ending capitalism.
I do think phrasing it as âprivate rental agreements should be illegalâ though is a biased point of view. The status quo is not just that private rental agreements are legal, but that they are enforced by the state. The government is not hands off on the matter. They will come and shoot a tenant if they donât pay their rent and wonât leave.
Iâve done both. Way more people could do landlording than construction work. This is quite insulting to construction work, which is absolutely towards the higher end of skilled work. Yeah, just about anyone physically capable of hauling dirt for 8 hours (not many people) could do something on a construction site, but thatâs a small part of construction and building a house is more complicated than landlording by a lot.
5 Likes
no it would be like a thread of abolishing all the insurance companies. landlords are much more comparable to the insurance companies than doctors - take all the profit and provide nothing of value in return.
2 Likes
I agree with this.
It doesnât, unless you want to abolish all landlords, then it does.
2 Likes