Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 462 posts

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#251

Post by darawk »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #245
darawk wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the alternative? These people aren't forced to live there. If there were a cheaper, better alternative available to them, they'd probably take it. Nobody is 'profiting from poverty' here. These landlords would make much more money if these people were wealthier! I'm sure they'd love to make nicer places and charge higher rents with higher margins, but they can't, because that's all these people can pay.

>> What is the alternative? These people aren't forced to live there. If there were a cheaper, better alternative available to them, they'd probably take it. What sort of lame excuse is that for exploitation? "These people could be much worse off if they were being exploited more"? Well, duh. The point is that they're in a dire situation in the first place because they're being exploited. Their landlord is not some b…

In what sense is their landlord purveying their misery? They need a place to live. The landlord offers such a place. They enter into a voluntary exchange of domicile for cash, terminable at any time.

Where is the exploitation? Nobody is being tricked or duped. Two people are coming together to exchange something without coercion, intimidation, or trickery.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#252

Post by darawk »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #171
brightball wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is entirely the point though. If a landlord is about to chose a market that requires less capital outlay it's because there is an unfilled need in that market. Without the lower cost housing the tenants will only have fewer options, potentially more expensive ones at that. If all of the needs are filled and somebody else decides to target the market then they have to find a way to disrupt it, in this case that p…

We've gotten off track. I'm not arguing whether the market exists or how basic economics in a perfect market work. If you look back at my original comment it's WRT the assertion that these landlords would love to upgrade their properties and charge higher rents. I was simply saying that's largely untrue. These landlords are aware of the market dynamics/demographic when choosing to invest and have little-to-no desire…

They would have that desire if all their tenants were suddenly wealthy enough to pay those rents, was my point. Which speaks to the broader point that these landlords are not working to keep these people in poverty.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#253

Post by mantas »

gradstudent wrote: post #241
gozur88 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The simple answer is that if I can't afford to maintain a minimal level of environmental and residential standards, I'm not allowed to rent out my property. That's all well and good, but what happens to the people who are renting there, and what happens to the people who can't afford a place with "minimal level of environmental and residential standards"? Will those people be better off sleeping rough?

> Will those people be better off sleeping rough? Everyone should have access to basic housing. If they do not that's a failure of government to provide a sufficient social safety net.

What is basic housing?

Today's poor housing would look like a damn luxury 100 years ago. Today's luxury housing will probably look bellow standards after 100 years

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#254

Post by mruniverse »

skybrian wrote: post #146
zw123456 wrote: post #59

There is an old saying that "if you took all the money away from all the rich people, and spread it around evenly to everyone else, within 2 or 3 years, all the formerly rich would be rich again having taken advantage of the poor who don't know how to make and keep money". This adage, although heartless to be sure, has some degree of truth to it in my view. The problem is twofold, 1) a lot of people become rich not b…

If you took all their money away and dropped them in Africa I think they'd have a harder time. Yes, knowledge of social class issues (who you know and how to act to get people with money to trust you) can itself be used to make money, in the right environment . It doesn't mean that educating everyone to behave like the upper classes makes sense. Those skills may not actually work for people who don't look the part or…

The saying is about how it believes the rich get rich. Can they get rich if it was all taken away? The saying says yes.

If you dropped them in Africa, yes they would have a harder time. But as a whole, probably get rich again.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#255

Post by personjerry »

randyrand wrote: post #248
personjerry wrote: post #127

One thing I find interesting about the current state of affairs is that the top 1% own more than 50% of the world's wealth. Which means that on average if a person just up and decided to not recognize money and property in the current system, they would in theory come up ahead. Now, this might sound technical and perhaps unrealistic, but if this level of wealth inequality continues, then one day enough people (i.e. a…

Much of that wealth is held in things that inherently have value. Homes will still have value. Cars. Gold. Ect. So you're saying to just steal it all from their owners? What a novel concept.

I might argue that "inherent" isn't as inherent as it really seems to be, in terms of "monetary value". (But I agree that there is value in the utility of the vehicle, and that leads me to the second point.)

Indeed in this sort of anarchy I might go so far as to argue that property should also be redistributed. While this sounds like stealing, if we might be a little crazy and "open-minded", we might think in the sense that some people always unfairly make more money, redistributing their property isn't as much "stealing" as "making fair". Of course, this is all in a crazy theoretical situation. :)

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#256

Post by mruniverse »

herbetdangerbri wrote: post #80
zw123456 wrote: post #59

There is an old saying that "if you took all the money away from all the rich people, and spread it around evenly to everyone else, within 2 or 3 years, all the formerly rich would be rich again having taken advantage of the poor who don't know how to make and keep money". This adage, although heartless to be sure, has some degree of truth to it in my view. The problem is twofold, 1) a lot of people become rich not b…

> they feel no remorse for taking advantage of someone else I don't understand what it means 'to take advantage of someone else' in the context of this thread. Is Starbucks taking advantage of me when I want a coffee by selling me a coffee? Is Elton John taking advantage of my desire to see him play live at my party and the fact that there is only one of him by charging me a million dollars to appear? Are the bus com…

I'm with you. I think it just means "They are bad people. Not like us. Do it this way and you will be good."

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#257

Post by darawk »

HillRat wrote: post #182
darawk wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the alternative? These people aren't forced to live there. If there were a cheaper, better alternative available to them, they'd probably take it. Nobody is 'profiting from poverty' here. These landlords would make much more money if these people were wealthier! I'm sure they'd love to make nicer places and charge higher rents with higher margins, but they can't, because that's all these people can pay.

For some reason I'm reminded of the old joke: a Keynesian and a rat-ex theorist are walking down the street. "Look," says the Keynesian, "A twenty dollar bill!" "Can't be," says the other economist. "If it were there, someone would have picked it up already." Here's the thing: being a slumlord is profitable. Yes, your tenants don't pay much, but if you don't improve your property, ignore complaints, refuse basic main…

Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying it's not plenty profitable. I only mentioned the higher rents thing to illustrate the point that the landlord does not have an interest in keeping these people poor.

This article is suggesting that these landlords are causing poverty, but then it goes on to not even try to make that case. They may be making money from poor people, and they may even not provide them the level of service they are legally required to, but this article makes no actual case for them causing or being any real part of the poverty cycle. Unless of course you think that the mere fact of asking that their rents be paid is the problem - and if you do, fine, but you're then tasked with proposing an alternative way of housing these people.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#258

Post by gozur88 »

gradstudent wrote: post #241
gozur88 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The simple answer is that if I can't afford to maintain a minimal level of environmental and residential standards, I'm not allowed to rent out my property. That's all well and good, but what happens to the people who are renting there, and what happens to the people who can't afford a place with "minimal level of environmental and residential standards"? Will those people be better off sleeping rough?

> Will those people be better off sleeping rough? Everyone should have access to basic housing. If they do not that's a failure of government to provide a sufficient social safety net.

Well, okay. If you live in a place with a "failure of government", do you wait for the government to get fixed? Until then let them eat cake?

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#259

Post by OJFord »

massysett wrote: post #169
OJFord wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The landlords chose their market, not the other way > around. That goes against.. almost all economic thought. You don't choose to make umbrellas for the umbrella market, and just keep churning out umbrellas, perpetually disappointed by the fine weather. This market is profitable, but if it were wealthier, it would be more profitable. There's no incentive for a business-owner in such a place to somehow keep the loc…

If this market were wealthier it wouldn't exist. The tenants would be getting mortgages or renting nicer apartments, not living in trailer parks. And, because governments like to have higher income residents, they would have more choices of where to live, as trailer parks are exiled to the fringe. Some of these market dynamics exist precisely because these people are poor and the landlords have no incentive for their…

    > If this market were wealthier it wouldn't exist. The
    > tenants would be getting mortgages or renting nicer
    > apartments, not living in trailer parks.
Which is what would make them more profitable.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#260

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

darawk wrote: post #251
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> What is the alternative? These people aren't forced to live there. If there were a cheaper, better alternative available to them, they'd probably take it. What sort of lame excuse is that for exploitation? "These people could be much worse off if they were being exploited more"? Well, duh. The point is that they're in a dire situation in the first place because they're being exploited. Their landlord is not some b…

In what sense is their landlord purveying their misery? They need a place to live. The landlord offers such a place. They enter into a voluntary exchange of domicile for cash, terminable at any time. Where is the exploitation? Nobody is being tricked or duped. Two people are coming together to exchange something without coercion, intimidation, or trickery.

>>In what sense is their landlord purveying their misery?

In the sense that he or she is charging 70% of their monthly income for rent.

And it's coercion alright if the alternative is being left homeless.

Post reply on HN