Our fellow Unstucker, and this thread’s OP, @PocketChads, just helped organize the biggest rent strike in US history.
As his brother, I’m pretty proud of that. And I’m going to shamelessly beg for whole buncha 
hearts for this post.
6 Likes
Well, we agree at least some landlords are immoral & greedy. That’s progress. Would you…
- Be cool with only the greedy and immoral landlords being rent-struck like the proverbial red head step-child =as long as= the other landlords got to get the $$$,
- No, all landlords got to get the $$$ no matter what. Don’t be silly. I was just saying that not all are greedy and immoral. Like D.Trump, not all landlords…
0 voters
They could learn to code, do they really need to go to Starbucks, maybe they should have saved some money.
1 Like
Forgone opportunity costs are not “loses”. Didn’t you ever take ECON101? SMH.
2 Likes
No you are not.
To ‘argue’ about what is more “better” or more “moral good” we would need a metric. Or to out it another way, we would have to have some agreed understanding of what the “better” or the “moral good” is in this context. Only then could we ‘argue’ about whether this policy/etc better aligns with that agreed understanding -vs- that policy/etc.
I’ve already spent all the time barking up that tree that I’m going to spend ITT. So… if you really wanna do this, jump right in. If you still don’t understand what I’m getting at, send me a PM. If you would like to propose another framework for such a ‘argument’, I’m all ears. And if you just want to whine that I’m “not answering questions”, go fuck yourself.
There is always a qualitative and subjective aspect to moral judgements. This is the reason you fall back to charged language like robbery, exploitation, violence. You are trying to create an emotional sympathy for tenants and to dehumanize landlords into someone who deserves to have their property stolen. We’re not going to be able to settle on a metric for this reason, but you know that.
Anyway the effects of a permanent end to evictions while keeping the rest of the US real estate system are not measurable because no country has been dumb enough to try something like this. So even if there was a metric, there is no way to actually measure the impacts of behavioral changes your policy preference would cause. Actually trying to nail any of that down is going to send us in the same circles and I think you know that too.
So you can go fuck yourself as well, I’ll post the things I want to say about this topic in this thread and reply to the posts I want to reply to, and you can choose whether to ignore me, engage, or do neither and just call me names like you do in most of your posts.
LOL no. And it’s lol-tastical that you folks always imagine this. Like that’s a strategy I’m pursuing… on Unstuck. I’m going to call landlords names for the revolution !!!1! Does this really make any sense to you? SMH.
It’s not just vacuous name-calling. It’s lol-tastical that you think it is. And that’s one of the two reasons I do it. But none of that matters. Even it it was just name-calling… who cares? What difference does it make if i say “The landlords” or “The silly looking landlords”?. Why do you even care?
Well no. You being silly about what you perceive as name calling isn’t a metric. That’s just you being silly. But you’re a nice guy, a good sport, and I’ll go-against my best judgement, and try once again. I few posts up I did in fact identify what I consider a “the good”. For context, scroll up. I’ll repeat the gist here…
- I consider shelter a “the good”.
- I consider denying shelter a “the anti-good”.
Those are what I propose as metrics. If you are in agreement, we can continue to chat about “the good” (I’m not going to ‘argue’, the time for ‘arguing’ has passed ITT). If not, we’re basically the Christian guy and the Muslim guy ‘arguing’ about something their religions disagree on.
There’s some “it depends” here which could theoretically make for an interesting discussion. Well, ‘theoretically’ might be the wrong word there, maybe ‘hypothetically’.
Maybe it’s more like “says you”.
2 Likes
I think it’s fair to say that it’s not 100% true, but it certainly could be further from it.
(REITs own about half the rentals in the country and lots of non-REITs are just as immoral and greedy)
No. It’s all gibberish. I’ve mentioned this more than once. What point are they trying to make again? That revolving credit -vs- rent are different. That’s trivially true. But, nobody said they weren’t. So why are we chatting about it anyways? What are they trying to distract from?
The real Q is this: Is the landlord system even viable? Does it ‘work’… as in does it work for the capitalists by extracting profit? One side would be “no”. That’s the side the liberals seem to be on. The liberals seem to be saying that now that we don’t have evictions any more, there’s no more profit to be had in being a landlord.
That would be an interesting chat to have. Good luck with getting the liberals to go along with that. Instead the liberals will accuse me of ‘strawman’ (even though I said “seems” both times), and then refuse to engage at all.
But, since you’re here… yesterday you were all hot-n-bothered to start plugging in ###s before we had a formula. Now… nothing. Go plug some damn numbers in !!!1!
This is another thingee about the liberals.
For some reason they imagine this whole “not all landlords…” crap is even relevant. For some crazy reason they think this is all personal. It’s bizarre beyond imagination. They’ll write walls of text recounting all the ‘nice’ landlords they’ve had… it’s like they’re the Stockholm Tourist Bureau advertising for the Syndrome Convention.
So, sure, the liberals, for their own crazy-ass reasons, want to separate the landlords into (a) the “good” landlords -vs (b) the “bad” landlords.
So I ask them… So, are you cool with us rent striking the bad ones?
I’m 0 for 10+ years getting an answer, even a response, from this Q. If this whole “good” -vs- “bad” landlord thingee not even matter at all to them, why do they keep incessantly bringing it up
I’m always here.
I’m still thinking about the problem set up. Well, “thinking”. It’s a background process, more like ruminating. I’m not sure I’m going to get to the numbers part where the tenant is paying 7 million percent interest on the use of the property measured by its depreciation.
Are you confused? This is very simple.
Let’s say a doll house is on sale: $99 or $40/mo for 3 months.
I you pay cash, you pay no interest. If you make the payments, you are paying $21 effective interest. Three months is 1/4 a year, so your simple interest /yr is (21/99)/4=0.53 or 5.3%
In general, you take the total cost of renting, subtract the total cost of buying, and divide by the time span. I don’t know what else I can tell you.
I have the nicest landlady in the world. My M-in-Law. She’s a wonderful person. My income is quite variable and sometimes I’ve not paid rent and sometimes I’ve paid more than we agreed on and no one has kept track. I haven’t felt the need to not-all-landlords, until now I guess. I’m just saying/bragging - not being a liberal.
I’m cool with it. I’m open to the possibility of some exceptions, and I respect people who are currently using land themselves, but it should be pretty rare to respect absentee ownership. That’s kind of a whole 'nother ball of wax though. Most of the talk itt has been more about the humanitarian idea that people should not be thrown out into the street.
I wasn’t asking you. SMH. Go plug in some numbers. I learn nothing doing so, just like I learned nothing typing out the maths. So why insist I do it?
Yes, still confused.
Let’s say you rent a dollhouse for $1/month. It was used anyway and it’s worth the same in 3 months.
You bought nothing. Denominator is zero. Interest rate is infinite.
In your post 22h ago you put shrinkage in the numerator. So, let’s say you rent that dollhouse 3 months and it’s a paper dollhouse that only lasts 3 years.
$41 in the numerator and .25 in the denominator = 7 million percent. I’m not sure what that’s measuring other than the obvious thing that you’re not buying anything when you rent. It might be just as confusing to ask for the rate of return on investment for a massage.
How have I insisted that you do anything?
And I didn’t think you were asking me in particular. Still just felt like answering.
Let’s not say. You are somewhere off in the weeds. I don’t know what to say.
How about this…, let’s measure “glurbo”.
Glurbo is defined as this:
(((total cost renting)-(total cost buying))/(buying price))/time
So let’s say the deal is this dollhouse dollhouses (1/100 scale dollhouses for use in 1/10 scale dollhouses) are on sale for $1, or 40c/mo for 3mo.
Can you calculate the Glurbo above?
Can you calculate the Glurbo in my post with the formula above?
The term “shinkage” was a joke. All that number is is this: (total cost of renting) - (total cost of buying). That is the total effective interest paid. That is the same exact numerate as above. You are way over thinking this. That’s it. Again, Plug in the numbers !!!1!
I asking you to pick a Y (useful lifespan), a S (price of lot+new house), a R (monthly rent), a M (yearly property tax if applicable, maintenance, and insurance), a B (expected house replacement cost at the end of the useful lifespan), and a A (expected appreciation of the lot during the useful lifespan).
Then plug those numbers into the formula I posted above.
Then post the answer.