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

American landlords derive more profit from renters in low-income neighborhoods

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 173 posts

Re: American landlords derive more profit from renters in low-income neighborhoods

#61

Post by wutbrodo »

pytester wrote: post #57
kgwgk wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that, according to that narrative, you could be "less evil" than the other landlords. You can afford to "protect your investment" less than they do and it would still be a "good investment" (just not "an exploitative great investment"). You would be offering a better option and that should be enough to feel good about yourself.

>The point is that, according to that narrative, you could be "less evil" than the other landlords. You can afford to "protect your investment" less So, don't kick out people who don't pay their rent immediately? Sounds like a recipe for achieving all of the "acclaim" for being a slumlord with none of the actual profit...

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Is your claim that even a person trying to be a maximally fair landlord of low-income property has to be a "slumlord"? How is this not a meaningless definition of the term?

Re: American landlords derive more profit from renters in low-income neighborhoods

#62

Post by iguy »

DataWorker wrote: post #15
iguy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems they literally define "exploitation rate" as rent over purchase price. Then later they add in some estimate of costs of repairs. But it would be much more interesting to actually see the books. I'd bet a lot of money that the tenants in expensive neighbourhoods are much more likely to pay on time, every month, and to leave when the contract is up. And in addition, the labor in dealing with each tenant is pai…

Yes, some people do think payday loan sharks are greedy.

You missed the "because", see my other answer.

I don't doubt, however, that being really thick-skinned is a necessary trait for surviving in that business. Soft-hearted types also don't last long as drug dealers, surprisingly.

Re: American landlords derive more profit from renters in low-income neighborhoods

#63

Post by deogeo »

HyperTalk2 wrote: post #56
krapp wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>An an interesting aside, these individuals are almost all involved with close-knit religious groups to which they contribute great deals of capital. Before an edit, the above comment referred to "close-knit religious groups" surrounded by triple parentheses[0]. These are used by white supremacist and anti-Semitic posters to denote or refer to Jews. They are not, to my knowledge, an idiom commonly used in any other c…

If you had just left the issue alone then everyone would assume his comment was referring to malevolent Christians. As a Jew I find it disappointing that you have chosen to echo the antisemitism he was smart enough to retract from the discourse. These ways of thinking need to be censored and entirely destroyed. Delete your comment immediately.

Now wait just a moment - isn't pointing out things are "too white" exactly analogous? Yet that's somehow acceptable to say at almost any major media outlet [1]. You yourself implied his comment would have been okay if directed at Christians. Why should white people be the only group that's called out for over-representation?

[1] E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/29/eu-is-too-whit...

Re: American landlords derive more profit from renters in low-income neighborhoods

#64

Post by glup »

Lndlrd wrote: post #31

Ctrl+F "exploit", appears 24 times in this 13-paragraph article. > "Defining exploitation as being overcharged relative to the market value of a property" The ratio they've based their narrative on is called GRM (gross rent multiplier): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_Rent_Multiplier GRM is one of many factors when analyzing investment options. Other important factors include appreciation and expenses (maintena…

Of course they have an agenda, but I think it's much less nefarious than some think -- it's that they think housing insecurity is a major problem in the United States with knock-on effects in education, health, and household wellbeing. Of course it is a complex issue on how to address this — what mixture of regulation and free market solutions best serves people -- and I think the authors land in a position that is more in favor of regulation.

I strongly recommend Desmond's earlier book "Evicted" — houses, while assets for some, are filled with extremely real people with extremely real challenges as a result of income inequality (and, moreso, differences in household wealth). OP is totally correct in noting the importance of returns in drawing investment; OP is reminded that markets forces can yield exploitative conditions (as simple evidence, consider colonialism).

Re: American landlords derive more profit from renters in low-income neighborhoods

#65

Post by e1g »

slfnflctd wrote: post #27
hamilyon2 wrote: post #4

Paying one fourth of apartment cost in rent yearly makes no sense. There should be something more in play here the analysis is not going deep enough or simply incorrect

Payday loans make absolutely no sense, either. I just looked up one single company running this particular swindle-- they have over a thousand locations and do over a billion a year in revenue. Edit: Again, this is only one company, which currently only exists in a little over half of U.S. states.

In the US, there are more payday loan outlets than McDonalds outlets.

Re: American landlords derive more profit from renters in low-income neighborhoods

#66

Post by bluedino »

hamilyon2 wrote: post #4

Paying one fourth of apartment cost in rent yearly makes no sense. There should be something more in play here the analysis is not going deep enough or simply incorrect

Here's what 675/month gets you in Flint, MI

https://flint.craigslist.org/apa/d/flint-2-bedroom-1405-mapl...

That's $8,100 a year in rent.

That house for rent was probably a $4,000 buy + fix me up, similar to this one:

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/3401-Herri...

Here's a ready to move in home for $27,500. Less than 4 yers of rent in the first example.

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1114-Knapp...

Re: American landlords derive more profit from renters in low-income neighborhoods

#67

Post by smallnamespace »

wutbrodo wrote: post #61
pytester wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The point is that, according to that narrative, you could be "less evil" than the other landlords. You can afford to "protect your investment" less So, don't kick out people who don't pay their rent immediately? Sounds like a recipe for achieving all of the "acclaim" for being a slumlord with none of the actual profit...

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Is your claim that even a person trying to be a maximally fair landlord of low-income property has to be a "slumlord"? How is this not a meaningless definition of the term?

The point is that people will see you as an exploitative, greedy slumlord (per the article) unless you open your books to them, and even then I'm sure people can find something objectionable, since the definition of 'fair' varies.

Re: American landlords derive more profit from renters in low-income neighborhoods

#68

Post by ryguytilidie »

nilskidoo wrote: post #58

I'd say that's the standard actually. Landlords steal whatever they like, including deposits, because with most of these situations the tenants are too busy finding the means to continue existing to have any to spare for litigation. I am not surprised by how many HN commenters seem to still have their rents sorted by their parents. Landlords are predominately thugs.

Most landlords steal and are thugs. Also most HN commenter's rent is paid by their parents.

Did you actually have these thoughts or did you read them in some sort of "Angsty Teen Thoughts" handbook?

Re: American landlords derive more profit from renters in low-income neighborhoods

#69

Post by jessaustin »

coldtea wrote: post #32
jessaustin wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...certain very LCOL urban areas around NYC and Philadelphia... That's "Low Cost Of Living", right? That's not a synonym for "poor", so I'm not certain such situations actually exist in those metro areas?

> That's "Low Cost Of Living", right? That's not a synonym for "poor" It is. > so I'm not certain such situations actually exist in those metro areas? Huh?

I don't live there, but I've been to the places we're talking about. They don't have grocery stores, and the few stores that sell food cost a lot more than the stores I'm used to, for food that isn't so nutritious. The people there don't make exorbitant amounts of money, but they'd be better off if they had better access to affordable products. They are poor because the areas they inhabit have high costs of living.

How is it that people don't know this?

Re: American landlords derive more profit from renters in low-income neighborhoods

#70

Post by Aloha »

deogeo wrote: post #63
HyperTalk2 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you had just left the issue alone then everyone would assume his comment was referring to malevolent Christians. As a Jew I find it disappointing that you have chosen to echo the antisemitism he was smart enough to retract from the discourse. These ways of thinking need to be censored and entirely destroyed. Delete your comment immediately.

Now wait just a moment - isn't pointing out things are "too white" exactly analogous? Yet that's somehow acceptable to say at almost any major media outlet [1]. You yourself implied his comment would have been okay if directed at Christians. Why should white people be the only group that's called out for over-representation? [1] E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/29/eu-is-too-whit...

Agreed. It's not right to single out any religion, particularly insomuch as some flavor of this insularity can be found in every stream of religious thought that has ever existed

Generally, I have low tolerance for any group that segregates most of their existence from the greater whole - but then demands accommodation from the greater whole. Most Jews, Christians and Muslims do not - but some do - those communities who refuse to participate in broader society are in my mind inherently forfeiting their place at the table - simply put, you cannot expect broader society to accommodate your particular needs if you don't participate in it.

Post reply on HN