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

301–310 of 462 posts

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

#301

Post by prawn »

mantas wrote: post #253
gradstudent wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Is it fairer to compare not the hovel of today against those of decades past, but the hovel of today to a satisfactory house today? The occupants of today's hovel are competing with the occupants of the decent home, not their ancestors.

If we hope that they might compete fairly to improve their lot, are they started well behind in a house with failing power, or heat or cold that keeps them awake or sick and so on?

Without a fairer playing field, they can fall further behind.

A satisfactory home that complies with regulations would ideally allow the occupant to get a decent sleep, prepare food healthily and present themselves appropriately for work.

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

#302

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

thecopy wrote: post #264
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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.

>In the sense that he or she is charging 70% of their monthly income for rent. No. He or she is charging an absolute amount, not a percentage of their payslip. >And it's coercion alright if the alternative is being left homeless. Coercion /koʊˈɜːrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure. There is no coercion here. Po…

>> He or she is charging an absolute amount, not a percentage of their payslip.

Here's another analogy. I make this beautiful and unique item that you want to buy. I charge - literally - an arm and a leg over it. Like, the actual body parts.

You protest: "You're asking for a part of my body??". I reply "I'm asking for an arm and a leg, not a part of your body". Hey, maybe you can pay me with someone else's arm-and-a-leg, right?

That is how absurd it is to say what you just said.

>> There is no coercion here.

Yeah, there totally is. It's the same kind of coercion the Mafia employes. "You don't want to pay us to protect your establishment? Well, fine, but then something may happen to it".

You don't want to pay 70% of your income to stay at my dirty, dilapidated hovel? That's fine, but then you might find yourself homeless.

The tactics are similar because the mindset is similar. Pay up or else. It's exactly how it works and it's precisely why it's coercive and morally repugnant.

More to the point: I find it morally repugnant because I don't have to pay 70% of my income to stay at a trailer, and I make probably 70 times more than the people who are forced to live there. There is no excuse for that. If I payed 70% of my income to live in a shithole, then I would think, OK, that's how it goes. That's life, see?

Except, it's not. I know it's quite easy to get a much better deal, as I got. If someone forced me to live in such conditions, I'd be up in arms. Therefore, I also do mind a lot that other people are living in such conditions.

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

#303

Post by imaginenore »

kefka wrote: post #191
imaginenore wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why bitcoin and alternatives are so important. Banking for everyone.

Oh please. Unless you were in on the ground floor with CPU mining, you aren't getting many coins now. There was only 6 months where you could use GFX cards, and now the "room full of ASICs" take the cake. Bitcoin is useful if you have goods, services, or currency to convert to it. It is not "free magical money". Its main attribute is that it is stateless... and that's a big deal and also not a big deal to those whom…

You're really beating that straw man, hit harder, you're about to win.

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

#304

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #282
jakobegger wrote: post #266

Instead of giving money to poor people, who then have to spend it all on rent, why not provide affordable housing? In Linz we have something called "housing cooperatives" (the German word is "Wohngenossenschaften"). These cooperatives build apartments, and to rent them you become a member of the cooperative. The goal of these cooperatives is not to make a profit, but to provide affordable housing. And it's amazing ho…

We have those in Italy, as a counter point: it's amazing how fast those got occupied abusively and how local criminals use it to either hide their illegal workers or use it as bargaining chips to gain support and omerta from the population.

That is similar to what I imagine would happen in the US, based on our absolutely crap track record of public housing.

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

#306

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

darpa_escapee wrote: post #10
sokoloff wrote: post #5

People in poverty use services and consume goods. Someone provides those goods and services. Would they be better off if every business closed their doors to the impoverished, so as to not "make a buck off the poor"? Of course not! The trailer park owner in the article owns 131 units and "makes" (presumably grosses) $400K a year. Those units are about $250 per month, hardly the stuff of Viking-style pillaging, IMO. T…

Predatory businesses are still exploitation. > Building such a business (and I assume running a 131 unit mobile home park) is absolutely work, the value of which is evident by the paying tenants. Running a sweatshop is still work, the value of which is evident by its customers. Just because someone needs to work or a place to live doesn't make it right or commendable.

$250 a month for rent, anywhere in the US, is an absolute song. No reasonable person would consider it exploitative.

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

#307

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

thecopy wrote: post #250
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…

So what you are, in effect, saying, is that these poor people would be better off if the owner of the trailer park would kick them all out? Then they would not be "exploited". I am inclined to believe you are a troll, because the distinction between an aggression of violence and a voluntary free exchange on the market is quite easy to make, which in your argument you fail to do.

>> I am inclined to believe you are a troll

Classy.

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

#308

Post by jahnu »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #282
jakobegger wrote: post #266

Instead of giving money to poor people, who then have to spend it all on rent, why not provide affordable housing? In Linz we have something called "housing cooperatives" (the German word is "Wohngenossenschaften"). These cooperatives build apartments, and to rent them you become a member of the cooperative. The goal of these cooperatives is not to make a profit, but to provide affordable housing. And it's amazing ho…

We have those in Italy, as a counter point: it's amazing how fast those got occupied abusively and how local criminals use it to either hide their illegal workers or use it as bargaining chips to gain support and omerta from the population.

Sounds like a problem with law enforcement rather than anything else.

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

#309

Post by unclebucknasty »

darawk wrote: post #252
unclebucknasty wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All of those tenants suddenly becoming wealthy enough to pay higher rents is a magical hypothetical that undermines the basis of this discussion. Someone else on this thread said it succinctly:

"If this market were wealthier it wouldn't exist"

That is exactly right.

The landlord would be more likely to wait for them to move elsewhere and just await more customers for their current offering as long as the market was there. This, rather than outlay the capital to upgrade the place; else the landlord would have likelier invested in a more upscale offering to begin with.

Likewise, depending on the degree of increased wealth, the tenants may well prefer to move. Slums and trailer parks generally don't have a tendency to just "happen" in otherwise affluent areas. With increased options, renters would likely desire better surroundings, schools, ownership, etc. vs new granite countertops in their double-wides.

Of course for this same reason, landlords don't want to risk upgrading beyond what can be recovered in a reasonable time by rents that the market will bear. No amount of upgrades is going to make more affluent buyers with other options move to a mobile park.

People are suggesting here that the landlord would upgrade because it's economically rational to collect higher rent, while simultaneously ignoring much of the actual economic reality here.

Again, I'm not claiming that the landlords create the market. But they are under no delusion when they invest.

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

#310

Post by forgetsusername »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #297
darawk wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 serv…

>This article is suggesting that these landlords are causing poverty The landlords are causing poverty by increasing rents to the maximum level the market will bear, removing money from the system and - usually - moving it offshore. Because slum property is so immensely profitable, there's no incentive whatsoever to invest the profits in anything riskier. So you end up with wasteful non-projects like this: http://www…

>usually - moving it offshore

Usually?

Yeah, your local slumlord has a Swiss bank account.

Post reply on HN